There are two disjoint sets of circumstances, groups of situations/scenarios which truly are mutually exclusive.
On the one hand we have people who are in the process of committing an illegal act will full knowledge of forethought, a premeditated (even if the act came immediately after recognizing the opportunity) action. This includes such things as theft. The bad guy knows it is theft. There is no doubt in his mind that the object of his attentions is NOT HIS and yet he takes action to possess it. This includes people sneaking onto your property to poach deer, birds, fish, or whatever as well asa steal your tractor. They know the animals are on property that does not belong to them or that the tractor isn't theirs. There is nothing accidental about their taking your tractor, fish, or whatever. Climbing or cutting a fence that is not yours and for which you have no permissioin is an affirmative action that clearly serves as prima facie evidence of intent to do damage and or trespass and the perpetrator should do so at his own peril with no civil recourse by himself, his heirs, or assigns irrespective of any injury he may sustain up to and including the use of lethal force against him.
I would like to see the law modified to protect the rightful owner, his legal lessee(s) or duly appointed security person(s) from any and all civil actions arising out of interactions with persons violating the rights of possession of the property (real property/trespassing or personal property/goods.) Spring guns and other booby traps may be excluded from legal use but direct action, including such force as is deemed necessary by the owner, his lessee(s), or duly authorized security person(s) should be permitted up to and including lethal force.
What benefit does a society derive by protecting such persons as would be harmed by allowing direct action as described above?
On the other hand there is a possibility that someone could trespass by accident such as if they lost control of their car and drove through your fence. They might then walk up your drive and knock on your door to try to get assistance or make arrangements for repairs. Shooting such folks as these with no clear justification would not be encouraged nor tolerated without additional information indicating circumstances justifying the action. An inquest could determine if there was a truly accidental nature to the trespass or property damage and that the safety and security of the owner and or his representatives were or were not endangered.
If the above were the law of the land there would be less property crime and lower recidivism in the ranks of thieves.
I venture to speculate that it would not take long before most trespassers and thieves would find other activities to occupy their time. If a thief knew that he was fair game and could be killed with impunity if caught in flagranti the risk vs gain calculations would favor not doing small crime.
Although there might be a brief period of thieves getting dispatched with great frequency, as the gravity of the situation sinks in it is likely the behavior of the thieves (and ex thieves) will be modified.
Once society gets used to the NEW order of handling interactions between the lawful owners and thieves/trespassers (20-25 years) it is likely the boundaries of what is legal to do to thieves via remote means could be shifted toward more effective deterrents. There would need to be guidelines to enforce public safety but after that let the lawbreaker beware. Signs and tall fences allow the use of attack dogs in many jurisdictions. Similar is reasonable for the employ of "booby traps." If you have to climb an 8 ft chain link fence topped with razor wire or electric wire to get to a tractor and then are harmed by a booby trap, oh well, too bad for you.
Reason demands that criminals not be afforded legal redress for any injuries, however severe at the hands of the lawful parties. We need to make it universally accepted that if you choose to break the law and violate the rights of others you have also chosen to give up your own rights.
A natural extension of the pendulum swinging toward reason is to grant licenses to duly trained and tested individuals to act as bounty hunters with reasonable bounties set on the lawbreakers according to the severity of the crime. Crimes of violence against a person should automatically initiate a dead or alive bounty.
It has been said that it takes all kinds to make the world go around. It doesn't.
Pat
