5 ms·
My guess is this falls under the same purview as booby-trapping your house: Yeah, they're committing a felony by breaking into your house, but you're not allowe
by wgerard 9y ago
My guess is this falls under the same purview as booby-trapping your house: Yeah, they're committing a felony by breaking into your house, but you're not allowed to setup a "Home Alone" defense system (if nothing else because first responders might need to get into your home).
It's dumb in this case because the "booby trap" likely isn't one at all, but at a very cursory glance I could buy that someone would make their lunch exceptionally spicy to thwart a would-be thief - in the same vein that people might suggest laxatives, etc.
Anyway, I'm surprised people don't just have locked lunchboxes or something like that.
- njharman 9y agoIs it illegal to booby trap your property?
- cortesoft 9y agoIt is very illegal. Like, violating the Geneva Conventions level illegal: https://definitions.uslegal.com/b/booby-traps/ https://definitions.uslegal.com/b/booby-traps/
- sa46 9y agoIt's true that booby traps are not allowed by the Geneva convention but that convention only applies to conduct in a war. I'm curious what law applies in the US.
- cortesoft 9y agoThe Geneva part was a bit of a joke. The laws vary by state, some allow you to use traps as long as they don't cause serious harm, while others don't let you use them at all. No state allows you to set a lethal booby trap. Here is the California law about them: https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2005/pen/12355.html https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2005/pen/12355.html
- testplzignore 9y agoI imagine the castle doctrine would apply. Kevin McCallister could have justifiably killed the burglars in Home Alone. It was actually rather nice of him to just use non-lethal booby traps.
- cheschire 9y agoA civilian booby trapping their lunch in a non-wartime setting is not a Geneva Conventions violation level of illegal.
- cortesoft 9y agoThe question was about booby traps on your property in general, not about food.
- idoh 9y agoYes. The basic idea is that you cannot do via a trap what you couldn't do in person, which I think is sensible. If you are not allowed to shoot someone who merely sets foot on your property, then you are also not allowed to rig a shotgun to a tripwire that does the same thing.
- sverige 9y agoThe relevant case is Katko v. Briney. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katko_v._Briney https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katko_v._Briney
- aqme28 9y agoExactly how I read it. Except it wasn't a booby trap. It's like a thief complaining because they crashed the car they stole from you.
- btrettel 9y agoGood example. Another more similar example is if the thief had a food allergy, say peanuts, and they stole a meal containing peanuts and got sick. I don't think most judges would argue that people need to ensure their meals can be eaten by anyone. Though some schools do ban all peanut products for lunch. I am not a lawyer, obviously.
- wgerard 9y ago> It's like a thief complaining because they crashed the car they stole from you. To take this further: It's a bit like they crashed the stolen car because you cut the brake lines in anticipation of someone stealing it (a bit extreme obviously, but just bear with me). Which is interesting: I actually wonder whether you would be found at least civilly liable in that instance.
- aqme28 8y agoNot really. Spiciness isn't at all at the same level as cut brake lines, and it wasn't done in anticipation of anything It's more like you have a manual transmission, and your thief crashed because they only know an automatic.
- rubinelli 9y agoIf you think you need a locked lunchbox, then what you really need is a job with better coworkers.
- wgerard 9y agoEh, there are plenty of excellent workplaces with just a few bad actors who do stuff like steal lunches. Changing your job in response to someone stealing your lunch seems a little extreme.