The Shotgun Booby Trap (The Case Of)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 июн 2024
- ⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.link/eagleteam ⚖️
Can you booby trap your own house? When can you use deadly force against an intruder?
Get CuriosityStream AND Nebula for 30 days free curiositystream.com/legaleagle Special EXTENDED version only on Nebula!
Based on the real case of Katko v. Briney, 183 N.W.2d 657 (Iowa 1971). #TrueCrime #LegalEagle
Written by Devin Stone, Donnalyn Vojta, & Tricia Aurand
Illustrations by Alex Duran
Edited by Amy McClung
Summary from Wikipedia:
Bertha Briney inherited an old farmhouse in Mahaska County, Iowa, which the Brineys had left vacant for the last ten years prior to the incident. They had the house boarded up and placed "No Trespassing" signs around the property. The house was in poor condition and was subject to frequent burglaries and break-ins. To defend the house against intruders, Edward Briney mounted a 20-gauge spring-loaded shotgun in the farmhouse and rigged it to fire when the north bedroom door was opened. The gun was aimed downward so as to shoot an intruder's legs, rather than cause a mortal injury. Briney also covered the bedroom window with steel. A month later, on July 16, 1967, Katko entered the farmhouse with the intent of stealing some old bottles and dated fruit jars that Katko considered antiques. He was aware of their presence because he and a friend had broken into the house two weeks earlier. When Katko entered the bedroom, he tripped the trigger mechanism and the shotgun fired into his legs at point blank range. The gunshot wounds were sufficiently severe to require hospitalization, and Katko sued the Brineys after his release from the hospital.
(Thanks to CuriosityStream for sponsoring this video and helping to make this channel possible)
New episodes weekly! Subscribe here:
ruclips.net/user/legaleagle?su...
★More series on LegalEagle★
Real Lawyer Reacts: goo.gl/hw9vcE
Laws Broken: goo.gl/PJw3vK
Law 101: goo.gl/rrzFw3
Real Law Review: goo.gl/NHUoqc
I get asked a lot about whether being a practicing attorney is like being a lawyer on TV. I love watching legal movies and courtroom dramas. It's one of the reasons I decided to become a lawyer. But sometimes they make me want to pull my hair out because they are ridiculous.
Today I'm taking a break from representing clients and teaching law students how to kick ass in law school to take on lawyers in the movies and on TV. While all legal movies and shows take dramatic license to make things more interesting (nobody wants to see hundreds of hours of brief writing), many of them have a grain of truth.
All clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Music by Epidemic Sound: epidemicsound.com/creator
Typical legal disclaimer from a lawyer (occupational hazard): This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos!
========================================================
★ Tweet me @legaleagleDJ ➜ / legaleagledj
★ More vids on Facebook: ➜ / legaleaglereacts
★ Stella’s Insta ➜ / stellathelegalbeagle
For promotional inquiries please reach out here: legaleagle@standard.tv
👮♂️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.
"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?
"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...
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
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.
“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..
It was demonetized for the word booby, ironically
Yay for modern day RUclips! 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?
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!
@@MyNameMeansPalm i was about to comment that too. They cant sue if theyre dead.
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!!!
"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?
@@NINYA4Hire sounds like
Dame Slayer should have*
"Save the Devils, damn the innocent."
@@NINYA4Hire
"Just hire more hit-men."
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.
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.
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
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: ruclips.net/video/KNWh6Kw3ejQ/видео.html
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
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.
‘I’d have aimed that gun a few feet higher’
- Briney, 4 years after the case when asked what he would change about the situation.
Less likely they'd get sued, but then a chance they might go in for involuntary manslaughter if not murder?
@@captainmanacles To be fair given how old they are, those might be equivalent.
@@captainmanacles Probably 1st-degree murder? Due to it being set up with the intention to take another's life. I'm no lawyer though.
@@captainmanacles I'm guessing that if you aim a gun at someone's chest and fire it, it probably counts as intent and therefore murder. Also since they deliberately concealed the trap I don't see how anyone could use "deterrent" as a defence. (And I'm guessing the widow or family could sue?)
Ehhhh. Say they get charged for murder. Maybe 5 years in jail. But that's it. $30,000 in the 50's was half a mortgage. Time wise, might be worth 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"
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.
To sum it up:
You're in your right to defend your house.
