Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Morgan_Freeman · Jan 14, 2005, 08:06 pm

http://www.law.mq.edu.au/Units/law40...o_v_briney.htm

I recently found out about this court case.

I was pretty disturbed to find out my plan for robotic machine gun turrets on my property would be illegal.

What do you all think? Is this a just tort law, or is it unfair for property owners?

tinybear · Jan 14, 2005, 11:28 pm

A man's home is his castle. If he wishes to booby trap it or take such measures to protect it as he sees fit, he is entitled to do so. Trespassers take the risk of serious injury or death if they decide to break in. This decision by the court is yet another example of the law being an ass.

Morgan_Freeman · Jan 14, 2005, 11:36 pm

Wow, for once we agree on something.

bishop · Jan 14, 2005, 11:38 pm

the notion that someone could kill someone for basic trespassing is scary. if things like this were allowed to stand, then someone could hypothetically mine their front lawn. and if some local kids, for example, should lose a ball on the property (not enough weight to set the mines off) and then they go onto the property to retreive their ball........

score one for a civilized country.

tinybear · Jan 14, 2005, 11:45 pm

Then it's up to schools and parents to teach those kids to respect private property. The scenario you described above could have easily happened in a construction site or a military shooting range in which case the kids are gonna be dead too. What's the difference?

By the way isn't there a law outlawing landmines (anywhere)?

PatrickHenry · Jan 15, 2005, 12:10 am

US hasn't signed the landmine treaty. But what about a beartrap? You could say you were trying for a marauding bear...

Morgan_Freeman · Jan 15, 2005, 12:10 am

I think as long as fair warning is given, it's fine. A minefield in a residential area is a little extreme. Somewhere out the boonies, though, I see no problem with a clearly marked minefield.

bishop · Jan 15, 2005, 12:25 am

was there fair warning in this case, or more specifically - was it even raised as an issue in this case?

Morgan_Freeman · Jan 15, 2005, 12:29 am

Heck yeah, they had "no trespassing" signs all over the place.

This dude wasn't just walking across the lawn, he had to *break into* the house to get shot.

But apparently, tort law in Iowa says it just can't be done.

bishop · Jan 15, 2005, 12:43 am

i know you're a militia man and all, but that still seems very excessive to me. the guy stole some goddamn fruit jars for christ's sake and he had a clean record up until this point. thankfully the courts in iowa have some common sense in them.

PatrickHenry · Jan 15, 2005, 12:45 am

He coulda been legally blown away if anybody had been home. It was the booby trap that was illegal. But what about a bear trap?

bishop · Jan 15, 2005, 12:50 am

i'm not sure what the technicalities are, but can't you only legally shoot someone on your property if it's in self-defense? for instance, if you point the gun at them, can you legally shoot them in the back if they're running away from you? even better, say they run in the wrong direction - on property that you also own like a big patch of woods?

i forget what i read in the case that was linked, but if the ruling focused on the fact that it was a gun rather than a booby trap, then maybe you could get away with a bear trap.. but if it centered around being a booby trap, then probably not. just a rationalized guess of course.

The Dunedan · Jan 15, 2005, 01:22 am

Bishop:
In many ( most? ) places in the US, entry into an occupied home is legally considered to constitute enough of a threat to warrant a lethal response. The reasoning ( one I agree with, btw ) is that anyone who breaks into an occupied structure is a threat simply by being there.

Provided that clear warning was provided, I see no problem with booby-trapping a house. Until the 19-teens it was common enough that "trip guns" or "snare-cannon" were sold in the Sears & Roebuck catalog. Now, a booby-trap without a clear warning is probably pushing it.

Waychel · Jan 15, 2005, 03:20 am

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

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

The Dunedan · Jan 15, 2005, 03:24 am

Red Herring.
We're talking about people using devices about which there is clear warning to defend their home from unlawful intrusion, not crack-dealers boobytrapping their houses. Crack-dealing and shooting at cops are already illegal as it is; your comment is irrelevant.

Waychel · Jan 15, 2005, 03:55 am

My comment is irrelevant how? Booby traps in the home would endanger any stranger that came there; including not only police officers on legitimate grounds, but emergency personnel as well. The fact of the matter is that booby traps are not only endangering of people entering a home under lawful pretenses, but negligent even if they aren't.

tinybear · Jan 15, 2005, 03:59 am

Then the courts should (and probably would) treat such cases differently. We're talking about trespassers entering homes unlawfully and without your express or implied permission. Any other classes of persons ( such as the police and emergency personnel) would be considered differently by the courts.

