👮♂️What case should I do next? 🚀Get the CuriosityStream/Nebula bundle to watch thousands of documentaries: curiositystream.com/legaleagle It’s the only way to get the EXTENDED VERSION of this video!
I know it's British, but you might be interested in the Tony Martin case. He was an old man who shot a burglar dead in 1999 and the case has been quite controversial in the UK since it happened.
"Four years after the case was decided, Edward Briney was asked if he would change anything about the situation. Briney replied, "There's one thing I'd do different, though: I'd have aimed that gun a few feet higher."" -Wikipedia Damn
Except Kevin was present in the house at the time, Harry & Marv knew this, they brought deadly weapons (crowbars), and they repeatedly pronounced “We’re gonna get ya!”
@@supaleetkillah -- An outrageous sum considering this criminal caused his own injuries by entering a premises he had no right to be in with the specific intent to commit crimes. The law doesn't allow him to write a book and profit from his criminal actions, but for some crazy reason it allows him to profit massively from the victims of his criminal actions.
And in the glorious world that is today's healthcare system, the hospital stay would have cost between $60,000 and $80,000, plus at least $35,000 for leg surgery (this is an estimate for a broken leg), plus $3,500 for an MRI (at least one), plus $3,000 for an ER visit, plus $10,000 to set, x-ray, and cast the leg. So, around $130,000. Assuming only one surgery without any complications, not counting physical therapy.
There was a rumor in my highschool regarding one of our teachers. That his deceased wife, who died by suicide, had set up a spring gun before ending her life, intended on killing her husband (our teacher). This was "evidenced" by his extreme fear of ANYONE but himself opening his classroom door, and him opening it very carefully and cautiously each time. We never knew if the rumor was true. More than likely, he suffered from a compulsive disorder or was a victim of PTSD for military combat service. It was a cruel rumor. We all spread it and giggled. I am ashamed now, as an adult.
If we, as adults, aren't ashamed of some of the stuff we did when growing up, then we have led a very boring life. I cringe every time I think of something I did years ago. Sometimes I make weird noises and my wife asks what's wrong. I just say "Nothing," and change the subject. We can't change the past, but, apparently, we can cringe about it.
@@sergeantpeppers8858 Reminds me of the time I went to a club with shades, skinny jeans, and a leather biker jacket, thinking I was the coolest dude there. The pictures I have of that night serve to remind that there is such a thing as trying too hard to look cool
This animation is GOLD it’s so cute. I can only imagine the effort that went into this and it absolutely paid off in my mind. I’ll be here for all the future Real True Crimes
I agree. This episode is probably my favorite of all the LegalEagle episodes, and I recognize the hard work that went into it. As it was playing, I thought, "Well, if Devin ever gets tired of lawyering, he could narrate videos and probably read audiobooks." The animation style, soundtrack, and format are engaging, entertaining, and informative, clearly laying out the necessary information without sounding like a dry case study. I'll be back for more, Mr. Stone, and you may have just convinced me to sign up for CuriosityStream and Nebula. While I don't agree with the court's decision in this case (see my objection below), I absolutely love the way in which this case was presented. My objection to the outcome of this case is that the appellee was aware of the inherent danger in his criminal activity. He proceeded through the home quietly and cautiously, aware his actions could lead to confrontation with a homeowner. It is well known homeowners have a right to defend property and life with force that may lead to injury or death. Consequently, Mr. Katko's injuries were no more grievous--and were in fact likely less grievous--than a direct confrontation with the homeowner.
A business owner here in Colorado set up a shotgun booby trap after being repeatedly burglarized. His trap worked it killed one of the 3 teenaged burglars. He ended up paying a $2,500 fine and $7,000 in restitution to the teens family. He was placed on probation for 6 years. The state wasn’t so concerned about the criminals. It was concerned what if a fireman or policeman opened the door in an emergency.
There is also the case where a man put his house full of gun traps. But he perished before none was found Later new people moved in the house and found a map of all six armed guns hidden Except the map also talked about 7th gun that was never found. So one day we might read from news how it went off after all these years. This is one reason why gun traps and traps in general are not ok. The new people legally got the house when the old man died.
That last part is where the biggest problem with traps lies: they cannot distinguish what (if any) level of force is justified in a given situation. A trap will respond the same way even if the person entering is a police officer executing a search warrant or a paramedic responding to a medical emergency. In a situation where there is no justification for ANY use of force (much less deadly force), a deadly trap will still respond with deadly force.
The problem with an actual lethal booby trap is that It lacks the judgment of a real person with a shotgun. It doesn't know the difference between a burglar, a teen hooligan, or a firefighter.
So how often do these traps actually hit firefighters? It seems obvious to me that for someone to get to the point of making a trap like this, they have to be repeatedly and frequently burglarized, to the point that setting up a trap is virtually guaranteed to hit a burglar.
The virtue of the shotgun boobytrap is that it worked: it shot a burglar. The Petitioner had to posit an alternate reality where someone innocent was harmed instead to win the case against the Defendants. It just isn't a very good argument.
@fabiovarra3698 Whether or not that is the case, the argument "what if it had been Hansel and Gretel instead of that burglar" is a bad argument, because it disregards the facts of the case for pointless speculation. The "but for" should not reside in the existence of the trap itself but in the intentions and actions of the trespasser.
@@jordil6152 I don't think it's true, because is an argument that show how if put a trap and leave home you have no way to know who against it springs off. You can use deadly force only if you know your life or someone else life is in danger.
A big media business with hundreds thousands of daily viewers and large amounts of funds had the money to hire an animator? That’s about average on TH-cam these days.
True. Why insist on keeping valuables in a home that's remote, easily broken into, unsupervised and protected by a couple of signs? And then to go: "Hey, everybody has ransacked this place over the last ten years, let's install an aligator mote, a rolling boulder and explosive ordinances to 'deter' burglars. Ridiculous
Good chance he wanted to get away with blowing someone's legs off. Probably became a case of deliberate entrapment after a while. Sure at first he put it up out of self-defense essentially, but then he started to fantasize and eventually started putting more rare stuff in the barn and then talking about it while faux-drunk down at the local dive bar. Then when some dumb bastard falls for it, he gets a nice little giggle out of what he thinks is legal torture.
@@AllfatherBlack I know, right? The most fascinating thing is him expecting to get away with crippling a guy to save some earrings, dafuq? It sounds like the aftermath of a SAW movie
Correct and it's not illegal, even if they said so. They also found it legal to illegally imprison American citizens that happen to be Japanese during WW2. This is another instance where the law/system is wrong.
@Casa Del Amo Yeah, with just a little more effort you can rig up that shotgun to kill not only the intruder but also his entire family. But now you've killed innocent people, no way you're getting away with that, so let's just tweak it a bit and take out all of humanity. No one to catch you in the act now!
This reminds me of my extremely short lived legal career. In 8th grade, we did a mock trial. I was the defence attorney, and my client was a (old west era) store owner. He was sick of the wagon drivers who would bring liquor to his store skimming some off the top as extra payment and, knowing that his normal driver was illiterate, he pulled in a barrel of rubbing alcohol with the rest of it. The driver drank some out of all the barrels and died of alcohol poisoning. It was our statement that the guy was told that he needed to not drink anything, and that since he willingly broke the contract and drank something that killed him, it wasn't my client's fault. The jury found that my client should have known the guy would drink it anyway, known that since he couldn't read he was being put into a fatal trap, and found him guilty of first degree murder. His punishment was that couldn't use the computer in the classroom for the rest of the week.
@@BrainletReviews I have no proof, but the two didn't get along all that well. I adored the teacher, but I was a huge teacher's pet at the time (no kind voices except the ones paid tobe XD) unless the teacher scared me.
@@this_is_patrick Until now i was protecting mine with a sweet trip wire connected to a decommissioned 105mm howitzer. This video has made me rethink that tho.
Time for our Final Grade Pros: Well Crafted arguments No Bailiff tackling Cons: They skip the discovery process for the sake of an expedited narrative. For this episode of Real True Crime, I give it a B.
Honestly I feel like “No Bailiff tackling” should be in con section. Always love a good Bailiff tackle, no matter the opponent it’s always Super Effective.
You should do "legal AITA." I just came across an AITA about not paying the neighbour's cat's vet bills when the cat trespassed and was attacked by a dog. Another AITA question had to do with selling off a family heirloom engagement ring after he cheated on her. It would be awesome to hear your take on some of these AITA questions.
@@minutemadejuiceboxes9991 Then again, maybe what was stolen is what he stole the first time? Or, maybe what he stole from the Briney's should have covered his shotgun injuries. :)
Fun fact: the husband who set the trap was asked several years later if hed do anything different in regards to this case His response was "Id aim the gun a few inches higher"
In which case he was a twit; because then he'd have to jail for manslaughter and still might get sued (by say an accomplice or acquaintance of the thief)
@@SUpersaiyajinjerkbag Except there was no legal precedent until he got sued by a thief who decided to use his bad decisions to steal from him through the legal system. And other cases have not resulted in prison sentences.
Folks, if you ever want to setup something like this, just add a sign that says "This house has booby traps with guns, by trespassing you voluntarily desist from any further claim."
might not work if not truly ridiculously highly visible at middle of the night, cause the trespasser will argue the sign was concealed and thus irrelevant.
@@BeetleBuns this was just this case, the judge decides exactly what law applies to the current situation, if there was a sign there it would have been obvious that it's 100% his fault
@@sniffersmc2827 the Supreme Court has ruled booby traps illegal, so signs won't protect you. That's like a child mol€ster wearing a sign that says "I am a child mol€ster" and arguing that the child was forwarned. You can't just rely on disclaimers and warning signs, you still need to follow the law. www.lawyerlinda.com/booby-traps/
I already knew how this would turn out - one my professors had this decision as part of an assignment. It's been several years, but this case is certainly pretty memorable.
Ive spent a lot of time in Custody court the last few years and have watched a lot of legal videos (including yours) and you know what I have learned, the word 'reasonable' has absolutely no static definition.
all laws are subjective to the judge and jury that enforce them. That is why our criminal justice system is so inconsistent and even sometimes cruel to innocent people.
@@thedwarfgimli5323 no shit. its a human made system with human components. there will never be a "good" justice system. whats worse is people are made to believe they are allowed to protect themselves. at leasta its not EU or aus. you are not even allowed to bunch a intruder even if you and your family is in the house you are expected to run and hide.
@@thedwarfgimli5323 All that matters are the values of the judge/jury at the time of the court, and the quality of the lawyer representing you. It is very unfortunate, but in my opinion, there is no perfect system.
Big, big fan of this format - particularly enjoyed the "courtroom scene" as it clearly lays out the arguments (fortunately in a very abridged style, but still). I hope this does well!!
There was a death involving a firefighter who responded to a fire at a gas station whereas the owner had repeated breaki-ins previously. I'm not sure if he was sued by the firefighters family but he did spend a significant amount of time in prison. This is the reason these laws exist.
@@AlejandroGonzalez-ej4lp People pass out from smoke inhalation and often die from it. Waiting for permission to enter could be the death of someone inside.
Depending on the state if the uninvited intruder leaves alive it is illegal to have shot him/her in self defense and/or in defense of property. Now if they do not leave alive and are shot while on your property in the front of their body not the back then in all states you will get off without being charged for anything. Now IF you shot him/her in the back then it might put your in jail even if they are dead. IF you do it when not on your property but close to it it will still put you in jail not them. IF you only harm them but not kill them then they might have a case that you were not effective in defending your own home and family thus putting you in jail.
@@yumri4 amusingly enough it depends on state's statue of defense. most places in the south theres stand your ground law where someone breaks in uninvited(as long as the owner is inside) you could in theory pink mist them. Where in contrast many northern states state a castle law where you have no escape, intruder intends harm and help is to far out to intervene could you yeet them (police response varies from 3-15 mins). As for boobytraps....its a no no
Not at all. Had the family been present the verdict would have gone the other way. You can't just leave a lethal weapon in a epmty house. Its a disregard for himan life. There is a reasonable expection that something will go horribly wrong. Like the lady said. What if it had been some kids? Or in a modern setting, a youtuber? And since was when do we cut off the limbs of theives?
also, money talks, if you're Elon Musk or Tim Apple or a billionaire and some low life thug breaks in and they shot him to death, guess who wins the lawsuit?
