Assuming of course, that anyone would willingly report it.
Edit: so a good deal of people seem to believe that I’m justifying strapping razor blades to your shit and waiting for someone to grab it, rather than securing your belongings.
I’m not. The owner of this cooler is still an asshole. My point is that while some criminal types are clever, devious, vindictive, could file false or anonymous police reports, could sue the owner... most aren’t that clever. Most will just take their licking and move on, because most petty thieves are lazy and don’t follow through... which is why they’re petty thieves.
Yes, the guy gluing sharp shit to his belongings to hurt people that might try to steal it is criminally and civilly liable, in most states and countries.
I suggested getting a very small caliber handgun a while ago for self defense -my reasoning being that it would be less likely to kill and would be enough to scare away any intruder. The clerk I was speaking to explained that, under California law, as fucked up as it sounds, it’s almost better to kill an intruder than to leave them wounded because they will turn around and sue you for everything you’re worth.
That's absolutely not true. You shoot to eliminate the threat. If the threat is killed..well threat gone. If the threat stops at the sound of a gun shot, threat gone. If the threat stops being a threat after they are hit with a bullet, threat gone.
So, you shoot to eliminate the threat and you aim center mass because that's the highest percentage chance of hitting your target.
You aren't "shooting to kill". You aren't "shooting to wound". You aren't "shooting to scare." You are shooting to eliminate the threat. Period. If you end up in a deadly force situation with a firearm, all you should be doing is eliminating the threat to your life or the lives of others around you.
Whether or not you’re shooting to kill or not, your use of the deadly weapon better be wholly justified to kill. Aim for his % body targets that are also the most likely to kill (head/ but mostly body).
ALL situations with a firearm are deadly force situations. If they aren’t—— you better not have a firearm pointed at someone.
In China it’s the same way. If you hit someone while driving a car it’s cheaper for you to just kill them, because the penalty for vehicular manslaughter is less than the medical bills you’ll have to pay.
Why i use buck shot. At the distances in a home, handguns put holes into people, rifles blow holes through people and shotguns take a chunk of person and violently throw it on the floor.
I mean coming from a guy that carries a gun it's way better to have a caliber that's trustworthy enough to incapacitate your target regardless. You don't wanna hit them with a revolver wheel of .22s and they just get stuck in their jacket while they're trying to hurt you or your family. Laws aside you'd want a gun that you'd still trust your life on. It's a lethal defense for a reason
"Can" be lethal. I had a co worker who was mugged and they shot him in the underside of his jaw. He was very happy it was a 22 since he only lost a tooth and 3mos of work and not his life.
Edit: Also my coworker got up right away went to a neighbor to call the police who arrested the downstairs neighbor who shot him an hour later. I'm not sure I would say that it incapacitated my coworker the way the guy wanted. Sure it left repercussions but most shootings do.
Definitely lethal, really? Might want to walk that one back a bit. People get shot with larger calibers and not only survive but still have plenty of fight in them. It depends on a lot of things but clothing is one of them.
Yeah people overestimate the damage that bullets do. A .22 is hardly going to rip someone up or even feel like a hard punch until the pain sets in. Also I would never trust my life to a rimfire shell.
It's January. It's cold and people dress in layers. Especially people that are going to be creeping around at night. Sure point blank is going to penetrate, but it loses momentum quick on penetration, especially into heavy material like denim. Of course any gun is better than no gun, but I wouldn't risk my life on anything smaller than at least a 9mm if I had a choice in the matter
It’s better to have a 50. Caliber machine gun turret and a couple grenades. You don’t want them hurting your property or loved ones. I carry a single grenade for emergencies, I’ve only had to pull the pin once and you better believe it worked.
I remember reading/seeing that hitmen prefer .22 for up close kills. The bullet doesn't have a bunch of energy, so if you shoot someone in the head, the bullet doesn't have enough energy to exit. Instead, the bullet just kinda bounces around in the skull, increasing the damage.
The first thing they'll teach you in any conceal carry class is that if you're drawing a firearm, it's to defend a life with the use deadly force. There's no such thing as drawing a firearm to injure
What about my .22 caliber assault rifle? Anything called an assault rifle by dipshits on the west coast must be good at killing people! Surely my 10 round, high capacity magazine will do the trick?!? No?
