This question comes from LeeAnn via direct message.

“Would Kevin on ‘Home Alone’ get in legal trouble for setting all those booby traps? Or would he be let go with self-defense? Aren’t you allowed to protect your house? Can you also find out how his dad paid for a whole fucking family to go on that vacation?”

This is an excellent question. There are tons of great legal analyses of the Wet Bandits’ actions in Home Alone, so I won’t rehash all those thought experiments. Instead, I will answer the question by focusing on the oft-cited Castle Doctrine and how it could apply in this case.

First we should cover a couple of things. Home Alone, like other John Hughes movies, is set in the Chicago area, so I’ll look at Illinois law for this. Kevin is an 8-year-old kid. In Illinois, children that young aren’t usually tried as adults, absent some pretty heinous facts. Judges apply a factors test to determine which juveniles are tried as adults, but that’s outside the scope of this, and anyway, I have a lot of issues with children being tried as adults. (For further reading, check out the book Just Mercy.)

So instead of asking whether he is able to be tried for the actions he committed, we’ll just focus on the culpability. 

Illinois has its own version of the “castle doctrine,” a type of home defense law you may have heard about in the news. The Illinois version is more limited than other states, but it generally says that a homeowner is justified in using force against an aggressor when the homeowner reasonably believes that force is necessary to stop the aggressor’s entry to the house. 

The caveat to this law is that the use of deadly or particularly violent force is allowed ONLY if the aggressor’s entry is made in a “violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner” and if the homeowner believes the deadly force is necessary to prevent violence to him or someone else in the house. It can also be justified if the homeowner reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary to stop the commission of a felony in his house.

Short version: you can attack someone who is trying to break in, and you can attack someone SUPER HARD if they roll up on you violently and you think the force is the only way to stop them from hurting you and yours OR if you think they’re trying to bust in to commit a felony.

What is NOT allowed under Illinois law is the general use of unattended booby traps. A man in southern Illinois in 2018 used a spring gun booby trap to prevent burglars from entering his shed. When a potential burglar opened the shed door, the spring gun went off, killing the potential burglar. The homeowner, William Wasmund, was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to 30 years in jail.

But what about the Castle Doctrine? Wasmund’s defense attorney actually argued that his client was justified under the Castle Doctrine. However, the jury found it was inapplicable because Wasmund was not home at the time of the shooting. The gun was a trap set in advance, not meant to defend against any specific party. That meant the trap could have shot anyone, not just someone who was trying to enter in a “violent, riotous, or tumultuous” manner.

Taken together – the Wasmund case, the Illinois Castle Doctrine, and the facts of the movie – all mean that Kevin McAllister was justified in his actions. 

The key difference between Kevin and William Wasmund is that Kevin was home and actually heard Harry and Marv specifically say that they would be coming by to burgle the house at 9PM on Christmas Eve. It wasn’t until right around 9PM that he pushed aside his mac and cheese and got ready. He poured the water on the outside steps, held his BB gun at the ready, and set out the other various traps in the house, meant specifically for the Wet Bandits.

First, hearing them attempt to break into the house outside the back door, Kevin shot Harry in the penis with the BB gun. This was justified as it was after Harry stated his intention to come into the house to commit burglary. Then Marv breached the dog door in an attempt to enter and Kevin shot this bandit in the face with the same BB gun.

This level of force – a shot with a toy gun – is not likely to cause death or great bodily harm, so Kevin was definitely justified at this point. This is true even though Kevin shot Marv in the face. He shot Marv between the eyes with a toy gun. The earlier scene showed how Kevin was an accurate shot, proving that he shot where he intended, not meaning to cause great bodily harm. 

Same goes for the icy stairs. Side note: icy stairs would normally be a liability nightmare for homeowners who could be forced to pay for any resulting slip and fall injuries. However, the Illinois Castle Doctrine specifically releases a homeowner of liability for any force used against an “aggressor.” So Harry and Marv wouldn’t be able to sue the McAllisters (or their homeowners’ insurance) from any injuries resulting from those wacky but painful-looking slips 

Then Marv breached the basement door where he was hit in the face with an iron. Again, Kevin did not set this trap randomly. It was specific to the Wet Bandits to protect against the felonies they would commit inside the house. Same goes for the heated door handle, the tar on the stairs, and even the stomach-turning nail that slides into Marv’s bare foot. (I remember laughing at that as a kid, but as an adult, I had to look away. Disgusting!) These traps were all set at the time Kevin was home, intended specifically to protect him from the Wet Bandits who had expressed their intent to enter the home and commit a felony inside.

Yes, even the blowtorch that burned Harry’s head would be justified under the Illinois law. By this point, Harry had burst through the door in a violent manner and expressed his desire not only to commit a felony inside the house, but also his desire to harm or possibly even kill Kevin. In short, he was asking for the torch to the head.

Once the Wet Bandits entered the house, Kevin still had the right to use force against them to “terminate” their unlawful entry of his dwelling. Further solidifying Kevin’s case, as he is running up the stairs, Harry threatens to “snap off” Kevin’s “cojones” and “boil them in motor oil.” Sounds like a threat to me!

The important point to focus on is when Kevin’s force increased from regular force to a more serious level of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm. Kevin increased the level of force only after the Wet Bandits not only breached the house in a violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner, but had also made it clear that they were ready to harm him physically and commit a felony inside.

So, as a reminder, under Illinois law, you can’t just open your front door and shoot at someone who is attempting to breach your house. The factors for use of deadly force must be present: (1) the aggressor must attempt to enter in  a “violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner” and the homeowner has to reasonably believe that the deadly force is necessary to “prevent an assault upon” himself or someone else in the house, OR (2) the homeowner must reasonably believe the deadly force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony.

Those Wet Bandits were coming in hot, and Kevin did what he had to do to ward off their attacks.

As for how the dad afforded the trip? He didn’t! In an early scene, Kate, played by the living icon/angel/legend Catherine O’Hara says that her brother-in-law was transferred to Paris for work, missed the family, and paid for them all to travel to Paris for the holidays. As for how Mr. McAllister afforded that bad ass house? According to a novelization of the book, he was “a successful businessman” and Kate was a fashion designer, hence the mannequins. 

I also need to point out that John Candy’s lines were the funniest part of the movie, and they were all improvised. He was also totally screwed by the filmmakers, only being paid $414 for those lines of solid gold, despite the movie grossing $477 million at its initial box office run. 

I hope that answers the question. Thanks, LeeAnn!

Got a question? Submit it here. They can be legal what-if questions like the one above, or questions about the legality of actions in TV shows or movies you’ve seen. I never ever want to answer your personal legal questions, so don’t send those. Love you, but I don’t do that.

***

This piece first appeared in Sunday Morning Hot Tea. Subscribe so you don’t miss another piece.