A question posed by my daughter when watching a Christmas movie yesterday afternoon: Surely the actions of young[1] Kevin McCallister went beyond justifiable self-defen[cs]e? After all, some of the booby traps could easily have been fatal, and several of them did inflict quite serious injury.
So, assuming you were hired by either the prosecution or the defence, what argument would you be making? What crimes might he have committed? And what might be the best way to persuade a jury to acquit?
[1] Before anyone mentions it: There is no minimum age of criminal responsibility in Illinois[2][3]. So his age would be a potential
mitigation, and would certainly mean that he would be dealt with by the juvenile court system rather than an adult court. But it would not, alone,
be enough to avoid guilt.
[2] Age of criminal responsibility is a state, not federal responsibility in the USA.
[3] For the benefit of those who struggle with the "Where is Kazakhstan?" round on House of Games, the location of Kevin's actions is Chicago, which
is in the state of Illinois.
Mark
A question posed by my daughter when watching a Christmas movie yesterday afternoon: Surely the actions of young[1] Kevin McCallister went beyond justifiable self-defen[cs]e? After all, some of the booby traps could easily have been fatal, and several of them did inflict quite serious injury.
So, assuming you were hired by either the prosecution or the defence, what argument would you be making? What crimes might he have committed? And what might be the best way to persuade a jury to acquit?
[1] Before anyone mentions it: There is no minimum age of criminal responsibility in Illinois[2][3]. So his age would be a potential
mitigation, and would certainly mean that he would be dealt with by the juvenile court system rather than an adult court. But it would not, alone,
be enough to avoid guilt.
[2] Age of criminal responsibility is a state, not federal responsibility in the USA.
[3] For the benefit of those who struggle with the "Where is Kazakhstan?" round on House of Games, the location of Kevin's actions is Chicago, which
is in the state of Illinois.
Mark
On 26 Dec 2023 at 17:50:40 GMT, "Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
A question posed by my daughter when watching a Christmas movie yesterday
afternoon: Surely the actions of young[1] Kevin McCallister went beyond
justifiable self-defen[cs]e? After all, some of the booby traps could easily >> have been fatal, and several of them did inflict quite serious injury.
On 26 Dec 2023 at 17:50:40 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
A question posed by my daughter when watching a Christmas movie yesterday
afternoon: Surely the actions of young[1] Kevin McCallister went beyond
justifiable self-defen[cs]e? After all, some of the booby traps could
easily have been fatal, and several of them did inflict quite serious
injury.
So, assuming you were hired by either the prosecution or the defence, what >> argument would you be making? What crimes might he have committed? And what >> might be the best way to persuade a jury to acquit?
[1] Before anyone mentions it: There is no minimum age of criminal
responsibility in Illinois[2][3]. So his age would be a potential
mitigation, and would certainly mean that he would be dealt with by the
juvenile court system rather than an adult court. But it would not, alone, >> be enough to avoid guilt.
[2] Age of criminal responsibility is a state, not federal
responsibility in the USA.
[3] For the benefit of those who struggle with the "Where is Kazakhstan?"
round on House of Games, the location of Kevin's actions is Chicago, which >> is in the state of Illinois.
Mark
Personally I have no idea at all what Illinois law on defending one's
home is, and I see no profit at all in applying English law.
On 2023-12-26, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
Personally I have no idea at all what Illinois law on defending one's
home is, and I see no profit at all in applying English law.
I think it's quite similar. They don't seem to have ridiculous "Stand
Your Ground" or "Castle Doctrine" laws like some states do. So I think
that if Kevin had been an adult then he would almost certainly be in
trouble, but due to him being a child I think the law would give him
quite a lot of leeway with regard to how much danger he thought himself
in and what counted as a proportionate response.
On Tue, 26 Dec 2023 20:14:38 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-12-26, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
Personally I have no idea at all what Illinois law on defending one's
home is, and I see no profit at all in applying English law.
I think it's quite similar. They don't seem to have ridiculous "Stand
Your Ground" or "Castle Doctrine" laws like some states do. So I think
that if Kevin had been an adult then he would almost certainly be in
trouble, but due to him being a child I think the law would give him
quite a lot of leeway with regard to how much danger he thought himself
in and what counted as a proportionate response.
