Current Events > Man found guilty of first-degree murder for booby trapping his shed...

(+) Yeah! (+)

Fair next. Imagine thinking a booby trap would be justified. Could've been solved just as easily with a camera catching him in the act. Smh lot of psychos in the world

legendary_zell posted...

No, it's pretty standard for you to not be able to set up death traps to kill trespassers, regardless of the signs or warnings. Because that's an insane and murderous thing to do. Federal law says using deadly force indiscriminately to protect unoccupied property is not reasonable, even if the victim is a trespasser. And even with state laws like stand your ground laws and anti-theft laws, the reasonableness of deadly force is determined on a case by case basis, and setting up a death trap means the defendant threw reason out the window and decided to execute all living things because they have a cave dragon mentality when it comes to property.

Yes. How dare someone get frustrated after multiple thefts and decide to take more measures against it? Thief got what they deserved end of story.

---

Axiom posted...

Fair next. Imagine thinking a booby trap would be justified. Could've been solved just as easily with a camera catching him in the act. Smh lot of psychos in the world

But that wouldn't stop his shit from being stolen now would it?

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Unsugarized_Foo posted...
Under most law, killing a person who has no way of physically harming anyone is a no-go

If he was in the shed, then there's no murder

false

A false false
---

Lil_Bit83 posted...

legendary_zell posted...

No, it's pretty standard for you to not be able to set up death traps to kill trespassers, regardless of the signs or warnings. Because that's an insane and murderous thing to do. Federal law says using deadly force indiscriminately to protect unoccupied property is not reasonable, even if the victim is a trespasser. And even with state laws like stand your ground laws and anti-theft laws, the reasonableness of deadly force is determined on a case by case basis, and setting up a death trap means the defendant threw reason out the window and decided to execute all living things because they have a cave dragon mentality when it comes to property.

Yes. How dare someone get frustrated after multiple thefts and decide to take more measures against it? Thief got what they deserved end of story.

Society across multiple levels and in multiple countries has already decided that what you're talking about is outside the bounds of rational or justifiable behavior. I don't think you can do this in ANY western country. Because again, no amount of frustration makes it okay to indiscriminately kill people who dare to disrespect your property. And theft at pretty much any level is not a death penalty offense. Individuals are rightfully not allowed to play judge, jury and executioner when their lives are not at risk. No one gets to decide that others shouldn't live anymore because of their attitude towards theft and property.
---

legendary_zell posted...

No, it's pretty standard for you to not be able to set up death traps to kill trespassers, regardless of the signs or warnings. Because that's an insane and murderous thing to do. Federal law says using deadly force indiscriminately to protect unoccupied property is not reasonable, even if the victim is a trespasser. And even with state laws like stand your ground laws and anti-theft laws, the reasonableness of deadly force is determined on a case by case basis, and setting up a death trap means the defendant threw reason out the window and decided to execute all living things because they have a cave dragon mentality when it comes to property.

Plus there was no claim of self defense anyway.
---

Good. Protecting your property does not warrant murder. Only Americans will debate this.

shockthemonkey posted...

Saying Im going to kill you if you do this does not exempt you from punishment when you kill someone. Doesnt matter if you used a sign.

And people like you are the reason criminals are allowed to run roughshod over others.

---

ignivim posted...

Good. Protecting your property does not warrant murder. Only Americans will debate this.

It is your stuff. Some stuff you work hard to get. Some stuff you can replace.

---

shockthemonkey posted...

lol

You wouldn't like it if someone constantly break into your home.

---

shockthemonkey posted...

Duh

Laws aint based on what I like

So we say fuck decision and let them Rob you blind. Gotcha.

---

RIP Man found
Died at the trap shot up to 97 boobies
---

Yeah deadly booby traps are not okay. Theres a lot of reasons someone would need to go someplace and didnt have ill intentions.
---

While murder is a bit much lol...

I find it a little difficult to feel bad for someone trying to steal. They kinda brought it on themselves.
---

It would be ridiculous to apply the death penalty in a breaking & entering/theft case like this. I don't think the state should sanction private citizens to play out their Jigsaw fantasies over it.
---

I'm all for securing your property, but this is premeditated murder
---

Southernfatman posted...

The guy would still be alive if he just didn't try to steal things from other people. If what the owner's lawyer said was true, the guy had plenty of warning.

Still, I'm a little iffy on booby traps like that. I'm all for defending one's property and feel it's ridiculous that doing so is considered wrong by many, but what if it was some dumb kid instead of an adult?

One less dumb kid growing up to be a dumb adult. Thank god.
---

legendary_zell posted...

cave dragon mentality

thank you for this

If I were on this jury and saw that the defendant had all of the posted warnings and deterrences humanly possible, I would have exercised jury nullification and pushed for an acquittal.
---

This is bullshit for the home owner overall. The home owner loses in general no matter what.

He gets robbed several times.
He needs to waste time/money on signs, nail doors shut.
Needs to buy whatever is stolen, more time/money wasted.
We can assume he called the police and they couldn't do anything about it since they can't get the thief/thief's in the act.
Home owner would have to buy cameras/security/etc...which is expensive once again costing more time/money.
He probably can't afford that since he's buying whatever is stolen.
You can say he can buy a dog but that costs money as well.

