Booby Trapping Your Home.

slipss

Was just wondering if anyone knew the legalities of booby trapping your own home. Like say you set up an Idiana jones style device where a big circular saw was to buzz out of the wall at hip height if someone was to step on a particualar tile. Or maybe just a couple of dozen scalples pointing upwards concealed under a rug, you get the idea. So say I have a similar set-up, someone breaks into my home and gets crushed by a big boulder when they try to rob my golden idol, do I go to jail for murder? ehh hypothetically.

DarkJager

Good smoke eh??

AnnaStezia

Heard a similar idea debated in the pub last week !

The sober consensus was as follows ;

1. You would probably be convicted of manslaughter.

2. If you intended to deliberately kill you are a runner for a murder conviction.

3. You would be open to a civil claim for damages as well. The bad news is that your insurance company would not cover you as they would probably not regard this as an accident under the public liability section.

P.S. If you want to plant scalpels please be careful if they are new as you are more likely to cut yourself and bleed out before you get to damage anyone else.

Victor

Imagine you have a heart attack and the paramedics need to get in?

Rhonda9000

Under the Occupiers Liability Act 1995 the occupier owes a minimum duty of care to not intentionally injure trespassers (including criminals and those who have unlawfully entered). As Victor pointed out this stamps out e.g. inviting your public hate figure in and watch as they stroll into a trench or something just inside the door injuring / killing them.

Peyton Manning

That would make me want to direct an 18+ version of Home Alone. Ya know, instead of pouring paint on them he pours sulphuric acid, and instead of stepping on broken christmas celebrations, they step on the scalpel idea that was mentioned. And instead of McCauley Culkin, it would be Jason Statham or Benicio Del Toro setting the traps.

pirelli

slipss wrote: »

Was just wondering if anyone knew the legalities of booby trapping your own home. Like say you set up an Idiana jones style device where a big circular saw was to buzz out of the wall at hip height if someone was to step on a particualar tile. Or maybe just a couple of dozen scalples pointing upwards concealed under a rug, you get the idea. So say I have a similar set-up, someone breaks into my home and gets crushed by a big boulder when they try to rob my golden idol, do I go to jail for murder? ehh hypothetically.

“It was presented that a man killed another in his own house se defendendo. It was asked whether the deceased came to have robbed him; for in such a case may kill another though it be not in self defence… and the twelve said not. Wherefore they were charged to tell the way how it happened, whereby he should receive the King’s pardon”.
(1329) F Coron. 305.


http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IECCA/2006/C165.html

This is a detailed examination of the common law and the offence's against the person act particuarly section 18 which states it is not an offence in some circumstances to reasonably defend your property. The offences against the persons act do not take into account that a tresspass with intent to steal can be considered an aggressive act and might contain violence.This leaves some latitude on your part. However If you saw/cut off the head of a tresspasser you would have to be in the house at the time and would have to prove some intent to commit a crime on the part of the tresspasser. As you might have killed the only person to dispute your accusation it would have to be a very convincing accusation. The human life is protected by the constitution and you cannot kill a tresspasser nor would it be feasible to kill a burgular in the fashion you have described since it is of such malice that it amounts to murder see the crown v Martin or the Dpp V Nally case. How can you prove the burglar was not fleeing your residence or surrendering as a booby trap triggered by a burglar stepping on a tile would in former times be murder as the burglar could have been fleeing the residence.Martin was convicted of Murder although bear in mind the burglar must take the victim as they find him. So a personal booby trap triggered by the flexing of your finger might be sufficient to defeat murder.

Gobán Saor

pirelli wrote: »

.....you cannot kill a tresspasser nor would it be feasible to kill a burgular in the fashion you have described since it is of such malice that it amounts to murder see the crown v Martin or the Dpp V McNally case.

Padraig Nally (not McNally) was not convicted of any crime. He was acquitted of manslaughter following a retrial. The Court of Criminal Appeal overturned his original conviction for manslaughter.

pirelli

Gobán Saor wrote: »

Padraig Nally (not McNally) was not convicted of any crime. He was acquitted of manslaughter following a retrial. The Court of Criminal Appeal overturned his original conviction for manslaughter.

Obviously he was convicted of a crime.! You might say he is not convicted of any crime. I am not saying anything about him.

(DPP) v McNally and Breathnach 1981 is case where the convictions were quashed . Oscar Breathnach and Brian McNally, had their convictions quashed because of oppressive questioning and the denial of access to a lawyer.

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:giuwsoXCBjkJ:historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/S/0129/S.0129.199105290009.html+(DPP)+v+McNally+and+Breathnach+1981&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=uk

johnnyskeleton

pirelli wrote: »

(DPP) v McNally and Breathnach 1981 is case where the convictions were quashed . Oscar Breathnach and Brian McNally, had their convictions quashed because of oppressive questioning and the denial of access to a lawyer.

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:giuwsoXCBjkJ:historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/S/0129/S.0129.199105290009.html+(DPP)+v+McNally+and+Breathnach+1981&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=uk

What does that have to do with this thread?

Rhonda9000

Its come to the point when I see the name I just read over it to the next one..

pirelli

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

What does that have to do with this thread?

It was noted that I had used mcNally instead of Nally,So I corrected it and made reference to the a McNally case so that there is no confusion between the two case's.

To get back to the thread here are two news-stories about an american who killed a burglar and a Frenchman who injured one using booby traps.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE7D9143AF934A15755C0A966958260

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,948174,00.html

pirelli

Rhonda9000 wrote: »

Its come to the point when I see the name I just read over it to the next one..
Just to Quote you Rhonda
I for one am sh*t sick of reading the same lame questions about door staff patron rejects, parking fines, minor drug offences or anything that comes from people that think its a good idea to ask people surfing some website what to do about their 'legal' (at a stretch) problems. I also hate the threads called e.g. "advice needed" and the weird formalesque vocabularies people start using because they are in the legal discussion forum.
"wot are my rights"
"do i have a case"
"is he libil"

I have read your post's Rhonda9000. The law society has charter section 6.8 where fellow professionals are to refrain from acrimonious communications. It is not uncommon that people that post in legal section get a terse post from you informing them to read the charter while in fact your not a moderator. I undertstand that there is a small number of people on legal boards that dont like certain threads or indeed the character of posters and might be selective on who they like to see posts from and whom they dont. I personally dont want to suffer your abuse or acrimony. I dont know what you want from legal boards.ie but is falls far short of what is expected of us as professionals.

parsi

pirelli wrote: »

I have read your post's Rhonda9000. The law society has charter section 6.8 where fellow proffessionals are to refrain from acrimonious communications. ...... I dont know what you want from legal boards.ie but is falls far short of what is expected of us as proffesionals.

Obviously spelling isn't one of the things expected of professionals.

Tom Young

You've got to just laugh

pirelli

parsi wrote: »

Obviously spelling isn't one of the things expected of professionals.

lol!
No spelling isnt very high on the list unless drafting a particular document or letter it is completely appropiate to omit to dotting your i's and crossing your T's or misplacing a comma. That spelling mistake does not negate my post.My post is real and it is very clear on it's intention. I have right to go about my communications and business free from acrimony. Employees are frequently in courts and are occassionally found to have contributed to their loss by such behaviour and that rule I am sure applies just as equally to any person pertaining to be a professional or associate of the law of ireland.

pirelli

Tom Young wrote: »

You've got to just laugh

I am just editing this to chuckling quietly in a room full of people.!

johnnyskeleton

Back on topic (well sorta) in old English law if anybody died while on your property it was considered to be murder, even if it was an accident. However, the penalty was usually 30 crowns and a sheep, so you weren't too bad. My legal history is a bit rusty, but I think this was part of a system called frankenpledge.

pirelli

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Back on topic (well sorta) in old English law if anybody died while on your property it was considered to be murder, even if it was an accident. However, the penalty was usually 30 crowns and a sheep, so you weren't too bad. My legal history is a bit rusty, but I think this was part of a system called frankenpledge.

