• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Is It Illegal To Embed Glass In Your Wall To Deter Would-Be Intruders?

iirc trespassing is civil rather than criminal law Carlos.

Also one of my neighbours rang the police a couple of years back to complain that some little kids from the family from hell down the road were in her garden playing with the dogs toys, and they said that it isn;t an offence in criminal law unless they actually enter your property proper, because there is a right of implied consent for people to enter your garden.

if i'm not mistaken, this is why americans have a 'mailbox' at the end of their path, because the law there does not allow for the implied consent.
 
Don't the railway stations around London have nasty long spikes on the cross beams on the platforms? Or is it only on the lines I used to travel.
 
los_grandes_lutz said:
Don't the railway stations around London have nasty long spikes on the cross beams on the platforms? Or is it only on the lines I used to travel.
Click to expand...

If it's the spikes I'm thinking of you still see them and I've seen them on window ledges as well.They're to stop pigeons from congregating there rather than deter ne'er do wells climbing on them. Surprisingly effect though.

(I had to spell check pigeons there !?!? First time I've typed it in me life !)

Plenty walls around here in south west London with glass on embedded.

I'm curious as to when the police would be willing to pay a visit if you spied someone in your garden. Where I live you'd have to open a gate to get to the lane at the top of the gardens, pass through other people's gardens, climbing walls and fences to get the small scrubbed square I call "le jardin", so if someone was in "le jardin" they'd be there for no good reason. Not like they were just passing through and they'd be no way to kick a ball from the road into the area.

Would the police not pay a visit then?
 
I was told that if you must have barbed/razor wire around your property, it can not be fixed to the wall/s of the house, it has to supported by struts into a post next to the building.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Personally I would have very sharp serrated upward facing spikes cemented into the inside facing wall...then have a warning sign on the other side in half a dozen languages saying:- "Do not climb over as you will be horribly and painfully killed and your family will be billed for the replacement of said spikes"...oh and a little design showing a person impaled on spikes*. Now I think that should satisfy the self-elected "'Elf & Safety" jobworths & PC Idiots. :twisted:


*just incase the little darlings can't read.
 
I'm half convinced that I recall the high wall around the grounds to the rear of Buckingham Palace as having spikes on top.
 
Yithian said:
That was Traitor's Gate, in the Tower.
Click to expand...
1548262117986.jpeg


Some were put on old London Bridge.
 
My house is surrounded with barbed wire. It's to prevent the migration of sheep. If it happens to impale a burglar as well then tough.
 
You can get away with it in Wales.
 
Yithian said:
I'm half convinced that I recall the high wall around the grounds to the rear of Buckingham Palace as having spikes on top.
Click to expand...

The spikes were certainly there 50 years ago when I was last driven passed them - didn't seem to stop Michael Fagan on a belly full of Guinness though.
I read that the East German authorities used their best athletes to test the security measures on the Berlin Wall. They quickly realised that the rolls of wire on the top actually helped in scaling the wall by providing purchase - so they were removed.
 
A long and lowish brick wall (not much more than five and a half feet) just round the corner from me used to be topped with broken glass to prevent yoofs climbing over it to access the nearby playground for drug and booze-fuelled horseplay* but this was suddenly removed many years ago. A town councillor explained that this was because such measures had been made illegal and were against human rights, or something.


* shouty vandalism
 
The spikes are still on the back walls of Buck House, but now with additional barbed wire on outward slanting supports.

But then we all know there’s one rule for “them” & another for the rest of us!!!!
 
ramonmercado said:
Phil also chases and runs over intruders with his landrover.
Click to expand...
. I think that the gist of all these laws is that there should not be any booby traps or hidden surprises. If you can see the razor wire it's not a surprise. If you put a tasteful sign on the wall at intervals that says warning broken glass on top of the wall you're of the hook if any idiot decides to try it. Or "house is booby trapped with shotgun".
 
I worked with someone who took his home security to paranoid levels. He had a seven foot high stone wall around his back garden but decided it wasn't high enough and so he added a three-foot high extension made of corrugated metal with the ends cut into spikes.
Next morning he looked out to see his long-suffering neighbour had stuck potatoes with smiley faces on all the spikes.
 