Waychel · Jan 15, 2005, 04:08 am

My point is that booby traps are indescriminate. Setting up a gun to fire at the opening of a door would kill any policeman, fireman or paramedic that happened to make a forceful entry in the event of an emergency. Similarly, such booby traps would be an endangerment to anyone who entered the home; especially children. This is all besides the point that we do not have the right to KILL people for trespassing and opening our tool sheds.

tinybear · Jan 15, 2005, 04:12 am

So what do you suggest? Banning the setting up of booby traps in private homes I suppose and making it a crime to do so? And how do you define 'booby traps'?

Waychel · Jan 15, 2005, 04:20 am

I suggest that the law stay the way it is. Guns should be wielded by our person to protect our person and nothing more in these circumstances. I find cases such as these to be nothing more than vindictive examples of negligence and endangerment, personally.

I consider the rigging of a gun to fire upon the opening of the door, unbeknownst to the person opening it, to be one example of a booby trap (what occured in Katko v. Briney to my understanding).

Jan 14, 2005, 08:06 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
Morgan_Freeman Illogic Hunter Location: Seattle Posts: 2,385	Deadly Force http://www.law.mq.edu.au/Units/law40...o_v_briney.htm I recently found out about this court case. I was pretty disturbed to find out my plan for robotic machine gun turrets on my property would be illegal. What do you all think? Is this a just tort law, or is it unfair for property owners? "A republic, if you can keep it." -- Benjamin Franklin Free State Project freestateproject.org

Jan 14, 2005, 11:36 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
Morgan_Freeman Illogic Hunter Location: Seattle Posts: 2,385	Wow, for once we agree on something. "A republic, if you can keep it." -- Benjamin Franklin Free State Project freestateproject.org

Jan 14, 2005, 11:45 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Hong Kong (for now) Posts: 7,008	Then it's up to schools and parents to teach those kids to respect private property. The scenario you described above could have easily happened in a construction site or a military shooting range in which case the kids are gonna be dead too. What's the difference? By the way isn't there a law outlawing landmines (anywhere)? Last edited by tinybear; Jan 14, 2005 at 11:52 pm.

Jan 15, 2005, 12:10 am	#6 (permalink) (top)
PatrickHenry 9/11: Inside Job Location: Hawai'i, Big Island Posts: 10,437	US hasn't signed the landmine treaty. But what about a beartrap? You could say you were trying for a marauding bear... "Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." -- John Adams

Jan 15, 2005, 12:10 am	#7 (permalink) (top)
Morgan_Freeman Illogic Hunter Location: Seattle Posts: 2,385	I think as long as fair warning is given, it's fine. A minefield in a residential area is a little extreme. Somewhere out the boonies, though, I see no problem with a clearly marked minefield. "A republic, if you can keep it." -- Benjamin Franklin Free State Project freestateproject.org

Jan 14, 2005, 11:28 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Hong Kong (for now) Posts: 7,008	A man's home is his castle. If he wishes to booby trap it or take such measures to protect it as he sees fit, he is entitled to do so. Trespassers take the risk of serious injury or death if they decide to break in. This decision by the court is yet another example of the law being an ass.

Jan 14, 2005, 11:38 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
bishop moderat-e/o-r Location: boston Posts: 11,184	the notion that someone could kill someone for basic trespassing is scary. if things like this were allowed to stand, then someone could hypothetically mine their front lawn. and if some local kids, for example, should lose a ball on the property (not enough weight to set the mines off) and then they go onto the property to retreive their ball........ score one for a civilized country.

Jan 15, 2005, 12:25 am	#8 (permalink) (top)
bishop moderat-e/o-r Location: boston Posts: 11,184	was there fair warning in this case, or more specifically - was it even raised as an issue in this case?

