Near small-town Oskaloosa, Iowa, owners of an unused property created unmanned traps with shotguns to shoot any trespassers. The gun was aimed to injure the legs, but not kill. It was well known by neighbors, and also apparent on the property, that the property was unused.
A burglar who had previously broken into the house for antique jars came back to look for more antique jars. When the gun shot off part of his leg, he sued...and *won*. Apparently the right to life is more fundamental than the right to property; the court thought only defending the safety of an individual gave the right to risk another person's life.
I kid you not about the antique jars. Iowans are taught to use jars for everything, from jam to sinaasappelsap. Mmmmm, sinaasappelsap.
4 comments:
now, had the property owner had a sign that said "trespassers will be shot" how would they have ruled??
and it's not like the guy died! he's jut being punished for being an idiot jerk.
ok, you know where i stand on this...but i dont know where you stand on the issue...
I kind of like that ruling, it says something about priorities. Something that I like. On the other hand, if the guns couldn't *kill* the person... should have set them up with rock salt.
Actually, in looking that up really quickly,
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot33.htm. Ah, internet.
Wow. That website is kind of creepy. Interesting, but... creepy.
First, I'm pretty sure this isn't a national law. There are a few instances of Texans killing repomen attempting to take their trucks, one example is at:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9805E2D81F3AF93BA35750C0A962958260
I think the right to property is a complex idea, and I don't have a great argument for this ruling or against it. My gut reaction is that the property owners were, at the very least, negligent. There are many reasons someone might trespass onto to the property. A firefighter could be putting out a fire, or a policeman might need to examine the property.
As a society we didn't deem the right to property an inalienable right. I find the ruling consistent with our set of laws, though I am still unsure about whether property is a fundamental right and our laws are incorrect.
Post a Comment