The only way the home owner can win this is if the thief stops stealing completely which is something that's out of his hands since he can't control the thiefs actions. How can you stop a thief without losing money and time? Might as well kill him because if he doesn't then the cycle will repeat till the owner gives up and loses what he bought.


---

Laws against booby traps are fair. There are plenty of legal reasons why someone without permission from the owner might be there. For example, if someone calls emergancy services for the injuries theyve got from said booby traps
---

Could he have camped in his shed and shot the thief and claimed self defense?

---

Lairen posted...

Could he have camped in his shed and shot the thief and claimed self defense?

Think it'd still be considered premeditated, but less so than straight up booby traps.
---

Rika_Furude posted...

Laws against booby traps are fair. There are plenty of legal reasons why someone without permission from the owner might be there. For example, if someone calls emergancy services for the injuries theyve got from said booby traps

The people who made the laws are dumb they could have easily said booby traps are against the laws except for preventing theft. We have a full gray area/loophole and people take advantage of it.

---

Lairen posted...

Could he have camped in his shed and shot the thief and claimed self defense?

Nope owner is fucked as well.

---

El Mexicano Texano posted...

He gets robbed several times.

Yep, that's bad.

El Mexicano Texano posted...

He needs to waste time/money on signs, nail doors shut.

Why should we feel bad that he wrongfully assumed that signs freed him of legal liability?

El Mexicano Texano posted...

Needs to buy whatever is stolen, more time/money wasted.

This is why getting robbed is bad, but you're just restating the consequences of it.

El Mexicano Texano posted...

We can assume he called the police and they couldn't do anything about it since they can't get the thief/thief's in the act.

There's no reason for us to make that assumption. Also while "catching someone in the act" helps, those are not the only burglary cases that get positive outcomes.

El Mexicano Texano posted...

Home owner would have to buy cameras/security/etc...which is expensive once again costing more time/money.
He probably can't afford that since he's buying whatever is stolen.
You can say he can buy a dog but that costs money as well.

It will not be the first or last time that "the cheapest way to mitigate a bad outcome" is not a legal way.
---

Lil_Bit83 posted...

And people like you are the reason criminals are allowed to run roughshod over others.

obviously not because the murderer in this case was brought to justice
---

(article is unavailable in my contry, so please correct me if i'm wrong on the details here)

he was stealing from his shed, which are separate from the guys house, right?
breaking open and stealing from a shed that doesn't connect to the house does not equal bodily harm risk to the owner.
so there is no possible way for this to claim self-defense.

since he obviously set up the trigger mechanism pretty well, he could just as easily used a non-lethal method, like a loud alarm or even like a paintball gun if he was asbolutely intent on it
---

Anteaterking posted...

Yep, that's bad.

Why should we feel bad that he wrongfully assumed that signs freed him of legal liability?

This is why getting robbed is bad, but you're just restating the consequences of it.

There's no reason for us to make that assumption. Also while "catching someone in the act" helps, those are not the only burglary cases that get positive outcomes.

It will not be the first or last time that "the cheapest way to mitigate a bad outcome" is not a legal way.

So what is the owner suppose to do in this case? I'm looking for an answer where he doesn't need to waste anymore of his time and money for someone else's actions.

---

What about non-injuring trap room with food, water, and a communications device that can only call the police for help getting out?
---

Laserion posted...

What about non-injuring trap room with food, water, and a communications device that can only call the police for help getting out?

I think that'd count as unlawful imprisonment
---

Americans: This is a travesty of justice, stealing some things is truly a crime punishable by instant death and this man did nothing wrong
Also Americans: those arabic countries where they chop a guy's hand off for stealing things are truly barbaric and medieval
---

Don't set death traps. Not sure why this is such a hard to grasp concept for some people.
---

HasaDiga posted...

A redneck claymore?

don't say r*dneck; it's a classist slur
---

man found guilty of murder after murdering

ok
---

I feel like if you set up your property to kill anyone who may or may not, but probably were, attempting to steal it, you're probably more interested in watching a person die to your brain power than you are in keeping your shit. Like, I could sort of maybe possible perhaps (but not really cause accidents might happen) understand if you took those measures to protect your actual house where you and your family are sleeping and dont want to get molested by whomever may think to break in.

But your fucking shed?

First degree murder seems fair.
---

so do Liberals literally think you should just let people steal your stuff?

no wonder they're all communists -_-
---

Philoktetes posted...

HasaDiga posted...

A redneck claymore?

don't say r*dneck; it's a classist slur

Let me try my hand at this...

I live in Arkansas.

Philoktetes posted...

so do Liberals literally think you should just let people steal your stuff?

no wonder they're all communists -_-

Lmao

then you're a victim of internalized classism

it still doesn't make that word ok
---

Redneck is a perfectly suitable term for this murderer.
---

I don't think so, Tim.

So, the only thing to do is capture them alive yourself, without harming them, and trying to not get harmed yourself, and immediately call the police.
Perhaps with a bunch of friends and a soft tarp.
---

Laserion posted...

So, the only thing to do is capture them alive yourself, without harming them, and trying to not get harmed yourself, and immediately call the police.
Perhaps with a bunch of friends and a soft tarp.

well i'll tell you what you dont do - plan to kill someone and then do it
---

i tell you dont do

try to break into peoples sheds
---