Update to cabin break in case, thief caught in bear trap Options

[lofsfire]

dragon770 Good luck!

[yamahauler]

Hauler.....

What "Law" did he supposedly break??? Why wasnt it prosecuted???

A man has a right to protect himself, his property, his liberty, his life. He didnt entrap, he did everything he could, and progressivlely enhanced the deterrent.....NOPE! The evil empire would not halt it's assault.

Goofy liberal mindset has taken over day to day life and put us in a tailspin of ignorance. NOBODY wants bloodshed, but sometimes it comes to that before evil is stopped.

Where do we draw the line? The past trend has been reactionary vs pro active. Sorry, I am not going to stand there and let you draw a bead on me. It's advisable for your own good not to put me in a position I SUSPECT I may have to fear your actions, because I am not going to wait for you to initiate with the upper hand. It's called survival. If you think I am going to be bound by some assinine moral code YOU or anyone else implies that leaves me vulnerable you got another thing coming.

(not directed at you Hauler...just the you's and they's me' and us's for general reference)

Dont know the (if any) "law" per se, but more than criminally he will be held civilly. Think OJ... wasn't found guilty criminally, but they took ALL his money in civil court.

Unfortunately, we are not wholly a property protection nation. You cannot use deadly force, nor maim/injury for property alone.

Most everyone here is confusing property protection, and protection of life. Couldn't be a larger difference, legally.

You have every right to protect yourself, and I hope you do... just don't shoot the kid with the VCR in his hands.

[S.E.M.O.R.E.]

Dont know the (if any) "law" per se, but more than criminally he will be held civilly. Think OJ... wasn't found guilty criminally, but they took ALL his money in civil court.

Unfortunately, we are not wholly a property protection nation. You cannot use deadly force, nor maim/injury for property alone.

Most everyone here is confusing property protection, and protection of life. Couldn't be a larger difference, legally.

You have every right to protect yourself, and I hope you do... just don't shoot the kid with the VCR in his hands.

Ok, Criminally, in this situation, NO CASE. Civil Case: Would a person have a reasonable expectation of safety or non threatening environment?

Comparing O.J. not the best example. He was criminally charged, beat the rap on a technicality, and there was enough evidence to convict him civily in that case. Essentially, OJ was sued because he was a predatory spouse and killed his wife even though PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT could not be shown for a criminal conviction. It's the requirement that got him off. Civil conviction has lesser requirement.

IN the case of a felony, citizens have powers of arrest. The minimum amount of force necessary to effect that arrest is a police officers boundaries, whereas a citizen it's a test of reasonableness. Likely WHY there was NO criminal charges filed. He made a felony arrest after giving the opportunity to the criminal to abandon his course of action by placing progressive resistance in the criminal's path. Undaunted, the criminal continued with his felony act. A citizen may use deadly force to apprehend a felon. In this case deadly force was NOT used, and an arrest was made, considering the circumstances as presented, the minimum amount of force was utilized, after the maximum amount of deterrent was employed.

In the civil courts, sure they would take a dim view of deadly force for a VCR or a car. What if you grabbed the criminal he resisted and you pounded the snot out of him and he ended up with a dislocated shoulder? So what's the difference in the injury? Not much.

I see it as reasonable. If he had the beartrap behind the first door, or in the entry path of the door, or set a few throughout the property, it would be different. In this case, it was behind two LOCKED doors, designed to thwart intruders who insisted on gaining entry, whereas an otherwise innocent individual would not have access. Further, the trap grabbed a leg/foot, not a fatal or life threatening action. \\

The courts will probably rule the felon had no reasonable expectation of safety or the homeowner was not obligated to make the interior of his curtilage idiot proof. A mans home is his castle, and even Law Enforcement requires permission or a warrant signed by a judge. A lot of value is placed upon a mans right to be secure in his own home/dwelling/abode.

It will be interesting to see how this turns out. Based upon what has been presented here, I hope the prisoner loses, the defendant in this case counter sues for damages, and the prisoner walks with a limp the rest of his life and can predict every rainstorm a day in advance from the throbbing in his injury area.

[rsvectorfreak]

Hauler.....

What "Law" did he supposedly break??? Why wasnt it prosecuted???

A man has a right to protect himself, his property, his liberty, his life. He didnt entrap, he did everything he could, and progressivlely enhanced the deterrent.....NOPE! The evil empire would not halt it's assault.

Goofy liberal mindset has taken over day to day life and put us in a tailspin of ignorance. NOBODY wants bloodshed, but sometimes it comes to that before evil is stopped.

Where do we draw the line? The past trend has been reactionary vs pro active. Sorry, I am not going to stand there and let you draw a bead on me. It's advisable for your own good not to put me in a position I SUSPECT I may have to fear your actions, because I am not going to wait for you to initiate with the upper hand. It's called survival. If you think I am going to be bound by some assinine moral code YOU or anyone else implies that leaves me vulnerable you got another thing coming.

(not directed at you Hauler...just the you's and they's me' and us's for general reference)

Dude that's the funniest thing I have read in awhile!!!!!!! But True!! HAHAHA

[dooman]

Ok, Criminally, in this situation, NO CASE. Civil Case: Would a person have a reasonable expectation of safety or non threatening environment?

Comparing O.J. not the best example. He was criminally charged, beat the rap on a technicality, and there was enough evidence to convict him civily in that case. Essentially, OJ was sued because he was a predatory spouse and killed his wife even though PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT could not be shown for a criminal conviction. It's the requirement that got him off. Civil conviction has lesser requirement.

