undefined | Better HN

0 pointsthrowaway0a5e3y ago0 comments

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.

0 comments

munk-a3y ago

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.

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV9ppvY8Nx4

watwut3y ago

You might get charged for it.

oicu8123y ago

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.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse