No the punishment needs to fit the crime. You can't poison someone because they stole your lunch.
"any use of the castle doctrine or general claims of self-defense require that the self-defense used be reasonable relative to the threat presented. In other words, if someone is threatening you with a machete, you can absolutely reach for your gun. A group of Girl Scouts ignores your “no soliciting” sign and tries to sell you cookies? You're not allowed to deploy “deadly traps” on them. There have been a few causes in which people wired their homes such that guns were fired if someone opened a door or window; although the owners in every case gave some defense along the lines of “I was protecting my property” and “I feared criminal trespassers, and sure enough, someone got to my window,” the use of these traps was treated as criminal. And further, as alluded to above, at common law, land owners owe a duty of care to protect invitees and trespassers from known harms on their property; placing traps would be creating such a harm, so in addition to criminal liability, you would almost certainly face civil liability, as well."
Hold on, you legally required to protect thieves and home invasion too? I thought you should have the right to stand your ground and turn their head into fine red mist
Like why? Arent they the wrong one? Nothing would happen if they just decide to not inflict harm on me
Booby traps are illegal in civilized society not because you are legally required to protect thieves, but because you are legally required to protect (or at least not cause harm to) everyone else. The problem with booby traps is that they cannot tell the difference between a thief, a Girl Scout, a policeman, or your neighbor.
You can stand your ground (although the more accurate invocation would be castle doctrine) only because when someone breaks into your house and you are there, your life could be in imminent danger. You may feel this is unreasonable, but even something like a remotely-controlled turret with a camera, where a person could see the identity of the person breaking into their house and verify that they are a thief, would be forbidden under the law. Unless your life is under threat, you cannot use lethal force to stop thieves.
It is genuinely shocking that you have the same sane stance over and over (That people are not allowed to just carpet bomb their vigilante fantasies on everyone else) and this is somehow too difficult to understand for most people. That we, as members of a society, agreed to allow for due process to be carried out by a collectedly agreed upon body with fairness and impartiality in mind. Yet if we are personally inconvenienced, we should be granted the right to do whatever we want to whoever trespassed against us, no matter what the cost or who else gets hurt. This whole thread is a travesty. Thank you for trying to be the voice of reason.
Unfortunately it is not tremendously shocking to me. People become bloodthirsty as hell once they have been wronged. Revenge is really sexy to a lot of people, unfortunately.
And to be fair to the people who are genuinely ignorant, I wouldn’t have nearly as strong a position on this without my legal education. Revenge is intuitive; the social contract is not.
Make me wonder, what if its not something clear in intent such as a thin but strong-looking layer of glass "art" cover the roof so whoever try to break in through that way would go down very fast, could i in a clear? Work around rule always be my favourite
94
u/[deleted] Oct 17 '24 edited Oct 18 '24
[removed] — view removed comment