- Thanks to CuriosityStream for keeping Legal Eagle in the air. (thunder cracks) He gently pulls the chair
away and grabs the doorknob. He turns.
(doorknob rattles) He pulls. Oddly, there's slight resistance, then he yanks the door and Katko's life and
limbs are changed forever. (door slams)
(man yells) A man's house is his castle. It's the place we feel safe. It's the place we raise our children, and it's the place we keep
our most precious belongings. But to what lengths may we go to protect our personal property and our home? When is deadly force justified? That's the question we must answer in The Case of the Shotgun Booby Trap. (dramatic music) Submitted for adjudication. Our story begins with a gift. The year is 1957, the place
an isolated farm house in Mahaska County, Iowa. On this day, Edward and Bertha Briney are thrilled to learn that
they're about to inherit a fertile eight-acre farm
from Bertha's parents, the shining gem amidst the
rolling golden wheat fields, a farm house, a symbol
of the American pioneer. The couple is elated,
they dream of passing on their property to their
children and grandchildren. Little do they know that
this quaint little home in the heartland is about to
throw their lives into chaos. Although they love the farm house, Ed and Bertha do not live there. Instead they reside in
another home outside of town. They try their best to secure
the inherited property, especially to protect the antiques and heirlooms stored within. Unfortunately, the
Brineys grow increasingly unable to care for the farm house, and it begins to deteriorate
faster than they can repair. Both time and weather batter the house. The harsh midwestern winters
strip the paint off the boards, crack the windows like broken
teeth, and cave the roof in. The home becomes dilapidated
and the Brineys are frustrated. The gift starts to seem
less like a blessing and more like a curse. They have no idea how right they are. Worse yet, the farm house
is isolated and vulnerable, like a haunted house
beset by troubled ghosts. There are no nearby neighbors
to protect the home, and it becomes ripe for looting. As the years pass,
Bertha's family heirlooms start disappearing, stolen
by a persistent swarm of criminals and thieves. A series of trespassing and
house-breaking incidents inflict more damage to the property, and soon nearly everything
that Bertha treasured is gone, stolen by looters that
seem to worm their way in to the house like locusts, and
like locusts, strip it bare. Angry and despondent, the
Brineys post keep out signs and install locks, but all is in vain. For a decade, Ed Briney
listens to his wife's pleas as she begs him to do something. Meanwhile, on the other side of town, a couple of buddies are up to no good. Meet one Marvin Katko, a
married gas station attendant barely able to make ends meet. He's been in and out of work for weeks and is looking for some quick cash. And meet Katko's soon-to-be
partner in crime, Marvin McDonough, who has heard
about the Briney residence and the easy money to be made there. McDonough convinces Katko
that grabbing some antiques could earn them a pretty penny, and Katko is just
desperate enough to agree. Before long, the two conspirators break in and steal some antique bottles
and jars for preserves. Their little heist proves fruitful. Finally, something snaps in
the mind of Edward Briney. Fed up with the looting
and wanton destruction, Briney cleans and oils
his 20 gauge shotgun, and he climbs the flight
of groaning stairs for the second floor bedroom. A desperate plan takes shape in his mind. He ignores the uneasy feeling
in the pit of his stomach. He is a man who has had enough. Fury pulsing in his veins, Briney enters the north bedroom. Working by the light of
the late afternoon sun, he secures the shotgun to
the foot of the iron bed wire and runs another wire from the trigger to the bedroom doorknob. He crouches, adjusting the shotgun's aim, leveling it straight at the
middle of the door frame where it is sure to hit
the thief in the abdomen, a death sentence, and then he
calls downstairs to Bertha. When Bertha sees Ed's booby
trap, she has only one qualm. She doesn't want the
would-be thief to get shot in the stomach, so Bertha
convinces Ed to lower the gun and to point it at the
bottom of the door instead. Ed agrees and adjusts the shotgun. He nails a piece of tin over the window to prevent anyone from seeing the trap. He loads the gun, cocks the
trigger, and closes the door. Bertha shoves a chair
under the door's knob as one last signal to thieves that the bedroom isn't meant to be opened. At last, the Brineys leave, knowing the next person to open the door is in for a horrifying shock. Meanwhile, high off of their first haul, Katko and McDonough decide to go back, reasoning there must be more in the rooms that they haven't opened yet. So the two tiptoe back
onto the Brineys' land under cover of darkness, but this time, unbeknownst to them, they
face a bloody reckoning. Katko and McDonough pry loose a board from a back porch window. They break and enter.