Generally speaking, I don't think signs actually do much from a legal perspective. They do provide a little extra protection in grey areas, but if something is illegal it is usually illegal with or without signs.
I sort of like the idea though. That the homeowners are punished for defending their own property doesn't sit right with me, but at the same time the counterpoint that someone with less heinous intentions could be severely injured or worse is something I can agree with. Making clear that trespassers will be met with deadly force sort of feels like you're accepting the risks entering may face. Not sure if it'd work as a legal concept since I'm no lawyer though.
@@Kaozorier You still had to break into the house either way in order to get shot. As a best case scenario against the trap, be it a child or inspector, if a child is shot then they've still committed a crime regardless of whether they're responsible or not. The inspector's job is to ensure the property is safe. Accounting for abnormal safety violations like a shotgun trap would fall into the job's responsibilities.
@@jamesmccomb9525 But should breaking and entering into an unoccupied property be punished with maiming and potential death? Not every punishment is just because it happens to someone committing a criminal act. Punishments should be proportional to the crime.
Idk how I feel about it, but the fact that they tried for a decade to come up with a different solution, even asking the authorities and no one was willing to help got ignored is pretty sad. People get frustrated, although I also think it was pretty dumb of them to store the important stuff in an abandoned house even after it got robbed several times.
@@majuuorthrus3340 or just loading a blank shell, or even a live shell just pointed at a metal plate or similar to absorb the shot. Or some other method intended to scare but not injure.
@@the_undead that’s the real answer here. I’m not morally opposed to shooting intruders but leaving a trap that kills people ain’t right. Blanks would scare anyone off.
@@obeseperson if the intruder is unarmed and you shoot them if they then die then I think you should honestly be charged with murder but if they are armed that flips this whole equation on its head
Criminals: *WELL* *_YOU_* *JUST ACTIVATED* *_MY/OUR_* *TRAP CARD TOO! I CAN SUE YOU!* House: *WELL* *_YOU_* *JUST ACTIVATED* *_MY/OUR_* *TRAP CARD TREE! WE KNOW WHO YOU ARE NOW SO WE CAN SUE YOU FOR TRESPASSING AND ROBBERY!* Criminals: *HA HA HA, THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS! YOU CAN'T SUE US/ME FOR THAT BECAUSE I/WE SAID SO!*
@@dabirdie1797 - incorrect. Momofuku Ando invented instant noodles in 1958, but his company, Nissin, created the brand Top Ramen to market to the rest of the world in 1970. Because the US did not have typical ramen-sized bowls, testing proved it to be a hard sell, so they further developed that into Nissin Cup Noodle released in 1972, with its own disposable cup, and wide releasing Top Ramen much later.
In my country there was a case when homeowner kept some chemicals in a vodka bottle. Burglar decided to drink it and died. Homeowner got sentenced with a manslaughter. Seems completely unfair. There wasn't even attempt to do any harm and burglar had been struck with his own stupidity.
tbf it depends on the laws in your country in regards of storing of dangerous chemicals(which, yes there are laws about that) whatever they have to be clearly marked as such etc
@@themug406 and i consider storing dangerous chemicals in unmarked containers to be something that should(and in some places is) be illegal. Similiar scenario to the boobytrap just without the intent of Hurting anyone behind it(which is why it probably was manslaugher and not murder) depending on what chemical it is it may be important for example fire fighters to quickly identify what chemical where stored in a house, which you cant if they are unmarked etc.
@@themug406 imagine that you have multiple mislabeled sketchy chemicals in improper packages. What is the chance you will mix them up at some point, which will cause you to improperly handle or combine them, which may threaten both you and the people around you?
@@JamesBen937 except it did have a warning: the chair jammed against the door, which everyone has neglected and caused the innocent party to be punished.
Just recently heard a story about a guy who’s winter vacation cabin was robbed, so when he left he set bear traps at the windows. When the cabin was robbed again, it was believed that the bugler dove into the window, landing head-first into a trap, killing him. Their corpse just left lying there until the homeowner went back that winter.
You notice they closed the door after it was armed. My guess is they hooked the wire/string to the door knob while the door was slightly open. If the door is totally opened it triggers the trap, but slightly open doesn't trigger it.
Just came here to say, I watched this video for fun when it came out four years ago when I had just gone back to college. Tonight I’m rewatching to prep for Torts in law school on Monday. When I saw this heading in my casebook, I couldn’t help smile to myself. (This brief is way better than Quimbee’s FTR)
Remind me of a true story I heard years ago when a company hired thugs to beat down workers on a strike. The thugs chased the workers into a village and some folks got beaten up by mistake. The whole village brought out pitchforks and torches and drove the thugs to the roof of the factory where they got on their knees and begged for mercy. Only then the police came to rescue the thugs. The company then sued the villagers for trespassing and the court ruled in favor of the company. Later I heard they beat up the police who came to enforce the court's ruling, and then they stormed the court, causing the judge to suddenly have a change of mind. The moral lesson here is, maybe the judge's house should be burgled more often.
@@SimonBuchanNz It is likely extremely exaggerated and I don't believe it ended that peacefully either (imo, it wouldn't just stop there, these villagers would go and burn down the whole company for what it is worth and they would get away with it). As for where this "lawlessness" could still exist, the context is rural Vietnam where the people do crazy stuff like this to criminals sometimes so there might be a grain of truth to it. Back around 2013, there was a case in Binh Duong province involving a kindergarten teacher using an illegal sedative to put kids to sleep and punishing kids by literally waterboarding them in the then infamous "blue water barrel". As no kid was ultimately killed or maimed, the court gave the teacher a wrist slap but the people disagreed. They stormed the court and demanded the teacher lynched. The police had to use a decoy to ensure the teacher reaches prison safely and the townfolks smashed that decoy van good. In a different case, we had villagers practically beat a dog theft to death and when the police came to arrest the killers, the whole village stood in their way. I believe this other case ended with the prosecutors placing a small fine on everyone in the village; a token amount to make peace with the people and let the 21st-century lynch slide. Media coverage of such a breakdown of the judicial system is rather lackluster due to the communist party's control of the media so I have no clue what the repercussion for the people in this second case was but the storming part should be legit.
@V Hobbes I'm unable to find the source for the first one off the top of my head and it seems all the keywords I can think of for this case are being drowned out by some recent and unrelated cases involving a gang boss purged by a rival gang (last week), a company hiring thugs to threaten the police (last June). But, I did find the second case with the kindergarten teacher. It apparently ended with a public trial attended by thousands of angry people and the court ruled the harshest sentence possible in the book to please the public. I clearly recall there was a wrist-slap trial before this one but it was not mentioned in the article or the related links. Also, the journalism here is complete garbo, my eyes bled trying to make sense of the timeline. thanhnien.vn/doi-song/hang-ngan-nguoi-vay-hai-bao-mau-sau-phien-toa-396595.html For the third case...eh...that happens all the time, so much so that there's one right last month here: www.msn.com/vi-vn/news/other/d%C3%A2n-l%C3%A0ng-b%E1%BA%AFt-giam-k%E1%BA%BB-tr%E1%BB%99m-ch%C3%B3-r%E1%BB%93i-%C4%91%C3%A1nh-t%E1%BB%9Bi-ch%E1%BA%BFt-%E1%BB%9F-gia-lai/ar-AAJyJpd I'm afraid, most of the coverage on such minor cases will end at "the police is investigating..." or "the criminals are being trialed..." and no follow-up whatsoever. Also, sorry about the language, maybe google translate can help you out...
Please look into your own state laws as the limit to what force you can use varies and is interpreted differently in different states. If you are in a state and unaware of the law it is best to just rely on the basic self defense using 'reasonable force' aka equal or slightly greater force than the threat you are dealing with(guy tries to rob you with knife, gun is okay. guy tries to rob you like a chad unarmed and you shot him, he might get a valid case in certain states).
I am super late to this party but I really like how you presented this. I legitimately saw both sides of the argument and, by the end, was hard pressed to pass a verdict. Thank you so much for the in-depth, non-bias video!
Biochemical and cluster weapons and a shotgun booby trap have one thing in common: they are not selective, that's why first two are frowned upon by mostly everyone. And when militaries lay mines, they should mark minefields, so that, although not selective by themselves, mines still don't pose a threat to those who are not willing to step on them.
What if there had been plenty of warnings and signs posted that said "warning, this property is defended with guns, trespassers enter at their own risk of injury"?
No change, I assume if they had the same jury. The jury was either hardcore anti-gun or complete morons swayed by emotional argument though those two things are pretty similar.
The main iusse is the gun could harm anyone including police and firefighters who have legal reasons to be there. So if you're going to shoot someone you have to do it with your own 2 hands and aim to kill.
As a first responder, booby trapped houses would be an absolute nightmare and could get good people killed. Imagine there is a burglary in progress at this residence, the burglar did not set off any traps and the cops have to enter into the house to clear it and get their heads blown off. Or there is a fire in the house and a fire fighter enters the house and gets his head blown off.
@@dirtyharry5320 Because they want an excuse to break into homes for "public safety reasons" just like how they charge grandma's 12k dollars to breath within 400 feet of an ambulance
That would have just made criminals savvy to it. Same reason you dont put a huge sign on top of a land mine announcing it. Once you know it's there, you can plan to defeat it.
I think there should be a sign warning of deadly force against trespassers. Only to protect children or drunkards that might break in for fun. I feel he forfeited any right to safety when breaking in with the intent to steal, bypassing signs and a boarded window.
@@triste4-21 Harder to plan for if you place the sign at the fence gate and it simply says "Landmines present beyond this point." Same if your warning sign of "Shotgun trap inside" is on the house's exterior, the shotgun could be anywhere in the house, and doesn't necessarily have to wired to a door.
@@triste4-21 I'm asking for the legal ramifications. Not the practical implications. Especially bcos if I'm remembering correctly, you legally in some places or scenarios have to have a "beware of dog" sign.
The thing that annoys me about this is that they had gone through every option at their disposal and they always got burglarized so what action could they have taken
"Every option." My first thought during the video was "Why aren't they renting the place out?" They left it abandoned for years. Didn't even conduct proper maintenance and upkeep. Don't get me wrong, I feel bad for them and I don't feel bad for the criminal, but they had other options. Moving their stuff to the basement or attic and renting the place would have been much safer.
Yeah but also some signs put up warning about lethal traps would have probably deterred most if not all people. It wouldn't say what kind or where as so the trap could work if the signs didn't.
But why aim the weapon to cause harm? Why not set it up to scare trespassers? Or perhaps find save storage for the valuables and this remove the reason it's always invaded. There's so many options rather than a inhumane approach of a shotgun aimed low. This pretty well falls under cruel and unusual punishment.
@@taylorwalker2814 that is a dangerously fine line, especially when you dont know the height of the person that will trigger the trap. if you get someone who is a little shorter than the target you expect, that goes from taking out their testicles to a mortal wound that is probably not going to be treatable, even if the ambulance was already rolling. statistically, roughly 1/3 of gunshot wounds are fatal. i believe shotgun wounds are worse than most other firearms, by reason of the pellets cause more tissue damage than an individual shot, which would lead to increased bleeding and chances of taking out a vital organ. even if you survive a blast to the abdomen, which would already be lucky, especially considering they were likely not near a hospital, blood poisoning (Sepsis) is almost certainly going to occur, as a result of punctured intestines. and your odds of surviving sepsis in the abdomen is less than 1/3 (i did research on this previously when a relative was in the hospital for punctured intestines, they didn't get sepsis and are still around. it also wasn't a weapon or attack).
Yes, I have heard that in a courtroom there are apparently obvious or stupid declarations or questions but is because they dont wanna let thinks unclear or ambiguos everything can be against you so you better not jump to conclusions.
