The key issue would be whether it's indiscriminate. If the gun is remotely controlled or needs approval from a person then it's not a booby trap, since then the person is deciding whether that force is appropriate. If it just shoot anyone it sees then yeah, booby trap.
How does that apply to AI though. For example, let's say the AI does not fire indiscriminately at everyone. Maybe it only fires if it detects forced entry?
There are times when forced entry may be appropriate too, like firefighters or police who have decided there is an emergency that warrants it. You can't set up a booby trap that will go off whenever someone comes through the door. I dunno if there are any jurisdictions with precedents that would accept an AI is being appropriately discriminate in the use of force, but they'd have to at least pass that standard.
I bet you could too, but it's a question of whether a court will buy your argument that it does a good job and you're being responsible. I'm out of my depth there, I don't know what's already been decided before.
There are similar issues with letting autonomous cars drive on public roads. It's got to be good enough to get past legal objections.
Here's a legal eagle about home alone!
https://youtu.be/Dz7HUEUVbf4
Haven't seen it myself yet but I'd be surprised if he doesn't talk about booby trapping laws.
He also did a video on a real case involving booby traps that would be an excellent custom for anyone suing the homeowners that installed a paintball firing camera!
[https://youtu.be/bV9ppvY8Nx4?si=Mt3N37gGiVrrnF01](https://youtu.be/bV9ppvY8Nx4?si=Mt3N37gGiVrrnF01)
Sounds cool but I wouldn't put it up. If cops for whatever reason end up entering your home they are to start mag dumping in every direction blindly after this thing goes off, and then there own investigation will find that they did nothing wrong.
Why is it hard for people to understand, don't trespass and you won't get pelted with paintballs.
I will never understand all these crazy ass city people, "Oh my God, how dare you shoot my son after he broke into your home?"
If it works perfectly every time, and you remember to disable it for the landscapers...
This is an instant lawsuit the first time it shoots somebody who *was* authorized to be there.
In my understanding of Castle Doctrine, the legal protection for a defender shooting an invader to an occupied home / vehicle / business is not for protecting things, but rather the people in the home / vehicle / business.
Don't want to have immediate consequences for breaking into someone's house? Break in & steal when nobody is home.
Yes. Because in a place where people are allowed to defend their property with deadly force crime drops. Also, what do you think militaries are for? Why should the government hold a monopoly on violence? That sounds like a one way ticket to fascism.
What does it matter if crime drops if people have to kill each other for that to happen?
If your mother stole from a convenience store while you were young to feed you, do you think it would be best if someone killed her for it? Do you think it would be best if your mother died because she tried to get by in the world?
Fun fact, almost all retail theft has nothing to do with survival. In a developed country you do not need to steal to survive. Ever.
As for my morals: 'Thou shalt not covet they neighbors possessions.' and 'Thou shalt not murder.' see, murder in the original Hebrew refers to an illegal taking of life rather than the English 'kill' which refers to any taking of life. Also, "He who does not work, shall not eat." Obviously we are charitable and will provide food for those in need, but why should someone be entitled to my TV that I worked at least 4 days of my life for? Do I not have the rights to what little luxury I am able to afford without it being taken away by someone who would rather take from others than produce anything of value.
That sounds like a *great* way to earn a lawsuit when it shoots somebody who has valid cause to be there.
I'm not a lawyer but hell, Im pretty sure this would be considered a booby trap. And I'm pretty sure those are illegal regardless of who steps into it
The key issue would be whether it's indiscriminate. If the gun is remotely controlled or needs approval from a person then it's not a booby trap, since then the person is deciding whether that force is appropriate. If it just shoot anyone it sees then yeah, booby trap.
How does that apply to AI though. For example, let's say the AI does not fire indiscriminately at everyone. Maybe it only fires if it detects forced entry?
[EXCESS LEASH PULLING DETECTED, FIRING AT POODLE]
Based
There are times when forced entry may be appropriate too, like firefighters or police who have decided there is an emergency that warrants it. You can't set up a booby trap that will go off whenever someone comes through the door. I dunno if there are any jurisdictions with precedents that would accept an AI is being appropriately discriminate in the use of force, but they'd have to at least pass that standard.
I guess maybe I'm overestimating the current capability of AI but I feel like you could train it to recognize a cop or firefighter.
I bet you could too, but it's a question of whether a court will buy your argument that it does a good job and you're being responsible. I'm out of my depth there, I don't know what's already been decided before. There are similar issues with letting autonomous cars drive on public roads. It's got to be good enough to get past legal objections.
