@ghost-of-a-duke saidWhat is reasonable that would stop a criminal?
Did you finish it? (Not the law class, - high school).
In the UK reasonable measures can be used to defend property.
31 May 20
@ghost-of-a-duke saidI asked what could be done to stop the criminal?
I like how you originally wrote 'theif,' thought it didn't look right and then replaced it with 'criminal.'
Electrifying a toolbox is not reasonable. Perhaps, instead, better security?
31 May 20
@eladar saidIf you’re starving, take bread.
In the US criminals have the right to walk into businesses and steal. If 50 criminals crash a store overpower the people in the store and do a mass robbery, nobody has the right to stop them, except the police.
People are not allowed to use weapons to stop the robbery.
Are the laws the same in all countries?
Personally, I believe once you commit a crime, the person y ...[text shortened]... their property. But hey, I am not a criminal so I am not big on giving criminals the right to steal.
Seems to me a lot of companies rob people with a fountain pen... and I hardly see you whining about them.
31 May 20
@ghost-of-a-duke saidLol, ok if you do not have the money for better security you are screwed. Only the rich can be protected.
And I answered, better security.
31 May 20
@eladar saidYou are wrong:
Lol, I already explained it. You cannot stop it. Look at the looters, nobody can stop them either. If I walk into your house kick the crap out of you and take something worthless from where you live, then you cannot stop me. You have nothing to stop a person who can over power you.
" 3. A person in possession or control of, or licensed or privileged to be in, a dwelling or an occupied building, who reasonably believes that another person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling or building, may use deadly physical force upon such other
person when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of such burglary."
NY Penal Law 35.20
http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article35.htm
31 May 20
@eladar saidDo you have any idea what a "right" is?
In the US criminals have the right to walk into businesses and steal. If 50 criminals crash a store overpower the people in the store and do a mass robbery, nobody has the right to stop them, except the police.
People are not allowed to use weapons to stop the robbery.
Are the laws the same in all countries?
Personally, I believe once you commit a crime, the person y ...[text shortened]... their property. But hey, I am not a criminal so I am not big on giving criminals the right to steal.
@deepthought saidI remember that case from law school. The rule is quite simple:
Is this an hypothetical or an actual case. There's an actual case that's similar to this we can discuss; Katko v. Briney, 183 N.W.2d 657 (Iowa 1971).
" It is the accepted rule that there is no privilege to use any force calculated to cause death or serious bodily injury to repel the threat to land or chattels, unless there is also such a threat to the defendant's personal safety as to justify self-defense. The possessor may of course take some steps to repel a trespass but only that amount which is reasonably necessary to effect the repulse. Thus, spring guns and other man-killing devices are not justifiable against a mere trespasser, or even a petty thief. They are privileged only against those upon whom the landowner, if he were present in person, would be free to inflict injury of the same kind. Moreover, if the trespass threatens harm to property only--even a theft of property--the possessor is not privileged to use deadly force. He may not arrange his premises so that such force is inflicted by mechanical means. If he does, he will be liable even to a thief who is injured by such device."
https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-katko-v-briney
It is eminently reasonable that the law not allow property owners to place deadly booby traps on their land though I am not aware of any criminal prosecutions for doing so.
EDIT: OK I found one:
" Nor did the Downstate man pause to ask himself whether rigging a 12-gauge shotgun to the door of a shed on his property was a good idea.
And so, about a year ago — Sept. 16, 2018 — Jeff Spicer entered the shed in Chester, about 60 miles southeast of St. Louis, and was killed.
Last week, a Union County jury found Wasmund guilty of first-degree murder and aggravated battery. Had Wasmund been sitting with the shotgun and shot Spicer as he came through the door, he’d probably be OK, legally. Illinois law states a person can use deadly force if he “reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”
So why aren’t booby traps permitted? Simple. Because certain people have a legal right to enter your home without permission — firefighters, for instance.
“You don’t want people to use deadly force for just trespassers, it’s excessive,” said Harold Krent, a professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law. “You set a booby trap, you don’t know who’s going to be subject to it. It could be somebody coming in to shelter from the rain. That’s probably what persuaded the jury to convict.”
Because the law takes this view, we do not have to live in a society peppered with booby traps. You can cut across your neighbor’s lawn and be reasonably confident you won’t step on land mines buried there to discourage trespassers. We rarely hear of cases like the Florida store owner who set a trap that electrocuted a burglar in 1986, and then because they end up in court (in that case, a grand jury gave the store owner a pass)."
https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/2019/9/17/20870489/booby-trap-murder-property-rights-trespass-homeowners-wasmund-katko-steinberg
31 May 20
In the Florida case alluded to in my prior post's EDIT, the store owner was cleared of murder because the grand jury said his trap wasn't intended to kill though it was illegal to set it:
"'We think it is clear under Florida law that citizens can not use deadly force solely to protect property,' the panel said in a statement.
'Prentice Rasheed used deadly force when he wired the grills in his place of business to protect his property. He was not justified in doing so. However, we find no evidence that Prentice Rasheed intended to use deadly force to protect his property.'"
"Rasheed, whose arrest attracted national attention, insisted the trap was intended to scare off burglars with a shock, not to harm them."
https://www.upi.com/Archives/1986/10/29/Grand-jury-clears-merchant-of-booby-trap-manslaughter/1949530946000/
@no1marauder saidSo it is legal kill looters? Is this true in every state?
You are wrong:
" 3. A person in possession or control of, or licensed or privileged to be in, a dwelling or an occupied building, who reasonably believes that another person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling or building, may use deadly physical force upon such other
person when he or she reasonably believes such to be ne ...[text shortened]... commission of such burglary."
NY Penal Law 35.20
http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article35.htm
Is it legal to set up traps for people who break in? Walking on a person's lawn is not the same thing as breaking into buildings.
The case I was talking about must have been older than 86, it was in a text book by 86.
31 May 20
@eladar saidIt depends.
So it is legal kill looters? Is this true in every state?
Is it legal to set up traps for people who break in? Walking on a person's lawn is not the same thing as breaking into buildings.
The case I was talking about must have been older than 86, it was in a text book by 86.
No it isn't legal to set traps for humans on your property.
I couldn't find your "case" but your description of it would justify a murder conviction.
31 May 20
@no1marauder saidSo criminals who can over power you or be there when you are not, have the right to steal your belongings. If deadly force is the only way you can stop then, you are toast.
It depends.
No it isn't legal to set traps for humans on your property.
I couldn't find your "case" but your description of it would justify a murder conviction.
Seeing as I am not a criminal, nor do I believe criminals should be rewarded, these pro criminal laws are for the birds.
