Jeep Booby Traps Help

As much as I agree with your original reaction- (I would've been out there with the Sig P220 and Mossberg...) It's too late. They got what they wanted and probably won't be back. Remember- you should not even bother locking a soft top Jeep and NEVER leave anything in it that you care about.

EXACTLY. Been there, done that.

Is the below also legal in Arizona?

-Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)

Here's the law. Pay close attention to TxPC §9.42(2)(A) and (B)...

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

§ 9.41. Protection of One's Own Property

(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or

(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

§ 9.42. Deadly Force to Protect Property

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

§ 9.43. Protection of Third Person's Property

A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or

(2) the actor reasonably believes that:

(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;

(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or

(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

§ 9.44. Use of Device to Protect Property

The justification afforded by Sections 9.41 and 9.43 applies to the use of a device to protect land or tangible, movable property if:

(1) the device is not designed to cause, or known by the actor to create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily injury; and

(2) use of the device is reasonable under all the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be when he installs the device.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 913, ch. 342, § 6, eff. Sept. 1, 1975. Acts

1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

actually this is a great idea. one of my co-workers installed a camcorder in his SUV that pointed to his back door because his house was getting broken in to often. caught his neighbor breaking into is back door, the guy even looked right at the camera as he went inside. called the cops had them view the video and while the cop was watching the tape the neighbor came out to check his mailbox (even though the mail doesn't come till three hours later) said to the cop 'that's him right there' the cop after watching the video agreed it was the same guy and arrested him on the spot...just so happens he had priors and VOP...

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 06:25:25 GMT, the following appeared in rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys, posted by "bulletsnbrains" :

Nice idea (and I ran a trapline for muskrats for a couple years when I was around ten or so), but I think you might have a *wee* bit of trouble convincing the cops that muskrats were living in your driveway... ;-)

Seriously, though, trapping regs are usually *very* specific about locations, types and so on. Now a real honest-to-God bear trap... ;-)

replying to Joe, diver420 wrote: that's exactly what i'm getting ready to do! thieves got in mine last night, in my driveway. i keep my doors unlocked so they don't cut my top and the only thing they got was change but it's still p*ssing me off