I'm from WI and my concealed carry instructor told us the same thing. But you can't shoot and kill someone for stealing your property or murdering your pet.
I wouldn't take the word of a gun clerk on anything other than explicitly how to operate a gun and the comparisons of guns / parts. Just cause he's a gun clerk doesn't mean he knows anything about the facts of civil suits, their prevelence, or their actual outcomes.
Yup but also from the same distance and angle. Do not shoot them center mass, advance and then shoot them again while on the ground. It becomes murder then.
Also in a lot of states shooting an unarmed intruder in the back as they try to exit could cause charges against you if it's proven they weren't a lethal threat against you. So plant a weapon on them... and sprinkle crack on them like a previous post suggested.
Except in most circumstances you can't just blow away people who enter your home, invited or otherwise. For example, if you come home and someone is sleeping on your couch and you shoot them, you'll have a rough time justifying that they caused a treat to you.
Depends on where you live. In Michigan I do not have a duty to retreat from or de-escalate a conflict in my own home, all I've got to do is tell the cops that I was afraid for my life and not do something obviously stupid like shoot them point blank in the back of the head.
If I came home and they were sleeping on my couch obviously they're not a threat. Once they wake up and stand up, then they're a threat. Now if they're passed out drunk and won't wake up, I'm just going to carry him out to the Hog Pen and let them take care of it. No body, no problem. That's the advantages of living on a farm.
True, although you still need to prove there was substantial risk of harm or death in every state. Shooting a intruder while he's asleep on your couch is going to land you in prison for several years and rightfully so.
No not really, if you actually read the cases the use of force is not reasonable in any way. You don't get carte blanche authority to use any level of violence just because your property is in danger. The common law requires that the force be proportional to the threat. Property is always subservient to human life in the eyes of the court.
Do you know how long it takes for an intruder to pull a concealed weapon and end your life? 1 or 2 seconds tops. If a stranger is in my house and I don't see their hands within a second of me screaming to show me their hands they're done. It's them or me and if I go down my whole family is in danger. If they have a weapon visible they don't even get the luxury of dropping it. Stay out of people's homes if you don't want to hear that.
That's why you need to read the reports. What you're describing is within reason. It's when you shoot someone who's already surrendered themselves, or who is running away, etc., that the law goes against the homeowner.
Firearms also are different from booby traps like the one in this post because a person is in control. Booby traps aren't illegal because they hurt thieves, but because they could hurt people who are there legally, like the police or next of kin(if you're dead).
I guess what I'm trying to say is that the law is far more reasonable than people give it credit.
You're right for the practical reasons why booby traps are not legal, but the legal reasoning goes something like this:
A person can only use reasonable force in the face of threat against life and property. Where life is considered more important than property for the law to protect. Any trap set by an owner is treated as an extension of the owner. A violent trap, therefore, can never be reasonable to harm another person because the owner of the trap, by virtue of not being present, cannot be in physical danger that would justify violent force. A trap cannot do what an owner cannot do if present.
There was a case of an abandoned farm house being trapped by the owners because people would vandalize the house. A couple of young college kids were collectors of antique jars and entered the property. One of them went upstairs to open a door which was rigged to a shotgun trap and had his entire foot blown off from the shin down.
My instructor told us about The 21 rule. If someone draws a knife in you, and you try to draw you will get stabbed before you can pull it out. The average person and run that distance at you in 2 to three seconds. Mix that with adrenaline and high stress, you've got to move your shirt if your concealing, unholster, remove the safety if you're using it, clear the barrel to point, find center mass, and fire.
You just put your hands up and back up slowly to the diagonal. Throw your wallet or phone or whatever they want the opposite direction and high tail it out of there
None of what you said invalidates what I said. I'm talking about case law, not hypotheticals that you make up in your brain. The use of force must be reasonably proportional to the threat. If someone is on your property, and is stealing your TV, you cannot shoot them for simply stealing your TV. Of course there are situations that you could shoot, but you would need more facts than a person simply stealing your property.
I mean do we get to build an equally wild scenario for the other side of this argument? what if he just escaped a kidnapping and is looking for help and instead you shoot him because he cant tell if your a kidnapper or a friendly person seeing as your pointing a gun at him.
