Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury #1: Security Robot Zaps Burglar

[Marcus Impudite]

This scenario assumes that your character would be eligible to serve on jury (possibly in Secret ID if applicable).

 

The case is as follows:

 

A man, who has already admitted he intended to burglarize the home of a wealthy citizen of Campaign City, is confronted by one of the property owner's security robots. The robot issues the standard "You are trespassing on private property, leave the premises immediately" warning. The suspect then charged at the robot brandishing a crowbar, clearly intending to inflict damage upon the robot guard. The robot, however, proves to be quicker than the intruder and discharges its stunner, incapacitating the perp until the police arrive on scene to take him into custody. After the incident, the burglar files a lawsuit against the property owner, claiming he suffered permanent nerve damage as a result of being zapped. Surveillance video from that night shows not only the confrontation described above, but also shows that the burglar ignored several clearly posted signs warning about the security robots that protect the property.

 

The case somehow went to a jury trial, and your character is on the jury. WWYCD?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury #1: Security Robot Zaps Burglar

 

I'm trying to think of a character who would end up on the jury...

 

First step, I think the characters who would have sufficient understanding of, and respect for, the law to attend jury duty would listen carefully to the legal arguments from both sides, and pay close attention to the instructions from the Judge. The Judge will typically tell the Jury what they need to decide, explaining the legalities of the situation.

 

Was it legal for the homeowner to have a weapon on site, and to use it against an intruder intending to damage his property (which is what the robot is)? Was the Stunner experimental, or had it been tested and approved for sale by the appropriate organizations? Can we find that the homeowner was negligent, but that the burglar is guilty of contributory negligence, mitigating the proportion of any damages which should be borne by the homeowner?

 

I can certainly think of characters who would shrug and say "Hey man, you were trying to rob the place - tough luck for you", but they probably would find a way to beg off jury duty too.

[Shadow Hawk]

Re: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury #1: Security Robot Zaps Burglar

 

Hmmm... would this come under the "don't booby trap your home, you might hit a public safety officer" laws? We have a automated system capable of causing injury, can it tell the difference between a burglar and a firefighter?

 

(Reviewing my recent characters, many of them wouldn't/couldn't serve on a jury... Steel Panther is underage, El Mago is not a U.S. citizen, The Eagle is functionally illiterate (and a black male in a time period when blacks often couldn't serve on juries), Shadow Hawk is a government operative...

[Starcloud]

Re: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury #1: Security Robot Zaps Burglar

 

If the robot can distinguish between authorised personell and residents, and unauthorised trespassers, then it's not a trap and does not fall under those laws. It's the equivalent of having a guard dog. The only question remaining then is 'Was the zapper deliberately supercharged to do permanent harm or was it within legal limits like a taser?"

 

Because absent being able to show that degree of carelessness or deliberate malice, the plaintiff has no case.

[pinecone]

Re: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury #1: Security Robot Zaps Burglar

 

This scenario assumes that your character would be eligible to serve on jury (possibly in Secret ID if applicable).

 

The case is as follows:

 

A man, who has already admitted he intended to burglarize the home of a wealthy citizen of Campaign City, is confronted by one of the property owner's security robots. The robot issues the standard "You are trespassing on private property, leave the premises immediately" warning. The suspect then charged at the robot brandishing a crowbar, clearly intending to inflict damage upon the robot guard. The robot, however, proves to be quicker than the intruder and discharges its stunner, incapacitating the perp until the police arrive on scene to take him into custody. After the incident, the burglar files a lawsuit against the property owner, claiming he suffered permanent nerve damage as a result of being zapped. Surveillance video from that night shows not only the confrontation described above, but also shows that the burglar ignored several clearly posted signs warning about the security robots that protect the property.

 

The case somehow went to a jury trial, and your character is on the jury. WWYCD?

 

Depends on the laws of the Juristicion...but I'm seeing it as personal responsability....finding against the plantif (Burglar)

[McCoy]

Re: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury #1: Security Robot Zaps Burglar

 

If the robot can distinguish between authorised personell and residents, and unauthorised trespassers, then it's not a trap and does not fall under those laws. It's the equivalent of having a guard dog. The only question remaining then is 'Was the zapper deliberately supercharged to do permanent harm or was it within legal limits like a taser?"

 

Because absent being able to show that degree of carelessness or deliberate malice, the plaintiff has no case.

