The OP’s idea was to “lock them in over night”.
So what its a long weekend, and you fly out of town, and then the plane back is delayed … a week ?
Its too dangerous.
Besides its liable to back fire, as the crim will call to his mates on the mobile phone,
and they’d know that there was no back to base alarm … Or no one was coming… so they could load up with more of your valuables…
And perhaps set fire to the place too
But seriously, the punishment for break-and-enter (or running away from police, or stealing a hand full of cigarillos)is not death. Any death in those circumstances is murder. You are entitled to defend yourself if actually threatened and legitimately fearful for your life - with appropriate response.
Appropriate means - if the guy outweighs you by 50 lb. and has a knife or a bat - you can use a gun if he is approaching you close and looks menacing. You can’t shoot a fleeing perp in the back, or shoot the first guy who climbs in the window looking to take your flat-screen TV.
As for the corridor trick - the really stupid thing to do would be to admit it was specifically designed as a trap. “Oh that - there’s that extra door because the dumpster is out that door and we were tired of the stench. Locked? Not during business hours, and of course I always have my key with me anyway.” And the corridor better be concrete block, since drywall can be kicked in. Drywall with plywood backing (almost impossible to kick in) you better have a good explanation why it’s like that.
Or, for example, to put up signs saying that there was a trap.
An earlier poster mentioned Australia. When my Dad arrived here from the USA, he was horified to find that signs warning of mantraps or dangerous dogs would be taken as evidence that you knew that you were responsible for a dangerous situation.
In other countries that may be the norm, but in much of the US, the act of breaking in to a house is deemed to instill a reasonable fear of death or serious injury in the residents.
The fine print is “reasonable” and that is why we have juries.
I would argue that the Prosecuting Attorney put up the better argument rather than the Jury making a thoughtful and honest decision, but that us just my opinion.
This…
A lot of the previous comments would depend on proving intent. Bryon Smith demonstrated intent by his planning. The owner of the cell phone store set a deliberate trap.
I used to have a Metropolitan Policeman friend many years ago. When things were quiet in the early hours, they used to set up a roadside check and stop random cars, especially those with several occupants. Some were actual burglars with a boot full of loot, but many others were private hire taxis going about their legitimate business.
He would have a quick look round and would often find a large screwdriver with a heavy handle or a two foot piece of scaffold pole beside the driver’s seat. If the driver said “Oh! that’s where it got to - I was looking for it,” he would be advised to keep it in the boot and sent on his way. If, on the other hand, he said “Yes officer - I keep it handy in case any passengers get stroppy,” he would be arrested and charged with carrying an offensive weapon.
Call me crazy but… if this hypothetical burglar has the skills to break IN to the building, why doesn’t the burglar have the skills to break OUT of the trap? Or are we assuming that the outside door is left unlocked on purpose to lure in casual thieves who had the audacity to ignore the “KEEP OUT” sign but don’t actually have any skills?
FWIW, I’ve seen banks with a “man trap” at the entrance-- a vestibule with thick glass walls and locking doors on both ends where they have to buzz you in and out. A very important point here is that the locks are electromagnetic and tied in to the fire alarm so that if there’s a fire the doors will open from the inside. Furthermore, such locks are generally “Fail Safe”, meaning that if the power is cut off the door becomes openable.
The opposite condition is called “Fail Secure”, where the locks become inoperative during a power failure. Speaking as a Certified Master Locksmith, I’ve never seen a Fail Secure electromagnetic lock. I doubt they exist.
I am astonished that in today’s gunhappy climate, a man can shoot two intruders who broke into his home and then be convicted of premeditated murder.
And I have to admit that the corridor idea has the weakness of requiring someone to check the trap; a few days with no water, and YOU’D be the one on the hook for murder, as opposed to simply trapping an idiot crook with the intent of setting him up for the cops. It would seem that some sort of call button to summon cops or private security would solve this issue, though.
or, it just occurred to me----leave a supply of water and food in the trap. 
As I understand it, there is no keyhole on the trap side of the door for him to pick.
Electromagnetic locks with card keys are being installed at work. Very cool, but it does seem to me that a guy could yank the electric meter and the doors would be open for him. One of our numerous Arkansas thunderstorms could take the power out, and anyone could walk in. How is this compensated for? All I get when I ask the question at work is your basic shit eating grin.
Hell wid that. If a burglar is prepared to starve to death rather than push a button that can and will summon the police and is clearly marked for his use, I see no reason to feed the yutz.
Yeah, but the jury will.
We need to be talking sulfuric acid and wood chippers here.
Wul, that kind of defeats my purpose.
I can agree that a human life is more important than stuff, even if the human is a poisonous jerk and the stuff in question is mine. Hence the whole point of the morality and legality of arranging a series of doors in such a way as to trap a burglar WITHOUT HARM, doing him no injury, but also preventing him from accessing anything he might wanna steal, and meaning he can’t get OUT without police assistance.
The whole thread, so far, has told me that this might well be an issue with fire codes. On the other hand, simply installing a call button or fire alarm seems like it might well solve this problem…
Depends on the state. When I lived in New Mexico, you could have the type of deadbolt that you lock with a key on the inside and then remove the key. Then when I lived off-campus my first semester in Honolulu, I was burgled – while I was in the shower! – the thief having removed a window slat to reach in and unlock my front door. When I asked the landlord to install a similar deadbolt, I was told those were illegal in Hawaii due to fire codes.
We have such a lock here on our door in Bangkok, but the wife and I have a rule that that the key goes into a special dish near the door, although we usually just keep the key in the lock. (No windows by the front door.)
Which is another distinction: In one place I lived, rental properties had that rule, but own-your-own homes did not. (Burn to death in your own home is more your own choice).
Picking locks is pretty far down the list of methods used for break-ins. But I admit that if it’s just a blank door on the locked side that reduces the options.
It’s easy. You put a “panic bar” exit device on the middle of the door and an electromagnetic lock at the top of the door. When the EM lock is engaged, pushing the panic bar doesn’t open the door. But if the fire alarm cuts out or the power is cut off, then pushing on the panic bar opens the door from the inside. But it still doesn’t open from the outside just because the EM lock has failed safe.
Fire codes vary from one place to the next, and local laws also vary, but in most parts of the US the fire code says that you can put double-cylinder deadbolts on SOME of your doors but not ALL of them. There has to be at least one door which you can use to exit the house without knowing where the key is. But in many places there are local laws which make it illegal to install DCDBs on ANY doors if it’s a rental. Some states have outlawed DCDBs entirely and it may just be a matter of time before they become illegal on all residences.
To be sure, my New Mexico example was literally decades ago. The law there may have changed by now.
If I were writing the law it would be rather simple. If someone dies or is injured in a trap, the owner of the trap is liable. Otherwise, tough luck. It is up to the owner (and their insurance company) to decide how much they want to risk the welfare of any burglar in a trap. Maybe the owner wants to have a faucet available in the room trap and maybe they don’t. Maybe they want a “press button to summon police”, but maybe not. The more safeguards they build in the less likely the burglar has any injuries. If the burglar dies in a freak fire in a room trap, the owner is liable, for sure. If there aren’t sufficient safeguards for employees and others with legitimate reasons to be in the trap, that again is the owner’s liability. I just can’t muster and sympathy for someone intentionally trying to steal.
The "stuff’ being burgled is not as valuable as someone’s well being, but it sure as hell is more valuable than the comfort of someone trying to steal it.
What is to stop me from pulling the meter on the Women’s Dormitory and going in and having my way with them?