• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is it fine to booby trap your property to keep people from stealing it?

Is it fine to booby trap your property to keep people from stealing it?


  • Total voters
    22


Is it fine to booby trap your property to keep people from stealing it?


Ahhhhahahahhahaha....that video is funny as hell.


Trouble is, suppose that guy had some kind of odd heart issue, and that kind of shock actually killed him.
Or some toddler wanders over and gets shocked and it kills the kid.

It'd be much more fun to pepper his ass with a paintball gun. That way he's marked, bruised, and the intended target, but not potentially dead.
 
I'm entirely in favor of it, so long as innocent people cannot be affected. In this case, the guy got what he deserved.
 
A friend of mine (about 15 years ago, in south Alabama) kept having to replace his mail box and mail box post because some nearby former 'neighbors' were destroying it.

The destruction was retaliation for having a back-road closed off and sealed to prevent non-residents from racing thru the neighborhood at high speed, and using the neighborhood as a short cut from one County road to another.

Long story short, my friend (a Vietnam Vet) rigged a false base to the latest 'new' mailbox post, and beneath the surface was wired a military-grade artillery simulator submerged in a new can of yellow latex paint.

Sure enough, one Saturday night around 1:00 a.m. he and his wife and neighbors were awakened by the sound of a huge thud of an explosion.
Out front of the yard, there was the fallen mail box post, with a massive yellow paint explosion pattern, and a clean outline of where legs had been standing, along with a clean outline of where the perp's automobile had been parked and idling. The offenders had hauled-asss home.

The cops came, a report was filed, and my buddy rode out to the back County road with the Sheriff's Deputy, and to a trailer where he knew the offenders lived.
There they were, covered in yellow paint, and trying to get the paint off of their Oldsmobile 442.

The perps were arrested, and my buddy was issued a citation for reckless endangerment of morons.
He had to pay a $50 fine, which he gladly did the very next day.

The mailbox destroyers gave up and stayed the hell away.
:)

An old friend of mine had a similar problem. His solution was to put his welding skills to work and made himself a mailbox out of 3/8" steel attached to a concrete-filled post (a bollard by any other name). The dumbasses did manage to scuff the paint on his mailbox, but that was all.
 


Is it fine to booby trap your property to keep people from stealing it?


It depends on how you booby trap your property. I recall the classic torts case from law school where the property-owner is prosecuted for leaving a trip-wired shotgun in an abandoned farm-house, causing the amputation of some poor twelve year olds leg. I think kind of behavior is insanely reckless and twisted. I believe in proportionate and responsible protection of property, it's a circumstance by circumstance analysis. Defending your home from an intruder? Do whatever you need to do. Defending a run-down piece of property out in the woods? No, you can't turn it into a death trap.
 
'Happy ending"??? He plastered an Olds 442 with yellow paint. That;'s a crime unto itself.... :mrgreen:

That depends on the year of the 442. If it was a 1975, maybe it was OK.
 


Is it fine to booby trap your property to keep people from stealing it?


It's "funny" until a small child wanders onto your property and touches something you arbitrarily decided to electrify.

I grew up near a farm and there were numerous electrified fences holding the dairy cows. Touching the fence hurt, of course, but the distinct difference is that after that first incident, much like a hot stove, you knew what an electrified fence looked like and you learned very quickly not to touch it again. Randomly booby-trapped objects doesn't fit that description and if you go down that route, expect the lawsuits to roll in.
 


Is it fine to booby trap your property to keep people from stealing it?


I'd have to say no, if the trap could actually seriously harm someone. But, if it just gave him a big ole jolt to tell him to grow up and stop doing bad things - then I'm going to have to go with HELL YES! :)
 
I remember about 6 years ago at my last home we talked a ton about this case where hoodlums successfully sued a railroad for big money when they got hurt as they were on railroad property clearly marked "no trespassing" and fenced, trying to harm it.