I bet he cursed his wife later for making him change the aim The thief only decided to sue after he served his time, before that everyone had no problem with what the homeowner did
If the guy died from the shot gun wounds the wife of the deceased could of still sued the Brineys. Also the Brineys could of than faced possible murder charges as well.
@@galexeqe that's cause in the moment, he hadn't payd the price of being inhabilitated for one year. And the video portrays that the robber knew he was wrong in the noment, however over time his punishment was unnecessary
A question: if any one of the signs inside or outside of the property said „trespassers will be shot“, would this have changed the outcome, even if it was with a spring loaded gun?
That opens up the question of a self-firing contraption would be seen the same way as a person with a gun. A person who can be argued with and who could deliberately own the gun not at the person while shooting. A human can judge the situation and would be able to adjust the use of force to be appropriate to the situation. Would be able to distinguish between a burglar and a neighbor asking if they can borrow the shovel or kids exploring the spooky ruin.
I think they would have gotten reduced punishment but probably still would have been punished. Also no I don't think that would make it the same as a human with a gun because like the other person said a human with a gun would be able to tell the difference between some 17 year olds who were looking at this spooky ruin and like what's in there as compared to some people who are actually trying to find some money or things they could sell for money because sometimes capitalism is cruel
It probably would've been better but I am not a lawyer. However the biggest flaw in their argument the whole time was calling the gun a deterrent. It can't be a deterrent if you make it so nobody can see it to be deterred from opening the door. It's just a sneak attack. Not even arguing on the morality or ethics of it, it's just not a claim they can make
@@Didi-wq8hw it's not about knowing the laws it's about simple logic, if the stuff in that house is getting stolen then maybe move it out of the house. I've seen people in this comment thread arguing that they should be able to keep stuff there because it's their house and technically they're correct but the easiest way to solve a problem is identify what it is instead of ignore the fact that it's a problem
BUT now imagine that stuff in your home where you actually live keeps getting stolen... what are you supposed to move out of there then? It shouldnt matter if its a primary residence property.. they couldve been living there and went for a 1 day trip, so in that scenario they would have to take all their stuff with them each time? or even when they go to work each day so the house is empty for multiple hours each day... what are they supposed to do then when despite all measures, people still come to steal their stuff while they are at work?.. i see a home as an untouchable castle, so when you place a warning signs for firefighters warning them to not go inside that its mined, you should be able to turn your home into a fckin minefield with 50 booby traps... If you warn firefighters to never go inside, then you should be free to do whatever, if some criminal ignores these warnings and still decides to invade your house then you should be free to do whatever to them without any consequences. they invaded your one safe space you have so you should be allowed to shoot them or explode them into a pile of human goop, and its ONLY their fault. you didnt make them invade your home, so no matter how you kill them, you shouldnt be blamed for any of it. If they just stayed outside of your home, they would be completely safe. they willingly decided to roll the dice with possible outcomes of stealing someones stuff and losing their life. they decided to gamble their life away, you didnt make them do that... @@the_undead
Face of Sarcasm But Kevin was home and in fear of his life. He’d been threatened verbally: “We know that you’re in there, and that you’re all alone”. He used reasonable force (pellet gun and hot doorknob) to attempt to deter them then escalated once they were in the house (paint cans and Joe Pesci’s hair on fire come to mind).
Even if he wasn't home I don't think it would be as reasonable to assume that any of the traps he put in place would be sufficient to cause the death of an intruder. All of that seems a little closer to the example of what if he had cut himself breaking a window. A shotgun however does pretty much one thing...
A few of the traps seem dangerous enough to warrant concern if Kevin wasn't present. Dropping an iron onto someone's head from two stories up could fracture their skull if not outright kill them. The flamethrower aimed at face level (it's coincidence that the person who happened to open the door was so short) can CERTAINLY cause massive bodily harm. The paint cans DID cause bodily harm (knocked out a tooth).
That appears to be the case. You're allowed to use lethal force if you fear for your life or health, which would require you to actually be home while the traps are set. This argument would be stronger if you lived in an area with non-human predators (such as bears).
Think of it like this, if someone is breaking in your house when your home you can shoot them if you fear for your life. They weren't home so they had no reason to fear for their life & therefore no reason to shoot him.
man should've put a sign that said "treaspasers might get shot", therefore making it the criminal's responsibility as they wouldve had previous warning, or you know, actually be detourred from entering in the first place.
Those signs don't change the law. Like all those signs on dump trucks says they aren't liable for damage from rocks coming out of the back of them, it's just something they say to keep you from filing in the first place, it's not true. If a rock comes out of the back of a dump truck, it means they failed to secure their load properly and are 100% liable.
@Lenny69 シ then that's the state's failure to guarantee the safety of their citizens. As citizens that voted for your own leaders, you can demand for more commitment in that area of the law.
@@scottlemiere2024 I say if the government have traps on their bases then i can to, when the collapse happens ( not if but when because like any other empire or government in the past they will fall nothing last forever . the golden age has a dark age, they either fall by a outside source or within or the economy being bad which is happening with the world rn , even more in the US because the fed is injecting billions of dollars in the repo market) the people who are being fake and "civil" will show their real colors and the law would not help because it will be chaos...
Having been the victim of a break in myself, would there be any grounds for the Briney's to go after Katco for emotional distress in a counter suit? The feeling of helplessness and vulnerability can really take a toll on you.
Surely they couldn't level it all against one man, though? The looting of their (usually unattended, it sounds like) house was a gradual process that took place over many years and with many different perpetrators, so I don't see how they could sue Katco specifically, especially since he has already been punished under the law. EDIT: I would also be interested in whether this counter suit would be possible :p
@@marcuslit4576 I don't think they would have to be able to prove they did it everytime. Just that the system of events have left them traumatized. They don't know how to protect themselves anymore.
I guess this is why my dad always told me, "if you are going to shoot someone then shoot to kill. We can afford a grave, you don't want to pay their hospital bills for the rest of your life."
That may actually be more relevant that you'd think. Snopes still has it listed as unproven, but if your outlook on humanity is dark enough, it's easy to believe. www.snopes.com/fact-check/chinese-drivers-kill-pedestrians/
My grandfather would tell the women who took piano lessons from my grandmother (mostly "over the hill") that if they shoot an intruder, shoot to kill. Eliminate the threat immediately. As our neighborhood got worse, everyone just moved away, since all the criminals were walking around with guns too.
This is brilliant. I throughly enjoyed this video. I remember researching and creating a memo for this case in my Paralegal education. I wish I could have watched this video back then to better understand this case!
Pearson James Manslaughter happens if you we’re breaking a law. For example: if you’re driving through a school zone and speeding and texting and driving, and a child runs out in front of you and you hit them, it’s manslaughter. That’s because you we’re driving recklessly and breaking laws. But, if you we’re going at or below the speed limit, not texting, and following all the rules of the road and a child runs out in front of you and you hit them it’s an accident and you likely won’t get convicted of a crime because it was simply an accident.
This! Wife: Doooo something! My stuff! Husband: After 10 years? Just get your stuff out! Wife: Nooooo, I caaaan't because reasons! Husband: Okay, I'll make a trap to kill anyone after the rest of your things. Wife: Nooooo, that's mean! Husband: So spare a stranger's life and just get your stuff out! Wife: Nooooo, I'll just put a chair by the door. Clearly, the wife is to blame for all of this.
Their side of the story is fishy as hell. 10 years of looting and STILL there are valuables inside? Sounds like an angry old man just wanting bloodlust.
@@aoikemono6414 hard to say the guy is seeking bloodlust when it took him 10 years to get the that point, dont you think? Yes I agree they should have moved their shit but that also wouldnt have stopped people from breaking windows/locks to go in and search, which is still money the owners would have to pay to fix.
There was an incident in Miami in the 80's where a business owner got tired of burglars crawling through the A/C ducts to steal items from his place. He wired the duct to give a shock. A bad guy crawled in, got shocked, and died in the duct. The businessman was tried for negligent homicide.
@@TheTubeLovers Except it's not. If that was allowed then if someone else did it and it killed the A/C repair guy then the business owner couldn't be prosecuted which would be the real BS.
@@JamesKlemm87 well the bad guy shouldn't have been their. They went in with intent to do something. What happens to them is completely on them. You come trying to break in or cause harm to my place, you get to meet God how I see fit. Whether its a bullet, or a blade. Play stupid games you will win stupid prizes. Including ur life.
11:29 "Imagine if he seriously cut himself while breaking the window, nobody would argue it's the homeowners' fault" Haha, it sure would be absurd... *cries in french*
@@dreffon9213 Oh ta gueule. Un boucher en isère, un bar tabac (qui a fermé depuis la condamnation), tous deux jugés en assises parce que le voleur a été blessé. Une plainte contre un chirurgien dentiste pour avoir partagé une vidéo de sécurité sur laquelle figure la voleuse. Plainte pour vol de papiers parce que le cambrioleur a oublié sa carte d'identité chez sa victime. À Montpellier, un ancien militaire écope d'un an de prison avec 6 mois de sursis pour s'être battu avec un cambrioleur chez lui. Ça va ou j'ai besoin d'autres exemples ? C'est quelque chose qui est déjà arrivé et qui arrive toujours.
@@givrally Je trouve pas tes sources pour les 2 premiers. Si ils leur ont tiré dessus c'est normal qu'ils soient condamnés. Dans tous les cas on est loin du propriétaire condamné parce que le cambrioleur s'est coupé...
@@dreffon9213 C'est normal, c'est assez difficile de mettre des liens dans un commentaire TH-cam. Le premier a un article d'actu.fr, et le deuxième a un article du Parisien. On est peut-être pas au point du cambrioleur qui se blesse sur une fenêtre, mais on en est quand même très proche.
@@theMightyWhytey Also when self defense doesn't apply like in cases like these you might just straight up be looking at murder or manslaughter charges.
@@daniwolfplayz3599 Even just the sign would probably be illegal. The problem is there are people who legally have the right to access property in certain circumstances. For example, emergency services (like say a fire on the property broke out); or if the property genuinely was abandoned at some point, like the couple died; inspectors, family, etc. need to be able to safely access it. A sign that says "landmines" is a threat of bodily harm regardless of the legality of access. Even something like "beware of dog" is more circumstantial, because a person can assess whether a dog is actually there, if they are a threat; and proper authorities may have ways of dealing with the animal safely, such as tranquilizing it. I don't know the prevailing law, but I strongly suspect even an empty threat of "landmines" on your property would get you in deep trouble. Though as a tongue-in-cheek solution, it's a great one :D
I should have the right and freedom to set a Mini Nuke booby trap, just to make sure that I don't get hit by a raider gang. What is this? communist China?
I feel like the crux of this argument is not whether the burglars deserve compensation for their injury, but rather the fact that the homeowner left a loaded, unattended firearm rigged to shoot *anyone* that triggers it. Not to mention that this was set up in a mostly abandoned property that is unoccupied at most times of the year. It’s just extreme negligence on the part of the firearm owner. What if someone had broken in through the window or the trap failed to trigger? Now that burglar has stolen your firearm and when would you even know that it was stolen given the property is not attended to often? It’s just extremely irresponsible to do something like this, and you’d have to be extremely shortsighted to think it is a good idea.
I paused it: I think that Katko's attorney is likely more correct. No one was home. Not like the lady was there and shot the intruders. No signs warning that trespassers will be shot or anything like that, either. It's hard to be a deterrent when something is a hidden surprise. The deterrent effect only occurs after the fact, in this case. That kinda defeats the purpose.
Note : a blank-loaded booby-trap, or multiple of them for the matter, would probably have been just as effective as a deterrent. Especially if the homeowners had planted a "trepassers will be shot" sign. I mean... psychological warfare you see ? Who's going to be bold enough to check either if : -The shot come from an actual human or a booby-trap, knowing he's himself unharmed ? -The booby-trap happened to have been luckily wrongfully (or rightfully, question of POV) aimed ? And I would argue that if you already put a blank at the entrance + a "trepassers will be shot" sign and then the trepasser proceed to actually persever upon trepassing and finally got shot by an actual live booby-trap... well it would still be wrong, and most probably illegal too, but also kinda deserved.