IN the case of a felony, citizens have powers of arrest. The minimum amount of force necessary to effect that arrest is a police officers boundaries, whereas a citizen it's a test of reasonableness. Likely WHY there was NO criminal charges filed. He made a felony arrest after giving the opportunity to the criminal to abandon his course of action by placing progressive resistance in the criminal's path. Undaunted, the criminal continued with his felony act. A citizen may use deadly force to apprehend a felon. In this case deadly force was NOT used, and an arrest was made, considering the circumstances as presented, the minimum amount of force was utilized, after the maximum amount of deterrent was employed.

In the civil courts, sure they would take a dim view of deadly force for a VCR or a car. What if you grabbed the criminal he resisted and you pounded the snot out of him and he ended up with a dislocated shoulder? So what's the difference in the injury? Not much.

I see it as reasonable. If he had the beartrap behind the first door, or in the entry path of the door, or set a few throughout the property, it would be different. In this case, it was behind two LOCKED doors, designed to thwart intruders who insisted on gaining entry, whereas an otherwise innocent individual would not have access. Further, the trap grabbed a leg/foot, not a fatal or life threatening action. \\

The courts will probably rule the felon had no reasonable expectation of safety or the homeowner was not obligated to make the interior of his curtilage idiot proof. A mans home is his castle, and even Law Enforcement requires permission or a warrant signed by a judge. A lot of value is placed upon a mans right to be secure in his own home/dwelling/abode.

It will be interesting to see how this turns out. Based upon what has been presented here, I hope the prisoner loses, the defendant in this case counter sues for damages, and the prisoner walks with a limp the rest of his life and can predict every rainstorm a day in advance from the throbbing in his injury area.

you are trying to say he is not negligent, debatable in court.

it is a felony to booby trap your home. why charges were not brought ,who knows? its not too late now

now what he is legally responsible for is criminal assault with a deadly weapon. became such when the perp set off the trap.

its not wether I agree or disagree , the law is cut and dry. many here bash the criminal, but you become a criminal when you set a trap with the intent of hurting a tresspasser. there was no other reason for the trap. like stated in my original post good luck in court.

as for the comment on the cases going the other way, links to the precedent please?

[S.E.M.O.R.E.]

you are trying to say he is not negligent, debatable in court.

yes, the court WILL decide.

it is a felony to booby trap your home. why charges were not brought ,who knows? its not too late now

Is it? suppose there could be some logistics entered to suggest a threshold as to when exercising your constitutional rights to protect yourself from the criminal element might be justified, that our statutes are a baseline open to interpretation by the triers of fact for specific application?

now what he is legally responsible for is criminal assault with a deadly weapon. became such when the perp set off the trap.

It's a bear trap....ambiguous as to your description as a deadly weapon.....so is a curling iron in the right circumstance

its not wether I agree or disagree , the law is cut and dry. many here bash the criminal, but you become a criminal when you set a trap with the intent of hurting a tresspasser. there was no other reason for the trap. like stated in my original post good luck in court.

I am sure that point will be argued extensively. Wonder what your position would be if a trained rottweiler was left in the room?

as for the comment on the cases going the other way, links to the precedent please?

Keep in mind it's a civil trial, not a criminal trial.

Hang in there Dragon.....good luck.

[BALLZOUT]

I would of done the same thing! To all you guys whining about what he did, wait till your shit gets broke into and you will have a whole different attitude about it. The rotten bastards that broke in my garage, broke into seven other garages/barns in a weeks time. Felony B&E only got them 30 days in Jail and three years to pay restitution! I would of rather caught them in the act and beat them half to death.

[Bushman]

I would of done the same thing! To all you guys whining about what he did, wait till your shit gets broke into and you will have a whole different attitude about it. The rotten bastards that broke in my garage, broke into seven other garages/barns in a weeks time. Felony B&E only got them 30 days in Jail and three years to pay restitution! I would of rather caught them in the act and beat them half to death.

Just remember the three S rule SHOOT SHOVEL & SHUTUP The wheels of justice are a JOKE thanks to all the liberals we have...... Could be a great time to thin the herd!

[dooman]

I would of done the same thing! To all you guys whining about what he did, wait till your shit gets broke into and you will have a whole different attitude about it. The rotten bastards that broke in my garage, broke into seven other garages/barns in a weeks time. Felony B&E only got them 30 days in Jail and three years to pay restitution! I would of rather caught them in the act and beat them half to death.

as for whining, not. the law is that ,wether we agree or not.

[BALLZOUT]

you are trying to say he is not negligent, debatable in court.

it is a felony to booby trap your home. why charges were not brought ,who knows? its not too late now

now what he is legally responsible for is criminal assault with a deadly weapon. became such when the perp set off the trap.

its not wether I agree or disagree , the law is cut and dry. many here bash the criminal, but you become a criminal when you set a trap with the intent of hurting a tresspasser. there was no other reason for the trap. like stated in my original post good luck in court.

as for the comment on the cases going the other way, links to the precedent please?

Isn't that a crock, the trespasser is already breaking the the law as soon as he sets foot in your cabin but you will be the one in trouble for protecting your property.

[yamahauler]

Isn't that a crock, the trespasser is already breaking the the law as soon as he sets foot in your cabin but you will be the one in trouble for protecting your property.

Kind of like someone cuts you off in traffic, and you go up to his car and punch him in the face... did he deserve it? Probably. Is it legal. Hell no. Basically he committed assault on the trespasser. We have laws against 'cruel and unusual punishment', like them or not.

Looks like the criminal lost, the owner had minimal costs, and the crook had/has alot of pain from the incident. I'd consider that a win.

[ZRT]

Best of luck of luck to ya Dragon. May you get a judge with some common sense that tells the thief he got what he deserved, and throws it out.

Edit: Just seen your other thread... Too bad you had to pay for an attorney, but way to go none the less!!!!