Booby Trapping Your Home

[guids]

I like this.


booby trapping is to complex, there are much easier ways to keep your place of residence completely secure.

[blinlk182]

How is an explosion 72 hours later going to stop a burglar? Did you mean house guest/in laws?

[blinden84]

in a recent FHM that had some interview with Doyle and he said very briefly that he had his home booby trapped, this intrigued me slightly.

[Tiltguru]

[ QUOTE ]
For example, for someone thinking about stealing a car stereo. He weighs the benefits of financial gain due to stealing and reselling the stereo versus the chances of being caught and sent to prison for X amount of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. This is the most ridiculos statement of all time. I have never laughed so hard in my life. This statement is precisly why corporal punishment doesn't work.
People that are stealing car stereos are not weighing the consequences of their action. Low level crime like this is almost always done out of desperation.

[mayday4379]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Things like:

Special cans of a specific brand of soda that are poisoned.



[/ QUOTE ]


[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] Burglars drink their victim's soda? Can you imagine somebody selling poisoned soda?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya, that's probably a bad example. But, say you had a pint of hard liquor or something... it's possible they might take it or take a swig to calm the nerves. Or, maybe I'm just an idiot. Ha ha.

-RMJ

[/ QUOTE ]

In a Growing Pains episode the burglar ate the meat loaf. It does happen.

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a topic every first year law student will remember as the one presented by the "spring gun" case.

** Bird v. Holbrook (1825)

Facts: D. owns a walled garden where he raises expensive tulips. After being robbed once, he surrounding his garden with a trip wire activated spring gun to protect it from intruders. D. intentionally did not place notice of the spring gun, because he wanted it to shoot the intruder. P. volunteered to retrieve a runaway pea-hen that had wandered into D.'s garden, and so climbed the high wall, and entered the garden where he tripped the wire and was shot in the knee by the spring gun.

Classical Holding: Where people give no deterrent notice to potential trespassers of the intentionally injurious traps that they have set solely to protect their property from trespassers, and that trap injures a trespasser who is not actually assaulting them or their family, they are liable for damages.

Reasoning: The defense plead that the P. was immune from liability under the doctrine of "Violenti non fit injuria" [the volunteer suffers no wrong], since the P. was a willful trespasser on the D.'s property. However, the court reasoned that it is "inhuman to catch a man by means which may maim him or endanger his life", and that since the D. set the traps solely for the purpose of inflicting injury to trespassers, it was a wrongful act.

Note: In Katko v. Briney, (1971), an Iowa farmer set a shotgun trap in a boarded-up storage house that he owned, and the shotgun injured a thief in the legs. The thief sued and the Iowa state supreme court awarded damages and punitive damages (thus profiting from his crime).

I took the above from a random torts outline.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hahaha, I had flashbacks to first year as soon as I saw the thread title.

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
yes it's illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is a topic every first year law student will remember as the one presented by the "spring gun" case.

** Bird v. Holbrook (1825)

Facts: D. owns a walled garden where he raises expensive tulips. After being robbed once, he surrounding his garden with a trip wire activated spring gun to protect it from intruders. D. intentionally did not place notice of the spring gun, because he wanted it to shoot the intruder. P. volunteered to retrieve a runaway pea-hen that had wandered into D.'s garden, and so climbed the high wall, and entered the garden where he tripped the wire and was shot in the knee by the spring gun.

Classical Holding: Where people give no deterrent notice to potential trespassers of the intentionally injurious traps that they have set solely to protect their property from trespassers, and that trap injures a trespasser who is not actually assaulting them or their family, they are liable for damages.

Reasoning: The defense plead that the P. was immune from liability under the doctrine of "Violenti non fit injuria" [the volunteer suffers no wrong], since the P. was a willful trespasser on the D.'s property. However, the court reasoned that it is "inhuman to catch a man by means which may maim him or endanger his life", and that since the D. set the traps solely for the purpose of inflicting injury to trespassers, it was a wrongful act.

Note: In Katko v. Briney, (1971), an Iowa farmer set a shotgun trap in a boarded-up storage house that he owned, and the shotgun injured a thief in the legs. The thief sued and the Iowa state supreme court awarded damages and punitive damages (thus profiting from his crime).

I took the above from a random torts outline.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hahaha, I had flashbacks to first year as soon as I saw the thread title.

[/ QUOTE ]

Emmanuels? I couldn't have got through my first year without it...lol

[belgianbeerlover]

In college, my buddy got sick of all his housemates eating his food. So he started dipping or rubbing his d*** in/on all his food. Nobody ate his food after that.

[tagtastic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For example, for someone thinking about stealing a car stereo. He weighs the benefits of financial gain due to stealing and reselling the stereo versus the chances of being caught and sent to prison for X amount of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. This is the most ridiculos statement of all time. I have never laughed so hard in my life. This statement is precisly why corporal punishment doesn't work.
People that are stealing car stereos are not weighing the consequences of their action. Low level crime like this is almost always done out of desperation.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a conscious decesion, but there is an understanding of right and wrong and our punishment system generally follows that understanding. A teenager is more likely to swipe some beer from a convenience store than to kill a man on the street for who is carrying a 6-pack.

Not that this statment matters at all to the point I was trying to make. I was simply saying that booby trapping makes it possible for the intended victim to set the punishment for a given crime against himself, the law offers no such personalized protection. It seems innocent and logical at first, but if you extend it out, taking the law into your own hands could be a very bad thing.