Man in Maine killed by own gun booby trap

[Still Waters]

A 65-year-old American man who rigged his home with a booby trap to keep out intruders has been killed by the device.

Ronald Cyr called police in the town of Van Buren in the state of Maine to say he had been shot.

Police found a door had been designed to fire a handgun should anyone attempt to enter. Mr Cyr was taken to hospital but died of his injuries.

It is not known how he managed to set off the device.

It is not uncommon for home-owners to install such traps - but it is illegal.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50619952

[acute]

At least he died knowing his booby trap was a total success.

 

Edited December 1, 2019 by acute

[+and-then]

Fools do tend to be self-limiting.  I'm just glad it wasn't some kid.

[Dark_Grey]

He wasn't satisfied with marbles on the stairs and swinging paint cans?

[Scholar4Truth]

This will get a Darwin Award. 

[+OverSword]

What get's me is did he really have anything in his home that was worth more than a life?  

[SHaYap]

Idle hands and Hollywoodism

~

[aztek]

best boobytrap- two rottweilers ,

thou i do understand why he put one there, if house is not always occupied,  squatters either destroy it, or some a bit smarter ones take over. and it cost quite  a penny and months to get them out,  then repair the house,  my summer house always has power on, internet hooked up, ip cameras and security contract. 

Edited December 3, 2019 by aztek

[aztek]

2 hours ago, OverSword said:

What get's me is did he really have anything in his home that was worth more than a life?  

whose life? his? i'm sure he did not intend to be killed by his own device,  as for  trespassers, they need to ask if their life worth breaking into someone's house, it is not about  things inside, but entire concept of private property and security in your own home,

[+OverSword]

13 minutes ago, aztek said:

whose life? his? i'm sure he did not intend to be killed by his own device,  as for  trespassers, they need to ask if their life worth breaking into someone's house, it is not about  things inside, but entire concept of private property and security in your own home,

Forget about this guy for a sec.  If you're not home your life isn't in danger so no need for a booby trap IMO.  For one thing a deadly trap in your home is not legal, for another, do you really want to kill some teenage idiot because he was going to steal a DVD player?  I don't. Now if you're in your home go ahead and assume you're in danger, your own life is worth killing someone over if you're that afraid.

[aztek]

15 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Forget about this guy for a sec.  If you're not home your life isn't in danger so no need for a booby trap IMO.  For one thing a deadly trap in your home is not legal, for another, do you really want to kill some teenage idiot because he was going to steal a DVD player?  I don't. Now if you're in your home go ahead and assume you're in danger, your own life is worth killing someone over if you're that afraid.

this attitude  assumes it is ok to break into someone's home and steal things,  i'm very much against it.  if it takes mortal danger for people to stop thinking like that , i'm all for it.   whatever it takes,  if you do not break into ppl's houses nothing will happen to you

Edited December 3, 2019 by aztek

[SHaYap]

I'm sure paramedics or fire fighters don't need to scour properties for booby traps when they're in a rush to save lives, in case of emergencies 

~

[+OverSword]

1 hour ago, aztek said:

this attitude  assumes it is ok to break into someone's home and steal things, 

No it doesn’t.  It assumes that a life is worth more than a belonging.  Stealing is never okay. Setting a trap to kill someone who is stealing is also never okay. The only time it’s acceptable to take a life is when there is a good reason to believe that doing so will save you or someone else. Even my favorite guitar isn’t worth killing someone over. When I was a teenager I had a friend with a messed up home life that got caught doing a few things including burglary and drug dealing.  Eventually he got married, had a family,  started a carpentry business and basically became a pillar of the community. It would have been a loss to the world had he been shot breaking into someone’s house at age 16.

[aztek]

1 minute ago, OverSword said:

No it doesn’t.  It assumes that a life is worth more than a belonging.  

exactly, is your life worth someone's belonging?

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

Forget about this guy for a sec.  If you're not home your life isn't in danger so no need for a booby trap IMO.  For one thing a deadly trap in your home is not legal, for another, do you really want to kill some teenage idiot because he was going to steal a DVD player?  I don't. Now if you're in your home go ahead and assume you're in danger, your own life is worth killing someone over if you're that afraid.

[aztek]

32 minutes ago, third_eye said:

I'm sure paramedics or fire fighters don't need to scour properties for booby traps when they're in a rush to save lives, in case of emergencies 

~

good point, that is  the opposite side of the coin. but then, it is not uncommon for people boobytrap their houses, but so far neither  firefighter nor an emt ever got hurt by one.  and i'm not talking about meth labs, or stash houses booby traps

Edited December 3, 2019 by aztek

[aztek]

21 minutes ago, OverSword said:

 When I was a teenager I had a friend with a messed up home life that got caught doing a few things including burglary and drug dealing.  Eventually he got married, had a family,  started a carpentry business and basically became a pillar of the community. It would have been a loss to the world had he been shot breaking into someone’s house at age 16.

for every 1 who turns their life around there are dozens if not hundreds who do not, who commit more serious crimes, and hurt people, end up in prison, or killed by their own "buddies" or by someone defending against them, or cops,   and no it would not be a great loss, someone else would be doing what he is doing now, he was just lucky to survive. and not end up behind bars or get deeper into life of crime, that is all there is to it.  

[+OverSword]

25 minutes ago, aztek said:

exactly, is your life worth someone's belonging?

You’re not wrong. I’m just personally not going to set a lethal trap. I’m also confident in my ability to defend myself in my cramped apartment should some fool try to come in here while I’m home. Even if they have a gun and I don’t they’ll never know where I came from

[aztek]

no one jumps in front of a train, or grabs high voltage live wires, they know they would die period, no ifs and buts, same train of thought should be about trespassing, life would be a lot better and safer.  but you can't achieve that by making laws, and telling people it is not a nice thing to do. it doesn't work,  and i don't believe every life is priceless,  it only worth as much as you make it worth.  it is not guns or knives, or whatever that make world dangerous, it is criminal intent

Edited December 3, 2019 by aztek

[SHaYap]

32 minutes ago, aztek said:

good point, that is  the opposite side of the coin. but then, it is not uncommon for people boobytrap their houses, but so far neither  firefighter nor an emt ever got hurt by one.  and i'm not talking about meth labs, or stash houses booby traps

If I'm not mistaken, it's also against the law to neglect putting up "beware" of dog signs on properties with certain breeds

~

[aztek]

2 minutes ago, third_eye said:

If I'm not mistaken, it's also against the law to neglect putting up "beware" of dog signs on properties with certain breeds

~

i don't know of such law in my state.   and it is not a good idea to put up those signs anyway, if your dog does bite someone, that sign may work against you in court

[SHaYap]

Just now, aztek said:

i don't know of such law in my state.   and it is not a good idea to put up those signs anyway, if your dog does bite someone, that sign may work against you in court

Well, I do know it's not state law, I'm not sure where it applies but I'm sure it's law in urban areas, I remember the discussions was about cops shooting dogs though, if they don't see the sign when they're on the property, they're authorised to shoot for their own safety, like you mentioned, meth labs and crack joints use the dogs as a front end security feature, mostly trained to be vicious and usually involving breeds that can definitely do a world of hurt. 

~

[aztek]

11 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Well, I do know it's not state law, I'm not sure where it applies but I'm sure it's law in urban areas, I remember the discussions was about cops shooting dogs though, if they don't see the sign when they're on the property, they're authorised to shoot for their own safety, like you mentioned, meth labs and crack joints use the dogs as a front end security feature, mostly trained to be vicious and usually involving breeds that can definitely do a world of hurt. 

~

no it is not, feel free to link me to that law, i have dogs all my life, so i know pretty much all there is to know about dog law and liability in usa

cops can shoot any dog anywhere, for any reason, even if dog is asleep,  or behind the fence.  sign or not is irrelevant. no cop will even be questioned about shooting a dog for any reason.  now if you do have a sign, you acknowledge that your dog is dangerous, so cops are more likely to kill it.  or come on your property with guns drawn, even if they don't see any dog,  because you basically told them there is a dangerous dog there

Edited December 3, 2019 by aztek

[SHaYap]

1 minute ago, aztek said:

no it is not, feel free to link me to that law, i have dogs all my life, so i know pretty much all there is to know about dog law and liability in usa

cops can shoot any dog anywhere, for any reason, even if dog is a sleep,  or behind the fence.  sign or not is irrelevant.  now if you do have a sign, you acknowledge that your dog is dangerous, so cops are more likely to kill it. 

That's an interesting way to look at it, I wasn't too interested anyway, what I understand is if the cops are on the property and there is a sign, they have to follow procedure and ensure the dog is contained and they are safe, if there are no signs, then they can forego that procedure, it also means they are authorised to shoot if the dog shows up and they're not informed. 

Anyways... Just a little google shows this up, not all that hard

Quote

A dog owner shall not be liable to a person who suffers bodily injury, serious bodily injury, or death from being bitten by the dog: While the person is on property of the dog owner and the property is clearly and conspicuously marked with one or more posted signs stating “no trespassing” or “beware of dog”.Aug 15, 2013

https://www.signs.com › blog › bew...

Beware of Dog: Signage That Can Decrease Dog Liability - Signs.com

~

I guess "no trespassing" works as well though I don't think it applies if the cops are carrying out their duty on the property, they still have to inquire and be informed about the dogs, if not, I guess it's too bad for the dogs

~

[aztek]

11 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Quote

 

A dog owner shall not be liable to a person who suffers bodily injury, serious bodily injury, or death from being bitten by the dog: While the person is on property of the dog owner and the property is clearly and conspicuously marked with one or more posted signs stating “no trespassing” or “beware of dog”.Aug 15, 2013

~

 

 

lol, that is absolutely NOT true, a company that sells dog signs can write anything they want, it does not make it true.  in reality it is pretty complicated, and in vast majority of cases you ARE liable if your dog bites someone.  especially when it comes to civil court.  

it is easier to be not found liable for shooting someone, than for having your dog bite someone

Edited December 3, 2019 by aztek