(glass shatters) Once inside the house, Katko
goes straight to the bedrooms while McDonough searches downstairs. He enters the hallway, no one is home, but he's careful to avoid excessive noise. The old floor boards creak
with each heavy step. Katko notices a chair under
the north bedroom door. Strange, but no matter. He gently pulls the chair
away and grabs the doorknob. He turns, he pulls.
(doorknob rattles) Oddly, there's slight resistance, then he yanks the door,
(door creaks) and Katko's life and
limbs are changed forever. (gun fires)
(man yells) The sound of the blast
is deafening, it's chaos. Katko drops, one of his legs a bloody mess of tissue and bone splinters, the sickly sweet smell of
gunpowder fills the air, adding to the pandemonium. Katko screams in agony and
McDonough rushes to the bedroom. He stares in dumbstruck horror, Katko lies there writing. McDonough lifts his friend on his shoulder and half-carries him
down to the front yard. From there, McDonough helps
as much as he can as Katko crawls the seemingly endless
distance to the car where the two finally rush through
the night to the hospital. There, after doctors stop the bleeding, they explain to Katko and his wife that he needs three to four weeks of care before the hospital can discharge him. Katko has lost a substantial
amount of bone and tissue, and his leg needs to be amputated,
but almost miraculously, Katko barely avoids that horrible step. Yet Katko's injury doesn't
prevent the law from swooping in. After a 40-day stay in the hospital, Katko faces the police who arrest him on breaking and entering
and larceny charges. Katko pays a fine of $50 and
serves a 60-day jail sentence until he is paroled for good behavior. Except for this, Katko's record is clean. But this man's ordeal is far from over. He suffers a full year in a cast and another year in a special brace. He wrestles with pain and
knows he will walk with a limp for the rest of his life. Katko knows he was committing a crime, but the longer he sits, his
leg throbbing like torture, the more he convinces himself
that he doesn't deserve this. This isn't fair. Something breaks in Katko's mind. Like Briney before him, Katko
decides he wants justice. (gun fires)
(tense music) Katko served his time in jail and paid his debt to society, which brought the criminal
side of this case to a close. But once out of jail,
Katko wanted compensation for his gruesome shotgun injuries. So like a true American, Katko filed suit. That's right, the thief
sued the homeowner. Katko claimed that his leg injury resulted from unreasonable
force by the Brineys to protect their personal
property by setting up a spring gun, AKA a shotgun booby trap. Needless to say, Ed and
Bertha Briney were furious. The case went all the way up
to the Iowa Supreme Court. The issue, whether setting up a spring gun in an uninhabited house is considered reasonable force for
protection of property. In other words, was
Edward allowed to set up a shotgun booby trap to
protect his house and home? Remember, the house was unoccupied at the time of the break-in. So how far does the right
to self defense actually go? We take you to the court house, where the argument between
the lawyers for each side is about to begin. (typewriter clicks) - [Judge] Good morning, this
court has had an opportunity to review the record, the parties' briefs. Are counselors ready
to begin oral argument? - [Bruce] Yes, your Honor, Bruce Palmer representing appellants
Mr. and Mrs. Briney. - [Lawyer] Yes Justice, Geri Heslinga for Mr. Katko, appellee. - [Judge] All right then, let's proceed. Mr. Palmer, what do you have to say? - [Bruce] Thank you, and
may it please the court, it is frankly a miscarriage of justice that an admitted thief
would seek monetary damages from the homeowners he tried to burgle. My clients, Edward and Bertha
Briney, did everything right. They followed the law,
setting up a mere deterrent in their unoccupied home,
a home which was clearly not meant for guests,
especially trespassing intruders with intent to burglarize the home. For 10 years, the Brineys
repeatedly installed locks and posted many No Trespassing signs, boarded up windows, and even
desperately sought assistance from the Sheriff's department, but none of these efforts
prevented continuous break-ins and thefts to
the family's heirloom home. Katko, the thief, had no right to even set foot on the Brineys' land. - [Geri] Your Honor, the
key to deciding this case is the oldest legal question on the books. Does the punishment fit the crime? The obvious answer here is no. The Constitution itself
prohibits cruel and unusual punishment in criminal cases, but it also makes sense in
