You're viewing a single thread.
Does a booby-trap that only responds to lethal force technically pass the Katko test?
On reflection, the real question is whether you're home at the time, since that makes it the castle doctrine instead of "defense of property." At which point you're free to go full Home Alone a la Last Crusade. The penitent doorkicker kneels! bzzZZZzzzt
Yesh. When do I get to shlap my shon for blashphemy? Sho exshited aboit my shcenes.
What'd the five fingers say to the face? SHLAP!
What'd Boris's face say to those five fingers? Achoo.
At which point you're free to go full Home Alone a la Last Crusade.
Stop stop I can only get so erect
What is the katko test.... I'm afraid to look it up? 14 watch lists is plenty
A famous legal case defining what is and isn't allowed for defense of property, specifically about lethal booby traps to stop trespassing. It basically says that you can't use lethal force to defend property using booby traps as they are indiscriminate and therefore cannot determine if certain criteria (i.e. reasonable fear for your life) are met.
... because Katko used a mousetrap and a shotgun shell to blow a dude's leg off. Over some antique jars.
It's one of those cases where the jury immediately knows a line has been crossed and just needs to hash out how far back.
Well, some folks are pretty passionate about collecting jars. Thanks for a credible reply.
He just got sick of those vase-slaying MCs
I mean, Link kinda had it coming at that point
Thanks for the context, I thought the "Katko test" might be a funni/memey reference. TIL! Happy Cake Day!
i think the technicality here is that it would be akin to negligent manslaughter at best. Since self defense wouldn't really apply.