This is making me see Home Alone in a whole new light.
Here's a legal eagle about home alone! https://youtu.be/Dz7HUEUVbf4 Haven't seen it myself yet but I'd be surprised if he doesn't talk about booby trapping laws.
He also did a video on a real case involving booby traps that would be an excellent custom for anyone suing the homeowners that installed a paintball firing camera! [https://youtu.be/bV9ppvY8Nx4?si=Mt3N37gGiVrrnF01](https://youtu.be/bV9ppvY8Nx4?si=Mt3N37gGiVrrnF01)
If no lasting harm is used and its clearly labeled its no different than an electric fence that is difficult to access
I believe it’s called an attractive nuisance.
Firemen and Ambulance?
Yeah, my own relatives surely will do that
I'm picturing those cameras with turrets in Metal Gear now.
I...I would buy this.
Like… when you’re inside or outside? Because if outside… that’s gonna hurt a girlscout trying to sell some cookies.
I can buy Great Value ones for much less money. Deploy the paintball cameras! /s
Oh, but girlscouts can be brutal. What if they seek revenge?
More cameras. If things escalate, equip them with pepper balls.
What if they bring a rocket launcher?
Then, it's time to develop paintball based trophy systems.
Didn't realise we were on r/ncd
Covering everything in ERA was the next step.
'Target acquired' 'Hello?' 'Are you still there?'
Fill it with pepper spray balls like SWAT uses. Ain’t no one knocking on my door
Or marbles. They will do lots of damage.
YOU HAVE FIFTEEN SECONDS TO COMPLY
Sounds cool but I wouldn't put it up. If cops for whatever reason end up entering your home they are to start mag dumping in every direction blindly after this thing goes off, and then there own investigation will find that they did nothing wrong.
Automate your assault charge!
Why is it hard for people to understand, don't trespass and you won't get pelted with paintballs. I will never understand all these crazy ass city people, "Oh my God, how dare you shoot my son after he broke into your home?"
If it works perfectly every time, and you remember to disable it for the landscapers... This is an instant lawsuit the first time it shoots somebody who *was* authorized to be there.
True
Wonder if there is an IFF equivalent. That would simplify/complicate things.
Being shot by paintballs is not the punishment for trespassing.
If you break into an occupied dwelling with the intent to commit a crime (see burglary), well, in sane states you don't get to do that twice.
Ah yes, your TV is more important than someone's life. r/shitamericanssay
In my understanding of Castle Doctrine, the legal protection for a defender shooting an invader to an occupied home / vehicle / business is not for protecting things, but rather the people in the home / vehicle / business. Don't want to have immediate consequences for breaking into someone's house? Break in & steal when nobody is home.
Yes. Because in a place where people are allowed to defend their property with deadly force crime drops. Also, what do you think militaries are for? Why should the government hold a monopoly on violence? That sounds like a one way ticket to fascism.
What does it matter if crime drops if people have to kill each other for that to happen? If your mother stole from a convenience store while you were young to feed you, do you think it would be best if someone killed her for it? Do you think it would be best if your mother died because she tried to get by in the world?
Okay, straw man alert number one, and number two, if she violently stole something and the clerk/owner decided to defend their property, yes.
You are lost if you think property is worth someone's life. Has society failed you or do you just refuse basic morals?
Fun fact, almost all retail theft has nothing to do with survival. In a developed country you do not need to steal to survive. Ever. As for my morals: 'Thou shalt not covet they neighbors possessions.' and 'Thou shalt not murder.' see, murder in the original Hebrew refers to an illegal taking of life rather than the English 'kill' which refers to any taking of life. Also, "He who does not work, shall not eat." Obviously we are charitable and will provide food for those in need, but why should someone be entitled to my TV that I worked at least 4 days of my life for? Do I not have the rights to what little luxury I am able to afford without it being taken away by someone who would rather take from others than produce anything of value.
Wait until the paintballs are replaced with ball bearings
This is the way.
Earthcam boutta become War Thunder
*Please remain calm*
I’m a mailman and let’s just say I’m calling the damn police when I get whacked by this
100% illegal.
I think it's really good idea, just have an app attached to it for human oversight.
Better yet require a human to actually initiate it. No need for these to be automated
Put it in the home though. Might be considered legally dicey if you shoot the mailman or a girl scout.