a civil case like this one. My client admitted he was
guilty of breaking and entering and larceny in the nighttime,
but he was arrested. He served his time and he
paid the required fine. He paid his debt to
society and the Brineys. Yes, the Brineys had a right
to protect their property, but to the extent of
ruining a decent man's life by blowing off one of his legs? - [Bruce] All the Brineys
intended with the spring gun in the bedroom was to scare intruders. They had no desire or intention to seriously maim or kill anyone. Katko, while he tries to play the "oops I made a little mistake"
card, actually carefully planned the burglary to
steal the Brineys' valuables and sell them for his own benefit. He's a convict, a repeat offender, and had no right to expect
warmth or safety in a vacant home which he knew had been
repeatedly vandalized. Imagine if he seriously cut himself while breaking one of
the farm house windows. That could be just as
dangerous as a shotgun, but we would all agree that the Brineys would not be liable for his injuries then. This situation is exactly the same. Katko's injuries resulted
from his own bad decisions. - [Geri] Oh that's going too far. My client not only suffered
the horrendous injury at the time the shotgun
blew off much of his bone and leg tissue, but almost
had his leg amputated, needed crutches and a special brace for almost two years and still suffers substantial pain to this very day, all because he attempted to
take a few antique bottles to sell so he could keep himself
and his wife above water. - [Judge] I appreciate
your arguments, counselors, but the law is clear. The relevant question for the court is whether the actions of
the Brineys was reasonable. Now Katko did not have
permission to enter the premises and did not have permission to steal the Brineys' belongings,
that much is clear. However, as a society, we
don't want people setting up shotgun booby traps or planting
landmines in their yards. - [Geri] Your Honor, any
reasonable person knows the terrible damage a shotgun
can do a point-blank range. Indeed, the fact that the
Brineys lowered the aim of the gun is an admission of that fact. Thus, they obviously
intended to grievously harm the next person to open that door. In this case, it was poor Mr. Katko. - [Judge] Mr. Palmer, do you think the Brineys' trap was reasonable? - [Bruce] I do, your Honor. Was it reasonable for them to be upset and want to prevent
further break-ins, yes. Did they try less drastic
measures to accomplish their goal prior to the spring gun, yes. Did those measures stop the
stealing and vandalism, no. Does it make sense for them to have taken a more extreme measure, yes. Your Honor, you called it a trap, but that implies that
it was out in the wild and that anyone walking in public could have come within
the sights of the shotgun, but the Brineys were careful
to only protect their own home and place their deterrent
in their own bedroom. - [Geri] Your Honor, the
flaw in the Brineys' argument is clear, what if it had been someone else that opened the door that night? What if some young boys out for a walk had decided to explore the dark home as an adventure, as children sometimes do? What if the boys, having no
plan to steal or vandalize, had wandered through the home and then, in one awful blast, a
child's life had been lost? Clearly, the death of
an innocent young child would not be reasonable just
to protect some property. What else can we conclude? The hidden gun trap was
intended to catch someone by surprise and cause a devastating
personal injury or worse. Imagine a person on trial
for attempted murder and claiming that it couldn't be murder because he only aimed for
someone's non-vital organs? Preposterous, if my client
had not been accompanied by his friend, he would
have bled to death. The Brineys were out for
blood and they got it. Now it's on their hands. My client simply wants compensation for the damage that they did to him. - [Judge] Are we to
suggest that a homeowner can never use deadly
force to protect his home? Is that the precedent you want to set? Mr. Palmer, under what
circumstances, if any, is a spring gun a legally permitted device for protection of personal property? - [Bruce] Your Honor, the law is settled that property owners may
use substantial force, even spring guns and shotguns, to protect their property
under certain circumstances, including a home invasion,
especially at night. Who's to say the Briney
family was not protecting a dwelling where Mrs. Briney may be spending time on her own? She has a right to protect her
own life with deadly force, so the only unreasonable matter here is Katko's asking this