This isnt quite correct Johnny Skeleton.

Murder was derived form the word 'morth' a germanic word for manslaughter done in secret. The murder fine was in fact not levied neccessairly against the slayer. The tithing/township/hundred or ten men which numbered hundred were called the hundred. The hundred were held resposible by the crown for justice and fined if a body appeared in their district/bourough/land. This was called 'presentment of Englishry'. If they produced the slayer they were not fined. This system replaced the old teutonic form of blood vengenace and feud.Even robberies and petty crimes resulted in fines. The Crown saw justice as a source of revenue and the King's Peace second.I do not believe that a persons death by acccident would be a fine from the crown and in any case it wasnt murder as we know it now it was a slayer or slaying. The beginnings of pathology no doubt. The result of the abolishment of the murder fine in 1340 led to the meaning of Murder as we know it today.This is not to say slayers were fined and not punished .It was the Hundreds that were fined. I am sure there was some corruption but some slayers saw punishment probably poor ones.

In 1066 the normans replaced this system with the Frankpledge which was replaced by Henry I reign 44 years later with leges Henrici, In 1154 Henry the II reigned and introduced the jury and in 1213 the magna Carta was introduced which has shaped the english constitution and part of which is a principle of american law enforcement.

pirelli

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Back on topic (well sorta) in old English law if anybody died while on your property it was considered to be murder, even if it was an accident. However, the penalty was usually 30 crowns and a sheep, so you weren't too bad. My legal history is a bit rusty, but I think this was part of a system called frankenpledge.

Clearly it is ridiculous since you can't even get your facts straight.

The Tithings or Shire- reeve was fined by the crown if a crime was committed in their land. If they produced the slayer (obviously for punishment) no fine would be levied to the shire.There was also 'presentment of englishman' which is where I think you might have gotten your facts mixed up as this relate's to when they find a dead englishman and if he was killed there would be a fine unless the slayer was found. If their was no crime most particuarly if it was considered an accident there would logically be no fine hence no murder fine. Fines were only issued in the case of a crime being commited. It would be hysterical if people had to hand over some poor fool to the crown every time someone had an accident or face a fine.


The frankpledge:
In 1066 William the conqueror established The 'frankpledge system': A pledge or surety for the good behavior of freemen. Anciently in former england, a number of neighbors who were bound for each other's good behavior.The Frankpledge consisted of 55 military districts headed by a Norman shire-reeve who answered to the crown. The purpose was to maintain national security rather than the system of home rule.Origionally there was the tithings/township/hundreds which was units of ten men with a chief and then hundreds and so forth which became shires.The crown would intervene in fueds and fines would be issued.
However only 44 years later Henry I reigned. Henry the I introduced the Leges Henrici.Leges henrici seperated offences into felonies and misdemeanours So that certain crimes were punished by the state.
Henry II reigned in 1154 and established the Jury system.
In 1199 King John Reigned though settled matters according to his wishes,and sometimes against the wishes of the pope.
A group of Barons and church leaders gathered an army against what they saw as injustices by the king and went to London and pressured King John into signing the Magna Carta.This also defined england as country or a sovereignty rather than under the control of which ever king reigned be it French or Norman.One article in the Magna Carta is a fundamental principle of American law enforcement.
In 1213 The magna Carta (the great letter) was thus created which was shaped the englands constitutional goverment today.
The magna carta introduced 'habeas corpus' so that no one shall be imprisoned except by due process of the law, the requirement to control the behaviour of royal official's,and no one will delay the right of Justice.
In 1285 King Edward introduced the watch and ward which prevailed more or less for 500 year's until the industrial revolution in 1750. .A justice of the peace replaced the shire-reeve in the fourteenth hundreds.

hullaballoo

Legal pedantry, especially with regard to Early Anglo-Norman legal systems, is simply erudiculous waste of our time.

