Why isn't spiked fencing illegal?

[L00b]

isn't that the sole purpose of it?

If barbed wire (or equivalent) was to have a sole purpose, then I would argue that it is deterring, rather than injuring.

 

Fortunately, it has both purposes: enforcing, if deterrence is not sufficient.

 

The difference is down to the perp's own volition, as I don't imagine anyone forces a perp to try and climb on it.

 

Perhaps the "country" is not so "namby-pamby" after all, eh, danot?

[danot]

I think the installation of spiked fencing happens because of the high equipment value risk from theiving and, maybe arsonists.

If the problem is vandalism then I dont think the need for spiked fencing is valid.

A lot of vandalism is done by males/boys trying to impress girls, espscially in schools with no fencing or inadequate fencing.

If the fence is eight feet high as most are, the attraction for the males/boys goes away.

The reason for that is the girls are very reluctant or will not climb the fencing just to watch show offs destroying property....especially with short skirts on....the girls that is.

I agree with the majority of that, although, not all spiked fences are fitted for security, some are simply for ornamental feature.

[danot]

If barbed wire (or equivalent) was to have a sole purpose, then I would argue that it is deterring, rather than injuring.

No, because if the fence is only 6ft high, then it's still scalable, which in my opinion isn't adequate security, therefore the intended purpose of the spikes would be to injure the trespasser, which I find find utterly amazing:hihi:

[Dogs Of War]

No, because if the fence is only 6ft high, then it's still scalable, which in my opinion isn't adequate security, therefore the intended purpose of the spikes would be to injure the trespasser, which I find find utterly amazing:hihi:

 

The spikes would only hurt someone trying to enter the property illegally, therefor would be no danger to law abiding members of the public , only criminals intent on breaking the law and commiting crime.

 

seems very reasonable to me to use spiked fencing to protect property.

[danot]

The spikes would only hurt someone trying to enter the property illegally, therefor would be no danger to law abiding members of the public , only criminals intent on breaking the law and commiting crime.

 

seems very reasonable to me to use spiked fencing to protect property.

But you will have injured them with intent, aren't we advised not to do that?

[HeadingNorth]

Are you saying that having permission to errect lethal looking spiked fencing to deter any would-be trespassers, doesn't seem the slightest bit odd to you?. Also, are you saying that it's primary function is to deter those would-be trespassers?.

 

I believe that to be its primary function, yes. The idea is not to inflict hideous injury on trespassers, but rather, to stop them from trespassing because they don't want hideous injuries.

 

On a much vaster scale, the purpose of nuclear weapons in the hands of the superpowers has always been, to not get used. The fact that they would invoke utter annihilation on the enemy, means that the enemy does not attack to begin with as the chance of victory is nil.

[HeadingNorth]

Kid kicks ball over wall, tries to retrieve it, is injured, sues you, you will lose and have to pay compensation.

 

 

 

We haven't yet established whether razor wire is legal in a position such as his. It doesn't adjoin a highway.

[L00b]

Kid kicks ball over wall, tries to retrieve it, is injured, sues you, you will lose and have to pay compensation.

When any access into the property requires braving barbed wire? What's wrong with the kid? Can't use a doorbell? Doesn't have any manners to ask permission?

 

I doubt very much a Judge would side with the kid/parents. Feel free to supply a precedent, in which I would be interested.

 

No, because if the fence is only 6ft high, then it's still scalable, which in my opinion isn't adequate security, therefore the intended purpose of the spikes would be to injure the trespasser, which I find find utterly amazing:hihi:

If the fence is only 6ft high, but no barb protrudes beyond the fence boundary adjacent the highway, then the barbed wire is still unlikely to be injurious to persons or animals lawfully using the highway.

 

The fact that the fence is scalable is neither here nor there: scaling the fence is not using "lawfully using the highway" adjacent the fence, is it?

 

Nice try, but you're still in the starting blocks Must be all that amazement that's transfixed you

[HeadingNorth]

No, because if the fence is only 6ft high, then it's still scalable, which in my opinion isn't adequate security, therefore the intended purpose of the spikes would be to injure the trespasser, which I find find utterly amazing:hihi:

 

A third example. If I wanted to injure trespassers, I wouldn't build a fence at all; I'd set tripwires that fired an assortment of shotgun blasts.

 

If I wanted to deter trespassers, I would build something that says "If you try to get in here it's going to hurt."

[Steptoad]

A friend of mine ran into a barbed wire fence that went along a boundary between public and private land. She was very drunk, so drunk that she didn't feel the pain of a long cut on her face that later required several stitches. She got a massive compensation payout.