You could of course claim the glass was a artistic expression. i have never come across broken glass cemented into a wall in the US - a kind of poor man's razor wire - I learned about it from a line in a G&S operetta.
 
Lb8535 said:
If you put a tasteful sign on the wall at intervals that says warning...you're of the hook if any idiot decides to try it. Or "house is booby trapped with shotgun".
Click to expand...

Don’t even think about it in the UK:

“Ayrshire smallholder Frank Gillingham was jailed for seven years at the High Court in Glasgow yesterday after setting up a booby trap with a shotgun that nearly killed a young man.

Trial judge Lord McCluskey said it was ''tragic'' that first-offender Gillingham, 56, should find himself in court, but stressed: ''The court must not risk sending out a message that people can set up traps with immunity. Breaches of the Firearms Act will be viewed with the utmost seriousness.'' “

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12258123.gun-blast-at-close-range-booby-trap-farmer-jailed/

maximus otter
 
Analogue Boy said:
Err on the side of caution because if the deterrent is considered to be excessive you could open yourself up to a criminal prosecution for an injury caused.
Click to expand...

The Spandaus in the guard tower were merely replicas, Your Honour!

How was I to know he'd start running when I turned on the searchlight?
 
maximus otter said:
Don’t even think about it in the UK:

“Ayrshire smallholder Frank Gillingham was jailed for seven years at the High Court in Glasgow yesterday after setting up a booby trap with a shotgun that nearly killed a young man.
Click to expand...

My favourite exhibits at the Kent Police Museum was a chest that had been rigged with two sawn-off shotguns, the triggers of which were either tied or chained to the lid in such a fashion that they would be pulled if it were opened. The homeowner who created this had, as you might have guessed, been robbed multiple times.

If I recall correctly (and I may not), the burglar who opened it did so from a crouching position and took the blast in the chest (and, indeed, from the chest) instead of the legs as had been intended.

The burglar proceeded to expire messily, which ultimately led to the homeowners' imprisonment.

edit: My second favourite exhibit was the crossbow used by intruders to murder Bill Austin, the gardener of Wardes in Otham, in 1985, because I lived a short walk from there and was a schoolboy at the time--and it was unbelievable to me.
 
This guy wired his van up with a device that gives a 2,000 volt electric shock to deter thieves and the police have said
any complaint will be dealt with on a case to case basis, so they haven't condemned it outright, but did say a criminal offence could be committed by the use of such a device.

The man's argument is that farmers can put up electric fences as long as there's a sign warning people and that's what he's done.


https://www.expressandstar.com/news...thieves-with-1000-volt-shock-after-break-ins/
 
English law (and I think it's the same in Scotland) does not at all like the idea of disguised weapons - and a booby trap is almost by definition a disguised weapon. I suspect the concept of criminal negligence also plays a part, given that in operating remotely and automatically, the device is largely outside the direct control of the owner.

I also suspect the other issue for our Scottish farmer - maybe even the biggest one - was that the two shotguns he used had both been cut down. I think I'm right in saying that the ownership of a sawn-off shotgun is a strict liability issue in England, and therefore very possibly Scotland. With strict liability, there's no need for the authorities to prove intent - you're getting done and that's that. If it is the same in Scotland then the guy really compounded the issue by going all Sweeney with his shooters.

Homeowners have a duty of care to what are euphemistically described as 'persons other than the occupier’s visitors' - and obviously, booby traps don't sit well with that; one of the main issues being, of course, that those 'persons other than' could be anyone, from paramedics to firemen to people looking for directions (and this is where negligence would an exacerbating issue).

However, it's also worth noting that uninvited guests of a more nefarious nature are themselves subject to the concept of 'acceptance of risk'. That is, they cannot seek recompense for having done something they could reasonably be expected to have understood to be dangerous.

So, if a burglar crossing your drawbridge is injured with a clockwork crossbow hidden in a stuffed cow - you're getting done.

But, if he tries to swim the moat, and cramps up halfway across - he's on his own.
 