@@Etrius_Fysik based on the depth of thought provided in your reply, hopefully you are not a judge in our legal system and throw away any summons for jury duty that you receive.
You may live in a society, but I'm a freeman of the land. I traveled here in my land boat many hours ago and will return to the territory of my forefathers in hours soon.
@@kalinsapotato A tactical one at that! And it's big, or an ocean, depending on how serious you are about translating "dalai". By Shor's bones! A tactical ocean llama! The most fiendishly fiend of fiendish fiendishness!
They could be acused of manslaughter. A guy electrified a fence,put a safety fence in front. Put a warning sign on it. A kid climbed the first fence, then the second one, and died. The owner was convicted of unintentional manslaughter
@@Kannot2023 isnt that just careless parenting? that seems like the parent's responsibility to care for their child rather than the land owner to inspect every inch of their land for someone to kill themselves on their land in any capacity they can find
👮♂️What case should I do next?
🚀Get the CuriosityStream/Nebula bundle to watch thousands of documentaries: curiositystream.com/legaleagle It’s the only way to get the EXTENDED VERSION of this video!
Objection: Please review movie Fracture, it is the best legal movie ever made, and very clever use of Double Jeopardy.
Can you do a video of big companies like dc & marvel stealing fan art.
Ok I signed up, do they not have apps for mobile devices?
I know it's British, but you might be interested in the Tony Martin case.
He was an old man who shot a burglar dead in 1999 and the case has been quite controversial in the UK since it happened.
Do a video on creators who talk really slow and adds internal monologues of characters that they just assume.
"Four years after the case was decided, Edward Briney was asked if he would change anything about the situation. Briney replied, "There's one thing I'd do different, though: I'd have aimed that gun a few feet higher.""
-Wikipedia
Damn
He wouldn't have been out $30k and the house would probably never get robbed again.
Sounds like a guy who wants to end up in jail for life.
Makes sense. Wouldn't have been sued.
Would be in jail, but. I think the average person will take a bit of jail with pride over a long ass lawsuit.
@@zarahandrahilde9554 Until they find out what a hell isolation is. Few things are as degrading as that.
@@spencegame Yeah he'd probably be in jail instead...
"When is lethal force justified? This is the case of the shotgun booby-trap. The trial of 8-year-old Kevin McCallister"
Your mama
IT'S COMING
@@LegalEagle winter? A Christmas Legal Eagle episode? Both?
Except Kevin was present in the house at the time, Harry & Marv knew this, they brought deadly weapons (crowbars), and they repeatedly pronounced “We’re gonna get ya!”
@@LegalEagle Christmas episode?
Also - just so everyone can put this into to relevant terms - $30,000 in 1971 is equivalent to about $186,000 in 2018
Yikes
And in 2019 it would be $190,626.67.
@@supaleetkillah -- An outrageous sum considering this criminal caused his own injuries by entering a premises he had no right to be in with the specific intent to commit crimes. The law doesn't allow him to write a book and profit from his criminal actions, but for some crazy reason it allows him to profit massively from the victims of his criminal actions.
And in the glorious world that is today's healthcare system, the hospital stay would have cost between $60,000 and $80,000, plus at least $35,000 for leg surgery (this is an estimate for a broken leg), plus $3,500 for an MRI (at least one), plus $3,000 for an ER visit, plus $10,000 to set, x-ray, and cast the leg. So, around $130,000. Assuming only one surgery without any complications, not counting physical therapy.
@@supaleetkillah I'm going to leave this here: th-cam.com/video/KNWh6Kw3ejQ/w-d-xo.html
There was a rumor in my highschool regarding one of our teachers. That his deceased wife, who died by suicide, had set up a spring gun before ending her life, intended on killing her husband (our teacher). This was "evidenced" by his extreme fear of ANYONE but himself opening his classroom door, and him opening it very carefully and cautiously each time. We never knew if the rumor was true. More than likely, he suffered from a compulsive disorder or was a victim of PTSD for military combat service. It was a cruel rumor. We all spread it and giggled. I am ashamed now, as an adult.
Damn, that's brutal
If we, as adults, aren't ashamed of some of the stuff we did when growing up, then we have led a very boring life. I cringe every time I think of something I did years ago. Sometimes I make weird noises and my wife asks what's wrong. I just say "Nothing," and change the subject. We can't change the past, but, apparently, we can cringe about it.
Omg this is a mind F!
@@sergeantpeppers8858 that's such a strong mood, but I gotta agree. It's really one of the only ways to tell whether or not you've grown and changed.
@@sergeantpeppers8858 Reminds me of the time I went to a club with shades, skinny jeans, and a leather biker jacket, thinking I was the coolest dude there. The pictures I have of that night serve to remind that there is such a thing as trying too hard to look cool
“Your honor, I did not kill him. He merely failed his dexterity saving throw.”
He missed the QTE
Shotgun rolled higher initiative, it made sense
*mumbles* "just wish he failed his con save aswell"
Severely underrated comment
Lmao god I want to play dnd again. My friends never come over anymore..
If he ever got tired of being a lawyer he would make a excellent audiobook narrator.
He should do it part time 😊
He should narrate his own audio book if he ever published a book of his own
Yeah, way more money to be had in that cottage industry.
@@hoagielamp6543 When a big firm lawyer with a side hustle retired he has enough money, trust me.
Yes
This animation is GOLD it’s so cute. I can only imagine the effort that went into this and it absolutely paid off in my mind. I’ll be here for all the future Real True Crimes
Says illustrations are done by Alex Duran, I searched the name to find more work but came up empty 😭😭😭
I agree. This episode is probably my favorite of all the LegalEagle episodes, and I recognize the hard work that went into it. As it was playing, I thought, "Well, if Devin ever gets tired of lawyering, he could narrate videos and probably read audiobooks." The animation style, soundtrack, and format are engaging, entertaining, and informative, clearly laying out the necessary information without sounding like a dry case study.
I'll be back for more, Mr. Stone, and you may have just convinced me to sign up for CuriosityStream and Nebula. While I don't agree with the court's decision in this case (see my objection below), I absolutely love the way in which this case was presented.
My objection to the outcome of this case is that the appellee was aware of the inherent danger in his criminal activity. He proceeded through the home quietly and cautiously, aware his actions could lead to confrontation with a homeowner. It is well known homeowners have a right to defend property and life with force that may lead to injury or death. Consequently, Mr. Katko's injuries were no more grievous--and were in fact likely less grievous--than a direct confrontation with the homeowner.
A business owner here in Colorado set up a shotgun booby trap after being repeatedly burglarized. His trap worked it killed one of the 3 teenaged burglars. He ended up paying a $2,500 fine and $7,000 in restitution to the teens family. He was placed on probation for 6 years. The state wasn’t so concerned about the criminals. It was concerned what if a fireman or policeman opened the door in an emergency.
There is also the case where a man put his house full of gun traps. But he perished before none was found
Later new people moved in the house and found a map of all six armed guns hidden
Except the map also talked about 7th gun that was never found. So one day we might read from news how it went off after all these years.
This is one reason why gun traps and traps in general are not ok. The new people legally got the house when the old man died.
That's bs, he should've received a reward
That last part is where the biggest problem with traps lies: they cannot distinguish what (if any) level of force is justified in a given situation. A trap will respond the same way even if the person entering is a police officer executing a search warrant or a paramedic responding to a medical emergency. In a situation where there is no justification for ANY use of force (much less deadly force), a deadly trap will still respond with deadly force.
seam if he just had note saying booby trapped door dont open he probley got off free lol
@@redneckshaman3099 random, leftist trigger comment, i love it!!!
"So like a true american, Katko filed suit." That is such a lawyer smile on that sentence.
Kinglink Reviews doesn’t matter who does what, lawyers still get paid over such matters lol
It does matter if they take a frivolous suit they can be sanctioned or disbarred he actually talks about it a lot on this channel
But Americans aren't significantly more litigious than other advanced nations, and he should know that. It's a myth.
He knows that he mentioned it in many other videos he's making a joke
Having a sign that says "Trespassers will be shot" fixes that, I have one that says that and also says "Survivors will be shot again"
It was demonetized for the word booby, ironically
Yay for modern day TH-cam! More restrictive than ever before
Nope. Not ironic.
Ugh, all the more reason to support us creators through Nebula...
Giggity giggity goo!
How can you tell which word demonotized it?
little do they know, this quaint little home in the heartland sits just on the edge- of the twilight zone.
Comments you can hear
Beautiful.
NaNaNaNaNaNaNa
Nevada side of the California boarder?
Do-do-do-do, do do do do, do do do do....
The problem with an actual lethal booby trap is that It lacks the judgment of a real person with a shotgun. It doesn't know the difference between a burglar, a teen hooligan, or a firefighter.
So how often do these traps actually hit firefighters?
It seems obvious to me that for someone to get to the point of making a trap like this, they have to be repeatedly and frequently burglarized, to the point that setting up a trap is virtually guaranteed to hit a burglar.
The virtue of the shotgun boobytrap is that it worked: it shot a burglar. The Petitioner had to posit an alternate reality where someone innocent was harmed instead to win the case against the Defendants. It just isn't a very good argument.
@@jordil6152You still can't kill or mayem someone to protetc an empty property.
@fabiovarra3698 Whether or not that is the case, the argument "what if it had been Hansel and Gretel instead of that burglar" is a bad argument, because it disregards the facts of the case for pointless speculation. The "but for" should not reside in the existence of the trap itself but in the intentions and actions of the trespasser.
@@jordil6152 I don't think it's true, because is an argument that show how if put a trap and leave home you have no way to know who against it springs off. You can use deadly force only if you know your life or someone else life is in danger.
Are we all going to ignore the fact that LegalEagle nailed the art of story telling? This is compelling.
Allan Dixon yeah this was amazing
Allan Dixon I wonder whether anyone else had noticed.
Dude he's a lawyer plus the music helps
Agreed
A big media business with hundreds thousands of daily viewers and large amounts of funds had the money to hire an animator? That’s about average on TH-cam these days.
This video turned out even better than I expected. Good stuff Devin!
His name is Eagle, esquire.
@@goawayihavecommentstomake1488 Legal is his second name too.
Yeah Legal eagle. First name legal, second name... eagle...
ayy kento bento
Oh yep I knew who was behind those animations
Objection:
The production quality of this video is too damn good.
Sustained. (Let's face it, LegalEagle never sustains or rejects the objections anyway, so might as well do it ourselves.)
I honestly would prefer it without the animation. Maybe I’m just boring.
@@jeremysaklad6703 I'm with ya
The real question is why she kept leaving precious heirlooms in an abandoned farm house that had been repeatedly looted over time.
True. Why insist on keeping valuables in a home that's remote, easily broken into, unsupervised and protected by a couple of signs? And then to go: "Hey, everybody has ransacked this place over the last ten years, let's install an aligator mote, a rolling boulder and explosive ordinances to 'deter' burglars. Ridiculous
Good chance he wanted to get away with blowing someone's legs off. Probably became a case of deliberate entrapment after a while. Sure at first he put it up out of self-defense essentially, but then he started to fantasize and eventually started putting more rare stuff in the barn and then talking about it while faux-drunk down at the local dive bar. Then when some dumb bastard falls for it, he gets a nice little giggle out of what he thinks is legal torture.
@@AllfatherBlack I know, right? The most fascinating thing is him expecting to get away with crippling a guy to save some earrings, dafuq? It sounds like the aftermath of a SAW movie
Victim blaming
Because it's her damn property. The real question is why the sheriff didn't do his damn job. He us 100% responsible for what happened.
The biggest crime here is YT trying to demonetize this kind of content
TH-cam needs to find someone with balls and put them in charge.
I'm glad creators are moving away from a dictatorship.
DunkZ Z - you comment nails the issue!!!
Just saying "gun" in your video will demonetize you.
