electrified interior components

Greetings all!

This past Easter weekend a couple of idiots thought it would be great to try and jack my '86 Monte Carlo SS. This would be the 4th attempt in 5 years (and yes, the car is worth it!) and every time a theft attempt happens they just show me where the weakpoints are in my car's security - like an audit.

Here are the occurences and my response to each occurence: (if you are not interested in reading this feel free to jump further down. This next section just lays out the experiences with all the theft attempts I have had in the past).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2002: Thief breaks driver's side window and steals tool bag. (Not a very saavy car thief) Response: Installed Clifford alarm system. Installed redundant collapsable kill switches. Don't leave loose items in car in plain sight.

2004: (new) Thief Slim-Jims driver's side door, breaks steering column (under a security camera I might add, so the playback was quite educational). Kill switches saved the day. Response: Repair column and minor damage. No further action.

2005: (new) Thief uses slide hammer on driver's side door lock. Breaks steering column (again). Response: Installed Steadfast armored steering column guard to minimize the expense of future column repairs. (Got tired of dishing out $120 every time I need my column repaired). Added another kill switch. Shaved the handles and locks off the side of the car (doors open via remote control now).

Easter 2007: (new) Thief slim-jims the door (which was supposed to have been fixed when I shaved the handles. Back to the drawing board on that one...), rips the trim piece off the dash below the sterring column, pops hood and disables the alarm siren (cut the ground wire), _tries_ to break into the column (haha punk, its reinforced this time), rips open the side of my center console to try and get to the alarm electronics (which isn't there, genious), and is interrupted by other people walking by as well as the ensuing police cars. Response: Will revise the door linkages so a slim-jim will not work, mount redudant alarm sirens (with one in the cabin for the purpose of drawing blood through the eardrums), armor the wiring to the siren in the engine compartment so the wires cannot be cut, fabricate a replacement dash trim piece from 10ga stainless steel (formely plastic), reinforce the center console with 10ga steel, and finally contemplate electrifying certain components of the interior.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, my question to everyone is what are you thoughts on electrifying certain components of a car's interior - and of course they will only go active in the situation where the alarm has been activated. I have read some similar posts regarding electrifying the door handles of the car, but in the end the risk to innocent people (like idiotic children with no concept of courtesy or responsibility) caused the idea to be scrapped.

What I am thinking is that I could fabricate a system of parrallel plates mounted to the underside of the trim peice that must be removed to get to the column. This seems like a great focal point for a system like this because a would-be thief will have to remove the trim peice for their purposes, and of couse the innocents will be spared because the system will only act on those who have commited to breaking the law.

More on the plate system: Twin metal plates mounted to the underside of said trim piece and separated via several dielectric barriers. One plate would be grounded while the other is connected to an automotive ignition coil. The coil is then connected to a suitable 555 timer based pulsing circuit (like this one.. https://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/5322/coildrv.htm - which I already have two that are firing my exhaust flamethrower system).

Once the car's alarm is tripped one of the available outputs from the alarm system will trigger a relay which will then allow 12v to flow into the 555 timer circuit and thereby activate the shocking system. Once the thief reaches up under the trim piece and bridges the twin plates with his hand - the circuit would be complete. ZAAAPPP!

Now, the question of the hour, what do you guys think of legality? I know it is one thing to endanger innocent bystanders (no matter how discourteous they might be), but perhaps it is another to hurt someone already engaged in a felonious act against your own self? 

All constructive comments would be greatly appreciated. And if you have any legal background in personal property protection I would be in your debt!

Thanks guys!

(BTW: I did contemplate one alternative to this high-voltage device - which was the installation of a semi-truck air horn or a cruise-liner foghorn in the cabin of my car. Think that would be a great deterant?)

- Jesse

Auex,

You might be absolutely correct; but unless someone can site me specific legal statues (more specifically Missouri state statutes) then comments like these are just conjecture and assumption.

Regardless, I will not be putting this method of theft deterance into practice until absolutely sure of its legality.

- Jesse

You're just asking for a lawsuit.  Even if it's not a thief someone could be working on the car and accidently set it off and guess what big trouble for you. 

Hard to imagine......that bloody crook has protection under the constitution. Hurt him and you'll go to jail.

You decide.......

Chris,

Valid points. However, I think there is some confusion of my intent.

My intent is to electrify a specific trim piece that must be removed for in order to accomplish one of two things:

1) Physical removal of the steering column from the car for the sake of maintanance (and obviously in this case the system would be deactivated, and certainly no tow truck driver or valet attendant would be doing this legally) or

2) Gaining illegal access to the steering column in order to steal the car (which is what this system is meant to prevent).