What's possibly relevent from a legal perspective is that Kevin didn't
"stand his ground". He wasn't taken by surprise by the intruders attemptint to enter his home while he was in it. He overheard a conversation between
the burglars to the effect that his house was one they intended to target over the holidays, and then, after initially leaving the house, deliberately returned to it with the specific intention of setting the booby traps. So there's no doubt that it was premeditated. The question is whether it was reasonable, or, if not, whether his age meant that he couldn't reasonable be held accountable for his actions.
Mark
Which brings us to the American concept of trying a child "as an adult"? Is this a religious thing, is there a concept of child hiding an adult demon or something? I can understand not using the informality of juvenile court where the press and public demand something more formal, though I don't approve of it, but the Americans seem to apply adult penalties after an arbritrary decision to charge "as an adult". Do we have any similar concept?
On 2023-12-26, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I think it's quite similar. They don't seem to have ridiculous "Stand
Your Ground" or "Castle Doctrine" laws like some states do.
I'm not sure if you're aware but The Secret Barrister did a live tweet
one Christmas whilst watching Home Alone 2 and detailed each law broken
as it happened. It was hilarious and went viral. I'm sure it must be on-line somewhere.
On 26 Dec 2023 at 21:58:18 GMT, "Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Dec 2023 20:14:38 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-12-26, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
Personally I have no idea at all what Illinois law on defending one's
home is, and I see no profit at all in applying English law.
I think it's quite similar. They don't seem to have ridiculous "Stand
Your Ground" or "Castle Doctrine" laws like some states do. So I think
that if Kevin had been an adult then he would almost certainly be in
trouble, but due to him being a child I think the law would give him
quite a lot of leeway with regard to how much danger he thought
himself in and what counted as a proportionate response.
What's possibly relevent from a legal perspective is that Kevin didn't
"stand his ground". He wasn't taken by surprise by the intruders
attemptint to enter his home while he was in it. He overheard a
conversation between the burglars to the effect that his house was one
they intended to target over the holidays, and then, after initially
leaving the house, deliberately returned to it with the specific
intention of setting the booby traps. So there's no doubt that it was
premeditated. The question is whether it was reasonable, or, if not,
whether his age meant that he couldn't reasonable be held accountable
for his actions.
Mark
Which brings us to the American concept of trying a child "as an adult"?
Is this a religious thing, is there a concept of child hiding an adult
demon or something? I can understand not using the informality of
juvenile court where the press and public demand something more formal, though I don't approve of it, but the Americans seem to apply adult
penalties after an arbritrary decision to charge "as an adult". Do we
have any similar concept?
On 26 Dec 2023 at 21:58:18 GMT, "Mark Goodge" ><usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
What's possibly relevent from a legal perspective is that Kevin didn't
"stand his ground". He wasn't taken by surprise by the intruders attemptint >> to enter his home while he was in it. He overheard a conversation between
the burglars to the effect that his house was one they intended to target
over the holidays, and then, after initially leaving the house, deliberately >> returned to it with the specific intention of setting the booby traps. So
there's no doubt that it was premeditated. The question is whether it was
reasonable, or, if not, whether his age meant that he couldn't reasonably be >> held accountable for his actions.
Which brings us to the American concept of trying a child "as an adult"? Is >this a religious thing, is there a concept of child hiding an adult demon or >something? I can understand not using the informality of juvenile court where >the press and public demand something more formal, though I don't approve of >it, but the Americans seem to apply adult penalties after an arbritrary >decision to charge "as an adult". Do we have any similar concept?
[1] Before anyone mentions it: There is no minimum age of criminal responsibility in Illinois[2][3].
From ILCS (Illinois Compiled Statutes)
On 27 Dec 2023 09:47:21 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Dec 2023 at 21:58:18 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
What's possibly relevent from a legal perspective is that Kevin didn't
"stand his ground". He wasn't taken by surprise by the intruders attemptint >>> to enter his home while he was in it. He overheard a conversation between >>> the burglars to the effect that his house was one they intended to target >>> over the holidays, and then, after initially leaving the house, deliberately
returned to it with the specific intention of setting the booby traps. So >>> there's no doubt that it was premeditated. The question is whether it was >>> reasonable, or, if not, whether his age meant that he couldn't reasonably be
held accountable for his actions.
Which brings us to the American concept of trying a child "as an adult"? Is >> this a religious thing, is there a concept of child hiding an adult demon or >> something? I can understand not using the informality of juvenile court where
the press and public demand something more formal, though I don't approve of >> it, but the Americans seem to apply adult penalties after an arbritrary
decision to charge "as an adult". Do we have any similar concept?