But seriously folks, I'm not happy to see threads being derailed by any sort of idle squabbling over who posts in what way and who's dragging what thread (or forum) to an early grave. If you don't like what someone in particular is saying, you have the option on this fantastic site to simply place them on your ignore list. Your ignore list is located in your User CP.

More directly, pirelli, I'm not happy with lines like "you need to get your facts straight" etc. People are entitled to say what they want in this forum. The only limits within which we all have to stick are those laid down by the charter.

Incidentally, it's completely not on to go shouting about being a professional. In fact, barristers have been disbarred for that sort of thing in the past. Once you're a user of this site, you are anonymous as far as everyone else is concerned. There's no way of other users knowing whether or not you are a professional lawyer and it's dangerous for you if they think you are, either way. Professional codes of conduct do not apply within the realms of this forum.

pirelli

hullaballú wrote: »

Legal pedantry, especially with regard to Early Anglo-Norman legal systems, is simply erudiculous waste of our time.

But seriously folks, I'm not happy to see threads being derailed by any sort of idle squabbling over who posts in what way and who's dragging what thread (or forum) to an early grave. If you don't like what someone in particular is saying, you have the option on this fantastic site to simply place them on your ignore list. Your ignore list is located in your User CP.

More directly, pirelli, I'm not happy with lines like "you need to get your facts straight" etc. People are entitled to say what they want in this forum. The only limits within which we all have to stick are those laid down by the charter.

Incidentally, it's completely not on to go shouting about being a professional. In fact, barristers have been disbarred for that sort of thing in the past. Once you're a user of this site, you are anonymous as far as everyone else is concerned. There's no way of other users knowing whether or not you are a professional lawyer and it's dangerous for you if they think you are, either way. Professional codes of conduct do not apply within the realms of this forum.

I respect your opinion as a moderator.

I dont know how I missed this.!!

First point. The line "Get your facts straight is in fact a quote from johnnyskeleton.

27-12-2007, 16:13 #3
johnnyskeleton
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,099
Adverts | Social Quote:
Originally Posted by OmegaRed
Looking to see what I can do here.
Clearly it is ridiculous since you can't even get your facts straight.

In any event it's not a legal question. Try after hours.

This thread was in fact locked by Hullaballu for reasons unknown and nothing was said about Johnnyskeleton is it not fair that if you use lines like that you can have them straight back to the source.It is still in recycle bin under Omegared if you wish to tender it as evidence.I do try not to speak to my peers that way.Ironically if people can say what they want in this forum then what is wrong with replying to a post on anglo-norman law or more to the point omegareds post.


Second point.:
I agree I am not judge an jury of what is acrimonious and what is not and the relevant law body will be the final arbitrator, however it is in fact the Irish legal societies that have deemed such behaviour unprofessional and if i find myself in receipt of what is acrimonious I am naturally going to point to the relevant charter and say that this is not what is expected of us as professionals.I am not lowering that person in the eyes of right thinking members of the public.

Users are anonymous and Hullabullu stated that barristers and solicitors could very well be disbarred, Perhaps they have and that is their business and those words do fill me with dread.The fact however that the posters are as you say anonymous makes this matter extremely serious. These posts are in fact illegal forms of hate mail. Collective harrassment is not a defence nor does it validate the first acrimonious post.Therefore acrimonious posts from persons affiliated with the legal socities should be of great concern and should warrant investigation.This is an extension of the workplace and while pc games or paintball isnt neccessarily the workplace, legal boards most certainly are. Hatemail is a crime and lawabiding member's of the public are entitled to go about their business free from such stress and anxiety. One should encourage jurisprudence and I can excuse anybody passionate enough about a theory or philosophy of the law to assidously and zealously use their knowledge to explain their views.There will be strong differences of opinion and how can there not be, although they should not be stinging and terse and should be part of their views. Sometimes to just to interfere with a thread to make a criticism or a view about a body corporate is perfectly acceptable if it has a moral or legal purpose but however if a terse post is marked by strong resentment or cynicism and nothing more than cynicism than that is acrimonious.The nervous that have to laugh at or make anxious remarks about people going about their business or openly despise their stories or views is where threads go wrong.They could instead constructively suggest ways to improve the forum such as an additional subforum like after hours and many other forums have where many posts would fit into.