court to award him money for an injury he sustained
by illegally entering a home where the homeowner might have
been dwelling at the time. - [Geri] Your Honor, opposing
counsel conveniently omits that part of the
well-settled law that says spring guns or other mechanical devices installed to cause serious
bodily harm or death may only be used if the
homeowner is present in the dwelling while the trap is set. We may not like the reason
Mr. Katko was there, but his status as a
trespasser shouldn't justify homeowners throughout the country rigging firearms to
shoot anyone at any time. - [Judge] Thank you, I
think I've heard enough. Any closing remarks, Mr. Palmer? - [Bruce] Thank you,
while it was mere property my clients were protecting, these were belongings in a home where Mrs. Briney frequently spent time, thus this case should be looked upon as one in which the law
permits use of a spring gun. It might be different if the belongings were in a shack or a
barn, but they were not. It was merely luck that the
Brineys were not present at the time of the home invasion. Yet Mr. Katko sees to punish
the Brineys for the good fortune that they were not
home at the time he broke in. - [Geri] Not withstanding
counsel's seemingly sound argument, it is completely
unsupported by actual Iowa law. Any reasonable person would have realized that a 20 gauge shotgun precariously wired to fire into a doorway,
any part of a doorway, could cause serious bodily
harm or death to an entrant. Thus the spring gun set up by the Brineys was legally impermissible. - [Judge] Thank you, counselors,
this matter is adjourned. I will return soon with
the court's decision. (typewriter clicks) - Justice Moore wrote the decision of the Iowa Supreme Court
in February of 1971, and the precedent that it set is still the law of the land in
Iowa and many states today. Pause this video and let
me know in the comments how you think this case came out. (typewriter clicks)
(relaxed music) The Iowa Supreme Court
held that the rule of law to be applied was this: one may, in fact, use reasonable force to
protect mere property, but a homeowner may not
use a means of force that will take human life or
inflict great bodily harm. The fact that a trespasser may be acting in violation of the law
doesn't change that rule, and the only time the
setting of a spring gun is justified is if a
trespasser is committing a felony of violence or
one punishable by death, or where a trespasser is
endangering human life by his act. In other words, the
Brineys, the homeowners, were in the wrong. It was unlawful to set up
their spring gun booby trap, and what happened to the Brineys? Well hold on to your hats,
the jury's verdict for Katko and against the Brineys
awarded Katko $20,000 for actual damages plus another
$10,000 in punitive damages. The jury found that
the Brineys' booby trap was so heinous that the
couple should not only pay for the actual
damages but also $10,000 just to punish them. So was it fair or unfair that
a trespasser attempting to burglarize your house has
any protections at all? It's difficult to disagree that human life is more important than property, no matter how sentimental the items. But what do you think? The case of the shotgun
booby trap is the first in a new series on this channel. I hope you liked it because it took about 10 times longer than my normal videos. This is a huge experiment
because publishing on YouTube is risky and in fact, this
video probably got demonetized, which is why my creator
friends and I teamed up to build our own platform
where creator's don't need to worry about demonetization
or the dreaded algorithm. It's called Nebula, and
we're thrilled to be partnering with CuriosityStream. Nebula is a place where creators can do what they do best, create. It's a place where we can
both house our content ad free and also experiment
with new original series that probably wouldn't work on YouTube. In fact, if you liked this episode of the case of the shotgun booby trap, you can find an extended version on Nebula that I can't show on YouTube. And when I say Nebula is built
by creators for creators, I really mean it. Nebula features lots of YouTube's top educational-ish creators
like Real Engineering, Half As Interesting,
TierZoo, Knowing Better, Real Life Lore, and tons of others, and we get to collaborate in ways that wouldn't work on YouTube, for example, the Nebula exclusive series
called Working Titles where every episode a
different creator breaks down their favorite TV intro sequence. Polyphonic did the Game of Thrones intro, Patrick Willems did the
X-Men animated series, and I'll be covering Law
