News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Fake Dog for Home Security by throwaway0a5e on Wednesday July 27, 2022 @01:56PM (#32253974)
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.

Re:Fake Dog for Home Security by munk-a on Wednesday July 27, 2022 @06:17PM (#32257743)
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

Re:Fake Dog for Home Security by watwut on Wednesday July 27, 2022 @02:24PM (#32254431)
You might get charged for it.
Re:Fake Dog for Home Security by oicu812 on Wednesday July 27, 2022 @04:20PM (#32256336)
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