While I understand their frustration- in almost every state in the US that is illegal and foolish. “Booby traps” or even unintentional but obvious hazards on your own property are a liability. If law enforcement, emergency services, or any their authorized party needs to get on your property they can be injured by such traps. Even if someone is trespassing, even where “stand your ground” is allowed- booby traps are general not allowed as there is still a level of discretion involved in “stand your ground” or “king of castle” states. Small children and animals who do not understand property law might come upon such a trap. You’re free to THINK you should be able to booby trap your property, but 99.999% of the time you’re legally and financially liable for damages from intentional or unintentional hazards like pits and spikes, electricity, etc.
Someone could die, often in unforeseen ways. The person driving over this could lose control and hit a pedestrian for instance. In such a case you’d both likely be held accountable in that death because you both played a part. Generally speaking something like “keeping people off your lawn” isn’t considered a viable justification for deadly or potentially deadly force.
It’s the syntax I don’t understand. The last sentence in particular. “Get it and harm yourself...”
the sentence before was “children don’t understand law...” The “it” being referenced could be children, or a knife. I assume from context the knife. But who is getting the knife? The reader? The children? “Get it and harm yourself” reads like it is a command. That you are telling g the reader to harm themselves with a knife.
So I infer that your comment is topical to the discussion but don’t understand what you are trying to say. The best o could figure out might be that you’re making an example: that a knife is harmful and that children could get a knife and cause harm, and thus (sarcastically I assume?) that by that logic knives should be labeled dangerous? I don’t actually know what the statement you’re making is about my logic and so I can’t reply without assuming what I think you mean.
To be clear I am not mocking or criticizing. I’m just letting you know I would reply to your comment, but I don’t understand it, and why/how I don’t understand it. If you care to clarify I’m happy to respond. Apologies for the inconvenience.
Are we not going to talk about how adults...the "responsible" ones, are doing childish crap like this? The behaviors leading to this?
We as a society are so fucked. I have lost all faith and hope in our public and our government. It makes me so sad.
It is sad. It’s actually kinda disgusting that people would try to take away others rights to their political beliefs and participation in the political process over a disagreement. That deserves mention, but as heinous and childish as that is- escalating the situation gets the focus because meeting dangerous behavior with more dangerous behavior isn’t a good precedent to set.
the sentence before was “children don’t understand law...” The “it” being referenced could be children, or a knife. I assume from context the knife. But who is getting the knife? The reader? The children? “Get it and harm yourself” reads like it is a command. That you are telling g the reader to harm themselves with a knife.
We as a society are so fucked. I have lost all faith and hope in our public and our government. It makes me so sad.