electrified interior components

Would you mind letting me know what the specific statue(s) is/are then for the state of Missouri? Thanks - Jesse

You gotta consider things like reprecussions (sp?) w/ what you're trying to accomplish --

Let's say the average Joe installs an alarm system on a nice car -- the thief comes around, attempts to steal it or break in .. and the alarm system thwarts the crime once the alarm is triggered.  Great.

Now, let's say another Joe installs an electrification system of metal plates on critical components necessary for the same thief to steal the car -- now perhaps -- the alarm system shocks the thief .. and let's say .. kills him.  I would say that EVEN if there are no legal ramifications for this Joe for what he did to that thief via the alarm system -- i would be a little more worried about the company that the thief carried on in -- i don't think he hangs out with people that would be very sympathetic to the Joe that just killed their buddy.

Retaliation city, bro.  Watch your back.

Auex, in regards to the search capabilities of the site I couldn't agree more. I had to read through every statute manully to find something that was remotely close to this application.

I did see that statute regarding the spring gun (571.030) and it seems to be more in line with the unlawful use of weapons. Now whether or not an electrified interior deterrant fits this category depends to the design of the system. If the system is designed to injure, maim, or kill the victim then I can see that there would be a big issue. But if a system is properly designed to deter rather that injure then the statute may not apply. (For example, does a stun gun fall under the domain of this statute?)

Kartman, it is not an issue of me not listening; on the contrary I am listening intently to anyone that posts an intelligent comment regarding the legality of this system. Me and Auex are merely playing devil's advocate and this is fully encouraged as it allows us to analyze all the aspects of this system's design, construction, and aftermath.

I think what we have discovered is that one can find the laws that permit the use of this system and at the same time find the laws that prohibit it. (Case in point; I feel that the use of this system is justifed and permissable under RSMO statute 563.041 Section 1, but at the same time feel it might be illegal under the deffinition of 3rd degree assault as defined under statute < face="Arial" >565.070 Section 1). The use of this sytem is then subject to the interpretation of the judicial system and as such I will direct my inquiries to them. I am not a proffesional interpreter of the law, and I doubt Auex is either, so I feel that my discussion needs to go elsewhere.

Thanks everyone for all the input!

- Jesse

I had thought about this. The only way I can forsee getting around the laws regarding mantraps, false entrapment, etc. is to place a warning sign in plain site stating what is currently being used and the potential effects if activated.

(If someone puts up an electric fence around their house with warning signs all over it stating that potential injury could occur is someone were to touch it, then would you feel inclined to grab the fence? I can foresee the excuse "but I didn't know the fence was electrified" falling somewhat flat on its face in a trial...)