Illinois man is convicted in booby-trap shotgun killing

[jrinne0430]

Never a good idea to “booby-trap” your home but on the surface, the victim did appear to be in the act of a crime.

Special Prosecutor Matt Goetten said it didn't matter why Wasmund set the gun to fire, only that he did so --

If the home owner shot the intruder instead of his trap, I wonder if the outcome would have been different.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/illinois-...ap-gun-killing

[NoSecondBest]

Judge, jury, and executioner? I hate thieves, but you don't kill someone for stealing items in a shed. Ever heard of hidden cameras? What if a kid had opened the door? Total lack of common sense. It's not like someone was breaking into his house.

[hdbiker]

A Canadian trapper had booby trapped his cabin before going out trapping. After loading his boat he went back to the cabin to get something he forgot and killed himself. I got this story from another Canadian who knew him. hdbiker

[natman]

It's illegal to set a booby trap of this kind, period, and for very good reason. It's just too dangerous. While it does appear that the victim was there to steal, it's a moot point as far as the murder verdict is concerned.

Set a booby trap, somebody dies, murder one conviction.

[cslinger]

So while I whole heartedly agree that booby traps should be illegal for a whole host of reasons, something else comes to mind.

Let’s say said person hooked up a few 5000 lumen strobe lights or sirens or something to that effect. These are not lethal or particularly dangerous in any way.

Said burglar trips strobe trap and then trips and falls on a pitch fork or has a seizure and swallows his tongue.....whatever. Would this constitute a TRUE booby trap? I mean there is no denying you want to kill or maim when you hook up a 12 gauge or playmore with claymore but the above could be meant as an alarm/scare tactic etc.

I am not advocating any of this it’s just a thought experiment.

[44 AMP]

could be meant as an alarm/scare tactic etc.

Boobytraps (aka "set guns") have been illegal for generations. The main reasons are, they are lethal force, not used by necessity, but by choice, and they are indiscriminate.

The situations where lethal force is justified for defense of PROPERTY are very narrowly defined, and always involve you being there and able to decide to shoot, or not shoot. A set gun doesn't do that, anyone or anything that trips the booby trap sets it off.

By setting one up, you have "decided" to use deadly force when NO reason or necessity to use deadly force exists at the time. This means if someone dies, it is legally premeditated murder.

Now, if you set up a non-lethal (under normal circumstances) alarm system using super bright lights, loud noises, etc., and someone dies, its not murder, but it IS manslaughter.

[cslinger]

Fair enough but would it still be manslaughter while if the person was committing a crime?

[DockRock]

He would have been prosecuted had he shot the chap himself. An outbuilding is not your home or, in English law, your castle, and therefore he would not have been justified in using deadly force.

[JohnKSa]

Where deadly force booby traps are illegal, there is no justification that can make their use legal.

It's a complete non sequitur to try to justify the use of an illegal booby trap by demonstrating that deadly force would have been justified in the situation because the deadly force justification can't make the booby trap or its use legal.

[redlevel42]

He would have been prosecuted had he shot the chap himself. An outbuilding is not your home or, in English law, your castle, and therefore he would not have been justified in using deadly force.

That depends a lot on the jurisdiction.

[DockRock]

We will have to disagree. There is no jurisdiction in the United States where deadly force is authorized against an intruder to an uninhabited outbuilding on one's property.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by DockRock

We will have to disagree. There is no jurisdiction in the United States where deadly force is authorized against an intruder to an uninhabited outbuilding on one's property.

Texas?

I believe some states recognize outbuildings as "curtilage."

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedict....com/curtilage

Originally Posted by Legal Dictionary

Curtilage

The area, usually enclosed, encompassing the grounds and buildings immediately surrounding a home that is used in the daily activities of domestic life.

A garage, barn, smokehouse, chicken house, and garden are curtilage if their locations are reasonably near to the home. The determination of what constitutes curtilage is important for purposes of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures of a person and of his or her home or property. Courts have construed the word home to include curtilage so that a person is protected against unlawful searches and seizures of his or her curtilage.

You wrote, in a previous post:

Originally Posted by DockRock

He would have been prosecuted had he shot the chap himself. An outbuilding is not your home or, in English law, your castle, and therefore he would not have been justified in using deadly force.

The term "home" usually includes the actual residential structure, along with the "curtilage." So then we get into nuances, such as whether or not the jurisdiction has a duty to retreat with the home, whether the right to use deadly force is limited to within the primary dwelling unit structure or if it extends to the curtilage, and such considerations.

[redlevel42]

DockRock
Member

Join Date: August 19, 2019
Posts: 30
We will have to disagree. There is no jurisdiction in the United States where deadly force is authorized against an intruder to an uninhabited outbuilding on one's property.
———————————

Oh yes there is.


2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 3 - DEFENSES TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS
ARTICLE 2 - JUSTIFICATION AND EXCUSE
§ 16-3-24 - Use of force in defense of property other than a habitation
O.C.G.A. 16-3-24 (2010)
16-3-24. Use of force in defense of property other than a habitation


(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with real property other than a habitation or personal property:

(1) Lawfully in his possession;

(2) Lawfully in the possession of a member of his immediate family; or

(3) Belonging to a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect.

(b) The use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to prevent trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with real property other than a habitation or personal property is not justified unless the person using such force reasonably believes that it is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

[Aguila Blanca]

And that's two.

This is why it's never wise to extrapolate from one's own home state laws and assume that the laws of the other 49 states plus the District of Columbia are the same.

[44 AMP]

And this is basically why a set gun /booby trap is not legal. You are not there when it goes off, so you are not able to reasonably determine if that level of force is needed /justified.

By setting up a gun as a booby trap, you are deciding in advance, without knowing the details of the situation, to use deadly force.

This makes it premeditated.