It's one of the things that varies by state in the USA. Some states have a hard dividing line between the juvenile and adult court systems, others have a more flexible system where minors can be tried in an adult court if it seems more appropriate. I don't think there's anything particularly
religious about it, it's just one of the ways in which different countries
do things differently.
Oddly enough, the UK doesn't really have juvenile courts at all in the sense understood in the USA. If a child is prosecuted, it's heard in the same
court system as any other case. The murderers of Brianna Ghey were tried in Manchester Crown Court, just as any adult would be. And, having been convicted, they, too, will be subject to as mandatory life sentence. But procedural rules are more flexible when a child is the defendant, age is a mitigating factor when it comes to sentencing, and any custodial sentence imposed on a minor will be served in youth custody rather than an adult prison (at least, for as long as the offender remains a youth).
Mark
On Tue, 26 Dec 2023 20:14:38 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-12-26, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I think it's quite similar. They don't seem to have ridiculous "Stand
Your Ground" or "Castle Doctrine" laws like some states do.
Why are they "ridiculous" ?
On 27 Dec 2023 09:47:21 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Dec 2023 at 21:58:18 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
What's possibly relevent from a legal perspective is that Kevin didn't
"stand his ground". He wasn't taken by surprise by the intruders attemptint >>> to enter his home while he was in it. He overheard a conversation between >>> the burglars to the effect that his house was one they intended to target >>> over the holidays, and then, after initially leaving the house, deliberately
returned to it with the specific intention of setting the booby traps. So >>> there's no doubt that it was premeditated. The question is whether it was >>> reasonable, or, if not, whether his age meant that he couldn't reasonably be
held accountable for his actions.
Which brings us to the American concept of trying a child "as an adult"? Is >> this a religious thing, is there a concept of child hiding an adult demon or >> something? I can understand not using the informality of juvenile court where
the press and public demand something more formal, though I don't approve of >> it, but the Americans seem to apply adult penalties after an arbritrary
decision to charge "as an adult". Do we have any similar concept?
It's one of the things that varies by state in the USA. Some states have a hard dividing line between the juvenile and adult court systems, others have a more flexible system where minors can be tried in an adult court if it seems more appropriate. I don't think there's anything particularly
religious about it, it's just one of the ways in which different countries
do things differently.
Oddly enough, the UK doesn't really have juvenile courts at all in the sense understood in the USA. If a child is prosecuted, it's heard in the same
court system as any other case. The murderers of Brianna Ghey were tried in Manchester Crown Court, just as any adult would be. And, having been convicted, they, too, will be subject to as mandatory life sentence. But procedural rules are more flexible when a child is the defendant, age is a mitigating factor when it comes to sentencing, and any custodial sentence imposed on a minor will be served in youth custody rather than an adult prison (at least, for as long as the offender remains a youth).
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:kv2a59F99dsU1@mid.individual.net...
Which brings us to the American concept of trying a child "as an adult"? Is >> this a religious thing, is there a concept of child hiding an adult demon or >> something? I can understand not using the informality of juvenile court where
the press and public demand something more formal, though I don't approve of >> it, but the Americans seem to apply adult penalties after an arbritrary
decision to charge "as an adult". Do we have any similar concept?
May one possible reason be the simple fact that children in the UK don't
have such ready access to guns ?
While knife crime is a tremendous problem in itself, once someone starts waving a gun around and actually shooting people they're more likely to
be seen as having definitely joined the grown-ups
bb
On 2023-12-27, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Dec 2023 20:14:38 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-12-26, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I think it's quite similar. They don't seem to have ridiculous "Stand
Your Ground" or "Castle Doctrine" laws like some states do.
Why are they "ridiculous" ?
Because they serve no good purpose and increase crime and death.
On Wed, 27 Dec 2023 17:07:42 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-12-27, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Dec 2023 20:14:38 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-12-26, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I think it's quite similar. They don't seem to have ridiculous "Stand
Your Ground" or "Castle Doctrine" laws like some states do.
Why are they "ridiculous" ?
Because they serve no good purpose and increase crime and death.
And ? Laws aren't there to serve a good purpose and decrease crime or
death.
Also, I'm not sure I like the idea that having entered your own home, the
law should expect *you* to vacate it under threat of violence or
prosecution.