Once again professional codes of conduct are far reaching and one is not discriminating when one quite plainly sees members of the law societies speak of their history and their qualifications or study habit's to realise that what is happening in the legal forum seems only to have ramifications for those persons i.e members of the law societies simply because they are usually those same people again and again. That is of grave concern that professionals such engineers IEI ,architects AAI, security professionals SEC and Marketing and other managers IMI and other persons not affiliated with the law societies manage not to be acrimonious as they are under less of an obligation whilst law students and other law members most particuarly whom are obliged to refrain from those type's of behaviour are coming to the attention of the moderator. Obvioulsy I dont know who the more restrained posters are on the legal forum but I am aware of those that affiliate to the law societies and the statistical histogram between the unknown Users professional membership and the those that have affiliated themselves to the law societies. The statisical result while by no means near mathemathical certainty does show that the histogram Bar was rendered almost usless by the truncated result.Compare for example the accountancy forum with the legal forum and you instantly see the problem.It is not unreasonable to assume that users are actual accountants or studying to be accountants or work or study in that field and evenmore so when user's pertain affiliation of the institute of charted accountants.My point being obviously posting that you hate selective users or terse posts that are either cynical or contain strong resentment almost with frequency whilst never opening a thread of your own is odd especially for a legal forum and it makes it particuarly caustic that such persons will only engage in such behaviour becausethey feel they are anonymous and wont eventually have to answer to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_mail


Aside from all of this I like legal history and if you cant discuss that on legal forums or door men,minor drug offence's or traffic laws etc.... or give or receive legal advice it does not surpise me that it is becoming such a place Hullabullu describes it to be.Nonetheless I enjoy reading peoples posts in the legal forum including door staff rejects and parking fines and minor drug offences and obviously the corruption of our justice system. I feel I am being made into that steroytype that is hated and despised because I am interested in common law rather than Divorce law and I feel that is unfair.

seamus

Back on-topic...

I would imagine it would be murder. To the best of my meagre knowledge, murder requires an intent to kill, but not necessarily a specific victim or a specific time. Setting up lethal booby traps in your home would certainly qualify as "intent to kill".

On the other hand, if you set it up so that your front door was hooked up to a low current, high-voltage circuit, but some burglar with a pacemaker got unllucky one night, you could easily argue that your intent was deterrence, not death (like an electric fence) and you may get away with criminal negligence at best.

Rhonda9000

hullaballú wrote: »

If you don't like what someone in particular is saying, you have the option on this fantastic site to simply place them on your ignore list. Your ignore list is located in your User CP.

Not being facetious here but does this ignore list weed out all the input from a particular poster if I add them to it?? If so, this is fantastic news (seriously). My method of passing over guaranteed drivel will have been technically realised!

Regarding the booby trapping, Seamus you mention intention to kill doctrine is not bothered with specificity regarding the person to be killed but if the booby trap was e.g. a net or a snare which was intended to trap some unspecified intruder for a time (not kill them) and if the homeowner was, say, on holidays for 2 weeks and intruder gets trapped in the net for 13 days and dies; would it stay at negligent manslaughter or snowball to murder via transferred malice or some sort of recklessness? Shaky @ criminal - was never a strong point for me!

johnnyskeleton

seamus wrote: »

On the other hand, if you set it up so that your front door was hooked up to a low current, high-voltage circuit, but some burglar with a pacemaker got unllucky one night, you could easily argue that your intent was deterrence, not death (like an electric fence) and you may get away with criminal negligence at best.

