Railway sleeper (uk) = railway tie (us) = something you don't want to get hit by (anywhere).

I like the idea of the shower of chicken droppings for vandals, but a railway sleeper (a.k.a. "railroad tie") is a heavy block of wood about 7 inches by 9 inches and up to eight feet long. Rubber cap on the end or not, I've got to imagine that firing one of those out of a cannon at an intruder is going to lead to very serious injuries, and equally serious lawsuits.

I like that "should".

I like the idea of the shower of chicken droppings for vandals, but a railway sleeper (a.k.a. "railroad tie") is a heavy block of wood about 7 inches by 9 inches and up to eight feet long. Rubber cap on the end or not, I've got to imagine that firing one of those out of a cannon at an intruder is going to lead to very serious injuries, and equally serious lawsuits.

Maybe it's a bit excessiue, but they tresspassed first. He has the right to protect his property, not that it makes any difference in the UK with health & safety taking over absolutely everything over there.

And a cannon, which Mr Weston-Webb once used to shoot his wife across the River Avon...

I really want to know more about THAT, too...

Epp B 4: I think perhaps you, too, could use a discussion of "reasonable force." It's inappropriate to kill or seriously injure someone to protect mere property. And as far as I know it's not legal to do so in the US, except in Texas, which has all manner of crazy-ass laws.

"Smart-Poo"

Get this guy an Army contract, quick! We gotta start work on Stealth-Poo, too.

"but they tresspassed first. He has the right to protect his property,"

Trespass is a civil offence, the remedy for which is to sue in court. I'm not aware that any specific right to defend property exists.

The article mentions the concept of reasonable force - I'm not sure how firing a honking great lump of mahogany can be considered reasonable. Unless you are defending against a locomotive based attack.

Guys, I've been away from BoingBoing for a while... What's up with these weird text over the articles ?? "CITIGROUP 30 MILLION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VERTERAN AFFAIRS etc."

I don't really like the notion that everyone is an army of one protecting their little two acre nation-state from invaders. A bunch of people shooting at each other is never going to solve crime, no matter how much people entertain wild west fantasies.

Now I'm totally pro-gun rights, but that's because citizens may need to form militias to protect their freedom if the government turns tyrannical. Not because I think that someone walking out of my house with a $150 TV deserves a bullet through them. It isn't justice if it isn't measured.

However in the draw your .44 US, this would just be quaint.

I gotta agree about the excess of the railroad tie launcher. That is lethal force by any measure, no different than a pit of punji sticks (with rubber tips of course). If you get hit in the head with an airborne railroad tie, "rubber block" or no, you are likely going to die.

This guy is a dangerous idiot. For all he knows the "trespasser" will be a meter reader, a deer or a relative coming for a visit. As with guns which are more likely to be used to accidentally kill a family member than protect a home from intruders, the series of booby traps is far more likely to harm an innocent individual than protect that moron from intruders.

Now, I don't know about the laws in the UK, but here in Canada:

1. It is illegal to build booby-traps. Period. End of discussion.
2. Trespass at Night is an indictable offense. If you are the owner of a property, or charged with protecting that property by the owner, you are allowed to arrest (via a citizen's arrest) someone who trespasses at night.

I'm not aware that any specific right to defend property exists.

You might want to tell that to those armed guards from Brink's.

Boyoyoing 8, Carter 10, Skep 11: Hear, hear! I especially like Carter's "It isn't justice if it isn't measured." There's a reason that lady is depicted with scales.

EppB said, "Maybe it's a bit excessive, but they trespassed first. He has the right to protect his property,"

Well, no. He has the right to use reasonable force to defend his person. Trespass is not a crime for which we club people with logs or chuck crap at them - and long may it stay that way. Cultural differences, old chap, cultural differences :)

Why is everybody on about 'trespassing'? The article is about vandalism.

Catapault vs. Trespassers? Say, I remember an episode of Ed about that: http://www.footnote.tv/mled.html

Video here

Another great British nutter

Dmatos 12:

1. It is illegal to build booby-traps. Period. End of discussion.

Antinous 16: Indeed so. That's why I (for one) am not objecting to the poo-flinging. But I still think the possibly-lethal and certainly-injurious railroad tie is excessive.

There was a case here in the US (I know, this is the UK) where a man rigged a shotgun to go off if a trespasser opened a door. That eventually happened and the trespasser died. It was a big test of the "Make my day" law. Ultimately the courts decided that this wasn't covered under that law and the man was convicted of murder.

On the other hand, a few months a go a man shot and killed two robbers that were stealing from his neighbor's house and he hasn't been charged with anything. He was even on the phone with 911 (emergency dispatch) while he did it. And yes, this was in Texas.

But the railway tie is just plain stupid, couldn't he find something a little less lethal? Like baskets of cobras covered in land mines or something? I'd say he's an idiot, but he's managed to shoot his wife out of a catapult, he has a leg up on the rest of us guys.