On Wed, 27 Dec 2023 09:47:21 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 26 Dec 2023 at 21:58:18 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Dec 2023 20:14:38 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-12-26, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
Personally I have no idea at all what Illinois law on defending one's >>>>> home is, and I see no profit at all in applying English law.
I think it's quite similar. They don't seem to have ridiculous "Stand
Your Ground" or "Castle Doctrine" laws like some states do. So I think >>>> that if Kevin had been an adult then he would almost certainly be in
trouble, but due to him being a child I think the law would give him
quite a lot of leeway with regard to how much danger he thought
himself in and what counted as a proportionate response.
What's possibly relevent from a legal perspective is that Kevin didn't
"stand his ground". He wasn't taken by surprise by the intruders
attemptint to enter his home while he was in it. He overheard a
conversation between the burglars to the effect that his house was one
they intended to target over the holidays, and then, after initially
leaving the house, deliberately returned to it with the specific
intention of setting the booby traps. So there's no doubt that it was
premeditated. The question is whether it was reasonable, or, if not,
whether his age meant that he couldn't reasonable be held accountable
for his actions.
Mark
Which brings us to the American concept of trying a child "as an adult"?
Is this a religious thing, is there a concept of child hiding an adult
demon or something? I can understand not using the informality of
juvenile court where the press and public demand something more formal,
though I don't approve of it, but the Americans seem to apply adult
penalties after an arbritrary decision to charge "as an adult". Do we
have any similar concept?
Ask Venables and Thompson ?
On Wed, 27 Dec 2023 09:47:21 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
Which brings us to the American concept of trying a child "as an adult"?
Is this a religious thing, is there a concept of child hiding an adult
demon or something? I can understand not using the informality of
juvenile court where the press and public demand something more formal,
though I don't approve of it, but the Americans seem to apply adult
penalties after an arbritrary decision to charge "as an adult". Do we
have any similar concept?
Ask Venables and Thompson ?
In the UK you can only have man traps in a residence and possibly only
at night. The must be mechanical (so no live door mats etc.).
On 27 Dec 2023 at 10:25:05 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Ask Venables and Thompson ?
They're original sentences were not life sentences and considerably shorter >than an adult would have received. Though I agree the Old Bailey trial was a >travesty. And at least one of them has gone on to establish his adult criminal >career.
On 2023-12-27, notya...@gmail.com <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:
In the UK you can only have man traps in a residence and possibly only
at night. The must be mechanical (so no live door mats etc.).
You're talking abuot the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 s31, which
bans mantraps but has an exception for "from sunset to sunrise ... in a dwelling house".
But I would be quite surprised if there have not been developments since
then which make them illegal regardless.
I certainly don't recall ever having heard about any case in this
or the last century where a burglar or similar was killed or injured
by a mantrap and this was considered acceptable.
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnuopm4b.5oa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2023-12-27, notya...@gmail.com <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:
In the UK you can only have man traps in a residence and possibly only
at night. The must be mechanical (so no live door mats etc.).
You're talking abuot the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 s31, which
bans mantraps but has an exception for "from sunset to sunrise ... in a
dwelling house".
But I would be quite surprised if there have not been developments since
then which make them illegal regardless.
I certainly don't recall ever having heard about any case in this
or the last century where a burglar or similar was killed or injured
by a mantrap and this was considered acceptable.
Well, you wouldn't have would you ? *
In the first place, most designs appear to catch the person
half way up the shin; so that apart from chronic blood loss
over days, the prospect of death seems slight.
Nowadays all anyone catching a burglar in a mantrap need do
surely is fetch their lap top and show them a PDF of "Offences
Against the Person Act 1861 s31 ". Which should convince even
the most stupid burglar, otherwise bent upon incriminating
themselves by informing the police of the pointlessness of
so doing.
There would then of course be the problem of turning up at
A&E with possibly extensive leg injuries.
* Guess who ?
On 2023-12-28, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnuopm4b.5oa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2023-12-27, notya...@gmail.com <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:
In the UK you can only have man traps in a residence and possibly only >>>> at night. The must be mechanical (so no live door mats etc.).
You're talking abuot the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 s31, which >>> bans mantraps but has an exception for "from sunset to sunrise ... in a
dwelling house".
But I would be quite surprised if there have not been developments since >>> then which make them illegal regardless.
I certainly don't recall ever having heard about any case in this
or the last century where a burglar or similar was killed or injured
by a mantrap and this was considered acceptable.
