Defense of property is actually fun to teach because, it also again relates to our conversations, what is really Torts trying to accomplish? Is it a moral judgment or is it economic judgment? Sometimes we're in week three or four and students kind of, they get a feel for, okay, well it's wrong to enter somebody else's property, wrong to do things. And so you should be able to, you know, defend and repel such attacks. And the question becomes about how much, right? And so I teach a couple of cases involving spring guns, where basically a property owner sets up a gun that's tied to a spring and a trespasser, or usually a robber, trips a spring when they're engaged in their own affairs activities and get injured or killed or whatnot. And I teach two cases, one from. 18 hundreds and one from actually,late 20th century, very similar cases. The reason I teach both is because the older case involves an innocent party. It's actually two businessmen kind of side by side. One raises tulips, which at the time was kind of, is a rage for tulips, super expensive. The other one apparently raises peacocks on a neighboring plot of land. And unfortunately, one of the peacocks gets away and goes like to the neighboring plot of land. The peacock owner thinks like, oh my God, he's gonna cost so much damage tulips are insanely expensive. I'm gonna go and I'm gonna retrieve the peacock as quickly as I can before I'm on the hook for all sorts of damages. And he goes there and he sets off the spring gun, which was installed because the tulip owner actually had been robbed previously and he wanted to make sure that doesn't happen again. Or if it does, the people will sort of pay the price. And so then the court says that this is inappropriate way to defend one’s property. Here's basically a good guy who is trying to protect his neighbor's property from his errant peacock. It's kind of sounds terrible that he was so grievously injured by a gun. whereas the 20th century case, basically, again, same setup as a spring gun, et cetera. But the person who gets caught, he’s a thief. He keeps breaking into this barn and he steals some sort of bottles and he basically testifies, of course. He's like, yeah, I did it like twice before and I would do it again. Right? He's like, I don't really intend to stop. And so the property owners are like, well, you know, but if this is the way to stop you, right? The court there says no. Even if you are trying to catch a bottle thief, you still don't get to kill a person or grievously, maim them to protect your bottles. It's not so much about are you a good guy or a bad guy, it's that there are sort of standards to how law will allow you to defend your land and how we would not. And then there's a third case I teach where there's not a spring gun, there's an actual gun being discharged. And, there's some sort of mini riot going on in the Wild West. This is like 1840s, 1850s, I believe, in Nevada. All this happening in front of this person, in front of our defendant's home,there's his shop on the first floor. There's his house on the second floor. His sister is sleeping in the house, and there's this mob gathering around the sheriff and deputy show up. And, but the homeowner doesn't recognize the sheriff and so he discharges the gun into the crowd and injures the sheriff. And the court there says, now you're no longer defending just property you're defending yourself and your sister if that's reasonable force. The fact that an innocent party, i.e. the sheriff who actually came to solve the problem, got injured. It's unfortunate, but not compensable because the person was using a reasonable amount of force. So we talk about defense of self and defense of others and how the amount of force you can use, depending on what exactly you're defending may change.