When they outlaw catapults, only outlaws will have catapults.

Enochrewt 21: Like I said, Texas has some crazy-ass laws. There are certain circumstances under which it's legal in Texas to shoot a fleeing person in the back. The law there is grotesquely out of whack when it comes to the relative values of property and human life.

Btw, it was the cannon he used to shoot his wife across the river, not that catapult. Your point still stands, however.

Booby traps are notoriously illegal in the US. Shooting trespassers varies. If you make a convincing argument that you were afraid for your life or safety, you have a good chance of getting away with it. If someone tries to steal your car, you can probably shoot them. Shooting trick-or-treaters, on the other hand, is generally frowned upon.

Did he shoot his wife (who was) across the river? Or did he shoot (as in using her as a projectile) across the river?

I have no intention of ever criminally trespassing or vandalizing anything, but if I ever decide to do it, I'm going to start with this guy's property first. Seriously, there's antisocial and then there's this.

Just wait until the local high-schoolers find out about the awesome fun they can have setting off this guy's chicken-shit cannons. Assuming it even works at all, I bet a homebuilt automatic mechanical defense system is about as dangerous as attacking that guy who's had one martial arts class and can throw you as long as you stand perfectly still and let him get into position first.

Sent over the River Avon?

Sounds like (the Oxford-disavowed) DangerSoc's exploits.

Chicken manure should make a reasonable defence though.

@ Niteowl I wondered the same thing. Would love to hear the backstory on that one.

So, he's building a potentially lethal booby trap, but he has enough of a sense of humour to wear yard-stick patterned suspenders while doing it?

(and possible doing poorly thought out pull-ups).

#23 POSTED BY XOPHER , MARCH 19, 2008 3:27 PM Enochrewt 21: Like I said, Texas has some crazy-ass laws. There are certain circumstances under which it's legal in Texas to shoot a fleeing person in the back. The law there is grotesquely out of whack when it comes to the relative values of property and human life

Second that. In Texas you can legally murder the repo man driving off with the car the bank owns since you didn't keep making payments. But don't think Texas is some sort of vigilante free for all, you can only do it at night--really:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9805E2D81F3AF93BA35750C0A962958260

So if someone breaks into your house, are you planning on asking him whether he's there merely to steal your $150 TV or also to kill you or a member of your family?

That's why people should be allowed to attack and, if necessary, kill trespassers.

Someone stepped on my toe without excusing his self FIRST, so I have the right to blow him away.

didnt anyone actually read the article that was linked? he's dealt with arson and destruction of property.
i think if someone's intent is to start someone else's property on fire, perhaps getting socked with a railroad tie isnt that excessive?

didnt anyone actually read the article that was linked?

Are you mad? Where's the sport in that?

Yup, here in Texas we just shoot repo men on sight. Verily doth the blood of repo men flow across our divine land. It's called the Red River for a reason, don't cha know.

Pffft!

One repo man gets shot, 14 years ago, and the whole state is forever know as repo man killers.

I don't think every young man in England is a kidnapper, sodomizer, and killer of toddlers. But kill one repo guy and you're forever branded apparently.

I know a guy who owns a used car lot and does repos. He often bemoans the good ol' days when you could jack the interest up, then snag the car when they were one hour late. He'd often, according to him, I never bought a car from him, take their phone call saying they'd be late, tell them it was alright he'd wait till Monday, then go out that night and get the car anyway. He thought it was funny to sell the same car three or four times because he kept repoing it.

My understanding is that this particular case led to a tightening up of the repo industry. Now they have to follow the rules, and if they don't they know they may get shot, which is a big incentive to do the right thing.

As to the guy here in England, if people are coming onto his property to set fire to it, then yeah, that might be justification to use force to stop them. You never know what's going to happen with fire, it might burn the whole place down, killing the guy and his family. Or spread to the neighbor's land and burn it down, or burn down his livelihood (he is a farmer, right? So he needs to grow crops to make his living. Kinda tough to do that if the fields are all burned up.)

And the guy that shot the robbbers of his neighbor's house in Texas? He told them to stop, and they didn't. He warned them he'd shoot, but they still advanced upon him, presumably to do violence to him. So he shot them. And a police officer witnessed the whole thing. And you know what? We fucking like it for the criminals in the state to be a bit uneasy when going about their jobs. We want them to think long and hard. "Is it worth my life to steal this guy's tv?" We have a lower than national average in violent crimes and robberies because of that. Yeah, we have more than the national average in burglaries, but that's because our criminals, for the most part, make damn sure no one is home when they break in. And we like it that way.

Well, if we are going to RTFA we find...

"We are pretty certain it was a rival company, but I can't prove it."

