|
|
|
|
|
|
by weberc2
2742 days ago
|
|
|
We're not talking about liability when a trap injures an innocent person; of course the innocent person would not be held liable. When a trap injures a thief, the thief should be liable. I agree that traps are a bad idea because I don't trust most people to devise traps that don't harm innocents; however, this is markedly different than the argument that "when a trap hurts a thief, the thief bears no responsibility". Also, the specific scenario we're discussing is a thief getting a bit of glitter in their eye. Anyway, I welcome any advancement that can help deter thieves (and/or make sure they're prosecuted) while protecting innocent bystanders. I'm not convinced pervasive facial recognition software is the key given the privacy concerns, but maybe it's inevitable. However, all of this is orthogonal to the question of who is culpable for injuries incurred by a thief during a theft. |
|
|
What happens if I setup a machine to fire baseballs at high speed when someone touches my fake parcel? Some teenager comes to steal my package, catches a baseball between the eyes and dies or ends up disabled for life. I'm in the clear because the kid was a thief? Now, I don't think a thief deserves a payday when they slip on ice running from my property, but I also don't believe people should be free to create harmful traps without consequence.
What about those people that run wires across trails on private property? They've killed and decapitated people trespassing on motorcycles or 4-wheelers. Once again, don't blame the property owner that installed the invisible wire? They're in the clear because the person decapitated shouldn't have been riding on that private trail?
How about we don't try to harm thieves. We document and report the case to the police to the best of our ability. Yes, the glitter bomb is extremely innocent, but it's easier to say no to all traps than it is to define what type of traps are acceptable.