& Order very, very soon. (gavel bangs) Seriously, we worked really hard on this and we're all really proud of the result. The project is self-funded,
we're not backed by investors, and we've managed to make this ad free and with no dreaded algorithm. So what does this have to
do with CuriosityStream? Well, they love educational
content and educational creators, so they were the
perfect partner for Nebula. We just recently worked out a deal where if you sign up for
CuriosityStream with the link in the description, not only will you get one free month of CuriosityStream, but you'll also get a Nebula
subscription for free. And to be clear, that Nebula
subscription is not a trial. It's free for as long as you're
a CuriosityStream member, which means that for less than $20 a year, not only do you get unlimited
access to CuriosityStream's massive library of gorgeous,
high-budget documentaries, but you'll also get to
enjoy the private playground for YouTube's best educational creators at no additional charge
for as long as you're a CuriosityStream member,
and you'll be supporting creators like me directly. So you can go to the
link in the description or you can go to
CuriosityStream.com/LegalEagle and if you sign up using the link below, not only will you be able
to access CuriosityStream's amazing documentaries like 101 Events That Made the 20th Century,
which includes my favorite episode on Watergate for reasons
that are probably obvious, but you'll also get a
subscription to Nebula for free for as long as you're a member. Seriously, it's less than 20 bucks, and just click on the link. So what do you think, did
the court get it right or was this a travesty of justice? Leave your objections in the comments, and until next time,
I'll see you in court.
I'm a lawyer from Canada, and although this is far from a full doc, this channel is AMAZING for someone looking to learn more about the legal profession. It's got great content for both lawyers and non-lawyers, even though it tends to be US focused. The major theme is addressing the countless misconceptions about what lawyers do, and how litigation actually works.
"Shoulda aimed higher" was the defendant's succinct response following the trial.
So Kevin would’ve been in deep shit if he hadn’t been a minor.
I love the production value, but this could have been condensed into a great 4 minute video.
The stretching out of the story made me wish I had opened the bedroom door.
i wonder what would happen if cop was investigating and was blasted to shit.
I've heard about this case for years. Its good to finally hear the details about the civil suit. It was one of those things that fuels the "better kill a transgressor than to injure and let them live." It's a big point for castle doctrine and stand your ground laws. The joke in Florida it to shoot the fucker outside (if you have to) but drag them inside before you call your lawyer/cops. There are legitimate concerns about non-transgresses, children, and public servants; But there is a (non -proud) line/tinge that wants to say fuck a criminal and they can get whats coming. I wonder if the guy shot, if it was proven that he broken into and stole from the place 100+ times would it have played out different? If the owner had posted signs declaring that the place was trapped and that lose of life or bodily harm would/could occur, would the argument/verdict be different? Justice by law or personal/emotional justice?
I someone raped and murdered my SO... I could shoot and kill them in the act and be ok. I could shoot and kill them if I came upon them right after the fact.. I think it would be ok. If he got away and I saw them on my door step the next morning and I shot them... is that ok? But if I shot him weeks later at a 7-11...? or months later as he was exiting the court house - it's not ok. It's a hard and uncomfortable line to define and weird to debate.
I agree that it is endangerment on the home owners part, but it still doesn't make sense the "burglar" should be awarded anything . Maybe a fine on the homeowners makes more sense.
We studied about this case first year of law school, interesting story.
Moral of the story, don't leave booby traps, you'll get in trouble.
It's weird. We don't execute people for stealing. And yet, a lot of people apparently think it's A-OK to kill someone who is stealing your stuff and not physically threatening you.
That's the thing about booby traps; they don't protect *you*, they protect your *stuff*. You can still protect yourself if someone breaks into your home and threatens your life. But if someone breaks into your home and threatens only your stuff, that doesn't mean they deserve to die.