Deadly Force

[tinybear]

"Booby traps aren't illegal. Killing someone with one, other than in self defense, is murder."

That's not answering the question: "If a trespasser gets hurt by a booby trap inside a private residence, is the owner and/or the one who set the trap liable in damages to the trespasser"?

[Lou Minotti]

I've answered the question.

[Morgan_Freeman]

<EDIT> repeat post

[Waychel]

I could be wrong on this and feel free to correct me if that is indeed the case, but it is my understanding from Katko v. Briney that spring traps and booby traps of a comparable nature are illegal; regardless of the intention of the person who sets them.

EDIT: Er, to re-phrase, I mean when in purposeful application within or around the home.

[tinybear]

Well, there goes the notion that you can do whatever you like in your own home. A man's home isn't his castle after all.

[castille]

We had a minefield in the middle of NOWHERE (no recorded civilian settlements for 50 miles radius), and somehow this kid managed to sneak past the high fence wire, get past the patrols, fail to read the thousands of warning signs in 10 languages, and get himself blown up.

Should've won a Darwin award.

[tinybear]

Did his family sue?

[Lou Minotti]

Quote by: Waychel I could be wrong on this and feel free to correct me if that is indeed the case, but it is my understanding from Katko v. Briney that spring traps and booby traps of a comparable nature are illegal; regardless of the intention of the person who sets them. EDIT: Er, to re-phrase, I mean when in purposeful application within or around the home.

http://www.4lawschool.com/torts/katko.htm

The only time the setting of a spring gun or like dangerous devise is allowed is when the trespasser was committing a violent felony or a felony punishable by death, or when the trespasser was endangering human life.

[Starboy]

Quote by: tinybear Well, there goes the notion that you can do whatever you like in your own home. A man's home isn't his castle after all.

It hasn't been a valid notion for millennia. Even in the days of the early settlements on the American continent all the land was claimed by one sovereign or another. Even the territories that had not been explored or discovered. And of course even if the sovereign sold or granted you the land, unless it was to another country you and it were still subject to the sovereign. And if it was another country you were now the subject of another sovereign. Back in those days many of the sovereigns owned the land and the people. It is great to be the sovereign and it sucks to be everyone else.

Starboy

[Waychel]

Quote by: Lou Minotti http://www.4lawschool.com/torts/katko.htm

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

Procedure: Jury returned verdict for PL. DF M for NOV denied. Affirmed.

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.

[Lou Minotti]

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.

Yes, and the defense fell apart because "the trespasser was NOT committing a violent felony or a felony punishable by death"...and the "the trespasser was NOT endangering human life."

[Waychel]

I don't really see your point. How the defense lost is irrelevant to the decision that the court came to, in my opinion.

[Lou Minotti]

It's not my point it's the point. If the defendent's life had been in danger, there would not have been a case. The defense lost becuase they had no defense.

[Waychel]

I'll assume that you're agreeing with me. Sorrie, but I'm a little confused by what you mean. O_o;

[Lou Minotti]

If this man had been defending his life and not glass jars, there would not have been a case. That's all I am saying.

[blibbka]

The fact that the place was clearly uninhabited (boarded up) makes a difference in my opinion.

"Deadly force" would be justifed if it could reasonably be argued that the tresspasser was posing a threat to another's life. But It cannot reasonably be argued that the tresspasser was a danger to anyone else as the place was uninhabited. And I don't see how you can advocate putting anothers' life at risk as appropriate punishment for tresspass - which is what would be happening effectively if the defendant had been acquited here.

[Ningning]

the defendents could have had their case and won if they could show that fair warning was given to potential trespassers. Sure they had "no trespassing" signs, but <according to my reading of this case> there was no warning of the consequences. If they had a "trespassers will be shot" sign up on the front door, then it would have been the plaintiff's fault for chosing to put his life in danger.

[tinybear]

Quote by: Lou Minotti If this man had been defending his life and not glass jars, there would not have been a case. That's all I am saying.

After having read that case, I think you're right on this one, Lou. What do you know, we actually agree on something. What's this world coming to?

[Waychel]

Quote by: Ningning the defendents could have had their case and won if they could show that fair warning was given to potential trespassers.

This is not true. ^^;; Please re-read the topic again...

[Livemike]

Quote by: Waychel Yeah, let's condone the booby trapping of homes so that crack dealers can "protect" their crack houses from police raids.

And let's not let people lock their doors or have bars on their windows because that could be used to protect crack houses too.

Quote by: Waychel An alarm system or even a trained dog is one thing, but setting a spring trap for a gun is just overkill (literally).

Assertion alert.