What you have copy and pasted was the defense's argument. The website specifically states however that the court awarded in the favor of the plaintiff.
PL = Plaintiff
DF = Defense
M = Motion
CT = Court
Quote:
|
Procedure: Jury returned verdict for PL. DF M for NOV denied. Affirmed.
|
Quote:
|
Ct. Rationale: The value of human life and limb outweighs the interest of a possessor of land in excluding from it those whom he is not willing to admit thereto that a possessor of land has no privilege to use force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury against another whom the possessor sees about to enter his premises or meddle with his chattel, unless the intrusion threatens death or serious bodily injury. Therefor the use of a mechanical devise capable of death or serious injury to protect property at the expense of life or limb is no privilege.
|
So, unless the property owner becomes aware of an intruder in their home, it is only then that they may employ such tactics
within the area they occupy as a measure of
their own self defense. "The value of human life and limb outweighs the interest of a possessor of land in excluding from it those whom he is not willing to admit thereto." Setting traps that endanger life or limb in the interest of securing one's property from trespassing or theft is to put the value of such property and belongings at an equal or higher standing than human life itself. Our courts do not hold the same philosophy, so such an application is considered illegal. Similarly, when applied in the interest of one's own self defense, there must first be a threat to justify it; IE, an intruder in the home.
Once again, if my interpretation of the court's decision or rationale is wrong, then feel free to correct me on it. This only seems to collaborate my interpretation, though.