However, you cannot use dangerous traps unless the trespasser is a serious threat to people's lives.
The signage is a good idea, warning people that there are potentially life threatening traps, and that by entering, they're waiving their right to file such a suit.
@@JK-gm6kk Depends if such a waiver is allowed, but that would definitely discourage nearly all thieves from entering that house.
@@efulmer8675 Whether the waiver has any legal backing or not really doesn't matter because trespassers will probably take it as though it is and be further dissuaded to trespass
@@Vanilla.coke1234 So its essentially a bluff
I'm currently moving my stuff to my upstairs apartment.
I look out the window, and find a thief stealing my stuff.
I have a gun, am I allowed to shoot the thief to protect my property? No humans are in danger.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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....
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.
The writing on this episode is phenomenal and the delivery is superb. Great sound mix too
Why didn't the homeowners just take their valuables out of the house? If they weren't going to live there and maintain it, why not sell it? A little odd.
Great video!!!
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/
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
Dude, please do more The Case Of! I love chilling out to this this stuff. Your storytelling is great!
More videos like this please. The story lines and the illustrations add a whole new depth to your videos.
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 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!
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
a series like this one has the potential to become a RUclips classic/must-watch, great job!!!
The biggest crime here is YT trying to demonetize this kind of content
RUclips 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
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 RUclips these days.
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 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!
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
"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.
I love this new True Crime project! The illustration theme is great! I hope you can afford to keep it up.
This is impressive. I love the illustration. I love the narrative. Wonderfully done!!!!!
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
"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.
It's Storytime! I love this rendition of briefing legal cases. Please keep them coming.
"This situation is exactly the same"
Bad argument if I've ever seen one.
The 'what about the children' got me. Its like you should not speed and you should be charged more because a child might have ran out into the highway.
@@ingiford175 agreed, found that argument to be a huge stretch. much like the clients limb
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!
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
This is by far one of my favorite videos I've seen on RUclips. Thanks!
I loved this video. Of all your series, this is my favourite!
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.
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.
My very first question would be: Why the hell did the homeowners leave the antiques and stuff in that old house even after it had been broken in repeatedly? That doesn't make any sense to me.
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.
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?
First thing they taught in a self defense course is “dead men tell no tales”
I think you got that confused with Pirating course
@@kinomora-gaming 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.
Imagine if the Brines suddenly died, they are old after all, and the items in that home had to be distributed to those in the will. A lawful search of the home takes place to recover the items and one of the lawful participants opens that door and gets shot. It’s pure negligence on the Brines, and the fact that the trap was unattended means they were prepared to kill WHOEVER walked through that door.
This already happened.
A man booby trapped his whole house but died
The house was then sold but it was full of deadly traps. And weight on word deadly. The guy aimed the traos on upperbody.
All except one traps were disarmed. Location of the last trap is still unknown
@@jarskil8862Get a remote thingy in there and look for it.
Appreciated the animations on this one, good quality script too
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.
"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.
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.
The storytelling in this video is brilliant and engaging. As an English nerd, thank you!
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
When some dudes broke into your house so you release the CLAYMORE ROOMBAS
I should specify movement of the roombas would almost definitely set off the claymores. Claymores use a laser tripwire, so moving the claymores itself would set off the lasers.
In spite of the specification, the mental picture that this comment gave me is hilarious. I cannot upvote this enough.
@@epikmanthe3rd claymores are set off with blasting caps not "laser tripwires" like in video games
That's not how claymores work.
@@gfcmoto4843 bruh its a boogaloo joke.
Awesome AMWESOME way to learn about the law, thank you so much LEAGLE
IMHO they should be punished for the dangerous booby trap but the criminal also shouldn't profit from criminal activity which means he shouldn't get any damages.
He's not really profiting from a few thousand dollars. They paid his medical costs, and maybe some of the cost of his recovery when he couldn't work. It's not like this guy was living the high life from that settlement.
Given your knowledge of what happened, would you willingly accept the resulting damage to your leg and time spent recovering and permanent debilitation, in exchange for - what was it, $30,000? Adjusted for inflation that's probably $50-60,000 today, with most of that only going to cover hospital bills.
Because if you wouldn't at least consider doing it, then you really shouldn't consider it profit.
@@imnotmike Good point. Being European I hadn't really considered medical expenses. Since it's an injury resulting from the boobytrap I guess that's fair.
