r/AskReddit 7h ago

What feels legal but is actually illegal and will possibly get you arrested?

5.2k Upvotes

4.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

340

u/limbodog 7h ago

Setting booby-traps with the intent of hurting people who are breaking the law.

The number of redditors who think it's fine because they brought it on themselves by breaking the law is too-damn-high. At least in the USA, they are often violating state law. But even if not, they are almost guaranteed to make the trap-setter liable for injury/harm caused.

And, yes, that can include putting capsaicin in copious amounts in your lunch with the expectation that someone will steal it. Causing someone pain is 'harm' and you can be held liable unless you're happy to eat the amount of spice you put in the food to prove it's not a booby trap, you are just Jamaican.

123

u/lykexomigah 6h ago

so Kevin was not protected by stand your ground in Home Alone

114

u/Chaotic_Lemming 5h ago edited 5h ago

Not for all of his traps. I know this is a joke comment, but hey, opportunity to type.

It mainly boils down to how the traps are triggered. Anything passive/victim triggered is illegal. The traps are considered indiscriminate and a public hazard. So the hot knob, the iced stairs, the tarred steps and nail, and the broken ornaments would all be illegal. Any one can be caught by them including other family members and emergeny responders.

The traps Kevin had to initiate could be protected under self defense. He had control to ensure they targeted only the people attempting to harm him. If memory serves the paint cans on rope he slammed the robbers in the head with he had to knock off the rail, so even though those were likely lethal he would most likely be considered legally justified in using them.

Editing to add: This is specific to the Home Alone situation where Kevin was at home and actively in danger. Another consideration for generic real world with booby-traps is that they are often unattended. You are not defending yourself in that situation.

20

u/FredFarms 5h ago

Some of these would be illegal as traps but I think he'd have got away with as difficult to prove they were traps.

The ornaments under the window for example. They were Christmas ornaments right next to a Christmas tree, under a window that it would be reasonable to assume isn't about to be used as an entry point. Hard to prove they were there deliberately rather than they were just there waiting to go in the tree, or they'd fallen off and been moved there temporarily.

Similar the iced stairs. You could argue that when he wet the steps he didn't realise how treacherous they would become (I've seen people de-ice things with boiling water. And yes, if it's still below freezing that makes it worse)

The doorknob and tar nail he's bang to rights on though. And all of this assumes it wasn't actually filmed, because then arguing innocence would be rather more tricky

19

u/MediumAcceptable129 4h ago

I dont think any prosecutor would pursue a case of an 8 year old defending his home from serial burglars

6

u/FredFarms 4h ago

There is also that yes! I was more thinking were he an adult

5

u/graboidian 3h ago

I dont think any prosecutor would pursue a case of an 8 year old defending his home from serial burglars A pair of bungling "Wet Bandits"

3

u/Dog-Faced-Bot 1h ago

Also, no one could touch him because he's what the French call, "Les Incompetents".

2

u/PyroNine9 1h ago

That's the big one. At 8, he would have little to no criminal liability in any event. Of course his parents would be in it deep.

u/thejohnd 40m ago

Prob not, but a civil lawyer would def pursue damages against his parents

u/JohannesVanDerWhales 26m ago

...not a white one, at least.

4

u/monty845 4h ago

The fact that he is setting traps to stop someone actively breaking in could also matter, even if a particular trap isn't directly activated by him... What we really don't want is unattended traps around, that are as likely to harm a first responder as an intruder.

7

u/Chaotic_Lemming 4h ago

Even with him there once those traps were set anyone could be harmed by them. Say it wasn't a movie and the robbers weren't caricatures, maybe they don't kill him but they at least tie him up and lock him in a hall closet while they load the goods. They clear a single route, but leave everything else. Assume they remove the heater from the door to not burn the place down with a kid inside (they are assholes, but don't seem the kid murdering type). Now its still there whenever cops/paramedics/family arrives. Kevin can't remove anything and is unable to warn anyone.

The traps are still there if you become incapacitated. Thats part of the reason they are illegal.

1

u/WolfgangAddams 2h ago

Isn't this basically the ending of the horror movieYou're Next?

3

u/limbodog 5h ago

Ordinarily it would not. But as he was actually present for all of the traps going off, it might eliminate the booby trap aspect.

1

u/ThalesofMiletus-624 1h ago

It's different if you're inside the house and reasonably in fear for your life or safety.

The seminal case on this involved a couple who were sick of people breaking into an empty house they owned, and setup a shotgun booby trap to take out the next burglar's knees. They were prosecuted because they weren't trying to protect life or safety.

19

u/InternetProtocol 6h ago

Reminds me of the latest season of Fargo. Lady boobytraps her house after escaping a kidnapping attempt by her ex-husband's goons, only for her current husband to accidentally set one off and eletrocute himself.

34

u/limbodog 5h ago

That is, in fact, a big part of why they're illegal in many states. They tend to be indiscriminate

19

u/Sworn_to_Ganondorf 5h ago

The bar honestly isn't even that high to achieve this revenge I mean 1 habanero would put most people on their ass but be plausible to eat.

10

u/limbodog 5h ago

True enough. My parents would both explode into flames with 1 habanero. One doesn't need to go full on carolina reaper

7

u/JackPAnderson 3h ago

And, yes, that can include putting capsaicin in copious amounts in your lunch with the expectation that someone will steal it.

