The Deadly Logic of the Cabin Trap
A man sets a shotgun trigger to protect his home, with fatal consequences for a stranger.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
In the trial of Newell S. Barr for the killing of John Erickson, witnesses confirmed the facts of the incident but the defense argues the act was a justifiable protection of private property. Barr, who had previously reported his cabin being broken into, set a gun trap and claimed he had even posted a 'danger' sign on the door. Despite the admission, the defense contends the gun was meant only to frighten intruders, not kill. The case highlights a grim frontier approach to property rights, leaving the jury to decide if a 'danger' sign and a history of break-ins excuse a lethal trap.
“Barr did not set the gun with any intention of killing any one, but merely to frighten, expecting the discharge, if any there should be, to go to the right of the door.”
The tension between property defense and criminal liability remains a potent, divisive issue in modern Washington. The 'stand your ground' and 'castle doctrine' debates today echo the same nineteenth-century struggle over where one's right to protect a domicile ends and the value of human life begins.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.