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!*
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!
I love this style! More videos like this would be greatly welcomed! 🎉
I just learned about torts defenses in a paralegal class, and our discussion of "spring guns" reminded me of this video. Will have to re-watch and see how my understanding of the case has changed.
Should it (not would it) make any difference if a person sat on the bed, keeping guard, inflicting the same damage? Whats the difference really, deliberately setting up a defence mechanism that no law abiding citizen should trigger vs instead of pulling the string you pull the trigger? Ive no idea
@@themug406 The difference is that a man holding a gun has the sapience to assess the situation and decide whether or not to use lethal force.
I suppose that you could put all criminals into a guillotine and leave their judgement up to a machine that literally only does one thing instead of a judge.
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
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
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 watched this right when it came out, and just read the case today for my torts class! great to rewatch!
You should be on Netflix this is way better than other real true crime series.
Hell yeah.
Don't need more people with TDS on there..
I dunno, murdertown is pretty good.
*COUGH COUGH* forensic files *COUGH COUGH*
I rather enjoyed American vandal, though it is a parody.
Home Alone dialed up to 11.
Not really. Kevins shit would have killed anyone not in movie land.
On the other hand kevin was at least home at the time.
@@Blasted2Oblivion Good point. The bucket of paint alone would've at least broken someone's face. The blowtorch to the head would be quite deadly.
Stepping on a Micro Machine barefoot is also always fatal. I know from experience.
can you put some sort of disclaimer or contract on the door, stating that anyone who enters cannot sue for physical damage or death, as there are traps on the premises?
That would likely come down to local laws but worst case scenario it doesn't change anything best case scenario it gets you out of all charges and the most likely scenario is you aren't punished as heavily but are still punished
This video was awesome , good job
"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
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).
This video was brilliant!
This video was awesome🔥🔥
"as a society we don't want people to set up shotgun traps"
I BEG TO DIFFER.
Yes I look forward to the day I burn alive in my own house because the firefighters are justifiably afraid the whole place is rigged. If you decide to use force in self defense you should at least be the one to decide whether you pull the trigger.
@@carlost856 Exactly. Booby traps lack discretion and judgement.
LittleGiant J and breaking into someone else’s home shows poor judgement
@@littlegiantj8761 You are absolutely right. There could always be circumstances where the trap could backfire. Torque's example was a good one, except his firefighters didn't go in. Imagine if they did.
@@fieldmarshall If you fail to notify the brigade or disarm such traps before the brigade arrives you could be held legally accountable, because you are putting people in danger on false pretense.
"Your honor! My client has robbed many places before but those places did NOT have any Shotgun traps!"
This was my gut reaction too lol
"In fact, my client has robbed *this exact place* before, and wasn't shot. Was he supposed to expect a shotgun trap?"
@@kevinmeeker2832 is this a joke?
@@blanchejennette6262 courts are jokes are well.
@@killthemwithfirelol F in chat for the man above
Love,love,love this. It's like listening to an old radio drama.
Awesome vid!
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).
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?
You break into someone's house because you value their stuff more than you value your life.
Fun fact, the current Iowa Code chapter that allows for use of force in defense of property (including deadly force if a person has unlawfully entered a dwelling by stealth or force and remains there) also explicitly disclaims that it isn't authorizing the use of spring guns/traps, and another section says the setting of a spring gun/trap is an aggravated misdemeanor
"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
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.
There was a similar case few years ago in China, however; the only difference is instead of a shotgun the homeowner decided to connect a electric wire to the metal doorknob of the front door of his apartment. This ended with a criminal being electrocuted to death and the home owner being arrested and charged with I think first degree murder and excessive defense of property
That is actually a really good case. Would a normal person that touches the doorknob be with the intention to breaking in.
They both have amazing arguments, it’s beautiful to listen to both sides.
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.
Note to self: don't use a shotgun, but instead, a row of crossbows
Facetentacles
Actually though, if you used a row of low powered crossbows, carefully angled, utilization of bolos, you could mummify a intruder in bolos.
Wouldn’t that be fun.
Tyrion would be proud of you XD
just bread piranhas :p
OK Sen
@@tricksterjoy9740 🤣 Oh God, it's perfect.
I'm nit sure I've heard anyone else accurately use adjudication in a legal frame of reference. Legitly impressed guy.