全 32 件のコメント

[–]Ramady 68ポイント69ポイント  (2子コメント)

I'm going to put this bluntly to get the point across: your grandmother could spend the rest of her life in prison and lose her house.

[–]FuckingInsaneCatLady[S] 13ポイント14ポイント  (1子コメント)

Thank you. I'll try to get this across to her as best as I can.

[–]msgnomer 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Or worse, one of the children could fall in the trap and be killed. Your grandmother can't possibly be in her right mind if she thinks hiding bear traps on her property is a good idea.

[–]expatinpa 32ポイント33ポイント  (5子コメント)

Well you are correct about one thing: this side of your family is crazy. And it sounds like dementia is in the mix, so you quite probably won't be able to persuade them that what they are doing is a seriously bad idea. So really, your only option is to call the police and tell them what is happening.

[–]FuckingInsaneCatLady[S] 9ポイント10ポイント  (4子コメント)

They do listen to authority figures, I've noticed. I don't think the traps are up yet (like I said, I live in a different state). Would this hopefully lead to the police informing them it is illegal and warning them not to? Or since they already do own the traps will they get into trouble? The rifle thing as well. I know they aren't supposed to have it and it is right there where a kid could so easily pick it up and hurt themselves.

[–]expatinpa 9ポイント10ポイント  (1子コメント)

It's hard to say, but really, is an illegal possession of a rifle or possession of an illegal trap charge worse than what will happen to them if someone gets hurt? And it sounds like it's pretty likely that someone will get hurt.

Sometimes you have to be the bad guy and do the right thing. Call the cops.

[–]FuckingInsaneCatLady[S] 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

No, you're right. I just love my grandma a lot. I love the kids too and prioritize their safety over protecting her irrational decision making. While her intentions are to help her family, she doesn't realize what could happen to the babies or to her husband or someone else.

I'll go ahead and phone the police department. It's a small town and they said the police won't arrest the guy. I don't quite understand why, but I'm sure they will do the right thing and talk them out of the traps and do what they need to do and confiscate the rifle.

[–]lawnerdcanada 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Or since they already do own the traps will they get into trouble?

I doubt simple possession of a bear trap is a crime in Kansas.

The rifle thing as well. I know they aren't supposed to have it and it is right there where a kid could so easily pick it up and hurt themselves.

There is no firearm licensing or registration in Kansas, nor does state law impose firearm storage rules.

[–]xoxoamy 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You can definitely call and get a wellness check done.

[–]rnbwpnt 9ポイント10ポイント  (9子コメント)

As a general rule, booby traps are bad juju.

If he is violating an order, complain to your lawyer, who will bring it to the judge, who may get unhappy with Steve.

However, the sorts of trouble you could get into with bear traps (assuming only the asshole is injured) could land people in prison for a long time. If a kid or your incompetent grandfather is hurt, it could be even longer, and that's assuming everybody survives the incident. Especially in your grandfather's case, that may not actually happen.

[–]FuckingInsaneCatLady[S] 4ポイント5ポイント  (8子コメント)

I've told them over and over again to just document and take pictures of Steve every time he violates the order. They chose bear traps and rifles.

How long of a prison sentence are we talking? Who would go? What would happen to the babies?

[–]expatinpa 11ポイント12ポイント  (4子コメント)

How long of a prison sentence are we talking? Who would go? What would happen to the babies?

Life. Your grandmother. Foster care.

[–]FuckingInsaneCatLady[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

Eep not good. But wait, Cara is the mother of three of those children. If my grandma gets the sentence and charge, wouldn't the kids just go with the mother?

[–]ziekktx 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

She'll be sued civilly and lose everything. Her insurance likely won't won't even defend her for criminal actions. Cara will be looking for a new place to stay. Grandpa will need a new caretaker and home.

[–]FuckingInsaneCatLady[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Thankfully, my dad would more than happily take Grandpa in. We all hate the three adopted ladies. Love and pity their children. I would try and help out with the kids but I have a child and am pregnant with twins... too much to handle right now and not really eager to bring possible dysfunction into a healthy house.

Would she lose her children? Would the state take them?

[–]ScribeWrite 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Oh yes. The state would take the kids. If they found bear traps the kids would be removed and places in foster care.