Not exactly on topic but a friend of mine owns a a steel foundry that was shut down some years ago and is now derelict. He has fencing up and signs up warning trespassers, etc of the danger. However a couple of years ago some kids managed to gain access to the roof and one of them fell through sustaining some serious injuries. His family took out legal action against my friend for substantial damages and the claim is still ongoing. We live in strange times.....
 
eziofan said:
Not exactly on topic but a friend of mine owns a a steel foundry that was shut down some years ago and is now derelict. He has fencing up and signs up warning trespassers, etc of the danger. However a couple of years ago some kids managed to gain access to the roof and one of them fell through sustaining some serious injuries. His family took out legal action against my friend for substantial damages and the claim is still ongoing. We live in strange times.....
Click to expand...
I find it pathetic that owners of premises have to ensure the safety of intruders. Kids climb onto a roof despite warnings and fall through the roof, injuring themselves. Tough. I'd be counter suing the parents for damage to the roof and the stress and anxiety of dealing with the incident on the basis that they have been negligent in failing to supervise their kids and preventing them from causing criminal damage. No doubt though that such a claim wouldn't pass the first hurdle. We have indeed reached the US style of litigation where everyone else is to blame except the idiots who get injured.
 
Spookdaddy said:
English law (and I think it's the same in Scotland) does not at all like the idea of disguised weapons - and a booby trap is almost by definition a disguised weapon. I suspect the concept of criminal negligence also plays a part, given that in operating remotely and automatically, the device is largely outside the direct control of the owner.

I also suspect the other issue for our Scottish farmer - maybe even the biggest one - was that the two shotguns he used had both been cut down. I think I'm right in saying that the ownership of a sawn-off shotgun is a strict liability issue in England, and therefore very possibly Scotland. With strict liability, there's no need for the authorities to prove intent - you're getting done and that's that. If it is the same in Scotland then the guy really compounded the issue by going all Sweeney with his shooters.

Homeowners have a duty of care to what are euphemistically described as 'persons other than the occupier’s visitors' - and obviously, booby traps don't sit well with that; one of the main issues being, of course, that those 'persons other than' could be anyone, from paramedics to firemen to people looking for directions (and this is where negligence would an exacerbating issue).

However, it's also worth noting that uninvited guests of a more nefarious nature are themselves subject to the concept of 'acceptance of risk'. That is, they cannot seek recompense for having done something they could reasonably be expected to have understood to be dangerous.

So, if a burglar crossing your drawbridge is injured with a clockwork crossbow hidden in a stuffed cow - you're getting done.

But, if he tries to swim the moat, and cramps up halfway across - he's on his own.
Click to expand...
Booby traps, yes you're not going to stand a chance here, but going back to warning signs- you often see signs saying 'Danger Deep Water' at treatment plants and reservoirs etc, so does that give the authorities a bit of 'extra cover' if something does happen ie well, the signs are there warning you not to go in, so it's your own fault pal.

Same with beware of the dog signs some people have on their gates.

Do they ever make any difference to the outcome of a case for a citizen, or is it one rule for the authorities and another for Joe public?
 
Speaking of booby-traps in a house, this was a doozy:

Gregory Rodvelt was charged with unlawful possession of explosives in 2017. He then lost his house in a lawsuit. When appointed officials entered the home to prepare it for sale in 2018, they noticed a sign saying it was booby-trapped with various kinds of "improvised devices". They called in the FBI. One of the agents was injured when ammunition from one of the traps hit him in the leg. Rodvelt also rigged a hot tub to roll into anyone who trespassed. Rodvelt was found guilty this week on one count of assaulting a federal officer and one count of using and discharging a firearm in relation to a crime of violence. https://lawandcrime.com/crime/man-w...vices-found-guilty-of-injuring-federal-agent/
 
Floyd1 said:
...Do they ever make any difference to the outcome of a case for a citizen, or is it one rule for the authorities and another for Joe public?
Click to expand...

As I said the 'acceptance of risk' thing (volenti non fit injuria - had to look that up) is a legitimate defence for someone who is accused of negligence in such circumstances - but it's by no means a get out of jail card.

When all is said and done though - I strongly suspect the idea that the courts are heaving with ne'er do wells successfully suing innocent homeowners for broken ankles sustained while nicking their car is largely a media construct.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top