- People v Ceballos- ∆ lived in his apt over his garage. One month some tools were stolen from his garage. Later he noticed the lock had been bent and that there were pry marks on the door. ∆ then set up a trap gun which would fire when someone opened the garage. Two boys, Robert 15, and Stephen 16 both unarmed, pried off the lock. When Stephen opened the door he was shot in the face by the trap gun.
- A person may be held criminally or civilly liable if he sets upon his premises a deadly mechanical device and that device kills or injures another.
- If the actor is present it is possible that he will realize that deadly force is not necessary, while a device lacks that discretion.
- Deadly force may be used where it appears reasonable and necessary to prevent an unlawful trespass apparently committed to harm the occupants or commit a felony therein.
- A mere trespass w/o felonious intent or not creating a serious threat of danger to the occupants won’t justify the use of deadly force.
- Can you use force to protect your property?
- ∆ that he has the right to use deadly force and that he can do indirectly what can be done directly
- The question of the trip gun itself???
- It can kill anyone even innocents
- Ct rules that it doesn’t encourage trip guns and they are illegal
- MPC§3.06 (5) - Use of device to protect property….
- So dangerous criminal law makes use illegal even if you kill the right person
- Moral fundamental question of the use of force to protect property
- Only can use force w/ the threat of violence… what if ∆ was sitting inside the house would he had been able to use deadly force???
- It is not clear what disposition would be if person is not home… harder to make claim when you are not there
No comments:
Post a Comment