All characters, what he said.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury #1: Security Robot Zaps Burglar

 

If the robot can distinguish between authorised personell and residents' date=' and unauthorised trespassers, then it's not a trap and does not fall under those laws. It's the equivalent of having a guard dog. The only question remaining then is 'Was the zapper deliberately supercharged to do permanent harm or was it within legal limits like a taser?"[b']Because absent being able to show that degree of carelessness or deliberate malice, the plaintiff has no case.[/b]

If only the world was so clear cut. However, in the real world our legal system is so stupid several illegal tresspassers have won personal injury cases against the people whose homes they broke into...

[McCoy]

Re: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury #1: Security Robot Zaps Burglar

 

If only the world was so clear cut. However' date=' in the real world our legal system is so stupid several illegal tresspassers have won personal injury cases against the people whose homes they broke into...[/quote']

Cites, from this country (USA), or it didn't happen.

[Clonus]

Re: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury #1: Security Robot Zaps Burglar

 

Cites' date=' from this country (USA), or it didn't happen.[/quote']

 

The closest example is this. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/851351/posts

 

But of course that was a specifically lethal booby-trap.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury #1: Security Robot Zaps Burglar

 

Wouldn't have ever made it to court in our campaign.

There were clear precedents in place for the employ of sub-lethal defensive systems and weapons, considering the proliferation of non-lethal technology in a Champions setting, and their use by elite security forces.

The mighty ones of mundane society you mentioned, the 1%ers, would be quick to legally establish their ability to defend themselves against the likes of super villains or VIPER squads

[Badger]

Re: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury #1: Security Robot Zaps Burglar

 

Dont think none of my characters would end up on a jury. (finding my namesake would be difficult enough)

 

In any case, both Badger and Frosty Bob, given their opinions on self-defense, are almost definitely not finding fault for the robot (and Badger tends to hate the mechanized at that). The burglar should be happy do be alive. (Heck, Bob was in the robots' circumstance probably would have blown the burglar away )

[Badger]

Re: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury #1: Security Robot Zaps Burglar

 

Hmmm... would this come under the "don't booby trap your home, you might hit a public safety officer" laws? We have a automated system capable of causing injury, can it tell the difference between a burglar and a firefighter?

 

(Reviewing my recent characters, many of them wouldn't/couldn't serve on a jury... Steel Panther is underage, El Mago is not a U.S. citizen, The Eagle is functionally illiterate (and a black male in a time period when blacks often couldn't serve on juries), Shadow Hawk is a government operative...

 

Well, if the robots didnt attack the cops when they arrive, I take it can take certain extenuating circumstances under review.

 

 

In any case with firefighters, maybe the robots could have a function to put out any fires that happen.

[Pariah]

Re: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury #1: Security Robot Zaps Burglar

 

The closest example is this. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/851351/posts

 

But of course that was a specifically lethal booby-trap.

 

From the said article:

 

Jurors weren't allowed to be told that Harris was drunk and on cocaine, nor that he had served time in prison for two burglary convictions.

 

I find this interesting. Why not?

[McCoy]

Re: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury #1: Security Robot Zaps Burglar

 

From the said article:

 

 

 

I find this interesting. Why not?

Because for a world wonder the victim was not on trial. Defendant Respondent had no idea of prior bad acts when he rigged a 220 volt booby trap.

 

Should have been the defendant, this was clear cut Murder Two, reckless disregard for human life.

[Christopher]

Re: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury #1: Security Robot Zaps Burglar

 

The closest example is this. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/851351/posts

 

But of course that was a specifically lethal booby-trap.

Her installed and tested that trap with 110 Volts. Everyone with PS: Elektrical Engineer can tell you, that this (as DC) is enough to kill you, especially while climbing anywhere and if you don't get immediate medical attention. (for AC the limit is a little bit higher)

 

He then changed the output to 220 Volts. As the article called it: Clear intention to do harm.

 

From the said article:

[...]

I find this interesting. Why not?

As McCoy said, he place a very dangerous and potentially deadly bobytrap for every burglar, not for him. As such the real target wasn't that important.

[Pariah]

Re: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury #1: Security Robot Zaps Burglar

 

Because for a world wonder the victim was not on trial. Defendant Respondent had no idea of prior bad acts when he rigged a 220 volt booby trap.

 

Should have been the defendant, this was clear cut Murder Two, reckless disregard for human life.

 

As McCoy said' date=' he place a very dangerous and potentially deadly bobytrap for every burglar, not for him. As such the real target wasn't that important.[/quote']

 

That makes sense. Thanks for the explanations.

[Chuckg]

Re: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury #1: Security Robot Zaps Burglar

 

Back to the original question:

 

Legally, this is a case of a principle I like to call on "Don't pee on the electric fence, you moron."