The devil is in the details and like all engineering designs (and I am an engineer) there is a certain amount of brainstorming involved in order to ascertain all the probable outcomes of a specific design. In this case I will not be electrifying the door handles - so little children and valet parking attendants will be safe, and I will not be electrifying the parking break - so tow truck drivers will be safe.

Let me recap - the intention is to electrify ONE specific trim piece in order to prevent a thief from gaining access to the steering column. Obviously anyone else who justifiably needs to get to the column will be notified by the owner of the car and the system will consequently be activated. (You wouldn't arm the alarm on your car, remove the fob from the key ring, and then pass the key ring to the mechanic who is about to work on your car would you? Would be just a little < face="Times New Roman" >asinine). This system would only be active if the alarm has been triggered. NO other event would cause the system to arm.

Lastly, as I mentioned above to Auex, I would not serioulsy put this method of theft deterence into practice without fully understanding the legal repercussions of said system. (I am in the process of reading through all the Revised Missouri Statues from www.moga.mo.gov).

Again, thank you all for your comments! Please keep them coming.

- Jesse

Auex,

Now THAT makes sense. I will look into the specific cases tomorrow as I am not having much luck finding specific statutes either. I am sure specific case rulings will refference specific statutes pertaining to assualt caused by personal property and will just work backwards - tomorrow. (I am of the same mind on the legal jargon...it's too late in the night for it).

Thanks again guys and goodnight!

- Jesse

auex]I wrote:

---

's classification is assault and punishment is upto 10 years if injury occurs. I can find cases but can't find the actual statute. There is also case law in your state concerning it.

It was put that your property rights don't supercede human rights. I am tiRED / bored searching through legal jargon.

Even the autotaser that was out years ago is illegal in places.

---

Auex,

I thought about what you said through the night and I have one question: Why are tasers and stun guns legal while the system I have been thinking about constructing is illegal? I wouldn't be surprised that any injury caused by the use of a stun gun would also be classified as assault, but then how many people do you know have been injured by stun guns (not including the owners of course). This same argument could be used for the trim stunner as it would be designed to NOT deliver a lethal or fatal dose of electricty, but merely enough to deter.

Here is one more question - What was the functional difference between the Autotaser and standard stun guns? Did it actually electrify certain parts of a car's exterior? I can certainly see the risk of injuring others who are not commiting a felony. However, for someone who gets zapped by an interior electrified device they would have already commited a felony by breaking into someone's car.

I am sure that the same state and federal statutes that apply to stun guns would also apply in this case, so I will use this as another basis for my search. (You were right in sifting through all the legal information - its a bitch. It also seems as though the government has skimped on the verstility of their search engines as they are not very effective).

- Jesse

pyroguy wrote:

---

Chris,

Valid points. However, I think there is some confusion of my intent.....

...Obviously anyone else who justifiably needs to get to the column will be notified by the owner of the car and the system will consequently be DEactivated.

---

Just a correction to a previous post I made (it was late at night). Sorry about that.

It is a fact that the U.S. has more laws than any other country in the world - and true that not all of them are considered good. The lives we live follow guidelines that are both black and white with a huge gray area in between. This is the paradigm of our legal system in that law makers do their very best to make this gray area as small as possible - "This is legal while this is illegal" - in order to minimize the occurences of extenuating circumstances.

I agree that there are certain parts of our justice system that are NOT just; that do not follow the ideals of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" - but the government sets the rules while we are forced to dance by them. That's the name of the game - it is just up to creativity and inventiveness of the indivual on how to use these laws for their benefit.

(In my case one of my "pursuits of happiness" is the joy of modifying and driving my car without fear of someone taking it without my authorization; yet we have laws that protect the guilty from the actions of innocent victims. What side should justice favor?)

This whole discussion can easily drift off to the philisophical side of my little engineering project, but I would prefer that we stay on task in discussing the legal ramifications of this system.

If someone is willling to let us all know the specific Federal or State (Missouri, or any other state at that because I am sure they are all similar is some respect) statutes that would govern the application of the system I have been describing then the discussion will end and the idea will be scrapped. Anyone else in the future who performs a search on "electrified alarm systems" will come across this string and the topic will never come up again.

I am still sifting through the legal databases of the Missouri Statutes...

Thanks again everyone! This is turning into a killer discussion thread!

Jesse

pyroguy wrote:

---

If someone is willling to let us all know the specific Federal or State (Missouri, or any other state at that because I am sure they are all similar is some respect) statutes that would govern the application of the system I have been describing then the discussion will end and the idea will be scrapped. Anyone else in the future who performs a search on "electrified alarm systems" will come across this string and the topic will never come up again.

---

Auex,

Here, interpret this one for me:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use of physical force in defense of property.