Jar of Mayo Pretty sure it was “booby” in this case
A warning to all thieves: It might be illegal to set up a spring gun, but it doesn't mean some angry/fed up home owner won't do it anyway.
Breaking and entering is illegal, people do it anyway
What makes the theif think others won't follow the law either and set a trap
@@luib3695 My point stands.
Correct and it's not illegal, even if they said so. They also found it legal to illegally imprison American citizens that happen to be Japanese during WW2. This is another instance where the law/system is wrong.
@@Sesshomaru474 Notice I said, "it MIGHT be"
@Casa Del Amo Yeah, with just a little more effort you can rig up that shotgun to kill not only the intruder but also his entire family. But now you've killed innocent people, no way you're getting away with that, so let's just tweak it a bit and take out all of humanity. No one to catch you in the act now!
They should have posted a sign that said “hippity hoppity get off my property”
I'd put up a bunch of red balloons and have creepy noises play.
"zippity zuppity you're now in our custody" lol
That's the sign they put up facing the other way down the driveway towards the house for when they leave.
That’s what was printed on the backside of the Brineys’ lawn sign 😼
They should have put all the valuables in storage locker.
This reminds me of my extremely short lived legal career. In 8th grade, we did a mock trial. I was the defence attorney, and my client was a (old west era) store owner. He was sick of the wagon drivers who would bring liquor to his store skimming some off the top as extra payment and, knowing that his normal driver was illiterate, he pulled in a barrel of rubbing alcohol with the rest of it. The driver drank some out of all the barrels and died of alcohol poisoning. It was our statement that the guy was told that he needed to not drink anything, and that since he willingly broke the contract and drank something that killed him, it wasn't my client's fault. The jury found that my client should have known the guy would drink it anyway, known that since he couldn't read he was being put into a fatal trap, and found him guilty of first degree murder. His punishment was that couldn't use the computer in the classroom for the rest of the week.
"Today at school I learned that its OK to steal if you can't read"
oh god they didn't punish some poor kid for real over a fake crime, did they?
The defendant actually got punished for the made up crime?😂 if your side had won could he have countered for attorneys fees and gotten lunch money?
Either this is fake or your teacher was a serious piece of work lol
@@BrainletReviews I have no proof, but the two didn't get along all that well. I adored the teacher, but I was a huge teacher's pet at the time (no kind voices except the ones paid tobe XD) unless the teacher scared me.
When he said 'we keep our precious belongings' i was hoping for the whispered 'indochino'
Ikr? We all keep our Indochinos in our homes.
@@this_is_patrick Until now i was protecting mine with a sweet trip wire connected to a decommissioned 105mm howitzer. This video has made me rethink that tho.
@@Motofiend You are right, you ought to rethink the Decomissioned part of that sentence.
"your honor, last time I was robbing these people, they DIDN'T have a shotgun in their bedroom"
Your honor, are you saying we should of just aimed for the head?
@@DameSlayerSlayerofDames sounds like
Dame Slayer should have*
"Save the Devils, damn the innocent."
@@DameSlayerSlayerofDames
"Just hire more hit-men."
Time for our Final Grade
Pros:
Well Crafted arguments
No Bailiff tackling
Cons:
They skip the discovery process for the sake of an expedited narrative.
For this episode of Real True Crime, I give it a B.
Not just Discovery, they skipped all the way up to appeals!
Cons: no whispered “indochino” after the “precious belongings”
Honestly I feel like “No Bailiff tackling” should be in con section. Always love a good Bailiff tackle, no matter the opponent it’s always Super Effective.
@@Ostentatiousnessness I know, right? I'm really rooting for a good ol' fashion tackling in the next animation.
@@Ostentatiousnessness Except against ghost types.
You should do "legal AITA." I just came across an AITA about not paying the neighbour's cat's vet bills when the cat trespassed and was attacked by a dog.
Another AITA question had to do with selling off a family heirloom engagement ring after he cheated on her.
It would be awesome to hear your take on some of these AITA questions.
People in that sub are unhinged
Wow, I’m actually really impressed with the presentation here. Perfect marriage of true crime and your usual content. Fits like a glove!
Absolutely this. I loved the presentation and quality. Excellent.
Oh, I found this. After the case had been settled. "Marvin Katko's own home was burgled in 1976, with burglars making off with several valuables"
I'm very pleased to read this!
Prince Noah damn if only he had a shotgun and some wire
@@minutemadejuiceboxes9991 Then again, maybe what was stolen is what he stole the first time?
Or, maybe what he stole from the Briney's should have covered his shotgun injuries. :)
Good!
he also shot himself
Idea: Don't store your valuable heirlooms in a broken down, abandoned home.
Another idea: Don't break into someone's house.
@@criticalmoment3859 It's a bit more nuanced then that. Nice strawman you built though.
Plot twist: "If it please the court, we would like to pay the damages in the form of: One (1) indefensible, isolated farmhouse."
@@Ristaak I thought they just made a strange comment.
@@criticalmoment3859 although seemingly not.
@@Ristaak so I guess it’s fair on you?
Fun fact: the husband who set the trap was asked several years later if hed do anything different in regards to this case
His response was "Id aim the gun a few inches higher"
no claims, no suit lmao
In which case he was a twit; because then he'd have to jail for manslaughter and still might get sued (by say an accomplice or acquaintance of the thief)
@@SUpersaiyajinjerkbag Except there was no legal precedent until he got sued by a thief who decided to use his bad decisions to steal from him through the legal system. And other cases have not resulted in prison sentences.
what the hell world do we live in that people violating the law and harming others have any right to even file a suit against their victim!
@@Lesdrasill i was about to comment that too. They cant sue if theyre dead.
Katko and macdounough are the most carburgler names ive ever heard
It sounds like the robbers in a new home alone movie.
Katko and Mac Dounough Acquisitions Services: You want it, we'll get it, no questions asked!
Folks, if you ever want to setup something like this, just add a sign that says "This house has booby traps with guns, by trespassing you voluntarily desist from any further claim."
big brain plays.
That is legitimately deterrence, it actually makes people aware of the risk, which could legitimately be carried out.
Yes, that would be the common sense thing to do. These yokels must have either had a bloodlust or been very stupid.
For real yeah
might not work if not truly ridiculously highly visible at middle of the night, cause the trespasser will argue the sign was concealed and thus irrelevant.
Hmm what if they decided to put a sign on the door that said “this room is armed with a booby trap shotgun, enter at your own risk?”
he actually did the opposite by putting tin over the window so that nobody could see that it was booby-trapped.
Because then someone could safely discharge the booby trap and then enter at will.
It would still be illegal, you need to be present to claim self-defense, otherwise it is mansluaghter.
@@BeetleBuns this was just this case, the judge decides exactly what law applies to the current situation, if there was a sign there it would have been obvious that it's 100% his fault
@@sniffersmc2827 the Supreme Court has ruled booby traps illegal, so signs won't protect you. That's like a child mol€ster wearing a sign that says "I am a child mol€ster" and arguing that the child was forwarned. You can't just rely on disclaimers and warning signs, you still need to follow the law.
www.lawyerlinda.com/booby-traps/
The writing on this episode is phenomenal and the delivery is superb. Great sound mix too
I really liked the run down of the trial and verdict. This was laid out well.
@Masilith never said he was.
"So, anyway, I started blastin'."
I ain't see so good so I missed
josiah moose .....nope, that's why you should use a shotgun.....just have to point in general direction and almost guaranteed to hit.
The Awesome Ninja 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Yeah frank woulda definitely been blasting at those clowns and woulda been hacked all his wife's memorabilia.
Objection: Mahaska County is corn fields , not wheat fields. Source: Iowa county boy here who's been there far too many times.
Nice county in general, Osky is a cesspool though.
You got to rotate your crops probably was wheat at the time
Actually you have to rotate your crops or you earth will dry out so they should have just said "farm land"
Rotate to wheat? What do you think this is? Wisconsin? This is Iowa! They’d rotate to soybeans.
Dont they rotate the crops to keep the land healthy and all that?
I already knew how this would turn out - one my professors had this decision as part of an assignment. It's been several years, but this case is certainly pretty memorable.
Ive spent a lot of time in Custody court the last few years and have watched a lot of legal videos (including yours) and you know what I have learned, the word 'reasonable' has absolutely no static definition.
It means 'millionaire'
all laws are subjective to the judge and jury that enforce them. That is why our criminal justice system is so inconsistent and even sometimes cruel to innocent people.
@@thedwarfgimli5323 no shit. its a human made system with human components. there will never be a "good" justice system. whats worse is people are made to believe they are allowed to protect themselves. at leasta its not EU or aus. you are not even allowed to bunch a intruder even if you and your family is in the house you are expected to run and hide.
@@thedwarfgimli5323 All that matters are the values of the judge/jury at the time of the court, and the quality of the lawyer representing you. It is very unfortunate, but in my opinion, there is no perfect system.
Big, big fan of this format - particularly enjoyed the "courtroom scene" as it clearly lays out the arguments (fortunately in a very abridged style, but still). I hope this does well!!
"So, like a true American, Katko filed suit." I love this channel sooooo much 😍😍😍😍
A true American yes. A very, very bad, true American. Shoulda lost the case and had to give his leg up in the counter suit.
@@politenonparticipant4859 name does not check out
There was a death involving a firefighter who responded to a fire at a gas station whereas the owner had repeated breaki-ins previously. I'm not sure if he was sued by the firefighters family but he did spend a significant amount of time in prison. This is the reason these laws exist.
Isn't it against common sense, even for a firefighter, to enter a burning gas station when no one is inside?
@@AlejandroGonzalez-ej4lp It could have been extinguished, and firefighters were going inside to make sure it was completely out.
@@Swordsman1425 Good point, but I would prefer that the firefighters not come in without first asking permission or talking to the owners.
@@AlejandroGonzalez-ej4lp People pass out from smoke inhalation and often die from it. Waiting for permission to enter could be the death of someone inside.
Moral of the story: Make sure the shotgun kills them. Then they can't sue you in civil court.
Their family or dependents probably could.
Civil court no, but you end up in jail via criminal court for manslaughter/murder
@@wardsrentalandtaxi7739 They'd be less likely to win since they didn't witness it.
Agreed make sure no one can sue you back
@@princenoah21 There was another person in the house with the guy
Meanwhile in reality.
Homeowner: "So if someone breaks into my house I need to make sure they don't leave alive if I don't want to get sued."
Depending on the state if the uninvited intruder leaves alive it is illegal to have shot him/her in self defense and/or in defense of property. Now if they do not leave alive and are shot while on your property in the front of their body not the back then in all states you will get off without being charged for anything.
Now IF you shot him/her in the back then it might put your in jail even if they are dead. IF you do it when not on your property but close to it it will still put you in jail not them. IF you only harm them but not kill them then they might have a case that you were not effective in defending your own home and family thus putting you in jail.
@@yumri4 amusingly enough it depends on state's statue of defense. most places in the south theres stand your ground law where someone breaks in uninvited(as long as the owner is inside) you could in theory pink mist them. Where in contrast many northern states state a castle law where you have no escape, intruder intends harm and help is to far out to intervene could you yeet them (police response varies from 3-15 mins). As for boobytraps....its a no no
Not at all. Had the family been present the verdict would have gone the other way. You can't just leave a lethal weapon in a epmty house. Its a disregard for himan life. There is a reasonable expection that something will go horribly wrong. Like the lady said. What if it had been some kids? Or in a modern setting, a youtuber? And since was when do we cut off the limbs of theives?
I own over 800 acres and a excavator.
My house is in the middle of the property so no one will hear the shots.
Their family could sue. It's a civil suit also not criminal.
I must admit, you’ve an excellent voice for narration.
I mean, it makes sense. He's a practicing lawyer. Oral exposition is a big part of his job. There's a certain amount of theater to his line of work.
Thanks! This video is awesome 👌, top notch. It really strikes to the heart of the matter about what actions are reasonable in matters of defense.
