1.9M views · Nov 14, 2019 · 21:24 · 0 HN recommenders · 3 mentions · discussed 2021–2023
LegalEagle analyzes Katko v. Briney, the Iowa case about a homeowner whose shotgun booby trap injured a burglar, and the limits on deadly force in defending property.
Why Hacker News points people here: HN cites it as a source on the illegality of lethal booby traps, including in discussions of trapping hackers.
“Potentially lethal boobytraps left in derelict buildings are mostly illegal in the US[1]”HN comment, 2022
Legal case on a shotgun booby trap that injured a burglar.
It's also illegal to set a trap in your own home in the US as well, decided when a property owner, tired of people breaking into his property while he was away, set up a shotgun booby trap that injured a burglar. this video I wasn't sure if it is the same or similar principle in Russia or a different one that requires active care for a burglar. Unlabeled chemicals causing liability for a burglar seems extreme to me
“Potentially lethal boobytraps left in derelict buildings are mostly illegal in the US[1]”
Source on illegality of lethal booby traps in the US.
Depending on the jurisdiction you might end up paying quite a lot of money. Potentially lethal boobytraps left in derelict buildings are mostly illegal in the US[1] and in other western countries shooting a thief is generally illegal unless you can prove fear of bodily harm since you are escalating a situation from damage to property to damage to body. While the US is rife with stand your ground laws - most of the rest of the western world finds using potentially lethal force in response to property damage abhorrent. 1. this video
“it seems like it would be a similar case to the one of the shotgun booby trap.”
Legal case comparable to setting traps against hackers.
As for the USA, it seems like it would be a similar case to the one of the shotgun booby trap. [0] [0] this video