Well, you wouldn't have would you ? *
Why not?
In the first place, most designs appear to catch the person
half way up the shin; so that apart from chronic blood loss
over days, the prospect of death seems slight.
Hence "or injured".
Nowadays all anyone catching a burglar in a mantrap need do
surely is fetch their lap top and show them a PDF of "Offences
Against the Person Act 1861 s31 ". Which should convince even
the most stupid burglar, otherwise bent upon incriminating
themselves by informing the police of the pointlessness of
so doing.
It would convince only the most stupid burglars of that, given
that a law or two has been passed since 1861, and even if the
mantrap were not a criminal offence in itself, the injury it
caused the burglar may well be a crime or a tort which they
could sue the householder for.
There would then of course be the problem of turning up at
A&E with possibly extensive leg injuries.
Why would that be a problem?
You seem to be assuming that the every burglar ever caught in a mantrap
has escaped
and then refused to make any claim against the householder
for the injury they received. This is a rather peculiar assumption.
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnuorijq.5oa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
It would convince only the most stupid burglars of that, given
that a law or two has been passed since 1861, and even if the
mantrap were not a criminal offence in itself, the injury it
caused the burglar may well be a crime or a tort which they
could sue the householder for.
(X) As stated above, the only way it could be brought to the
attention of the police, would be by the burglar incriminating
themselves.
You seem to be assuming that the every burglar ever caught in a mantrap
has escaped
They don't need to escape. They're released by the homeowner
on compassionate grounds; and possibly even driven to A&E on the understanding they won't return
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message >news:slrnuorijq.5oa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
It would convince only the most stupid burglars of that, given
that a law or two has been passed since 1861, and even if the
mantrap were not a criminal offence in itself, the injury it
caused the burglar may well be a crime or a tort which they
could sue the householder for.
(X) As stated above, the only way it could be brought to the
attention of the police, would be by the burglar incriminating
themselves.
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnuos257.5oa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2023-12-28, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnuorijq.5oa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
It would convince only the most stupid burglars of that, given
that a law or two has been passed since 1861, and even if the
mantrap were not a criminal offence in itself, the injury it
caused the burglar may well be a crime or a tort which they
could sue the householder for.
(X) As stated above, the only way it could be brought to the
attention of the police, would be by the burglar incriminating
themselves.
A bizarre and obviously false statement. The homeowner could report
the crime while the burglar is trapped,
But you previously suggested that the use of such traps, such as
to possibly cause excessive injury, might well lead to the
homeowner themselves being prosecuted.
So it's not in the homeowners interest to report the crime.
And in any case as the burglar has been caught, any proceeds
of this particulkar crime will be immediately recovered by
the homeowner. Should the burglar be carrying the proceeds
of a previous crime from that night, then the homeowner
could leave them somewhere and inform the police anonymously.
Further research suggests really serious injury is unlikely.
as supposedly "humane" man traps without any teeth were already
in use before the 1817 legislation
However talk of humane traps also brought to mind the far from humane
glue traps as are used against rodents. Thus were a convential pressure
plate alarm placed on the floor, with a human size glue trap fixed on
top, then based on the assumption that most burglars wear lace-up shoes - once the alarm sounded this would give the homeowner plenty of
time to arrive on the scene and apprehend the burglar in process of desparately trying to get their shoe off in an attempt to escape.
This is almost Dragons Den standard, this.
On 2023-12-28, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnuorijq.5oa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
It would convince only the most stupid burglars of that, given
that a law or two has been passed since 1861, and even if the
mantrap were not a criminal offence in itself, the injury it
caused the burglar may well be a crime or a tort which they
could sue the householder for.
(X) As stated above, the only way it could be brought to the
attention of the police, would be by the burglar incriminating
themselves.
A bizarre and obviously false statement. The homeowner could report
the crime while the burglar is trapped,
or the police could detect
the crime afterwards (pretty much by definition there's going to be
DNA left behind). And if the burglar is seriously injured then maybe
yes, they would quite like to see justice for that even if they end
up with some burglary charges to answer for.
You seem to be assuming that the every burglar ever caught in a mantrap
has escaped
They don't need to escape. They're released by the homeowner
on compassionate grounds; and possibly even driven to A&E on the
understanding they won't return
You seem to be assuming that the every burglar ever caught in a mantrap
has escaped or been released by the homeowner before the police arrived.
