3 ms·

Could you elaborate a little? This is admittedly not what I intended this thread for, but you got me really curious. I am ok if you focus only on the federal as

Could you elaborate a little? This is admittedly not what I intended this thread for, but you got me really curious. I am ok if you focus only on the federal aspect, but I do live in Illinois if you want to try covering state portion.

EA-3167 2y ago
I think that's reasonable, plus it is a fun subject. For a totally accessible answer this article is hard to beat IMO: https://theprepared.com/blog/booby-trap-laws/ https://theprepared.com/blog/booby-trap-laws/ It gets to the core issue, which is that the laws as written are pretty vague, but the jurisprudence is overwhelmingly in favor of siding against booby traps. It's illegal at the federal level, and as far as I'm aware prohibited by all states as well, either explicitly or more usually through precedent in court. The reasoning of the courts seems to be more or less identical: it's a dangerous destructive device incapable of making the sort of prudent judgement required for a use of force. In short, it's an irresponsible and indiscriminate use of force. Now you asked about Illinois in particular, so here's the relevant statute there: https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072000050HArt%2E+19&ActID=1876&ChapterID=53&SeqStart=63000000&SeqEnd=63800000 https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=0720...
- A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
  Thank you. That was genuinely illuminating and what I love HN for.
  - fuzzfactor 2y ago
    If you had a remote door opener the Amazon driver could use after he got back outside the gate, he could release your dobermans and you would be OK. If you had a robot dog instead, not so much.
muzani 2y ago
It's banned under international law too, Protocol II. There's a few loopholes, but a good lawyer could probably get you tried for a war crime for putting a glitter bomb on a toaster.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
  That one is largely irrelevant in my view. International law these days ( or maybe always has been ) appears to be largely trying to channel Stalin's quip about Pope divisions.
  - EA-3167 2y ago
    I think the idea of international law is very appealing, but the reality, at least when we're talking about war crimes, seems to be that IHL is a way for the winners of a conflict to punish the losers. The political and military realities of trying to hold existing bodies accountable in international courts seems... difficult.
    - muzani 2y ago
      I assumed it's the opposite. The Allies got away with firebombing and nuking whatever they like. So they probably drew lines like, "Hey, you can't drop aid right next to the cluster bombs. Also when sieging a populace, they must be provided with food and given advance warning before bombardment."

EA-3167 2y ago

I think that's reasonable, plus it is a fun subject. For a totally accessible answer this article is hard to beat IMO: https://theprepared.com/blog/booby-trap-laws/ https://theprepared.com/blog/booby-trap-laws/ It gets to the core issue, which is that the laws as written are pretty vague, but the jurisprudence is overwhelmingly in favor of siding against booby traps. It's illegal at the federal level, and as far as I'm aware prohibited by all states as well, either explicitly or more usually through precedent in court. The reasoning of the courts seems to be more or less identical: it's a dangerous destructive device incapable of making the sort of prudent judgement required for a use of force. In short, it's an irresponsible and indiscriminate use of force. Now you asked about Illinois in particular, so here's the relevant statute there: https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072000050HArt%2E+19&ActID=1876&ChapterID=53&SeqStart=63000000&SeqEnd=63800000 https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=0720...

A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
Thank you. That was genuinely illuminating and what I love HN for.
- fuzzfactor 2y ago
  If you had a remote door opener the Amazon driver could use after he got back outside the gate, he could release your dobermans and you would be OK. If you had a robot dog instead, not so much.

muzani 2y ago

It's banned under international law too, Protocol II. There's a few loopholes, but a good lawyer could probably get you tried for a war crime for putting a glitter bomb on a toaster.

A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
That one is largely irrelevant in my view. International law these days ( or maybe always has been ) appears to be largely trying to channel Stalin's quip about Pope divisions.
- EA-3167 2y ago
  I think the idea of international law is very appealing, but the reality, at least when we're talking about war crimes, seems to be that IHL is a way for the winners of a conflict to punish the losers. The political and military realities of trying to hold existing bodies accountable in international courts seems... difficult.
  - muzani 2y ago
    I assumed it's the opposite. The Allies got away with firebombing and nuking whatever they like. So they probably drew lines like, "Hey, you can't drop aid right next to the cluster bombs. Also when sieging a populace, they must be provided with food and given advance warning before bombardment."