 

The only area of doubt is whether or not the zap gun he was hit with was safety-certified and legal for sale, like tasers in real life are. If it wasn't, then the owner (if it was an illegal home modification or home-made) or the manufacturer (if it was something legally sold off-the-shelf, but built or designed unsafely) is liable.

 

Even so, the burglar's continuing to advance past the 'no trespassing' signs, attacking the armed robot, and having no legal right to be where he was is going to be a lot of contributory negligence on his own part that his case has to hurdle over before he can expect to get much in punitive damages.

[Mister Trent]

Re: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury #1: Security Robot Zaps Burglar

 

First, I (and pretty much any character I played) would want to closely scrutinize the plaintiff's claim that he suffered nerve damage. If it's true he might have a case albeit a weak one IMO. If he's lying, not only would he not have a case he would be attempting to defraud the court, and it goes without saying that that's something judges tend to frown upon.

 

Second, he himself admitted he was at that residence with felonious intentions. Plus, the surveillance video shows he more than likely had violent felonious intentions. Attacking a security robot with a crowbar looks bad enough for him as is, but what if we replaced the robot with a flesh-and-blood human security guard? I'm no legal eagle by any stretch of the imagination, but I believe that could have potentially constituted assault with a deadly weapon and the human guard would have been well within his rights to put some bulletholes in him.

[Christopher]

Re: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury #1: Security Robot Zaps Burglar

 

First' date=' I (and pretty much any character I played) would want to closely scrutinize the plaintiff's claim that he suffered nerve damage. If it's true he might have a case albeit a weak one IMO. If he's lying, not only would he not have a case he would be attempting to defraud the court, and it goes without saying that that's something judges tend to frown upon.[/quote']

Unfortunately you are just part of the Jury, not anythign else. So that point is moot

 

Second' date=' he himself admitted he was at that residence with felonious intentions. Plus, the surveillance video shows he more than likely had [i']violent[/i] felonious intentions. Attacking a security robot with a crowbar looks bad enough for him as is, but what if we replaced the robot with a flesh-and-blood human security guard? I'm no legal eagle by any stretch of the imagination, but I believe that could have potentially constituted assault with a deadly weapon and the human guard would have been well within his rights to put some bulletholes in him.

If there were and flesh and blood guard and if he had attacked said guard. There wasn't. And that robot only counts as property, so at tops he was about to commit property damage.

The Judge or somebody else in the Jury will remind you taht you can't Judge someone based on the Crimes he may or may not commit under circumstances you can't predict.

[Hermit]

Re: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury #1: Security Robot Zaps Burglar

 

First, I (and pretty much any character I played) would want to closely scrutinize the plaintiff's claim that he suffered nerve damage. If it's true he might have a case albeit a weak one IMO. If he's lying, not only would he not have a case he would be attempting to defraud the court, and it goes without saying that that's something judges tend to frown upon.

Yup. I would definitely want more than one doctor's statement on that.

[Christopher]

Re: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury #1: Security Robot Zaps Burglar

 

Yup. I would definitely want more than one doctor's statement on that.

 

The case somehow went to a jury trial' date=' and [b']your character is on the jury[/b]. WWYCD?

I would think the existence of the damage will be discussed in detail with various experts and counter experts.

 

After some thinking it think it boils down to:

Is trespassing and planed vandalism sufficient "assault" on your property to make "tasering" a fitting reply?

[Wormhole]

Re: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury #1: Security Robot Zaps Burglar

 

This scenario assumes that your character would be eligible to serve on jury (possibly in Secret ID if applicable).

 

The case is as follows:

 

A man, who has already admitted he intended to burglarize the home of a wealthy citizen of Campaign City, is confronted by one of the property owner's security robots. The robot issues the standard "You are trespassing on private property, leave the premises immediately" warning. The suspect then charged at the robot brandishing a crowbar, clearly intending to inflict damage upon the robot guard. The robot, however, proves to be quicker than the intruder and discharges its stunner, incapacitating the perp until the police arrive on scene to take him into custody. After the incident, the burglar files a lawsuit against the property owner, claiming he suffered permanent nerve damage as a result of being zapped. Surveillance video from that night shows not only the confrontation described above, but also shows that the burglar ignored several clearly posted signs warning about the security robots that protect the property.

 

The case somehow went to a jury trial, and your character is on the jury. WWYCD?

 

I can imagine any character I play would probably be asked to leave the courtroom because they would be unable to stop laughing and pointing at this guy. He attacked an armed security robot with a crowbar and didn't think it would end badly for him? Was he stoned or is he just naturally that stupid? What does he do for an encore, hit a hornet's nest with a stick? At the least, there's a shipload of contributory negligence on his part.