cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1995-09-07 - Re: Are booby-trapped… [Detailed treatment]

Header Data

From: Mac Norton <mnorton@cavern.uark.edu>
To: Black Unicorn <unicorn@access.digex.net>
Message Hash: 2985e7141d4f66354a3500b3b35f8a6707948a230586ff0e47cbe47fef1f9ed2
Message ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.950906200425.8489D-100000@cavern>
Reply To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950906014806.24142A-100000@access2.digex.net>
UTC Datetime: 1995-09-07 01:11:26 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 6 Sep 95 18:11:26 PDT

Raw message

From: Mac Norton <mnorton@cavern.uark.edu>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 95 18:11:26 PDT
To: Black Unicorn <unicorn@access.digex.net>
Subject: Re: Are booby-trapped... [Detailed treatment]
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950906014806.24142A-100000@access2.digex.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.950906200425.8489D-100000@cavern>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Thing about the Restatement (any of 'em) is that they
must be read carefully, being especially wary of
circularity.  Note here that the actor would be privileged
only to the extent he would be privileged, get it? under
some other body of law not specifically referenced.

So it all comes back to reasonable apprehension of bodily
harm to yourself or your family (or guests, I suppose), in 
your home or similar place.

MacN

On Wed, 6 Sep 1995, Black Unicorn wrote:
> 
> The basic rule today in most states resembles the restatement position:
> 
> Section 85.  Use of Mechanical Device Threatening Death or Serious 
> Bodily Injury.
> 
> The actor is so far privileged to use such a device intended or likely 
> to cause serious bodily harm or death for the purpose of protecting his 
> land or chattels from intrusion that he is not liable for the serious 
> bodily harm or death thereby caused to an intruder whose intrusion is, 
> in fact, such that the actor, were he present, would be privileged to 
> prevent or terminate it by the intentional infliction of such harm.
> 
[big snip of excellent research]

Thread