This country has gone nuts I tell ya....
Signs and/or fences don't necessarily protect you from liability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance_doctrine

The attractive nuisance doctrine applies to the law of torts, in the United States. It states that a landowner may be held liable for injuries to children trespassing on the land if the injury is caused by an object on the land that is likely to attract children.[1] The doctrine is designed to protect children who are unable to appreciate the risk posed by the object, by imposing a liability on the landowner.[1] The doctrine has been applied to hold landowners liable for injuries caused by abandoned cars, piles of lumber or sand, trampolines, and swimming pools. However, it can be applied to virtually anything on the property of the landowner.

There is no set cut off point that defines youth. The courts will evaluate each "child" on case by case basis to see if the "child" qualifies as a youth.

If it is determined that the child was able to understand and appreciate the hazard, the doctrine of attractive nuisance will not likely apply.[2]

Under the old common law, the plaintiff (either the child, or a parent suing on the child's behalf) had to show that it was the hazardous condition itself which lured the child onto the landowner's property. However, most jurisdictions have statutorily altered this condition, and now require only that the injury was foreseeable by the landowner.
 
A friend of mine (about 15 years ago, in south Alabama) kept having to replace his mail box and mail box post because some nearby former 'neighbors' were destroying it.

The destruction was retaliation for having a back-road closed off and sealed to prevent non-residents from racing thru the neighborhood at high speed, and using the neighborhood as a short cut from one County road to another.

Long story short, my friend (a Vietnam Vet) rigged a false base to the latest 'new' mailbox post, and beneath the surface was wired a military-grade artillery simulator submerged in a new can of yellow latex paint.

Sure enough, one Saturday night around 1:00 a.m. he and his wife and neighbors were awakened by the sound of a huge thud of an explosion.
Out front of the yard, there was the fallen mail box post, with a massive yellow paint explosion pattern, and a clean outline of where legs had been standing, along with a clean outline of where the perp's automobile had been parked and idling. The offenders had hauled-asss home.

The cops came, a report was filed, and my buddy rode out to the back County road with the Sheriff's Deputy, and to a trailer where he knew the offenders lived.
There they were, covered in yellow paint, and trying to get the paint off of their Oldsmobile 442.

The perps were arrested, and my buddy was issued a citation for reckless endangerment of morons.
He had to pay a $50 fine, which he gladly did the very next day.

The mailbox destroyers gave up and stayed the hell away.
:)
Morally, I fall in the "Grow the eff up and don't steal/destroy people's stuff or try to injure them!" camp, but... I will admit that your story here pleased me. :lol:
 
An old friend of mine had a similar problem. His solution was to put his welding skills to work and made himself a mailbox out of 3/8" steel attached to a concrete-filled post (a bollard by any other name). The dumbasses did manage to scuff the paint on his mailbox, but that was all.
Granted, it's a tv show, but an episode of CSI had a similar story. Guy kept having his mailbox destroyed, so he did something similar. Kid came along and hit it was a bat while hanging out of a car. Kid was killed. Mailbox guy was charged.
 
Granted, it's a tv show, but an episode of CSI had a similar story. Guy kept having his mailbox destroyed, so he did something similar. Kid came along and hit it was a bat while hanging out of a car. Kid was killed. Mailbox guy was charged.

I remember that show. In fact, I stopped by Ed's and told him about it. Ed's neighbor is in LE and he laughed at the idea of Ed getting charged if a kid got hurt trying to destroy the mailbox. There's no requirement on the homeowner to put up a mailbox that's destructible, just one that meets USPS standards. That episode of CSI had a mailbox that wasn't really a mailbox, it was a mailbox full of concrete (if I remember correctly), so it wouldn't have met USPS standards and according to Ed's neighbor still wouldn't have been justification for charging the homeowner (he had a pretty low opinion of crime dramas).
 