563.041. 1. A person may, subject to the limitations of subsection 2, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage or tampering in any degree.

2. A person may use deadly force under circumstances described in subsection 1 only when such use of deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter.

3. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so.

4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How do you think this one might play out in a court session if I were to explain to the jury that I thought the use of an interior electrifed device was justifiable in thwarting an attempted theft?

(BTW: This is straight out of the Missouri Revised Statues via www.moga.mo.gov, or more specifically https://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5630000041.HTM)

auex]T wrote:

---

at won't happen because it has been brought up before and i have found the statute for the specific state in question.

---

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.

pyroguy wrote:

---

auex]T wrote:

---

at won't happen because it has been brought up before and i have found the statute for the specific state in question.

---

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

---

auex]I wrote:

---

meant the state in the other threads. You state's law library search engine sucks.

Also look up spring gun. It is closer to what you are dealing with then defending yourself. You are not there to defend, that would be one thing. You are intentionally setting a booby trap.

---

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="Times New Roman" >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...)

auex]H wrote:

---

re is a question. Is an electrified fence meant to keep people out or our animals in/out?

---

Now that would depend on the location now wouldn't it? Of course a fence around your house would most likely be used to keep your animals in, but one around a supermax prison could be used in either direction.

Still, even if your yard was electrified for the sole purpose of keeping your pets in and you have signs around the yard stating the prescence of the electric fence, could somebody still sue you for zapping themselves even though they were warned by the signs? How much warning is required to persuade someone to not do something that might hurt them?

Speaking of fences...

We have to put fences around our property (just the swimming pool, really) so people can't sue us for them drowning in our pool. Even though they broke the law and trespassed to begin with.

I still say to put up a warning for the potential thieves. This should cover you.

Oops, I posted before I fininshed the end of the last post. A warning that is in plain view from the drivers' seat.

jmelton86 wrote:

---

This probably will do. When someone gets attacked by your dog for jumping over your fence when there is a 'Beware of Dog' sign posted every however many feet along the fence, they can't sue you for your dog attacking them.

---

Buck,

I am not saying that I am right or wrong in implementing this system. I don't have the qualifications from a professional legal standpoint and at this point it is up to them to decide if this system is legal or not. This arguments have helped me to put toether a discussion packet that I can take to my city prosecutor, as well as local attournies, for further discussion.

It is not about what I think is wrong or right, it is how the Law dictates what is wrong or right. What takes higher prescidence? The human rights of the car thief? The protection of one's personal property? Do the laws regarding assualt supercede those of property security? We can argue either way, and Auex and I have if you have been keeping up with the discussion. I don't believe that Auex or myself are wrong or right - but needless to say the decision is not ours to make.

On a side-note this discussion has been an interesting social experiment. Undoubtedly if this system were to be implemented and I were to be incarcerated, then I would have to defend my case in front of a jury of my peers. I would expect that my peers would have the very same thoughts as those in this discussion thread with the same divisions of rational on what is justified and what is not. 

Thanks guys for all the input!

- Jesse

OK, so say that you do this.

Someone breaks in to your car.

They are shocked by your coil voltage, which would most likely be above 30,000VAC

It is very doubtful that it will kill them, but I guarentee that it will upset them greatly.  So, you prevented them from stealing your car, but when you come back to the car, it is on fire, and totally destroyed. 

Or, they simply pop the hood, disconnect the battery, and do what they need to do.

Or, they just get a flatbed and tow the thing.

Here is some more info...

I also noticed that there is a paragraph I left out of the above reply (the actualy quote that was referenced from that court case). Here it is in its entirety. Again, sorry about that (I had to transfer the text from Microsoft Outlook, to Word, and then to Notepad so it didn't come out like garbage...and somewhere along the way a little bit of the text was missed.

"A person may lawfully use that amount of force which is necessary, under the circumstances, for the protection of his property but he will be guilty of an assault if he uses excessive force , or any force after the necessity therefor is past."

jmelton,

I already did. The information I submitted above came from the Attorney General's office in Jefferson City (State Capitol).

I think for the moment the project is on indeffinite hold.

Wow; you know those are great ideas! I don't live in a bad neighborhood and my car is usually only broken into when I take it out around town (in specific areas), so instead of doing the logical thing of NOT taking my car to those areas I will just sell the car and buy a rice POS Honda or 'Yota!

EVEN BETTER IDEA! --> I go out to my garage right now, drive the car to a vacant lot, and then drop a lit molotov cooktail into the back seat! Wow! Splendid! No more car to steal!

(Do you remember my earlier note and submitting "intelligent comments" to this thread? I don't find your comments conducive to the topic at hand....)

Thanks,

Jesse