add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
| |
We had a corridor like that here. Press to get in, card-swipe to get out. |
|
| |
Some people thought this was a good idea. |
|
| |
I would just leave the door open. |
|
| |
This is a great way to get yourself sued by your would-be
robber, not to mention charged with kidnapping, false
imprisonment, and (attempted) murder. |
|
| |
Put one of those signature pads inside the airlock. Go through the outer door, you've clearly registered your intent to go through the inner one... you get photographed, palm-printed, and you have to sign the pad - which is also signing your agreement to the warnings posted. As in, "WARNING: If you don't have the exit combination, you will not be able to leave the vault. Acknowledge by signing below". |
|
| |
Changing the combination while somebody's inside is described in "Pranks for Damn Fools." |
|
| |
//Ensure an air supply, a few bottles of water, and a
few cans of spaghettios with pull tab lids are
available, and the would-be thief wouldn't have a
leg to stand on in court.// |
|
| |
Any such safe would constitute a booby trap (or
more accurately, a
mantrap), which is highly illegal. Also, just because
someone
commits destruction of property, willful or
otherwise, doesn't
necessarily permit you to detain that person, and
certainly doesn't
permit you to detain a person for any longer than it
takes for the
authorities to arrive. You'd basically have to be right
there with
the guy, with the police literally on their way to
arrest him, in
order for it not to constitute false imprisonment,
and even then
you'd better be damn sure that he's deliberately
committed a
crime—the standards for “probable cause” are
exceptionally high
as they apply to your average citizen. Also, setting
up a trap to
justify the detention with “destruction of property”
wouldn't fly—
for it to be a crime, it has to be deliberate. |
|
| |
Attempted murder would apply even if you didn't
know the person
was there. If you set up an automatic trap designed
to imprison
somebody, the presumption is that you know it could
be fatal.
What if you fail to check the trap? What if the guy
has a heart
attack while he's waiting for you to notice he's
there? What if the
building is on fire? Anything could go wrong. Unlike
in a situation
such as a bank where security can trap robbers in
the vestibule as
they attempt to flee, this requires no active
involvement and thus
is extremely dangerous, even if you have some sort
of theoretical
safety measures in place (they could easily fail, after
all). It thus
constitutes lethal force, and is likely to end /you/ up
in prison
instead of the robber. The premeditated use of
lethal force when
it's not justified is called attempted first degree
murder. |
|
| |
The reason lethal force is justified when a victim is
present is
because life and safety are endangered. Common
law has long
held that life is valued over property every time, so
laying any sort
of potentially hazardous trap for someone who is just
committing
property theft with nobody around will earn you a
nice long trip to
the pokey. |
|
| |
I have seen the CCTV footage of a robber trying to escape from the bank by kicking the door down, but failing dismally. The door was not locked, but you have to pull the door to get out, so this has been done for the less attentive robber...I'll see if I can find the footage. |
|
| |
“I didn't see the sign.”
“I didn't read the sign.”
“I didn't understand what the sign meant.”
“No hablo inglés/ya ne govoryu po angliski/lo
medaber inglit.”
|
|
| |
You have no way of contradicting any of these
statements, so that pretty much means you're going
to be liable. As a general matter, the police and
prosecutors do NOT look kindly on citizens going
vigilante, so they're going to look for any way they
can find to make an example of you. The sign would
be more effective at protecting you from a bullet
than the wrath of the criminal justice system. |
|
| |
Isn't this one of the main plot-devices in nearly every horror or treasure-seeker movie ever written ? |
|
| |
"Sam and Jill heard a creaking sound, turning around just in time to see the front door slam solidly shut with a resounding crash. There was a faint but distinct "mwahahahahaha" in the air". |
|
| |
You can use that as your defense in court, [Two-One
Quebec]. |
|
| |
Fine, that means the law is wrong. In defence of myself, my family or my property, I should not be obligated in any way to be concerned for the safety of an aggressor, or at a minimum, that concern is very much secondary. I honestly cannot think of a rational reason why I shouldn't be able to boobytrap my house against burglary. Fine, if an innocent guest gets hurt, sue my arse off - but the burglar can drown as far as I care. |
|
| |
Stories of burglars suing homeowners because they hurt themselves mid-robbery are a great example of how screwed up our moral compass really is. |
|
| |
[Cg] because any emergency personnel called to your house probably won't appreciate the Claymore under the living-room rug ? |
|
| |
//Fine, that means the law is wrong.// |
|
| |
The guiding principle in the common law is that
human life is always more valuable than property. In defense of your life, or your family's life, you are
justified in killing. Never solely for protecting
property. |
|
| |
If you disagree with this notion, then tell me this:
What is the dollar amount you would be willing to
take a life over? |
|
| |
In some states you can chase after somebody who isn't even in your home, shoot them dead, call it self defense, and you won't even be charged with a crime until MSNBC craps the bed over it. So I have to think you could get away with a safe that traps someone until the police arrive. As long as they're black. |
|
| |
[ytk] how do you know what the intentions of the criminal are? What if they came to steal your property but would have killed you on sight? What if catching them means keeping them from killing someone in a burglary tomorrow? |
|
| |
You're all missing the point. If you or your family are in the
home, it can be assumed that a criminal has violent
intentions by the very nature of the fact that they are
there illegally. And since there are people present, life is
endangered and killing is justified. |
|
| |
When you set a trap and no victims are present, nobody is
in peril. In that situation, where /only/ property is at risk,
are you still prepared to take a life? |
|
| |