parent nodes: deterrence | Intentional Torts
Defense of Property
A rule shifting the permissible level of force used to protect property will have [activity level] effects depending on the relative vulnerability of each activity to trespass, intrusion, theft, etc. See Calabresi corollary. However, as with other deterrence methods, a more severe, perhaps deadly, level of force against thieves or trespassers might be useful where the likelihood of apprehension is very low.
Additionally, deadlier forms of self-defense are less useful where the population density is higher, since defense methods (ex. a spring gun in [Katko v Briney]) would be more likely to injure an innocent party than alternate deterrent methods (ex. hiring watchmen).
As with other defenses to intentional torts, the defense rule serves as an ex ante hypothetical bargain liability rule because the transaction costs of bargaining between a potential thief or trespasser and a property-owner are too high.
Cases
[Katko v Briney] (L when burglar shot by spring gun on unoccupied property)
See also [pure economic loss]