I know what it IS, but the case was referenced for the general discussion and cites in the decision, which bridge far beyond the legal/moral analysis of setting traps. It discusses the relative value of property versus human life, and the legal reasoning as to when, in defense of self versus defense of property, differnt types of force are appropriate, the the legal traditions of various jurisdictions (inclding Britain)on the subject.
Now I know mentioning Britain is like waving red meat in front of a dog with this crowd, but the longstanding traditions and legal analysis in British law can be distinguished from the modern nonsense and antipathy for all gun-rights.