Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.



Out Safe

A safe that lets you in, but locks you from leaving without the correct combination
  [vote for,

This safe does not have a lock on the outside at all. Rather, it lets you in. Then once inside, you have to quickly get yourself out with the correct combination. So the robber has the extra risk of getting caught!
pashute, Mar 20 2013

Pushing on a pull door http://www.liveleak...ew?i=471_1173389160
[not_morrison_rm, Mar 20 2013]


       We had a corridor like that here. Press to get in, card-swipe to get out.   

       Some people thought this was a good idea.
Loris, Mar 20 2013

       I would just leave the door open.
DIYMatt, Mar 20 2013

       This is a great way to get yourself sued by your would-be robber, not to mention charged with kidnapping, false imprisonment, and (attempted) murder.
ytk, Mar 20 2013

       Put one of those signature pads inside the airlock. Go through the outer door, you've clearly registered your intent to go through the inner one... you get photographed, palm-printed, and you have to sign the pad - which is also signing your agreement to the warnings posted. As in, "WARNING: If you don't have the exit combination, you will not be able to leave the vault. Acknowledge by signing below".   

       Changing the combination while somebody's inside is described in "Pranks for Damn Fools."
lurch, Mar 20 2013

       //Ensure an air supply, a few bottles of water, and a few cans of spaghettios with pull tab lids are available, and the would-be thief wouldn't have a leg to stand on in court.//   

       Uh, no.   

       Any such safe would constitute a booby trap (or more accurately, a mantrap), which is highly illegal. Also, just because someone commits destruction of property, willful or otherwise, doesn't necessarily permit you to detain that person, and certainly doesn't permit you to detain a person for any longer than it takes for the authorities to arrive. You'd basically have to be right there with the guy, with the police literally on their way to arrest him, in order for it not to constitute false imprisonment, and even then you'd better be damn sure that he's deliberately committed a crime—the standards for “probable cause” are exceptionally high as they apply to your average citizen. Also, setting up a trap to justify the detention with “destruction of property” wouldn't fly— for it to be a crime, it has to be deliberate.   

       Attempted murder would apply even if you didn't know the person was there. If you set up an automatic trap designed to imprison somebody, the presumption is that you know it could be fatal. What if you fail to check the trap? What if the guy has a heart attack while he's waiting for you to notice he's there? What if the building is on fire? Anything could go wrong. Unlike in a situation such as a bank where security can trap robbers in the vestibule as they attempt to flee, this requires no active involvement and thus is extremely dangerous, even if you have some sort of theoretical safety measures in place (they could easily fail, after all). It thus constitutes lethal force, and is likely to end /you/ up in prison instead of the robber. The premeditated use of lethal force when it's not justified is called attempted first degree murder.   

       The reason lethal force is justified when a victim is present is because life and safety are endangered. Common law has long held that life is valued over property every time, so laying any sort of potentially hazardous trap for someone who is just committing property theft with nobody around will earn you a nice long trip to the pokey.
ytk, Mar 20 2013

       I have seen the CCTV footage of a robber trying to escape from the bank by kicking the door down, but failing dismally. The door was not locked, but you have to pull the door to get out, so this has been done for the less attentive robber...I'll see if I can find the footage.
not_morrison_rm, Mar 20 2013


       Haha, yeah, right.   

       “I didn't see the sign.”
“I didn't read the sign.”
“I didn't understand what the sign meant.”
“No hablo inglés/ya ne govoryu po angliski/lo medaber inglit.”

       You have no way of contradicting any of these statements, so that pretty much means you're going to be liable. As a general matter, the police and prosecutors do NOT look kindly on citizens going vigilante, so they're going to look for any way they can find to make an example of you. The sign would be more effective at protecting you from a bullet than the wrath of the criminal justice system.
ytk, Mar 20 2013

       Isn't this one of the main plot-devices in nearly every horror or treasure-seeker movie ever written ?   

       "Sam and Jill heard a creaking sound, turning around just in time to see the front door slam solidly shut with a resounding crash. There was a faint but distinct "mwahahahahaha" in the air".
FlyingToaster, Mar 20 2013

       You can use that as your defense in court, [Two-One Quebec].
ytk, Mar 20 2013

       Fine, that means the law is wrong. In defence of myself, my family or my property, I should not be obligated in any way to be concerned for the safety of an aggressor, or at a minimum, that concern is very much secondary. I honestly cannot think of a rational reason why I shouldn't be able to boobytrap my house against burglary. Fine, if an innocent guest gets hurt, sue my arse off - but the burglar can drown as far as I care.   

       Stories of burglars suing homeowners because they hurt themselves mid-robbery are a great example of how screwed up our moral compass really is.
Custardguts, Mar 21 2013

       [Cg] because any emergency personnel called to your house probably won't appreciate the Claymore under the living-room rug ?
FlyingToaster, Mar 21 2013

       //Fine, that means the law is wrong.//   

       The guiding principle in the common law is that human life is always more valuable than property. In defense of your life, or your family's life, you are justified in killing. Never solely for protecting property.   

       If you disagree with this notion, then tell me this: What is the dollar amount you would be willing to take a life over?
ytk, Mar 21 2013

       In some states you can chase after somebody who isn't even in your home, shoot them dead, call it self defense, and you won't even be charged with a crime until MSNBC craps the bed over it. So I have to think you could get away with a safe that traps someone until the police arrive. As long as they're black.   

       [ytk] how do you know what the intentions of the criminal are? What if they came to steal your property but would have killed you on sight? What if catching them means keeping them from killing someone in a burglary tomorrow?
DIYMatt, Mar 21 2013

       You're all missing the point. If you or your family are in the home, it can be assumed that a criminal has violent intentions by the very nature of the fact that they are there illegally. And since there are people present, life is endangered and killing is justified.   

       When you set a trap and no victims are present, nobody is in peril. In that situation, where /only/ property is at risk, are you still prepared to take a life?
ytk, Mar 21 2013


back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle