The Glade 4.0

Katko v Briney.

Should a person be allowed to booby-trap their own property?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

No.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

I'm not sure and I am not at all familiar with the particulars of the case. I am a fan of castle doctrine or a similar statute where defense of the Home shifts burden of proof of otherwise wrongdoing to the prosecution instead of it being an affirmative defense of the accused.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

No, I agree with the holding of the case. I don't think deadly force should be permitted purely in the defense of property (i.e. no one's home, so no risk at all to personal safety). On top of that, there are issues like "attractive nuisance" (risk that kids are going to come check out "cool" things like a quarry or a boarded-up house), necessity defense to trespassing (person in imminent danger of death/injury can legally trespass), legal entry (cops, firemen, tax appraiser, etc.), and so on.

Really? "Attractive nuisance" is a valid argument for abridging property rights?

_________________

There's also no valid arguments for maintaining firm property rights. The concept of ownership isn't more fundamental than protecting children from harm.

Is the Wiki version a fair assessment?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katko_v._Briney

_________________
“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general”. - Mark Rippetoe

Protecting children from harm is rarely the province of law.

_________________

Yeah, I've never been a big fan of the attractive nuisance doctrine generally, but I do think it's reasonable to apply it to affirmatively created risks like booby traps. If you have a boarded-up house and some kid falls through the rotten floor while trespassing, that's one thing, but if the kid gets his head blown off because you rigged a shotgun to the door knob, that's another. I don't think property rights are absolute. If you want society to enforce your property rights, you have to accept the limitations that come with being part of that society.

Yeah, that's pretty much how I remember it from my Torts class. That quote, "the law has always placed a higher value upon human safety than upon mere rights in property," is the crux of it.

This is the key part.

NO right are absolute. None. And that is the part that libertarians don't agree with.

Ehh, not really. What the trespasser breaking the law or not? Because you know as well as I do that Katko v. Briney established one of the worst civil liabilities doctrines ... ever.What's the difference? Post-Katko you're still liable for injuries suffered in either case.I know you don't think property rights are absolute. That said, without property rights, what rights do we have?

_________________

Would you willingly die if the government decided your right to life was forfeit? Would you willingly serve as an indentured servant to the state?

_________________

Which is fine to believe, Aizle. But then what you are discussing aren't rights. You are discussing privileges.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

There's a lot of other examples...

Some states have passed laws that prohibit the sale of unsafe cribs and are based on mandatory industry safety standards set by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Some laws specifically require safety inspections for cribs sold, while other laws are more general and mandate that no unsafe children's products be sold, including cribs.

To protect children from accidents, at least 27 states have child firearm access protection and safe storage laws, according to the Legal Community Against Violence, a public interest law center dedicated to preventing gun violence.

The federal Poison Prevention and Packaging Act applies in all states. This law authorizes the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission to require the use of child-resistant packaging for toxic substances used in and around the home (such as aspirin, prescription drugs, and household chemical products like drain cleaners, automobile antifreeze and turpentine).

Federal law currently regulates toys that pose a choking hazard to small children through the Child Safety Protection Act. To protect children from toxic toy poisoning, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) was established in 2009 and created new federal regulations which placed stricter limits on the lead content in children’s products. This act did not place limits on other toxic chemical such as cadmium, bisphenol-A (BPA), or phthalates. At least 30 states have passed legislation to ban or limit other harmful toxins in children’s toys

The CPSC is authorized to oversee and regulate all traveling amusement park rides through a federal mandate. However, the regulation of fixed-site rides is left to each state. Currently at least 8 states have mandates about fixed-site amusement park rides pertaining to inspection, upkeep, rider respect, and/ or owner responsibility.

Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia have state-wide bicycle helmet laws. Fifteen additional states have local laws requiring helmet use.

There is a Federal Coast Guard Personal Floatation Device rule that requires all children twelve and under to wear personal flotation devices while aboard recreational vehicles.

According to the National Program for Playground Safety, an outdoor play and safety research organization, at least sixteen states have passed legislation regarding playground safety, developed from the CPSC standards for playground safety.

At least 12 states have laws related to swimming pool safety. All the laws vary in provisions and enforcement. However, each requires certain public or private pools to take one or more safety measures including certified lifeguards on duty, fences, alarms, safety covers, light fixture requirements, and safe spa and pool drain standards.

The warning labels address the drowning hazard these buckets pose to young children. As a result California, for example, has developed a law requiring these warning labels to be placed on all 4 to 6 gallon buckets sold in the state.

Forty-nine states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have safety belt laws. Thirty-one states have primary enforcement laws where an individual may be ticketed for not wearing a seat belt; nineteen states have secondary enforcement laws allowing seat belt citations if the individual is pulled over for another offense. These laws also vary by the age of passengers required to wear safety belts, specification of front or rear seats, and amount of citation fines.

At least four children are killed in a non-traffic automobile accident every week. To address this issue the Cameron Gulbransen Kids and Cars Safety Act of 2007 was established. This federal act requires power window safety, rearward visibility, prevention in vehicle rolling, and upkeep of a database recording non-crash, non-traffic events involving motor vehicles. According to Kids and Cars, at least fourteen states have established specific laws to address unattended children left in vehicles. Even in states without unattended children statutes, individuals may be prosecuted in all states for leaving young children unattended in vehicles through child endangerment laws.

From here: http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=14375

Lex Luthor:

I'm aware. That doesn't change the fact that those laws are neither necessary nor productive in most cases. Indeed, many of them resulted from one grieving mother's inability to accept the fact she **** up.

_________________

Probably not. Your point?

I think Khross has a good point... if you don't have a right to your property, why should you even have a right to your body? Where should the line be drawn? Isn't something you hold and own an extension of yourself? If you have a glove on your hand, should you have less rights to that than your hand?

Then you certainly believe some level of property is absolute. Self-ownership is a foundational tenet of Lockeian Liberalism (that which the U.S. is based upon).

_________________

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I don't think Aizle sees any level of property as absolute. He just agrees with modern American societal norms... the norm is to not surrender your body.

So I suspect we're getting hung up on "absolute".

I really don't believe in absolutes, most especially when dealing with humans and society.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes. *draws his lightsaber*

_________________

Is rape absolutely wrong? Or are there instances where rape is acceptable?

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Consent is often ambiguous.