He thinks the police are little, if any, help. "There's no way anyone will get caught" by the authorities, he said. "So I thought I would set up my own defense."

The catapult is cool in a gnomish inventor kind of way, but if he seriously thinks business rivals are sabotaging his business, it would be much more practical to go for some more cameras, and perhaps a watchdog and security guard. This seems to be less about real security and more about a creative guy making big toys.

Regarding the questions about him catapulting his wife, she was thrown 160 ft across the Avon, bounced off the net, and landed in the river. Really.

And for people who think it is ok to kill uninvited people on your property. Wow. Whatever happened to make you so angry, I hope it gets better soon. Cause it sucks to have that kind of outlook on life.

If you take an in-the-name-of-safety approach to self-defense, then you should know that pulling a gun on an intruder is statistically one of the most dangerous things you can do for both yourself and your family in that situation.

@22: That was the funniest thing I read all day.

GANDALF23 , MARCH 19, 2008 7:19 PM Pffft!

One repo man gets shot, 14 years ago, and the whole state is forever know as repo man killers.

Yup.

Know why? It isn't the lethal shooting of a Repo man in the back that made the national news. It was the fact that the deliberate homicide, where no life was in danger of harm of any kind, was and remains legal under Texas law.

Want to change the perception? Then change the law so that murdering the agent who is legally reclaiming a car you don't own is illegal.

Gandalf23, you're making me proud to be a Texan.

ok takuan this guy as opposed to prince phillip?

Proud Texan. at least we have a decent age of consent. ;)

Smart-poo. Love it.

Here in Florida (and some other states as well maybe?) we have the "Shoot First Law". Basically, we can shoot anyone anywhere whenever we feel threatened. I think I'll write my congressman to introduce a "Poo First Law".

Mortis, there are many things Texas can be proud of. The laws about shooting people, however, are not among them.

As for the AoC, for heterosex y'all are the same as New York. For homosex...you have no laws, because oh, yeah, Texas was the v. in the Lawrence decision. I suspect the AoC reverts to the same as the hetero one, but again, that's not really something to be proud of.

Here in Florida (and some other states as well maybe?) we have the "Shoot First Law". Basically, we can shoot anyone anywhere whenever we feel threatened. I think I'll write my congressman to introduce a "Poo First Law"

At least in florida you have to "feel threatened" before you can open fire. In Texas, you can kill fleeing trespassers at night, even if you don't feel threatened at all and even if you know they are lawfully reclaiming your car (the contract with the bank says that you allow them to do so, too).

Perhaps this booby trap boob should just move to Texas, where he can be properly appreciated.

Why would Texas be proud of having one of the oldest ages of consent? The AofC is 14 in Iceland. Now there's a country overrun by pregnant, teenage, crackhead hookers.

What I noticed is that if vandals are doing anything to his rural offices and if that catapult is aimed at them then he would also be aiming it at his offices wouldn't he?

He wouldn't want to end up getting chicken poo all over his already threatened offices.

It's all fun and games until we bring in the trebuchets.

I'm not so sure that non-lethal booby traps are illegal. Illegal to set the garden hose to spray the next person through the door?

For that matter, I'm not sure which is worse: vandalism or cleaning up (or just putting up with) the chicken poo that you've sprayed across your property.

Ooo, Chef!!!! Me likey trebuchets! Siege engines of all kinds, what fun! *dances happily*

No-one has yet commented on how our Farmer Palmer has couched his terms. He knows his onions on this one.

If an intruder with provable malicious intent is burgling your home or destroying your property, you can fire a "warning shot" at the ground in front of them to let them know you disagree with their plans. If it's dark and your aim is a bit off, or were they to run at you suddenly, they might lose a knee.

But if a court believes your intention to warn, you'll be fine.

That's why Mr Weston-Webb intends fire a railway sleeper to dislodge headwear. Of course, if it's dark or his aim is off...

I can see those big cooling towers from my yard. But they're the other side of the River Trent from me and, in lieu of a canoe, a good 15 miles away. If you know the story of "The Wise Men Of Gotham" (nearby) you'll know why this farm is so isolated - and apparent easy pickings for criminal behaviour.

Gandalf,
You only have to fuck one goat...

That said, reasonable force definitely covers chicken shit, but not railways sleepers, at least as far as the circumstances detailed here seem to suggest. And he's edging past the English tradition of gentile eccentricity and into the territory of plain old nutter.

Hmm, that should read 'genteel'. I mean 'gentile' might *also* apply, but thats not what I meant.

When crazy guys go to jail for killing vandals, there's less of both to bother the rest of us!

dustbuster7000: Almost certainly it would. In order not to be a gentile, he'd have to be a Jew who converted to Mormonism. And many Jews (though no Mormons) would still consider him a gentile, by virtue of his conversion. So you can see that gentilism (though not, unfortunately, gentility) is universal.