This is a rather peculiar assumption.
On 2023-12-29, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:(XXXX) >>>>> It would convince only the most stupid burglars of that, given >>>>> that a law or two has been passed since 1861, and even if the
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnuos257.5oa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2023-12-28, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnuorijq.5oa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
mantrap were not a criminal offence in itself, the injury it
caused the burglar may well be a crime or a tort which they
could sue the householder for.
(X) As stated above, the only way it could be brought to the
attention of the police, would be by the burglar incriminating
themselves.
A bizarre and obviously false statement. The homeowner could report
the crime while the burglar is trapped,
But you previously suggested that the use of such traps, such as
to possibly cause excessive injury, might well lead to the
homeowner themselves being prosecuted.
So it's not in the homeowners interest to report the crime.
You're making the assumption that everyone knows for sure what the law
is. This is a remarkable assumption given that the entire point of this thread is that neither you nor I nor anyone else currently here seem to
know what it is.
However talk of humane traps also brought to mind the far from humane
glue traps as are used against rodents. Thus were a convential pressure
plate alarm placed on the floor, with a human size glue trap fixed on
top, then based on the assumption that most burglars wear lace-up shoes -
once the alarm sounded this would give the homeowner plenty of
time to arrive on the scene and apprehend the burglar in process of
desparately trying to get their shoe off in an attempt to escape.
This is almost Dragons Den standard, this.
"Desperately trying to get their shoe off"? I don't know why you are
*also* now assuming that burglars carry out their occupation whilst
wearing some sort of bondage footwear.
On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 21:44:20 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message >>news:slrnuorijq.5oa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
It would convince only the most stupid burglars of that, given
that a law or two has been passed since 1861, and even if the
mantrap were not a criminal offence in itself, the injury it
caused the burglar may well be a crime or a tort which they
could sue the householder for.
(X) As stated above, the only way it could be brought to the
attention of the police, would be by the burglar incriminating
themselves.
And what would that cost the burglar? A fine?
Which would be considerably more than covered by the damages they
could sue the householder for.
On Thursday 28 December 2023 at 19:20:32 UTC, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-12-28, billy bookcase <bi...@anon.com> wrote:
Why not?
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+u...@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnuopm4b.5...@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2023-12-27, notya...@gmail.com <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:
In the UK you can only have man traps in a residence and possibly only >>>>> at night. The must be mechanical (so no live door mats etc.).
You're talking abuot the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 s31, which >>>> bans mantraps but has an exception for "from sunset to sunrise ... in a >>>> dwelling house".
But I would be quite surprised if there have not been developments since >>>> then which make them illegal regardless.
I certainly don't recall ever having heard about any case in this
or the last century where a burglar or similar was killed or injured
by a mantrap and this was considered acceptable.
Well, you wouldn't have would you ? *
In the first place, most designs appear to catch the personHence "or injured".
half way up the shin; so that apart from chronic blood loss
over days, the prospect of death seems slight.
Nowadays all anyone catching a burglar in a mantrap need doIt would convince only the most stupid burglars of that, given
surely is fetch their lap top and show them a PDF of "Offences
Against the Person Act 1861 s31 ". Which should convince even
the most stupid burglar, otherwise bent upon incriminating
themselves by informing the police of the pointlessness of
so doing.
that a law or two has been passed since 1861, and even if the
mantrap were not a criminal offence in itself, the injury it
caused the burglar may well be a crime or a tort which they
could sue the householder for.
And indeed before - Spring Guns Act 1827 banned them for catching poachers or livestock thieves.
There would then of course be the problem of turning up atWhy would that be a problem?
A&E with possibly extensive leg injuries.
You seem to be assuming that the every burglar ever caught in a mantrap
has escaped and then refused to make any claim against the householder
for the injury they received. This is a rather peculiar assumption.
Whilst the householder might not be criminally liable if their trap catches a burglar in their house [at night] this does not mean the burglar could not sue
in the civil courts.
On 1 Jan 2024 at 13:30:21 GMT, "notyalckram@gmail.com" <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:
Whilst the householder might not be criminally liable if their trap
catches a burglar in their house [at night] this does not mean the
burglar could not sue in the civil courts.
If the injury was not caused by a crime, as opposed to being an
assault the police did not bother to prosecute, what tort could the
burglar sue for?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 44:40:21 |
| Calls: | 6,710 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,354,111 |