Or a postman / relative with a pacemaker? Could be manslaughter if he croakes. If you intended deterrence you intended to assault any person touching your door. I suppose it's reasonable to infer from these circumstances that you intended to cause some harm, and if that harm causes the death of the person, well, I guess that's a matter of our old friend causation.

johnnyskeleton

Rhonda9000 wrote: »

Regarding the booby trapping, Seamus you mention intention to kill doctrine is not bothered with specificity regarding the person to be killed but if the booby trap was e.g. a net or a snare which was intended to trap some unspecified intruder for a time (not kill them) and if the homeowner was, say, on holidays for 2 weeks and intruder gets trapped in the net for 13 days and dies; would it stay at negligent manslaughter or snowball to murder via transferred malice or some sort of recklessness? Shaky @ criminal - was never a strong point for me!

Intending to catch someone in a net probably wouldn't wouldn't amount to an intention to kill or cause serious harm, so manslaughter get's my vote.

Wasn't there a film about some homeowners who went on holidays for christmas and there were a load of elaborate novelty traps in their house and these burglars tried to get in but fell afowl of the traps and sued under the American equivalent of Occupier's Liability? Ok, maybe that last part didn't happen.

seamus

I have no law schooling at all. "Transferred malice" is a new phrase for me I imagine it would qualify as manslaughter purely because the person's death is a predicable, but not guaranteed outcome. That is, the homeowner may not have intended to kill the intruder, but if he had examined the likely consequences he would have seen that death was a possible outcome. Which is what I would consider to be the main qualifying factor for manslaughter - that the "attacker" did not intend to kill but his actions had a reasonable chance of causing death.

For example, if I fed someone a product containing peanuts and it turns out they're allergic and die quickly afterwards, I couldn't see a manslaughter charge arising because the chance of my actions resulting in death was extremely low (assuming I didn't know of his condition!). If I kick someone in the head repeatedly, death isn't certain and I may not intend to kill the person, but death is a likely outcome. So, manslaughter (at least).

And yes, ignore will just show a single line for that person's posts saying, "XXXX is on your ignore list. To view this post, click here".

johnnyskeleton

seamus wrote: »

I imagine it would qualify as manslaughter purely because the person's death is a predicable, but not guaranteed outcome. That is, the homeowner may not have intended to kill the intruder, but if he had examined the likely consequences he would have seen that death was a possible outcome. Which is what I would consider to be the main qualifying factor for manslaughter - that the "attacker" did not intend to kill but his actions had a reasonable chance of causing death.

Intent to kill or cause serious harm is essential for murder. Seeing the advertent(thanks CCA, that really clarifies things) risk of death as a possible outcome and disregarding it is recklessness, and recklessness usually leads to manslaughter.

seamus wrote: »

If I kick someone in the head repeatedly, death isn't certain and I may not intend to kill the person, but death is a likely outcome. So, manslaughter (at least).

If you intend to cause serious harm, you have the requisite intention for murder if you cause the death.

seamus

Ah OK, I wasn't aware that serious harm was sufficient for murder.

JohnK

Has this link already been posted? Scientist 'booby-trapped own home' to guard against burglars. Admittedly its the UK rather than Ireland but still on the same subject

johnnyskeleton

JohnK wrote: »

Has this link already been posted? Scientist 'booby-trapped own home' to guard against burglars. Admittedly its the UK rather than Ireland but still on the same subject

Interesting, even if it is from the daily mail. In Ireland, I don't think there is an offence of setting man traps, so he would just be charged with assault causing harm and possession of ammunition.

rubadub

Similar thread here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055182423

I love the idea of boobytraps or honey pots. In after hours one people were talking of pickpockets, idea is to get a heavy duty rat trap and rig it up to an old wallet, then walk around town with it hanging out your back pocket. When you hear the scream just run.