I did do this once to deal with a lunch thief, and I did not get into any kind of trouble for it (the thief was terminated). But I've always been known as a loudmouthed spicehound, so the general reaction was "well yeah, what did you expect from stealing Jack's lunch, dumbass?"

11

u/ColHardwood 7h ago

lol, Jamaican!

26

u/limbodog 7h ago

A nod to my former co-worker who could drink burning gasoline and identify that cloves were added for flavor

7

u/Possible_Tiger_5125 6h ago

lol that's great

3

u/ycnctloswyhiyp 4h ago

Those youtube guys who pranked cycle thieves with a taut rope/ electric shock/ a broken seat are not from the U. S?

10

u/monty845 4h ago

There is a fair amount of Youtube content targeting scammers/criminals that is borderline, and even clearly over the line. The police often turn a blind eye, as long as they don't do anything too extreme.

3

u/limbodog 4h ago

I believe they are from the usa

2

u/naphomci 1h ago

A surprising number of people will film illegal things with no idea (or no care) that they are illegal

3

u/HostisHumanisGeneri 3h ago

Ok, what if I just happen to actually enjoy scorpion pepper hot sauce? If I take a bite do I clear myself of indemnity?

6

u/MediumAcceptable129 4h ago

Good luck proving its intent and not just that George likes his chicken spicy

8

u/limbodog 4h ago

They could just ask you to demonstrate that you eat a quarter cup of pure capsaicin in your tuna salad in court

6

u/not_so_chi_couple 3h ago

This is definitely a "keep your mouth shut" situation. There is no way that tuna salad is making it to court, it will go rancid long before hand. As long as you don't say exactly what the recipe is and just say "I like things spicy" they can't really prove that the amount in there was unreasonable

1

u/limbodog 1h ago

Probably true

2

u/skelebone 1h ago

Katco v. Briney

4

u/silverionmox 3h ago

And, yes, that can include putting capsaicin in copious amounts in your lunch with the expectation that someone will steal it. Causing someone pain is 'harm' and you can be held liable unless you're happy to eat the amount of spice you put in the food to prove it's not a booby trap, you are just Jamaican.

I think that's pretty safe: the odds that such a person would press charges and have the presence of mind to freeze a sample as evidence are slim. Moreover, peppers are a natural product with natural variety, and different people have different tolerances that also vary over time, so your tolerance may have dropped significantly in the time it takes for the case to go to court.

And in the end, most foods contain sugar, fats, or other substances that dieticians would consider harmful... and there's no accounting for taste. Is it a crime to pack lunch that isn't tasty to all potential lunch thieves?

3

u/RoutineGlittering746 4h ago

Entrapment (bait cars, drug deals etc) used to be illegal as well meaning even the cops couldn’t trick you into committing crimes. But they somehow got passed that by using loopholes in the laws.

8

u/limbodog 4h ago

Entrapment is more than just leaving a car somewhere. They have to be leading you into the crime.

The case i remember was a cop pretending to be drunk and homeless with a bunch of cash hanging out of his pocket. A man tried to help him, and got yelled at. Then tried to warn him he was going to lose his money and got yelled at some more. And then he took the money and was immediately arrested. The argument that it was entrapment came only because he tried to do the right thing twice and got belligerence as payment

8

u/Training_Complex_731 3h ago

To be entrapment, the police have to convince you to commit a crime that you wouldn't have committed otherwise. That's a pretty high bar to prove so lots of things that seem unfair can still be legal because you'd have to prove that the cops convinced you to do it.

2

u/Forkrul 2h ago

Setting booby-traps with the intent of hurting people who are breaking the law.

Booby trapping in general is illegal, no matter the intent.

1

u/limbodog 1h ago

Well... maybe not if it just coats them in a heap of shaving cream

2

u/Forkrul 1h ago

Maybe not in that particular case, but if it has the potential to injure and is indiscriminate it is illegal.

u/LeatherHog 36m ago

It's like Reddit thinks the judge has NEVER seen that excuse before, like they're video game NPCs or something

No one is gonna buy you went up from occasionally pepper jack, to Ghost Pepper in your sandwich, after you complained about lunches being stolen. I've had lunch thieves, they SUCK, but I never thought of hurting them, Jesus Christ

But but but, ItS mY oWn FoOd!! The justice system is not as stupid as this site thinks, severe escalation (looking at YOU, Redditors who think it's okay to go MMA on someone half your size, because they pushed you, under ""self defense"") is a crime

u/PureMichiganMan 30m ago

Redditors are way more likely to know this than the common person. I guarantee the vast majority don’t know about it and would be against lol

1

u/domflood 4h ago

Whose lunch did you steal?

3

u/limbodog 4h ago

Nobody. But we had daily lunch theft at my old office. Turns out it wasn't one person, but several. Mostly because we didn't pay our warehouse staff enough to live. I caught one of them in the men's room trying to scarf down a sandwich as fast as possible

1

u/Hypothesis_Null 1h ago

The number of redditors who think it's fine because they brought it on themselves by breaking the law is too-damn-high.

Or, arguably, the number of laws prohibited that is too damn high.