If is been broken into before. So setting up

If your house has been broken into before, then you will probably feel the need to defend it. As long as you follow the laws of the state you live in, shooting someone who breaks into your house is counted as self-defense. But what if you set up a trap? Well that depends on the state you live, in given each state has its own laws. For example in 1970, a man named Cabellos who lived in California, set up a trap so that anyone who broke into his garage would trigger the trap and get shot. He set this trap up because his house is been broken into before. So setting up a trap was just a response to previous robberies in his house. While he was out two boys went by his garage. They saw that no one was home and broke the lock on the garage door. When they opened the door they triggered the trap and one of the kids were shot in the face. The boy lived and Cabellos was charged with assault. He argued that he had the right to defend his home. He thinks he should be allowed to defend his home in anyway, and that the law states that you can use deadly force to protect it. My opinion: Before doing my own research I agreed with Cabellos. He should have the right to defend his home in anyway. But I also think setting a trap may be a little too far. And the law of California can agree as well. It’s called the Castle doctrine. This law states: A person is allowed to defend his home or any other real property with deadly force. However, these rights are taken away when you were no longer on your property. (You also can’t shoot someone who breaks into your home unless you have probable cause), but that’s besides the point. Because of the law, Cabellos was wrong in setting a trap and would’ve been allowed to shoot the kid if he himself did it and not the trap in order to defend his property, and for it to be legal. So for that reason I agree with him getting charged with assault. Homeowners should not be allowed to set deadly traps to defend their homes, unless a law gives you the right to do so. If Cabellos shot the kid himself he wouldn’t be in trouble. Even though Cabellos was wrong for setting up the trap, A 16-year-old kid should’ve known better than to break into someone’s home. He should’ve known that doing so could get him in a lot of trouble but he broke in anyway. People also argue if there is a difference between setting a trap or just shooting an intruder yourself, but there is a difference. That main difference being that shooting someone yourself is legal, and that setting a trap is illegal. Everyone should be allowed to use deadly force to protect themselves and their property. I really don’t see a situation where using deadly force to my protect your life is too much because if I feel threatened I’m obviously going to shoot someone who breaks into my home. If there such thing as too much then there wouldn’t be a law giving you the right to defend yourself and your property with deadly force. What I don’t agree with this case, is that the boys were not punished for the robbery. The law California states that robberies punishable by jail time depending on the robbery however, if it’s not that serious you can get put on parole, have to pay a fee, or even community service. The boys who broke into Cabellos’s house should’ve been given a punishment of community service or a type of fee they had to pay. So it would make it an even case. Because they weren’t  punished they won’t learn from their mistake (if getting shot wasn’t enough), and they could go and rob someone else. But overall I agree the Cabellos should’ve been punished and got what he deserved, but the boys however should’ve gotten some type of punishment. But other than that don’t be stupid and know the law of your state so you don’t get yourself in trouble.