[–]rnbwpnt 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Depends on what happens. If grandma gets popped for it, which as homeowner and instigator is likely, any sentence might be a life sentence. If a child is injured, decades isn't out of the question. Juries really don't like kids getting hurt.

[–]FuckingInsaneCatLady[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I don't like kids getting hurt either =( I just wanna help them out so they don't get snagged in a ridiculous bear trap.

[–]taterbizkit 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

It is all the way illegal. It is 100% illegal.

The person could be burglarizing your house, stealing stuff and crapping on your sofa, and a court will treat your grandma as a worse offender.

That's just burglary. What grannie wants to do is aggravated assault, and possibly mayhem (intentional disfiguring injury). Plus a civil suit for damages.

[–]KJ6BWB 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

It's pretty simple. The law wants to protect firefighters/police, right? If everyone in the house leaves to go to a movie, and the house catches on fire (old wiring) and firefighters respond, and one of them gets mangled by a trap, it'll be really serious and whoever placed the trap will be in a lot of trouble.

The law in most states is written to protect first responders and a trap like that has no way of knowing whether a person is a first responder or not, so the laws are written to punish a person as though a first responder had been caught in a trap, so as to promulgate the idea that these sorts of things are terrible ideas and should be discouraged wherever possible (so as to better protect first responders).

Tl;dr If a firefighter trying to save the house gets trapped, it would be super bad, an intruder getting caught reflects as badly on the homeowner as though it had been a firefighter who'd been caught.

[–]guns_and_abortion 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

This actually might be the best argument to convince grandma to not go setting bear traps like real life is Loony Toons.

[–]FoghornLawhorn 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Of course, this still doesn't stop the possibility of Steve sticking his finger in the end of grandma's shotgun so that when she shoots, it explodes away like a banana peel. (That's why I'd suggest painting a picture of a tunnel on the side of the house with a road leading up to it).

[–]anon__sequitur 2ポイント3ポイント  (8子コメント)

You can be found liable to someone injured in your trap, even if that person is trespassing on your property. For whatever reason, this is something they mention on the bar exam pretty frequently.

I'm not sure about criminal liability, but the prospect of getting sued into oblivion for setting off a bear-trap on someone's leg should convince them to knock it off.

[–]FuckingInsaneCatLady[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

That's what blows my mind. I tried explaining that Steve could turn around and probably sue if he got injured by the trap and they were baffled that that could even happen and decided I was wrong.

[–]Discover2010 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Katko v. Briney, 183 N.W.2d 657 (Iowa 1971), was a famous court case, in which a homeowner (Edward Briney) was held liable for battery for injuries caused to a trespasser (Marvin Katko) who set off a spring gun set as a mantrap in an abandoned house on the homeowner's property.

[–]lawnerdcanada 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

They'd probably be charged with aggravated battery if someone was injured, or involuntary manslaughter if someone died.

[–]anon__sequitur 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

Yeah, I can see that if the victim died it'd be easy to show that setting a beartrap in your yard is criminally negligent. I was just thinking about various levels of assault where they have to prove intent. But I guess intent could be inferred. Still, it seems to me that you could make a case that it was your intent that the trap not go off. I'm not sure..

[–]FuckingInsaneCatLady[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

She posted it on Facebook publicly that she was gonna do it (grandma) and asked for help. Is that enough to prove intent?

[–]anon__sequitur 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

as the poster below pointed out, they wouldn't have to prove intent for assault or manslaughter in KS. They'd only need to prove recklessness. And putting a bear-trap in your backyard is an incredibly reckless action.

You really should contact someone (police?) about this. If nobody's gotten hurt, I don't think they'd get in any serious trouble.

[–]lawnerdcanada 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

It's reckless (which is sufficient mens rea for assault and manslaughter in Kansas): you knew that if a person stepped on the trap they would likely be seriously injured, but you set the trap anyway.

If your defence is that you did not intend for the trap to go off, but the trap is just an ordinary, functional bear trap - i.e. not modified so as not to trigger - then your defence has no merit.

[–]anon__sequitur 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ah, I didn't know that recklessness could satisfy the mens rea for assaults, I thought it was always knowingly/intentionally. That takes care of that.

But if the culpability level were knowingly/intentionally (as it is in many jurisdictions), and your intention was that the trap would scare people off, but never cause any bodily harm, and the court believed you, I don't see how a fact-finder could reasonably infer intent.