First thing they taught in a self defense course is “dead men tell no tales”
I think you got that confused with Pirating course
@@AUser73-148 no, quite literally its there is only one side of a story when the other is dead. Never shoot to maim, shoot to kill.
also, money talks, if you're Elon Musk or Tim Apple or a billionaire and some low life thug breaks in and they shot him to death, guess who wins the lawsuit?
Misaka Mikoto i doubt they’d have to resort to burglary
Exacly.
I wonder if it would have made a difference if they had a “trespassers will be shot” sign up or something.
Generally speaking, I don't think signs actually do much from a legal perspective. They do provide a little extra protection in grey areas, but if something is illegal it is usually illegal with or without signs.
I sort of like the idea though. That the homeowners are punished for defending their own property doesn't sit right with me, but at the same time the counterpoint that someone with less heinous intentions could be severely injured or worse is something I can agree with. Making clear that trespassers will be met with deadly force sort of feels like you're accepting the risks entering may face. Not sure if it'd work as a legal concept since I'm no lawyer though.
@@Kaozorier You still had to break into the house either way in order to get shot. As a best case scenario against the trap, be it a child or inspector, if a child is shot then they've still committed a crime regardless of whether they're responsible or not. The inspector's job is to ensure the property is safe. Accounting for abnormal safety violations like a shotgun trap would fall into the job's responsibilities.
@@jamesmccomb9525 But should breaking and entering into an unoccupied property be punished with maiming and potential death? Not every punishment is just because it happens to someone committing a criminal act. Punishments should be proportional to the crime.
@@Deathmastertx If you commit a crime and die or get wounded during the crime, it's entirely your fault.
Idk how I feel about it, but the fact that they tried for a decade to come up with a different solution, even asking the authorities and no one was willing to help got ignored is pretty sad. People get frustrated, although I also think it was pretty dumb of them to store the important stuff in an abandoned house even after it got robbed several times.
At the very least, they could have tried a less damaging booby trap. Many trespassers would be scared off by a loud noise that imitates a shotgun.
O
@@majuuorthrus3340 or just loading a blank shell, or even a live shell just pointed at a metal plate or similar to absorb the shot. Or some other method intended to scare but not injure.
@@the_undead that’s the real answer here. I’m not morally opposed to shooting intruders but leaving a trap that kills people ain’t right. Blanks would scare anyone off.
@@obeseperson if the intruder is unarmed and you shoot them if they then die then I think you should honestly be charged with murder but if they are armed that flips this whole equation on its head
Dude, please do more The Case Of! I love chilling out to this this stuff. Your storytelling is great!
Criminal: [opens door]
House: *YOU JUST ACTIVATED MY TRAP CARD!*
Micah Roberts funny enough, there is a trap card called “barrel behind the door” that illustrates this event perfectly
Ayy lmao. That's pretty funny
@@SEELE-ONE Lmao
Criminals: *WELL* *_YOU_* *JUST ACTIVATED* *_MY/OUR_* *TRAP CARD TOO! I CAN SUE YOU!*
House: *WELL* *_YOU_* *JUST ACTIVATED* *_MY/OUR_* *TRAP CARD TREE! WE KNOW WHO YOU ARE NOW SO WE CAN SUE YOU FOR TRESPASSING AND ROBBERY!*
Criminals: *HA HA HA, THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS! YOU CAN'T SUE US/ME FOR THAT BECAUSE I/WE SAID SO!*
Katko saw the medical bills and realized that there were only two options:
1. Lawsuit
2. Eating nothing but instant noodles for 5 years
Nah bro its the 1950s all you gotta do is drive go somewhere else and they'll never find you.
instant noodles did not come to market until 1971 this event happened in 1957 they have to wait 14 years before they could buy instant noodles.
@@sheven18 It's a joke, the first instant noodles came out in 1958, and this event happened in 1967.
@@dabirdie1797 - incorrect. Momofuku Ando invented instant noodles in 1958, but his company, Nissin, created the brand Top Ramen to market to the rest of the world in 1970. Because the US did not have typical ramen-sized bowls, testing proved it to be a hard sell, so they further developed that into Nissin Cup Noodle released in 1972, with its own disposable cup, and wide releasing Top Ramen much later.
@@Phantom0fTheRouter They were still created in 1958 and sold in Japan lmao
I love this method for illustrating a particular case and then clearly extracting the legal question. This was awesome. I hope you do it again.
In my country there was a case when homeowner kept some chemicals in a vodka bottle. Burglar decided to drink it and died. Homeowner got sentenced with a manslaughter. Seems completely unfair. There wasn't even attempt to do any harm and burglar had been struck with his own stupidity.
tbf it depends on the laws in your country in regards of storing of dangerous chemicals(which, yes there are laws about that) whatever they have to be clearly marked as such etc
@@weberman173 It does depend on the laws where you live but the more interesting conversation is what should the laws be, its not absolute
@@themug406 and i consider storing dangerous chemicals in unmarked containers to be something that should(and in some places is) be illegal. Similiar scenario to the boobytrap just without the intent of Hurting anyone behind it(which is why it probably was manslaugher and not murder)
depending on what chemical it is it may be important for example fire fighters to quickly identify what chemical where stored in a house, which you cant if they are unmarked etc.
Source?
@@themug406 imagine that you have multiple mislabeled sketchy chemicals in improper packages. What is the chance you will mix them up at some point, which will cause you to improperly handle or combine them, which may threaten both you and the people around you?
"This house is rigged with 10 tons of TNT enter at your own risk"
Except they blocked the view of the gun so it was like 10 tons but no warning
I don't think that constitutes protecting your property anymore if it's all going to blow up.
@@takatamiyagawa5688 If I can't have it, NO ONE WILL
@@Abyzz_Knight i died laughing. nice!
@@JamesBen937 except it did have a warning: the chair jammed against the door, which everyone has neglected and caused the innocent party to be punished.
Just recently heard a story about a guy who’s winter vacation cabin was robbed, so when he left he set bear traps at the windows. When the cabin was robbed again, it was believed that the bugler dove into the window, landing head-first into a trap, killing him. Their corpse just left lying there until the homeowner went back that winter.
After this video it is now obvious what to do in that situation.
@@joedanero5360 Hide the body, and never speak of it.
Do you know the name of the case? Would love to see what happened next
@@ajc1476 I don’t know, I only heard a bit of it and never really learned any names or location. Just the simplified story.
@@ajc1476 Katko v. Briney
My only question is: What uh...
What was the Briney's plan for getting back in that room in the event that the burglars didn't return?
The house was stolen from multiple times. The chances of if happening again are extremely high
Most likely yank the door open while being out of the way.Still hoghly dangerous
You notice they closed the door after it was armed. My guess is they hooked the wire/string to the door knob while the door was slightly open. If the door is totally opened it triggers the trap, but slightly open doesn't trigger it.
Probably go through the window.
Probably by cutting off the string from the door knob before entering
Just came here to say, I watched this video for fun when it came out four years ago when I had just gone back to college. Tonight I’m rewatching to prep for Torts in law school on Monday. When I saw this heading in my casebook, I couldn’t help smile to myself. (This brief is way better than Quimbee’s FTR)
Remind me of a true story I heard years ago when a company hired thugs to beat down workers on a strike. The thugs chased the workers into a village and some folks got beaten up by mistake. The whole village brought out pitchforks and torches and drove the thugs to the roof of the factory where they got on their knees and begged for mercy. Only then the police came to rescue the thugs. The company then sued the villagers for trespassing and the court ruled in favor of the company. Later I heard they beat up the police who came to enforce the court's ruling, and then they stormed the court, causing the judge to suddenly have a change of mind.
The moral lesson here is, maybe the judge's house should be burgled more often.
That can't possibly be true, and therefore probably is. I have no idea what to make of that.
You aren't using the words "moral" and "lesson" correctly here.
Where's this information coming from? What's the name of the company? Sounds incredibly vague.
@@SimonBuchanNz It is likely extremely exaggerated and I don't believe it ended that peacefully either (imo, it wouldn't just stop there, these villagers would go and burn down the whole company for what it is worth and they would get away with it).
As for where this "lawlessness" could still exist, the context is rural Vietnam where the people do crazy stuff like this to criminals sometimes so there might be a grain of truth to it.
Back around 2013, there was a case in Binh Duong province involving a kindergarten teacher using an illegal sedative to put kids to sleep and punishing kids by literally waterboarding them in the then infamous "blue water barrel". As no kid was ultimately killed or maimed, the court gave the teacher a wrist slap but the people disagreed. They stormed the court and demanded the teacher lynched. The police had to use a decoy to ensure the teacher reaches prison safely and the townfolks smashed that decoy van good.
In a different case, we had villagers practically beat a dog theft to death and when the police came to arrest the killers, the whole village stood in their way. I believe this other case ended with the prosecutors placing a small fine on everyone in the village; a token amount to make peace with the people and let the 21st-century lynch slide.
Media coverage of such a breakdown of the judicial system is rather lackluster due to the communist party's control of the media so I have no clue what the repercussion for the people in this second case was but the storming part should be legit.
@V Hobbes I'm unable to find the source for the first one off the top of my head and it seems all the keywords I can think of for this case are being drowned out by some recent and unrelated cases involving a gang boss purged by a rival gang (last week), a company hiring thugs to threaten the police (last June).
But, I did find the second case with the kindergarten teacher. It apparently ended with a public trial attended by thousands of angry people and the court ruled the harshest sentence possible in the book to please the public. I clearly recall there was a wrist-slap trial before this one but it was not mentioned in the article or the related links. Also, the journalism here is complete garbo, my eyes bled trying to make sense of the timeline.
thanhnien.vn/doi-song/hang-ngan-nguoi-vay-hai-bao-mau-sau-phien-toa-396595.html
For the third case...eh...that happens all the time, so much so that there's one right last month here: www.msn.com/vi-vn/news/other/d%C3%A2n-l%C3%A0ng-b%E1%BA%AFt-giam-k%E1%BA%BB-tr%E1%BB%99m-ch%C3%B3-r%E1%BB%93i-%C4%91%C3%A1nh-t%E1%BB%9Bi-ch%E1%BA%BFt-%E1%BB%9F-gia-lai/ar-AAJyJpd
I'm afraid, most of the coverage on such minor cases will end at "the police is investigating..." or "the criminals are being trialed..." and no follow-up whatsoever. Also, sorry about the language, maybe google translate can help you out...
Question;
Would anything in the argument have changed if they put up signs that said "Trespassers will be Shot"?
No
You cant just shoot any tresspassee
@@catalintimofti1117 you can, see how in the video it says that the use of force is allowed (under certain circumstances)
the hunter you can if you were currently present at home
Trespassers are often cowards and most of the time they will back away. Its like asking if that 20$ vase is worth your life.
Please look into your own state laws as the limit to what force you can use varies and is interpreted differently in different states. If you are in a state and unaware of the law it is best to just rely on the basic self defense using 'reasonable force' aka equal or slightly greater force than the threat you are dealing with(guy tries to rob you with knife, gun is okay. guy tries to rob you like a chad unarmed and you shot him, he might get a valid case in certain states).
YES YES *YES!!!* I'VE BEEN WAITING FOR THIS SINCE IT WAS ANNOUNCED AND IT ALREADY IS *SOOOO* GOOD!!
While I sympathize with the homeowners, I’m curious why they didn’t remove the valuables?
where else would they put it though
Irrelevant.
@@BlueBatboy transfer them to the other home that they owned.
@@speak91-r.i.s.e.78 fair point
@@BlueBatboy wherever they live?
This is on another level - The animation, the storytelling, everything! I love this! Super interesting!
I am super late to this party but I really like how you presented this. I legitimately saw both sides of the argument and, by the end, was hard pressed to pass a verdict. Thank you so much for the in-depth, non-bias video!
This man went from "watch me watch Always Sunny Bird Law scenes" to "Full-fledged animated cinematic experience" in a matter of months! 😂💪 Props.
Biochemical and cluster weapons and a shotgun booby trap have one thing in common: they are not selective, that's why first two are frowned upon by mostly everyone.