I remember that show. In fact, I stopped by Ed's and told him about it. Ed's neighbor is in LE and he laughed at the idea of Ed getting charged if a kid got hurt trying to destroy the mailbox. There's no requirement on the homeowner to put up a mailbox that's destructible, just one that meets USPS standards. That episode of CSI had a mailbox that wasn't really a mailbox, it was a mailbox full of concrete (if I remember correctly), so it wouldn't have met USPS standards and according to Ed's neighbor still wouldn't have been justification for charging the homeowner (he had a pretty low opinion of crime dramas).
I would think, though, that intent would have something to do with it. If it were real life. In the show's example, the guy had had his mailbox destroyed more than once, and he set out to booby-trap it on purpose. He didn't intend to kill the kid, but he had to have known that physical harm at least would have been done.

He did fill it with concrete, or something, yes.
 
I would think, though, that intent would have something to do with it. If it were real life. In the show's example, the guy had had his mailbox destroyed more than once, and he set out to booby-trap it on purpose. He didn't intend to kill the kid, but he had to have known that physical harm at least would have been done.

He did fill it with concrete, or something, yes.

Going back to the OP, I'd put it in the same category as putting up an electric fence around your property (which is legal with proper warnings and limited amps). You can protect your property, but you can't cause unavoidable harm to someone. Putting up an indestructible mailbox is simply protecting your property with a perfectly legal item, just as putting up an electric fence with warning signs is simply protecting your property.
 
Morally... thanks for the clarification question.

Morally? Yeah, I'd say so, within a reasonable limit of harm. Put yourself in someone else's circle, and you're taking a risk that they're cleverer than you...
 
Last edited:
Going back to the OP, I'd put it in the same category as putting up an electric fence around your property (which is legal with proper warnings and limited amps). You can protect your property, but you can't cause unavoidable harm to someone. Putting up an indestructible mailbox is simply protecting your property with a perfectly legal item, just as putting up an electric fence with warning signs is simply protecting your property.

Yeah... while this is funny I think that with warnings it would be fine. Just as yo ustate people already put up fences.
 
How about instead of allowing for booby trapping (someone is going to get seriously hurt at some point) people get charged federally for election tampering and go to prison for 10 years for stealing a campaign sign. The state could tack on trespassing charges, etc.

Because our prisons aren't crowded enough. ;)
 


Is it fine to booby trap your property to keep people from stealing it?


Do these booby traps distinguish between actual thieves and children/pets who happen to come into contract with the sign? This is begging for a lawsuit.
 
Do these booby traps distinguish between actual thieves and children/pets who happen to come into contract with the sign? This is begging for a lawsuit.

Do kids run up and steal signs? Like... little kids that we need to worry about?

I don't care about cats or dogs coming onto my property to take a crap.
 
Do kids run up and steal signs? Like... little kids that we need to worry about?

I didn't say steal, but yes, I'd imagine a lot of kids steal signs. It only takes one.

But they don't have to be stealing. Kids often end up in neighbors' yards while playing outside, so it is not outside the realm of possibility a kid could knock over a sign and get 'booby-trapped' while putting it back up.


I don't care about cats or dogs coming onto my property to take a crap.

It is not illegal for a dog to take a crap on your lawn (at least here in the US). It is illegal for the owner to not pick it up.
 
I didn't say steal, but yes, I'd imagine a lot of kids steal signs. It only takes one.

But they don't have to be stealing. Kids often end up in neighbors' yards while playing outside, so it is not outside the realm of possibility a kid could knock over a sign and get 'booby-trapped' while putting it back up.




It is not illegal for a dog to take a crap on your lawn (at least here in the US). It is illegal for the owner to not pick it up.

Again, warning signs would protect the home owner. I am not too worried about a kid getting a shock and I could care less about another persons pet on my property getting a shock.
 
Again, warning signs would protect the home owner. I am not too worried about a kid getting a shock and I could care less about another persons pet on my property getting a shock.

I think one would care after getting served.
 
Back
Top Bottom