A friend recently had a three person team break into his three flat building during broad daylight in Chicago near ORD. It took 60+ minutes for CPD to respond. Luckily, he had the pump action shotgun I had purchased him and was home at the time. CPD took the report and left. We’ve reached out to Flock for cameras for the street.
Assault is not great, but the necessary response is a function of a low trust society. Better to be safe than experience loss to life and property.
As you seem to be thinking about an automated system… you should probably also check for laws against keeping an unsafe house (I can’t remember what the keyword is here, sorry).
Could you elaborate a little? This is admittedly not what I intended this thread for, but you got me really curious. I am ok if you focus only on the federal aspect, but I do live in Illinois if you want to try covering state portion.
It gets to the core issue, which is that the laws as written are pretty vague, but the jurisprudence is overwhelmingly in favor of siding against booby traps. It's illegal at the federal level, and as far as I'm aware prohibited by all states as well, either explicitly or more usually through precedent in court. The reasoning of the courts seems to be more or less identical: it's a dangerous destructive device incapable of making the sort of prudent judgement required for a use of force. In short, it's an irresponsible and indiscriminate use of force.
It's banned under international law too, Protocol II. There's a few loopholes, but a good lawyer could probably get you tried for a war crime for putting a glitter bomb on a toaster.
That one is largely irrelevant in my view. International law these days ( or maybe always has been ) appears to be largely trying to channel Stalin's quip about Pope divisions.
I think the idea of international law is very appealing, but the reality, at least when we're talking about war crimes, seems to be that IHL is a way for the winners of a conflict to punish the losers. The political and military realities of trying to hold existing bodies accountable in international courts seems... difficult.
I assumed it's the opposite. The Allies got away with firebombing and nuking whatever they like. So they probably drew lines like, "Hey, you can't drop aid right next to the cluster bombs. Also when sieging a populace, they must be provided with food and given advance warning before bombardment."
