Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by cphoover | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

cphoover

Nah... that's not the way the law works.

I would love to see a thief try and bring that case...

EDIT:

NAL but... It's my understanding that the likelihood such a case is brought is small

1. Because it pretty much guarantees the alleged perpetrator will have charges brought against them and

2. Contributory negligence would make that case very hard to win.

It is my understanding that yes there have been cases where such cases are brought before a court, but they are infrequent, and not easy to win.

View on HN

Burglar traps are definitely not legal. Where are you getting your information?

Home Alone

Oh, well, carry on then.

Can you cite a law that says they're not legal?

Certainly if you caused someone harm using one it would be illegal in the sense that causing someone harm is illegal anyway, but a harmless trap like this one doesn't seem to me that it would be illegal. I'm not a lawyer though, so I'd be interested to see if there is some law I'm not aware of.

I'm really disappointed in the quality of the replies to this. I would hope that HN would be just a little more fact based, instead of having people willing to argue over trivially falsifiable claims.

The fact is, booby traps which cause bodily injury (including paintball, very easily, without protective equipment) are definitively illegal in most jurisdictions. This is the truth whether you spend 5 seconds or 5 hours googling.

Do better, all of you.

Totally agree on all counts. No question that any kind of booby trap that is designed to cause injury (and probably even that isn't designed to do so but does anyway) would be illegal.

But the Geneva Convention? lol.

>Can you cite a law that says they're not legal?

The Geneva convention, for starters.

It's also a five second Google search: https://definitions.uslegal.com/b/booby-traps/

> The Geneva convention

Which Geneva Convention applies to non-state actors not acting in the context of international or internal war? Please quote specifically the relevant provisions making it applicable to that case.

> It's also a five second Google search

Well, yes, that that's all the effort you devoted does explain the rather giant hole in your argument.

>The Geneva convention, for starters.

Is the full statement. Individual state laws vary but it's important enough to be international law was the point.

From the article:

>If a person sets up such a trap to protect his/her property, he/she will be liable for any injury or death even to an unwanted intruder such as a burglar. It is illegal to set a booby trap on one's own property to prevent intruders.

> >The Geneva convention, for starters.

> Is the full statement.

And that statement is wrong, AFAICT; the Geneva Conventions do not address the conduct at issue here, whether “for starters” or otherwise.

They might prohibit somewhat analogous conduct in a very disanalogous context [0] but context and conduct are not orthogonal considerations in law.

[0] or, maybe not; the specific instrument you are probably thinking of is Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons; it does address booby-traps, but the device at issue here is not a booby-trap as defined in that protocol (not designed to kill or injure).

The Geneva Convention applies during wartime, does it not? AFAIK, we aren't in an actual war against theives...

The Geneva Convention??

Seriously?

That betrays a total lack of comprehension for this entire discussion and the law.

IANAL but my understanding is that it's generally illegal to have any kind of "booby trap". The concern (and also legal test) is whether or not it would be likely to spring on a first responder. If you have your house fill with knockout gas whenever someone enters and a fireman needs to kick in your front door, you're going to jail. Someone entering illegally such a burglar still can bring a suit around a booby trap (but could also still liable for prosecution for their illegal entry, etc).

Seems like a package trap that triggers on opening would pass that test. First responders aren't going to open a package. The only way they'd be likely to interact with it at all would be to kick it aside.

My brothers friend was sued for medical expenses by a perp who broke something falling over toys the kid hadn't packed away. More than a decade ago, but it does confirm your understanding of the situation.

That sounds like an urban legend.

It could well be.

I do not believe this. Or if your friend WAS sued, I wouldn't be surprised if the case was thrown out.

In America, burglars have been known to sue in such cases.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com