374
Kinda got yourself to blame
(thelemmy.club)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2026
374 points (99.7% liked)
Tumblr
469 readers
1 users here now
Welcome to /c/Tumblr
All the chaos of Tumblr, without actually going to Tumblr.
Rule 1: Be Civil, Not Cursed
This isn’t your personal call-out post.
- No harassment, dogpiling, or brigading
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, sexism, etc.)
- Keep it fun and weird, not mean-spirited
Rule 2: No Forbidden Posts
Some things belong in the drafts forever. That means:
- No spam or scams
- No porn or sexually explicit content
- No illegal content (don’t make this a federal case)
- NSFW screenshots must be properly tagged
If you see a post that breaks the rules, report it so the mods can handle it. Otherwise just reblog and relax.
founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
Booby trapping your own property should be absolutely legal, and society should normalize it. If you steal someone’s lunch, you’ve forfeited your right to complain about what’s in it. The moment you put your hands on something that isn’t yours, you’ve accepted whatever consequences come with it.
The legal reality is completely backwards — in many jurisdictions, the person who set the trap can face more liability than the person who committed the theft. That’s insane. We’ve created a system where the victim has to absorb the loss quietly or risk being the one in trouble.
This is no different than a burglar suing a homeowner because they hurt themselves breaking in. At some point we have to stop extending legal protection to people in the act of victimizing others. You don’t get to steal from someone and then demand they be held responsible for your experience of stealing from them.
People have a fundamental right to defend themselves and their property. If you choose to take something that isn’t yours, you own every outcome that follows. The only person who had any control over this situation was the thief — and they made their choice repeatedly. Whatever happens next is on them.
We probably don’t want EMTs and other first responders to die because some asshole booby trapped their property
Charge the crime. If your booby trap hurts an innocent person, that’s different than the booby trap hurting the intended target. I’m advocating that a person shouldn’t be punished for harming a person attempting to victimize another. To that end, there are probably some first responders who I’d be ok with getting hurt by booby traps (i.e. wrong address raids, 4th amendment violators, etc.).
You're a fucking psychopath.
One man’s psychopath is another man’s savior. They hung John Brown as a traitor, but he was the greatest patriot the US ever had.
Comparing maiming emergency responders to attempting to free the slaves sounds like something John Brown wouldn't take too kindly to
Everyone is all ACAB until someone says "Chris Dorner" lol. Y'all know "first responders" includes "C" right? He didn't say "hang paramedics."
Damn, thats a good one.
By then it’s too late.
I don't necessarily disagree with this, but there is a rather large grey area that needs to be addressed. Sure, you should be able to reasonably defend your property. But what about unexpected visitors such as neighbors, missionaries, salespeople (I don't like them but that's not a reason to maim), and others who aren't necessarily invited but otherwise have no malicious intent?
A booby trap isn't going to differentiate between someone breaking in vs an innocent (though unexpected) visitor. And that's where the distinction lies.
If they bypass a locked door while I'm not home and go up my stairs hitting the tripwire that drops the paint cans, that's a reason.
When you hear "booby trap for thief" are you thinking "c4 that detonates when you press the doorbell?"
I mean, that is the general idea of a booby trap. Maybe not C4 or a rigged up shotgun, but still an automated trap that is meant to cause harm to potential thieves.
Right, but your list of potential non-thieves was
So, either you think booby traps are sprung simply on door knocks/bells, or you think neighbors, missionaries, and salespeople can reasonably enter your home and make it to your internal traps without express permission or consent to be on the property.
Lets say I set up a whole ass grenade bouquet. A Mormon knocks on my door, nothing happens. The Mormon leaves, nothing happens. A Sales guy shows up next, rings the bell, nothing happens. He thinks "dude's not home, let's go inside anyway" and breaks in, he goes up the stairs and hits a tripwire...
But why was the sales guy inside? I don't care if he "just wanted to leave Verizon literature on my pillow" or if he was a "thief," he shouldn't have broken in.
If I had a guard dog who I trained to attack intruders, would that be considered booby trapping? Do the same threats not exist in that scenario for uninvited guests? My argument is that any innocent person should be legally allowed to defend themselves and their property. If they accidentally hurt another innocent, then charge them with that.
Good question, honestly. But no. That's a whole different set of laws.
Depends what you plan to use for a hypothetical booby trap.
And I agree with you on that. I'm a proponent of castle doctrine (to a point), but it doesn't account for booby traps.
That's what the current booby trap laws already do. They aren't meant to protect criminals, rather it's to protect innocent people who stumble onto said booby traps.
Try reading the commonlaw justification for outlawing traps before writing an essay about it. The ban is intelligent and ethical. Your comment is neither.
What happens when you fall off a ladder or have a heart attack?
Am I using the ladder to break into a house, or having a heart attack while robbing a guy?
It's not actually insane at all if you think about it.
There could be a reason for someone to need to break into your apartment, like the emergency services, or someone escaping a natural catastrophe or a murderer. Anything could happen. And at that point, when running away from a hurricane/murderer, you shouldn't have to assume any and all private property may be boobytrapped.
It's similar to but not quite the same as why rape shouldn't have the death penalty. Sure, intuitively one might think that's justice. But if you take the thought longer, you'll realise that giving the death penalty for rape just means that any rapists could murder their victim as well, without it actually changing the punishment. Which means it would always be the logical choice for rapists. Meaning victims of rape would also be victims of murder.
Now obviously no-one wants to be raped, but if you had to choose between being raped and being raped and murdered, I'm sure most at least would choose the former.
If boobytrapping homes would be legal, then the emergency services could reasonably just refuse to go anywhere where there can be traps. And thus you'd end up burning quite a lot of people and people trying of relatively easy to fix medical issues.
I too, would enjoy seeing a thief get something blown off, but do we want boobytraps so bad that we don't care about how many people die from the lack of emergency services?