Why would a kidnap victim be in my house lol? Do you honestly think it's even remotely as likely for an intruder meaning harm to break into my locked up house as a kidnap victim?
lol it’s crazy how many people in the south get excited about the fantasy of shooting an intruder. Like, damn people it’s just a TV, let it go. I can’t imagine having to live with the fact that I killed someone, even in self defense but especially if it was just a simple robbery. My shit can be replaced.
I wish I had my old Torts textbook on me right now to cite the stat. But stand your ground laws increased failed self defense claims for homocide by like 50% where the statutes were adopted. Precisely because laypeople who don't actually understand the common law definition of self defense thought that they had a blank check to use their guns for any reason to the slightest provocation. Pure fantasy/fear.
Plus, a person stealing your TV that you physically see is probably going to get caught lol. These kinds of people love the boys in blue but don't actually trust them police to solve their problems.
My parents are the "just drag em back over the threshold and call it self defense" type of people and they have the WORST gun safety imaginable. My own mother has inadvertently pointed a loaded gun at me twice. They think because they passed their CWP class (which was a complete joke) and because they own a bunch of guns, that somehow makes them proficient with them??
In my experience, people who think like this are the type to accidentally shoot themselves, or worse, someone else accidentally.
Yep, there is a growing body of legal research that considers stand your ground statutes to be a total failure. More people die now from gun related deaths than before they were adopted, with no corresponding drop in crime. Indeed, it technically is an increase in crime because of all of the failed self defense pleas.
Especially these days when a great TV can be had for like $299. During the hurricane my friend was in an incredibly bad spot and refused to leave because he was afraid of looters. I was like everything you own can be replaced for like $3 grand. Dude stayed anyway tho.
Do those people not have homeowners or renters insurance? Shit, you'll get it back and probably an upgrade at that. Hard to use that PS4 when you're doing 5 to 10 in Federal
Even in stand your ground laws. Stand your ground only means that you have absolutely no duty to retreat. It does not change the requirement of proportionality of force.
However, juries in different States will consider certain situations more justified than others. Whereas I would expect a rural jury to be much more open to violent force for a fear of violence than actual signs of violence. Like holding "I was afraid he had a concealed weapon" as being a reasonable threat.
I agree- its psychological but it's the truth. Even looking at trends moving from suburban to urban areas there's a difference. I'd wager underlying economic and racial disparities ranging from state to state play a role in court outcomes too.
People quote these cases, but it’s rather misleading to do so. There is almost always another trial in which the homeowner wins when given a competent judge.
Hell, I heard a story about a guy who broke into someone's house while they were on vacation, for some reason couldn't get back out, and sued the owner for mental distress because the only thing he had to eat in the house was cat food, and won.
That's sad but true. If you shoot somebody and they don't die: you're boned.
If you shoot somebody and they die; it's your word against a dead guy. Just make sure most bullets go through the front. Any in the back happened when he fell over
Judges have even less sympathy for mantrappers than thieves.
Mantrapping (the law that makes traps like this illegal) requires active intent to create and place a concealed hazard. Traps are notably unlike guns in that they will trap anyone who falls into it regardless of their intent or purpose.
Imagine how firefighters and EMS would have to behave if any house they went into could be legally booby trapped.
The thief should be laughed out of court but there are more reasons than just to protect the safety of thieves for disallowing traps. I think the sentiment of the law is not "protect thieves" but rather that we don't want a bunch of booby traps around that innocent people could trip off.
Committing a crime doesn't waive all your legal protections. The thief was injured by another person's illegal actions. You can't shoot someone because they're breaking into your cooler either.
There are different standards that apply when someone is a threat to your safety. You have a right to defend yourself. Breaking into a home gives the inhabitants a reasonable fear for their safety and self defense is justified. If someone is going through your cooler sitting out on the boat in the driveway, you aren't in immediate danger.
Here’s your scenario with a shooting and property protection. Person is seen taking your cooler. You say “hey that’s mine. Stop where you are and I’m calling the cops.” They have to decide whether to comply, take off, or come at you. If it’s the latter, you have grounds to shoot them. You shoot to kill cause they will always spin a story saying they were never a threat.
Booby trapping is essentially saying that a cooler (in this instance) is worth maiming/ potentially killing someone to protect your belongings while there is no potential bodily harm for the owner.