And when militaries lay mines, they should mark minefields, so that, although not selective by themselves, mines still don't pose a threat to those who are not willing to step on them.
What if there had been plenty of warnings and signs posted that said "warning, this property is defended with guns, trespassers enter at their own risk of injury"?
I seen a sign outside a lane to a farm that read, "Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again."
In that case you pretty much invite thieves to use rods/poles etc. and specifically look out for spring guns to steal a gun.
No change, I assume if they had the same jury. The jury was either hardcore anti-gun or complete morons swayed by emotional argument though those two things are pretty similar.
The main iusse is the gun could harm anyone including police and firefighters who have legal reasons to be there.
So if you're going to shoot someone you have to do it with your own 2 hands and aim to kill.
@@dominicmanester8125 There was no jury, it was a civil case adjudicated by a judge in accordance with state law.
As a first responder, booby trapped houses would be an absolute nightmare and could get good people killed. Imagine there is a burglary in progress at this residence, the burglar did not set off any traps and the cops have to enter into the house to clear it and get their heads blown off.
Or there is a fire in the house and a fire fighter enters the house and gets his head blown off.
Well, It WASN'T a first responder who got his legs blown of, so who cares?
@@dirtyharry5320 Because they want an excuse to break into homes for "public safety reasons" just like how they charge grandma's 12k dollars to breath within 400 feet of an ambulance
Pigs are not good people.and shouldnt be considered first respomders
what ifs are a dime a dozen and do not protect property
If he needed a cop, he would call them and disable the trap, the only way the cop would get his head blown off, is if he also broke in
What if they put a warning sign, saying "there is a shotgun trap, enter at your own risk" ?
That would have just made criminals savvy to it. Same reason you dont put a huge sign on top of a land mine announcing it. Once you know it's there, you can plan to defeat it.
I think there should be a sign warning of deadly force against trespassers. Only to protect children or drunkards that might break in for fun.
I feel he forfeited any right to safety when breaking in with the intent to steal, bypassing signs and a boarded window.
@@triste4-21 Harder to plan for if you place the sign at the fence gate and it simply says "Landmines present beyond this point." Same if your warning sign of "Shotgun trap inside" is on the house's exterior, the shotgun could be anywhere in the house, and doesn't necessarily have to wired to a door.
@@triste4-21 I'm asking for the legal ramifications. Not the practical implications.
Especially bcos if I'm remembering correctly, you legally in some places or scenarios have to have a "beware of dog" sign.
@@Willow4526 yeah Im surprised they didn't mention the steel plate on the window. Maybe in the longer version?
The thing that annoys me about this is that they had gone through every option at their disposal and they always got burglarized so what action could they have taken
Exactly. It was like their last resort. Plus, the bedroom door was locked. It could be argued that he was breaking and entering for the third time.
"Every option." My first thought during the video was "Why aren't they renting the place out?" They left it abandoned for years. Didn't even conduct proper maintenance and upkeep. Don't get me wrong, I feel bad for them and I don't feel bad for the criminal, but they had other options. Moving their stuff to the basement or attic and renting the place would have been much safer.
I feel like there is a bit if a jump from putting up locks and signs to setting up a shotgun trap to seriously injure someone.
Yeah but also some signs put up warning about lethal traps would have probably deterred most if not all people. It wouldn't say what kind or where as so the trap could work if the signs didn't.
But why aim the weapon to cause harm? Why not set it up to scare trespassers? Or perhaps find save storage for the valuables and this remove the reason it's always invaded. There's so many options rather than a inhumane approach of a shotgun aimed low. This pretty well falls under cruel and unusual punishment.
For a moment, when I got to the part about lowering the shotgun, I thought that she wanted him to aim between the legs, rather than the actual leg.
Why? Do you often enter a door doing a split?
@@topanteon To aim at the groin as opposed to the abdomen.
lol i thought the same thing!
@@taylorwalker2814 that is a dangerously fine line, especially when you dont know the height of the person that will trigger the trap. if you get someone who is a little shorter than the target you expect, that goes from taking out their testicles to a mortal wound that is probably not going to be treatable, even if the ambulance was already rolling. statistically, roughly 1/3 of gunshot wounds are fatal. i believe shotgun wounds are worse than most other firearms, by reason of the pellets cause more tissue damage than an individual shot, which would lead to increased bleeding and chances of taking out a vital organ. even if you survive a blast to the abdomen, which would already be lucky, especially considering they were likely not near a hospital, blood poisoning (Sepsis) is almost certainly going to occur, as a result of punctured intestines. and your odds of surviving sepsis in the abdomen is less than 1/3 (i did research on this previously when a relative was in the hospital for punctured intestines, they didn't get sepsis and are still around. it also wasn't a weapon or attack).
@@edschramm6757 A shotgun sprays out death confetti that make your insides look like a smoothie!
“Did not have permission to steal”
A judge actually said that??
Yes, steal my shit. I give consent that you can bust into my house and have whatever you'd like.
@@bezimen1 Great! Where is your house again?
Yes, I have heard that in a courtroom there are apparently obvious or stupid declarations or questions but is because they dont wanna let thinks unclear or ambiguos everything can be against you so you better not jump to conclusions.
Great animation and narrative! I wold like to hear more objections! In the next case but it was very cool
the lawyer was making the argument that stealing is OK if it just for paying the bills...
I was expecting the Wife to say, "No don't aim for the chest, aim for the head!"
I bet he cursed his wife later for making him change the aim
The thief only decided to sue after he served his time, before that everyone had no problem with what the homeowner did
I thought she was gonna suggest a good ol' midwest vasectomy
If the guy died from the shot gun wounds the wife of the deceased could of still sued the Brineys. Also the Brineys could of than faced possible murder charges as well.
@@galexeqe that's cause in the moment, he hadn't payd the price of being inhabilitated for one year. And the video portrays that the robber knew he was wrong in the noment, however over time his punishment was unnecessary
Same here
A question: if any one of the signs inside or outside of the property said „trespassers will be shot“, would this have changed the outcome, even if it was with a spring loaded gun?
That opens up the question of a self-firing contraption would be seen the same way as a person with a gun. A person who can be argued with and who could deliberately own the gun not at the person while shooting. A human can judge the situation and would be able to adjust the use of force to be appropriate to the situation. Would be able to distinguish between a burglar and a neighbor asking if they can borrow the shovel or kids exploring the spooky ruin.
I think they would have gotten reduced punishment but probably still would have been punished. Also no I don't think that would make it the same as a human with a gun because like the other person said a human with a gun would be able to tell the difference between some 17 year olds who were looking at this spooky ruin and like what's in there as compared to some people who are actually trying to find some money or things they could sell for money because sometimes capitalism is cruel
It probably would've been better but I am not a lawyer. However the biggest flaw in their argument the whole time was calling the gun a deterrent. It can't be a deterrent if you make it so nobody can see it to be deterred from opening the door. It's just a sneak attack. Not even arguing on the morality or ethics of it, it's just not a claim they can make
@@Didi-wq8hw it's not about knowing the laws it's about simple logic, if the stuff in that house is getting stolen then maybe move it out of the house. I've seen people in this comment thread arguing that they should be able to keep stuff there because it's their house and technically they're correct but the easiest way to solve a problem is identify what it is instead of ignore the fact that it's a problem
BUT now imagine that stuff in your home where you actually live keeps getting stolen... what are you supposed to move out of there then? It shouldnt matter if its a primary residence property.. they couldve been living there and went for a 1 day trip, so in that scenario they would have to take all their stuff with them each time? or even when they go to work each day so the house is empty for multiple hours each day... what are they supposed to do then when despite all measures, people still come to steal their stuff while they are at work?..
i see a home as an untouchable castle, so when you place a warning signs for firefighters warning them to not go inside that its mined, you should be able to turn your home into a fckin minefield with 50 booby traps... If you warn firefighters to never go inside, then you should be free to do whatever, if some criminal ignores these warnings and still decides to invade your house then you should be free to do whatever to them without any consequences. they invaded your one safe space you have so you should be allowed to shoot them or explode them into a pile of human goop, and its ONLY their fault. you didnt make them invade your home, so no matter how you kill them, you shouldnt be blamed for any of it. If they just stayed outside of your home, they would be completely safe. they willingly decided to roll the dice with possible outcomes of stealing someones stuff and losing their life. they decided to gamble their life away, you didnt make them do that...
@@the_undead
So you're telling me the Bandits could've sued the McCallisters after Home Alone?
sadly for them, the boy was present.
Face of Sarcasm But Kevin was home and in fear of his life. He’d been threatened verbally: “We know that you’re in there, and that you’re all alone”. He used reasonable force (pellet gun and hot doorknob) to attempt to deter them then escalated once they were in the house (paint cans and Joe Pesci’s hair on fire come to mind).
Nope, cause the kid was home.
Even if he wasn't home I don't think it would be as reasonable to assume that any of the traps he put in place would be sufficient to cause the death of an intruder.
All of that seems a little closer to the example of what if he had cut himself breaking a window.
A shotgun however does pretty much one thing...
A few of the traps seem dangerous enough to warrant concern if Kevin wasn't present. Dropping an iron onto someone's head from two stories up could fracture their skull if not outright kill them. The flamethrower aimed at face level (it's coincidence that the person who happened to open the door was so short) can CERTAINLY cause massive bodily harm. The paint cans DID cause bodily harm (knocked out a tooth).
When you get your leg almost shot off breaking into a house
Vibe Check
No kidding. Fine, here's you're 30k. Enjoy the limp.
So, just to confirm, I can put bear traps behind my door, as long as I'm home.
That appears to be the case. You're allowed to use lethal force if you fear for your life or health, which would require you to actually be home while the traps are set. This argument would be stronger if you lived in an area with non-human predators (such as bears).
@@pw5975 Not with my in-laws.
Kevin Mccallister downgraded from violent psychopath to defensive homeowner... er... resident.
Think of it like this, if someone is breaking in your house when your home you can shoot them if you fear for your life. They weren't home so they had no reason to fear for their life & therefore no reason to shoot him.
In Texas you don't have to be home
Why would You leave your valuables in a decaying unoccupied house for 10 years!?!? Why not rent a storage unit?
man should've put a sign that said "treaspasers might get shot", therefore making it the criminal's responsibility as they wouldve had previous warning, or you know, actually be detourred from entering in the first place.
Those signs don't change the law.
Like all those signs on dump trucks says they aren't liable for damage from rocks coming out of the back of them, it's just something they say to keep you from filing in the first place, it's not true. If a rock comes out of the back of a dump truck, it means they failed to secure their load properly and are 100% liable.
@Lenny69 シ then that's the state's failure to guarantee the safety of their citizens. As citizens that voted for your own leaders, you can demand for more commitment in that area of the law.
@@scottlemiere2024 I say if the government have traps on their bases then i can to, when the collapse happens ( not if but when because like any other empire or government in the past they will fall nothing last forever . the golden age has a dark age, they either fall by a outside source or within or the economy being bad which is happening with the world rn , even more in the US because the fed is injecting billions of dollars in the repo market) the people who are being fake and "civil" will show their real colors and the law would not help because it will be chaos...
I thought you just forgot to close your parenthesis, but it turns out you actually paused one rant to go on a whole different one ...
@@MajinMist603 i feel like that time is coming sooner rather than later
Having been the victim of a break in myself, would there be any grounds for the Briney's to go after Katco for emotional distress in a counter suit? The feeling of helplessness and vulnerability can really take a toll on you.
Good question...
Hadn't thought of that.
I hope he responds, I too would like to know.
Surely they couldn't level it all against one man, though? The looting of their (usually unattended, it sounds like) house was a gradual process that took place over many years and with many different perpetrators, so I don't see how they could sue Katco specifically, especially since he has already been punished under the law.
EDIT: I would also be interested in whether this counter suit would be possible :p
@@marcuslit4576 I don't think they would have to be able to prove they did it everytime. Just that the system of events have left them traumatized. They don't know how to protect themselves anymore.
