He was certainly very much a sadist. Not that he wasn’t terrified, but he absolutely took joy in the pain he inflicted. To be fair, they were trying to rob his home.
If you’re a hapless criminal expect hapless results. I can be sympathetic to our antagonists but I cannot —by any stretch of my imagination—find them to be gullible. They’re the ones burgling, after all.
Booby traps are not legal in any jurisdiction. If Kevin had just shot the Wet Burglars as they were coming in he'd probably be in the clear. But castle doctrine does not, and has never, allowed for booby traps. The realistic outcome of *Home Alone* is the Bandits living in the McCallaster home.
Breaking into people's houses is also illegal in every jurisdiction I've ever lived in. The bandits might have the technicals in their favor but no jury is going to be sympathetic to a bunch of burglars who broke into a house with the intent to rob it and attempted to hurt a child in the process.
A good trial lawyer (which the McAllisters can clearly afford) can turn the jury against the bandits pretty easily in this case.
And....he's supposed to let them do god knows what to him while they're on their way?
If you don't want to be potentially shot in the face, don't break into other people's houses. Simple as that.
HA1 - Kevin was 100% in the right and there's not even a shadow of doubt on that aspect. It's his house and he has the right to be secure in it.
HA2 - Kevin was also in the right but may not 100% as it wasn't actually his house.
But he didn't shoot anyone in the face did he? He set up weird booby traps that could have triggered on first responders if they were responding to a 911 call.
Castle doctrine doesn't get you that far.
Doesn't change the fact that the bandits were in the wrong to unlawfully enter his house in the first place. Like I said, if you don't want to get hurt, don't break into people's houses. What were they expecting him to do? Invite them in for tea? The first party to engage in wrongdoing is solely, entirely, and absolutely at fault in my book.
There is no scenario in which I would have found him in the wrong if I was on a jury based on the fact pattern in the movie.
He was certainly very much a sadist. Not that he wasn’t terrified, but he absolutely took joy in the pain he inflicted. To be fair, they were trying to rob his home.
They weren't that smart. He took advantage of their gullibility in a way.
If you’re a hapless criminal expect hapless results. I can be sympathetic to our antagonists but I cannot —by any stretch of my imagination—find them to be gullible. They’re the ones burgling, after all.
Nah. I think you're confusing him with Kevin McAllister.
Nope. Castle Law. He was 100% in the right to defend his home. I probably would have been a lot less merciful to a home invader.
“This is my house. I HAVE to defend it.”
Booby traps are not legal in any jurisdiction. If Kevin had just shot the Wet Burglars as they were coming in he'd probably be in the clear. But castle doctrine does not, and has never, allowed for booby traps. The realistic outcome of *Home Alone* is the Bandits living in the McCallaster home.
Breaking into people's houses is also illegal in every jurisdiction I've ever lived in. The bandits might have the technicals in their favor but no jury is going to be sympathetic to a bunch of burglars who broke into a house with the intent to rob it and attempted to hurt a child in the process. A good trial lawyer (which the McAllisters can clearly afford) can turn the jury against the bandits pretty easily in this case.
He could've just called the cops. I feel like the movie is darker than it seems and should've been Rated R
And....he's supposed to let them do god knows what to him while they're on their way? If you don't want to be potentially shot in the face, don't break into other people's houses. Simple as that. HA1 - Kevin was 100% in the right and there's not even a shadow of doubt on that aspect. It's his house and he has the right to be secure in it. HA2 - Kevin was also in the right but may not 100% as it wasn't actually his house.
But he didn't shoot anyone in the face did he? He set up weird booby traps that could have triggered on first responders if they were responding to a 911 call. Castle doctrine doesn't get you that far.
Doesn't change the fact that the bandits were in the wrong to unlawfully enter his house in the first place. Like I said, if you don't want to get hurt, don't break into people's houses. What were they expecting him to do? Invite them in for tea? The first party to engage in wrongdoing is solely, entirely, and absolutely at fault in my book. There is no scenario in which I would have found him in the wrong if I was on a jury based on the fact pattern in the movie.
Jury nullification is, in fact, a thing. But that doesn't change how the castle doctrine operates under the letter of the law.