Jan 15, 2005, 12:29 am	#9 (permalink) (top)
Morgan_Freeman Illogic Hunter Location: Seattle Posts: 2,385	Heck yeah, they had "no trespassing" signs all over the place. This dude wasn't just walking across the lawn, he had to break into the house to get shot. But apparently, tort law in Iowa says it just can't be done. "A republic, if you can keep it." -- Benjamin Franklin Free State Project freestateproject.org

Jan 15, 2005, 12:43 am	#10 (permalink) (top)
bishop moderat-e/o-r Location: boston Posts: 11,184	i know you're a militia man and all, but that still seems very excessive to me. the guy stole some goddamn fruit jars for christ's sake and he had a clean record up until this point. thankfully the courts in iowa have some common sense in them.

Jan 15, 2005, 12:45 am	#11 (permalink) (top)
PatrickHenry 9/11: Inside Job Location: Hawai'i, Big Island Posts: 10,437	He coulda been legally blown away if anybody had been home. It was the booby trap that was illegal. But what about a bear trap? "Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." -- John Adams

Jan 15, 2005, 12:50 am	#12 (permalink) (top)
bishop moderat-e/o-r Location: boston Posts: 11,184	i'm not sure what the technicalities are, but can't you only legally shoot someone on your property if it's in self-defense? for instance, if you point the gun at them, can you legally shoot them in the back if they're running away from you? even better, say they run in the wrong direction - on property that you also own like a big patch of woods? i forget what i read in the case that was linked, but if the ruling focused on the fact that it was a gun rather than a booby trap, then maybe you could get away with a bear trap.. but if it centered around being a booby trap, then probably not. just a rationalized guess of course.

Jan 15, 2005, 01:22 am	#13 (permalink) (top)
The Dunedan Hot Lava Posts: 917	Bishop: In many ( most? ) places in the US, entry into an occupied home is legally considered to constitute enough of a threat to warrant a lethal response. The reasoning ( one I agree with, btw ) is that anyone who breaks into an occupied structure is a threat simply by being there. Provided that clear warning was provided, I see no problem with booby-trapping a house. Until the 19-teens it was common enough that "trip guns" or "snare-cannon" were sold in the Sears & Roebuck catalog. Now, a booby-trap without a clear warning is probably pushing it.

Jan 15, 2005, 03:20 am	#14 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	Yeah, let's condone the booby trapping of homes so that crack dealers can "protect" their crack houses from police raids. An alarm system or even a trained dog is one thing, but setting a spring trap for a gun is just overkill (literally). Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

Jan 15, 2005, 03:24 am	#15 (permalink) (top)
The Dunedan Hot Lava Posts: 917	Red Herring. We're talking about people using devices about which there is clear warning to defend their home from unlawful intrusion, not crack-dealers boobytrapping their houses. Crack-dealing and shooting at cops are already illegal as it is; your comment is irrelevant.

Jan 15, 2005, 03:55 am	#16 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	My comment is irrelevant how? Booby traps in the home would endanger any stranger that came there; including not only police officers on legitimate grounds, but emergency personnel as well. The fact of the matter is that booby traps are not only endangering of people entering a home under lawful pretenses, but negligent even if they aren't. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

Jan 15, 2005, 03:59 am	#17 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Hong Kong (for now) Posts: 7,008	Then the courts should (and probably would) treat such cases differently. We're talking about trespassers entering homes unlawfully and without your express or implied permission. Any other classes of persons ( such as the police and emergency personnel) would be considered differently by the courts.

Jan 15, 2005, 04:08 am	#18 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	My point is that booby traps are indescriminate. Setting up a gun to fire at the opening of a door would kill any policeman, fireman or paramedic that happened to make a forceful entry in the event of an emergency. Similarly, such booby traps would be an endangerment to anyone who entered the home; especially children. This is all besides the point that we do not have the right to KILL people for trespassing and opening our tool sheds. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

Jan 15, 2005, 04:12 am	#19 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Hong Kong (for now) Posts: 7,008	So what do you suggest? Banning the setting up of booby traps in private homes I suppose and making it a crime to do so? And how do you define 'booby traps'?

Jan 15, 2005, 04:20 am	#20 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	I suggest that the law stay the way it is. Guns should be wielded by our person to protect our person and nothing more in these circumstances. I find cases such as these to be nothing more than vindictive examples of negligence and endangerment, personally. I consider the rigging of a gun to fire upon the opening of the door, unbeknownst to the person opening it, to be one example of a booby trap (what occured in Katko v. Briney to my understanding). Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.