I guess this is why my dad always told me, "if you are going to shoot someone then shoot to kill. We can afford a grave, you don't want to pay their hospital bills for the rest of your life."
That may actually be more relevant that you'd think. Snopes still has it listed as unproven, but if your outlook on humanity is dark enough, it's easy to believe.
www.snopes.com/fact-check/chinese-drivers-kill-pedestrians/
Upside: Aim high on the trap and kids should be missed by the trap.
My grandfather would tell the women who took piano lessons from my grandmother (mostly "over the hill") that if they shoot an intruder, shoot to kill. Eliminate the threat immediately. As our neighborhood got worse, everyone just moved away, since all the criminals were walking around with guns too.
@@thereprehensible435 Additionally, I don't think kids are well equipped to break the locks set in the house.
Junichi Maxim it’s always better to kill filth before the filth can spread and multiply
This is brilliant. I throughly enjoyed this video. I remember researching and creating a memo for this case in my Paralegal education. I wish I could have watched this video back then to better understand this case!
"Just because you did it, doesn't mean you're guilty!"
Lawyer ad
Stop quoting Jay's dad's law commercials
Except this is true in certain cases. You could accidentally kill someone without breaking any laws, therefore you wouldn't be convicted of any crime.
BETTER THAN SAUL!
@@Hoppip99 Do you have an example? Most accidental deaths are considered manslaughter as far as I know.
Pearson James Manslaughter happens if you we’re breaking a law. For example: if you’re driving through a school zone and speeding and texting and driving, and a child runs out in front of you and you hit them, it’s manslaughter. That’s because you we’re driving recklessly and breaking laws. But, if you we’re going at or below the speed limit, not texting, and following all the rules of the road and a child runs out in front of you and you hit them it’s an accident and you likely won’t get convicted of a crime because it was simply an accident.
I really don’t understand why they didn’t move the heirlooms from the farmhouse after they realized it was becoming an issue.
This!
Wife: Doooo something! My stuff!
Husband: After 10 years? Just get your stuff out!
Wife: Nooooo, I caaaan't because reasons!
Husband: Okay, I'll make a trap to kill anyone after the rest of your things.
Wife: Nooooo, that's mean!
Husband: So spare a stranger's life and just get your stuff out!
Wife: Nooooo, I'll just put a chair by the door.
Clearly, the wife is to blame for all of this.
That's what I was thinking too. Fix it up or sell it, but after ten years they didn't get the message
Their side of the story is fishy as hell. 10 years of looting and STILL there are valuables inside? Sounds like an angry old man just wanting bloodlust.
@@aoikemono6414 hard to say the guy is seeking bloodlust when it took him 10 years to get the that point, dont you think? Yes I agree they should have moved their shit but that also wouldnt have stopped people from breaking windows/locks to go in and search, which is still money the owners would have to pay to fix.
@@aoikemono6414 So the victims of burglary are at fault because their stuff is in a building (which they own) on their property?
There was an incident in Miami in the 80's where a business owner got tired of burglars crawling through the A/C ducts to steal items from his place. He wired the duct to give a shock. A bad guy crawled in, got shocked, and died in the duct. The businessman was tried for negligent homicide.
That interesting
Thats bs.
In such a situation put up a sign warning of the deadly trap, that will protect human life while also protecting property.
@@TheTubeLovers Except it's not. If that was allowed then if someone else did it and it killed the A/C repair guy then the business owner couldn't be prosecuted which would be the real BS.
@@JamesKlemm87 well the bad guy shouldn't have been their. They went in with intent to do something. What happens to them is completely on them. You come trying to break in or cause harm to my place, you get to meet God how I see fit. Whether its a bullet, or a blade. Play stupid games you will win stupid prizes. Including ur life.
I loved this video. Of all your series, this is my favourite!
11:29 "Imagine if he seriously cut himself while breaking the window, nobody would argue it's the homeowners' fault"
Haha, it sure would be absurd... *cries in french*
Je vous que la team ouinouin est présente
@@dreffon9213 Oh ta gueule. Un boucher en isère, un bar tabac (qui a fermé depuis la condamnation), tous deux jugés en assises parce que le voleur a été blessé. Une plainte contre un chirurgien dentiste pour avoir partagé une vidéo de sécurité sur laquelle figure la voleuse. Plainte pour vol de papiers parce que le cambrioleur a oublié sa carte d'identité chez sa victime. À Montpellier, un ancien militaire écope d'un an de prison avec 6 mois de sursis pour s'être battu avec un cambrioleur chez lui. Ça va ou j'ai besoin d'autres exemples ? C'est quelque chose qui est déjà arrivé et qui arrive toujours.
In Sweden i bet they would, if a burglar slips on ice on your steps you will be held accountable for it, even if you are on vacation.
@@givrally Je trouve pas tes sources pour les 2 premiers. Si ils leur ont tiré dessus c'est normal qu'ils soient condamnés. Dans tous les cas on est loin du propriétaire condamné parce que le cambrioleur s'est coupé...
@@dreffon9213 C'est normal, c'est assez difficile de mettre des liens dans un commentaire TH-cam. Le premier a un article d'actu.fr, et le deuxième a un article du Parisien.
On est peut-être pas au point du cambrioleur qui se blesse sur une fenêtre, mais on en est quand même très proche.
Theres a lesson to be learned here, dead men tell no tales.
Dead men tell no tales, but widows win lawsuits.
@@theMightyWhytey Also when self defense doesn't apply like in cases like these you might just straight up be looking at murder or manslaughter charges.
😂😂😂
@@shadenox8164 self defense includes property and valuables under lock and key
Yup, mercy is for the weak, Katco wasn't weak. So he shouldn't have been given mercy.
What, I cannot plant landmines in my own yard? What is this? North Korea?
just put the sign. i want to see the guy who has the balls to check
@@daniwolfplayz3599 Even just the sign would probably be illegal. The problem is there are people who legally have the right to access property in certain circumstances. For example, emergency services (like say a fire on the property broke out); or if the property genuinely was abandoned at some point, like the couple died; inspectors, family, etc. need to be able to safely access it.
A sign that says "landmines" is a threat of bodily harm regardless of the legality of access. Even something like "beware of dog" is more circumstantial, because a person can assess whether a dog is actually there, if they are a threat; and proper authorities may have ways of dealing with the animal safely, such as tranquilizing it.
I don't know the prevailing law, but I strongly suspect even an empty threat of "landmines" on your property would get you in deep trouble.
Though as a tongue-in-cheek solution, it's a great one :D
Plus you have the ATF's laws on destructive devices.
I should have the right and freedom to set a Mini Nuke booby trap, just to make sure that I don't get hit by a raider gang.
What is this? communist China?
In North Korea the government plants the landmines for you.
I feel like the crux of this argument is not whether the burglars deserve compensation for their injury, but rather the fact that the homeowner left a loaded, unattended firearm rigged to shoot *anyone* that triggers it. Not to mention that this was set up in a mostly abandoned property that is unoccupied at most times of the year. It’s just extreme negligence on the part of the firearm owner. What if someone had broken in through the window or the trap failed to trigger? Now that burglar has stolen your firearm and when would you even know that it was stolen given the property is not attended to often? It’s just extremely irresponsible to do something like this, and you’d have to be extremely shortsighted to think it is a good idea.
You're really channelling Rodney Serling for this.
Ironically, if they hadn't lowered the gun, then they wouldn't have been sued.
Could have been sued by the widow.
@Pixies Ostrich Duster Peasant? I could be a Duke for all you know!
His name was Rodman, not Rodney
The next of kin could then have sued.
Perhaps not, but he would have likely been tried for murder.
6:23 Legal Eagle thinks he can layer another scream over the Wilhelm scream and that I wouldn't notice.
Right? Right!?
For a moment I thought it was discount Wilhelm scream, but then he played it again.
Legal Qui-Gon death nioses
I think it was the tf2 scout scream
Was that tf2 scout screaming as well?
@@jamescowan8695 willhelm scream is public domain.
“Booby trap” spelled backwards is “party boob”.
huh... nnnnnice...
Mind... Blown...
SO! In short every super loose drunk chick at a party is likely a trap. Gotcha
Nice.
@ADAM FARRA Yes it is.
I paused it: I think that Katko's attorney is likely more correct. No one was home. Not like the lady was there and shot the intruders. No signs warning that trespassers will be shot or anything like that, either. It's hard to be a deterrent when something is a hidden surprise. The deterrent effect only occurs after the fact, in this case. That kinda defeats the purpose.
Note : a blank-loaded booby-trap, or multiple of them for the matter, would probably have been just as effective as a deterrent. Especially if the homeowners had planted a "trepassers will be shot" sign. I mean... psychological warfare you see ? Who's going to be bold enough to check either if :
-The shot come from an actual human or a booby-trap, knowing he's himself unharmed ?
-The booby-trap happened to have been luckily wrongfully (or rightfully, question of POV) aimed ?
And I would argue that if you already put a blank at the entrance + a "trepassers will be shot" sign and then the trepasser proceed to actually persever upon trepassing and finally got shot by an actual live booby-trap... well it would still be wrong, and most probably illegal too, but also kinda deserved.
Well...I'd be willing to bet money he stopped burgling, after that. Seems like it served it's purpose, to me.
@@Etrius_Fysik based on the depth of thought provided in your reply, hopefully you are not a judge in our legal system and throw away any summons for jury duty that you receive.
Pretty sure the mechanism of most deterrents is to hit the first guy who runs into it, so that way every subsequent guy gets deterred
I don't know man, how many times did they get robbed again after this?
I feel like I just watched "Are you afraid of the dark?" but instead of a bunch of kids its a lawyer.
The opening DEFINITELY strongly reminded me of AYAotD XD
That's even more scary!
What do these homeowners and Thor have in common? They didn’t aim for the head.
That takes it from excessive force, into murder. You think life in prison is more appealing than a fine?
BruceNJeffAreMyFlies they wouldn’t be sued. The man is dead. Case closed
@@BruceNJeffAreMyFlies manslaughter isn't life in prison
@@BruceNJeffAreMyFlies don't break into people's homes?
Booby trap causing death would easily be tried for murder. Its premeditated and designed to kill.
"Your honor as a society, we live in one. I rest my case."
I can see this being used as an argument for either side.
Can't believe we live in a society smh my head.
You may live in a society, but I'm a freeman of the land. I traveled here in my land boat many hours ago and will return to the territory of my forefathers in hours soon.
"Can't argue with that, no need for the jury's verdict this man is not guilty. He is too woke to be behind bars"
"So in conclusion, ladies and gentlemen of this *supposed* jury: bottom text. Thank you."
Thanks!
When she wanted the shotgun lowered earlier in the story, I thought she was aiming for the thief's balls. Being right below the abdomen and all.
Same tbh
That happened to me once, I ended up selling my heirlooms because they were useless at that point.
That would have been better justice...not propitiating more thieves as their daddy would teach them...
@@ethanhunt2777 Subtle. I like it.
Hillers62 So the penalty for theft should be castration? A bit draconian, that.
"The best self defense story is told by one side" -Tactical Dalai Llama
Thats an amazing quote lmao
Very true, dead men tell no tales.
Imagine a llama saying that.
@@kalinsapotato A tactical one at that! And it's big, or an ocean, depending on how serious you are about translating "dalai". By Shor's bones! A tactical ocean llama! The most fiendishly fiend of fiendish fiendishness!
@@sparkplug1018 SHIVER MY TIMBERS SHIVER MY SAILS
If they had left the gun aimed higher they would not have been sued.
They still might have been sued by his wife.
@@DavetheCoffeeDrinker he would still be dead.
They may have been tried for murder though which is worse
They could be acused of manslaughter. A guy electrified a fence,put a safety fence in front. Put a warning sign on it. A kid climbed the first fence, then the second one, and died. The owner was convicted of unintentional manslaughter
@@Kannot2023 isnt that just careless parenting? that seems like the parent's responsibility to care for their child rather than the land owner to inspect every inch of their land for someone to kill themselves on their land in any capacity they can find