Now THIS is what I call home security!

[Dannyalcatraz]

From what I recall, it wasn't that the couch was booby trapped, it was that the shotguns were triggered by breaking a light beam...and he had the couch placed in that general area. The guy was hopelessly paranoid.

Too bad for him- had he been less paranoid, he could have become like a real-life amalgam of Arcade & Saw.

Edit: apparently, they did that one on 1000 Ways to Die ("Booby-Zapped!"). That show bases the depicted deaths on real stories. I know some are true, having seen them on urban legend debunking sites & shows, but I also know that many are embellished, like how Texas Chainsaw Massacre was based on Ed Gein. So...not recalling where I saw it first, I could have been duped by a write up of an embellished death on that show.

 

[Joker]

Heh, who cares about the law?! This is solely about a cool technology. Turrets have been a staple of SF forever and now they're essentially a reality.

But if you want to be serious, then consider all the Zombie Apocalypse applications!

Because laws are codified social contracts that some people need to engage in a civil manner with other members of a society.

As for the ZA application, it seems like a waste of ammo. Better make it a single-fire type weapon with the software to make headshots. And for those that see strength in numbers (I gather you don't ), give the target a chance to prove it's human. Like telling them to moonwalk.

You never thought it would be useful. Well look who's laughing while displacing himself in style now.

 

[Janx]

Because laws are codified social contracts that some people need to engage in a civil manner with other members of a society.

But somebody breaking in has already opted out of the social contract and violated the End User License Agreement. Therefore, they are no longer afforded the protections and benefits of the law.

Actual case in point:
SeaLand and the other international waters settlements. Governments have ignored requests for help by squabbling pirates because they chose to live out in lawless waters so they could avoid society's laws. Therefore, they are not eligible for those same protections later.

I remember hearing about a case in MN when I was a kid, about a guy who booby trapped his shed with a shotgun and it killed a crook breaking in. The owner went to jail. I remember thinking that was pretty unjust for the owner to NOT have the right to defend his property anyway he sees fit.

As a counter point (just so you know I'm not a total gun-nut), I agree with the points about the setbacks of a lethal security system when somebody like a fireman is legitimately trying to rescue you. While we can probably devise some failsafes and deactivation systems (like when a fire is detected), there's just too much that could go wrong and whack an innocent.

So, while I'm a big proponent of killing bad guys (as evidenced by many of my silly TV example threads), I also like some safety checks and such to make sure a good guy doesn't get whacked. Especially me.

To get back to the OT: Yes, a turrent gun sure sounds cool. it will help keep the bugs from getting to the lab. Just so long as the ammo holds out.

 

[Umbran]

But somebody breaking in has already opted out of the social contract and violated the End User License Agreement. Therefore, they are no longer afforded the protections and benefits of the law.

It isn't that simple. If you break the law, your protections are limited, but not entirely eliminated. Otherwise, anyone who has ever exceeded the speed limit is now a free target for the "most dangerous game".

Exactly what the limits of your protections should be probably goes to politics pretty quickly.

I remember hearing about a case in MN when I was a kid, about a guy who booby trapped his shed with a shotgun and it killed a crook breaking in. The owner went to jail. I remember thinking that was pretty unjust for the owner to NOT have the right to defend his property anyway he sees fit.

I expect the basic logic of the law is that stuff is... just stuff. Things. Objects. If the robber had entered the home, and thus posed a potential threat to the lives of those within, that's a different story. But the law figures your lawnmower is not worth a person's life.

You may not agree with that sentiment, of course.

 

[SkidAce]

I expect the basic logic of the law is that stuff is... just stuff. Things. Objects. If the robber had entered the home, and thus posed a potential threat to the lives of those within, that's a different story. But your lawnmower is not worth a person's life.

Most definitions and outlines for the use of deadly force follow the ideas you just laid out. There are exceptions, i.e.

A person stealing inherently dangerous material which a reasonable person would know could cause death or serious harm to others is subject to deadly force. Such as stealing machine guns and grenades.

Or a person threatening damage to public infrastructure such as power plants or dams, which could result in harm to others.

Examples aside, its what Umbran said, deadly force is normally only used to prevent the loss of life, your self or others.

 

[Janx]

anyways, I think all Kzach was trying to say is "Hey Look! You can make your own automated gun turret!"

And bask in the coolness of the thing, not the legal ramifications of why you shouldn't ever deploy one.

 

[Umbran]

And bask in the coolness of the thing, not the legal ramifications of why you shouldn't ever deploy one.

Well, basking in coolness is not exactly a working conversation topic. "Yeah, that's cool," gets kinda of old really quick. So, when you don't present a point for discussion, folks will create one.

 

[Joker]

anyways, I think all Kzach was trying to say is "Hey Look! You can make your own automated gun turret!"

And bask in the coolness of the thing, not the legal ramifications of why you shouldn't ever deploy one.

And pass up an opportunity to increase my post count? You're havin' a laugh, mate.

 

[Deset Gled]

I wonder about how well the tracking software works. They only show the simplest possible case in the video - a single large, high contrast object. Motion tracking software gets exponentially worse as you add in factors like multiple trajectories and interacting objects. I'm guessing it's easy enough to fool this gun by wearing dark clothes and throwing a white sheet in the opposite direction. And even though there are two cameras, it looks like they're just set up for wide field and zoom, not for doing 3D imaging, which means the system has no depth perception.

It would be really fun to throw a handful of confetti in front of the cameras and see what happens.

 

[frankthedm]

And is the stupid decision of a punk kid out to steal your TV really worthy of death?

Yes, it certainly is.