A dog and a sign send different messages, and the message of the sign is “the resident is afraid of being robbed”.
EDIT:
I want to make explicit that I am comparing something that gives the impression of a dog without a sign vs a sign with no other evidence of a dog. I am explicitly not commenting on the message sent by a sign combined with other evidence of a dog, just “fake (but, for the sake of argument, convincing) dog” vs. “dog sign”, each alone, as deterrents.
My former neighbor's father owned a junkyard with a fairly mean junkyard dog. Said dog did its job with a would-be thief, and the local government made them exterminate the dog.
Apparently the logic behind that decision included the argument that the fact that they posted a "beware of dog" sign indicated that they knew the dog was dangerous (duh, that's sort of the point) and therefore shouldn't be given further chances.
Yes, I realize that this wholly ignores the fact that the would-be thief was trespassing and that the meanness of junkyard dogs is so well-known as to be mentioned in a popular song. And that, again, the risk of getting bitten by the guard dog is precisely the deterrent factor in the system.
But dangerous dogs who attack strangers don’t ask questions. If they’ll bite a strange thief, they’ll bite other strangers without bad motives. Dogs are smart, but they don’t understand “Hi I’m your new mailman”, etc.
Kids were brought up as the reason that pools are fenced. Because adults tend to have motor controls and an understanding of their ability to swim, so pools aren't usually a danger to adults.
By contrast, people of all ages can be bitten by vicious dogs ... and shouldn't be. Yet, they are, in large numbers.
Dogs go to the vet. Dogs jump over fences, they run out open gates. People go to junkyards. There are many opportunities for a junkyard dog to interact with people it shouldn't bite.
No, the small children who are at risk for falling into a pool do not jump fences.
Regardless, if your pool had a history of safety issues, you should be expecting attention from regulators and insurers. Query your favorite search engine for "pool closed following death"
That was just one example of many plausible scenarios. There are dozens of scenarios where dogs and people may be on different sides of said fence. The issue is an indiscriminate danger to people. It's the same reason you can't booby trap your own property.
Yeah but if you up the stakes from injury to death by replacing replacing “junkyard dog” with “automatic killbots” I feel more sympathetic to the thief. The punishment for breaking and entering is stuff like fines, jail, and community service not injury or death.
Despite the fact that if you were there you might have the right to stand your ground I don’t think that extends to autonomous systems, even biological ones, acting on your behalf.
And what would the local government had done had the owner happened to be there and had put a bullet in the thief instead of waiting for the dog to do it?
It's not about the outcome or the dog. It's about sending a message to everyone else in town that that level of defending one's property is not going to be let slide.
Depending on the jurisdiction you might end up paying quite a lot of money. Potentially lethal boobytraps left in derelict buildings are mostly illegal in the US[1] and in other western countries shooting a thief is generally illegal unless you can prove fear of bodily harm since you are escalating a situation from damage to property to damage to body. While the US is rife with stand your ground laws - most of the rest of the western world finds using potentially lethal force in response to property damage abhorrent.
In most of the United States, that is no longer true. The law previously required a "duty to retreat" if the home owner encountered a potentially violent assailant. However, most states now have "Castle Doctrine" laws which shift the burden of proof from the defense to the prosecutor. [0]
Most prosecutors will not charge a home owner due to this change in laws. Civil liability is separate factor, but criminal charges are rare.
In many jurisdictions, this won't help you and may actually increase your change of being held liable. For example:
>...A Beware of Dog sign may or may not count as protection against lawsuits. In Alabama, the court is likely to consider that if you need a sign telling people to beware of your dog, then you already know that the animal is dangerous. This can still apply even if your dog has a lack of violent history.
A dog and a sign send different messages, and the message of the sign is “the resident is afraid of being robbed”.
EDIT:
I want to make explicit that I am comparing something that gives the impression of a dog without a sign vs a sign with no other evidence of a dog. I am explicitly not commenting on the message sent by a sign combined with other evidence of a dog, just “fake (but, for the sake of argument, convincing) dog” vs. “dog sign”, each alone, as deterrents.