re: Colorado pair arrested after allegedly setting booby trap up outside their home

I will bet inside the house officers found nothing of any value.

quote:

---

quote:
while conducting business at a home



aka soliciting houses door to door. Im ok with this. My biggest concern is that a kid or dog would set it off accidentally.

---

The article doesn't state what his business was, perhaps soliciting, perhaps casing the house. There was a large sign stating "Posted No Trespassing", so he ignored that. Yes, the concern is a child, fireman, etc. could get hurt.

quote:

---

fireman

---

Yep, glad these losers are OK with a fireman getting blown up trying to save their arse or saving a child from burning to death in the middle of the night. Idiots. Some of these posters are beyond dumb.

Well deserved, frick porch pirates.

Only thing better would an explosion like 30 times more powerful.

quote:

---

Well deserved, frick porch pirates.

Only thing better would an explosion like 30 times more powerful.

---

There's more powerful ones out there.

You can set booby traps on your property and at times its a good thing.

quote:

---

You can set booby traps on your property and at times its a good thing.

---

I don't know specifics about the video you posted, so excuse ignorance here.

These are blanks, and they don't look like they're hitting anyone. I only have accountant law (and it was 2 years ago), but what we learned in our most basic law class was no harm, no foul. You can't sue someone for pulling out in front of you and nearly sideswipping you. Might the same logic apply here? It looked like the blank fired was nothing more than deterrent by noise.

Comparing scaring someone with a blank and a literal trip wire with explosive is disingenuous. These are not the same things.

What is frightening is that because it was someone people deem as unworthy of sympathy, everyone is in agreement that its okay. That demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of why we have laws in the first place. It isn't up to the jury to decide whether or not a victim got what was coming to them morally, it's up to the jury to put aside bias and go by the letter of the law, precisely because determining whether or not justice was served based on anything other than objectivity would result in catastrophe depending on what the popular narrative in society is at the time.

Any first year law student would be aware of Katco v Briney, an old case where a spring gun is set up as a booby trap for intruders.
The intruder can sue and recover from the property owner for using devices calculated to cause bodily harm in order to protect property.
Generally, bodily injury cannot be employed to protect property, but can be used when one reasonably fears immediate harm to themselves or other humans. Same concept as self defense.

quote:

---

Generally, bodily injury cannot be employed to protect property, but can be used when one reasonably fears immediate harm to themselves or other humans. Same concept as self defense.

---

This was what my thoughts were, but, like I said, all my law classes were accounting specific.

This seems like something you shouldn't have to explain to grown people. You can't hurt someone and just say "my property, my rules."

(no message)

quote:

---

You can't just setup booby traps on your property. Even in castle doctrine, you don't get the final say on what constitudes an intruder

---

Not doubting your correct, I'm not a lawyer, but the no trespassing sign carries no weight?
What's the point of having trespassing laws if they don't apply?