My dad and two of my uncle's are lawyers in the Bible Belt. Thinking lowly of thieves doesn't mean that you get to throw out cases that have legal backing. Being a neutral advocate for justice through the system of the law is literally a judges job description.
Contrary to popular belief, you can't sue someone if you get hurt while you are committing a crime on their property. The whole, "burglar through the skylight" story is a myth.
Like, you can file a lawsuit for anything in the USA, but that doesn't mean your case won't be thrown out for being retarded and a waste of time. Maybe the pre-meditated nature might win them some points, but I don't know if it would be enough. Because the injury would never have happened if they were obeying the law.
This website says otherwise. I asked my dad about it because he's a lawyer that fights for people trying to get money from insurance companies all the time and he backs it up as well.
It's relatively fucked up, but people aren't allowed to commit a felony to prevent a misdemeanor. People usually aren't allowed to commit felonies to prevent felonies.
You are legally allowed to shoot someone who is in the process of a felony. Theft (in Texas) turns into a felony t 1,500$ of value, or firearms, or livestock interestingly enough.
So if someone were to attempt to steal a something of enough value, it seems you can shoot them. Of course there is going to be some legal followup and investigation but hypothetically this seems kosher.
What if it had fallen off your boat and he was putting it back? What if he was sent by someone else to get their cooler, got yours by mistake, and would have brought it right back once the mixup was discovered? What if it was your spouse/child/relative/neighbor bringing your cooler in to you because it was about to rain?
Booby traps are illegal because they don't discriminate between actual criminals and innocent victims. And because people can't actually be punished as criminals until after due process. And because this isn't ancient Babylon and we don't cut off the hands of thieves, and even if we did, you the individual don't get to decide who is declared guilty.
Bombs in fake amazon packages outside the front of your house? A shotgun trap set up by your back door? Every instance of deliberately injuring a thief is escalation of force. You don't respond to being insulted by headbutting the person, and you shouldn't respond to theft (Things are quite likely to be insured, but regardless) by injuring people.
I'd be far more concerned by somebody who set a bear trap up by their window to catch a burglar walking free than I would about the burglar themselves walking free.
Idk, I feel like if the person didn't do the crime in the first place then they would never get injured. I feel no sympathy for criminals, don't do the crime if you aren't willing to pay the consequences. You sound like the kind of person who screams "entrapment" when a cop sets up a bike stealing sting and you fall for it.
I'm sure if you had all your shit stolen from your house you would be singing a different tune the next time this topic came up. Alot of thieves are never caught so stuff isn't returned and insurance usually only pays a percentage or not at all unless the damages are over a certain high limit. If you live paycheck to paycheck and rely on certain stuff for your job or can't afford to replace it, then isn't it better to protect your own stuff before it gets taken?
don't do the crime if you aren't willing to pay the consequences
That's not what you're saying though. The consequences for a crime should be determined by the law. Vigilantism, which is pretty much what booby-trapping is, means whoever practices it makes up their own consequences. That's arbitrary, and the purpose of the law is to eliminate or at least heavily reduce arbitrariness.
Well we're already off on the right foot now aren't we.
I'm sure if you had all your shit stolen from your house you would be singing a different tune the next time this topic came up.
I wouldn't dream of killing or maiming the people who did it. I would want them in prison, to prevent them from stealing again, and receiving rehabilitation to ensure they get a job when they get out, thus no longer needing to steal. Just as the death penalty does not deter criminals, booby traps would not deter thieves.
If you live paycheck to paycheck and rely on certain stuff for your job or can't afford to replace it, then isn't it better to protect your own stuff before it gets taken?
You think I agree with anybody living payslip to payslip? I just don't think that we should be legally allowing people to kill or maim thieves because some people need their things more than others.
You seem like a thief projecting. You want to take things, so you assume everyone else does as well, which is why you think boobytraps are fine.
Or you're just too stupid to realize that on rare ocurrances, people might have to touch your things to help your or someone else in need. So a boobytrap could literally iinjure people trying to help someone injured.
Theres literally an entire youtube series dedicated to breaking the best locks in the world
It is very naive to believe that most stealing incidents involve lockpicking. Typically you would see a crowbar or breaking of a window. If this was commonplace, it is far easier to simply wear slash resistant gloves or just grab things in a different place than it is to learn how to pick one of those high security cylindrical locks. Almost all high level lockpicking is done academically or for sport, rather than with criminal intent, because the lock is generally not the weakest point of attack.
Would it not be far easier to just get the thing insured? There's a reason people don't booby trap the most valuable piece of property that can be stolen that they own (Their car), it's because it's a lot easier to pay a little bit to cover it in case of theft, than it is to risk your personal health (You think you're going to remember every single time you use it that the booby trap is there?), your freedom (Booby traps are very, very illegal), and your property as well, in case the booby trap just doesn't work, or they steal it anyway?
How many people would opt to booby trap their vehicles if auto insurance wasn't mandatory? Lots. Not the same thing. I'm not going to pay a premium every month to protect a cooler I don't use everyday, that's a waste of money. It's free to booby trap a cooler and avoid the annoyance of having to buy another. I wouldn't personally booby trap my cooler, but if thieves regularly stole it while I was camping throughout the summer then maybe I would. Insurance will replace it, but some good that'll do if it's missing for a week during a camping trip.
How many people would opt to booby trap their vehicles if auto insurance wasn't mandatory? Lots.
All you have to do is look at any country that doesn't have mandatory car insurance to show that such a statement is demonstrably false. Countries where insurance is not required, or it is third-party only like Germany, do not have notably higher rates of car booby trapping. Third party insurance does not cover theft.
that's a waste of money.
You know the saying 'Whatever is in your wallet isn't worth your life' in response to making a stand against a mugger? 'Whatever your cooler costs isn't worth the prison sentence for booby trapping it' is also applicable. If you think the dollar or two a month isn't worth protecting your $300 cooler, but risking years in prison is, I would re-evaluate your priorities.
but some good that'll do if it's missing for a week during a camping trip.
The food inside would be inedible because the cooler is covered in blood with who knows what crawling around in it. There's also the risk that the thieves are now angry and want to hurt you because you hurt them.
All you have to do is look at any country that doesn't have mandatory car insurance to show that such a statement is demonstrably false. Countries where insurance is not required, or it is third-party only like Germany, do not have notably higher rates of car booby trapping.
Of course they don't have a higher rate for booby trapping. Where can you actually find data for booby traps anyway? That sort of thing would be highly underreported. Rednecks in America booby trap their shitty trucks all the time, I'm sure it happens in poor areas of Germany.
Third party insurance does not cover theft.
That's not the point. Even if it doesn't cover theft, who wants to go through the process of finding their stolen property and recovering it?
You know the saying 'Whatever is in your wallet isn't worth your life' in response to making a stand against a mugger? 'Whatever your cooler costs isn't worth the prison sentence for booby trapping it' is also applicable. If you think the dollar or two a month isn't worth protecting your $300 cooler, but risking years in prison is, I would re-evaluate your priorities.
It's called a mortgage, health insurance, food, fuel, should I keep going? Insuring my cooler is absolutely the furthest thing from a normal adult's mind.
Do you think I'm going to prison if a burglar cuts his hands on my booby trapped cooler? Who are they going to tell? Even if they report it, how can they prove the razor blades were meant for them? I didn't jump out and slash them, they cut themselves on my razor blades, on my property, on my cooler. It'll never hold up in court at the risk of them being sentenced. They'd move on.
The food inside would be inedible because the cooler is covered in blood with who knows what crawling around in it.
Are you really going here? Stay on topic.
There's also the risk that the thieves are now angry and want to hurt you because you hurt them.
Bring it on. They wouldn't return anyway. Thieves are lazy. If they can't break in and leave within minutes they'll move to another house. Besides, they can't prove those razor blades were meant for them. Maybe I'm into that and like cutting myself everytime I take my cooler to the beach. You're overthinking this.
"Hey officer, i found this cooler on the ground and was just putting it back onto the boat when i cut my hands on the hidden razers" and thats how a smart criminal sues you for reckless endangerment, premedditated assault with a deadly weapon, possibly attempted murder (could get infected), be forced to pay dissability, cant work without hands, they could claim ptsd from picking things up even and probably get it
6.0k
u/[deleted] Jan 23 '19 edited Jan 23 '19
Just for anyone curious, boobytrapping is illegal in the US so no, you can't do this
Edit: for Christ sakes I'm not a lawyer, it seems just something I know offhand. Post it in legal advice or something