This is why locks and doors are more important than guns

[45CalPal]

The lawyers will be fighting to prove the use of the signs were a preventative measure. Warning the potential robber that there can and will be harmful consequence if thry procede. just as the prosecutor "may" try to bend the informationin the states favor, however there is not always going to be a case of murder. I will never try to kill someone. I will take some arms and legs out, so they feel the pain and potentially live as a cripple living every day thinking of thier mistake.
its no different than a camera warning sign and the perp continues, and gets caught on camera. it was a mere warning.

My state is a "stand your ground state" however there is nothing that says I can't severly wound and retreat to a safer part of the property and call 911.

ever since the "sign" came up in here it has been an "assumption" that it wil end in murder.
and thats the problem with asumptions, they are not always correct, especially in a hypothetical situation where there is no fact to base the assumption off of.

I certainly understand everyones reasoning, but until ther is creditable evidence posted to back up this theory, its just speculation. and a waste of time to continue throwing theorys back and forth.

further fortification of the homeowners protection is the "castle Doctrine" and my state is a castle doctrine state.
Recent instances in my state.
https://fox59.com/news/police-homeowner-shoots-kills-1-after-home-invasion-in-anderson/
https://fox59.com/news/homeowner-on-indys-south-side-shoots-robber-trying-to-break-in-police-say/
then one in the case of the homeowner was unlawfully in posession of a fireare and needed it.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news...in-englewood-both-charged-20120326-story.html


I will also add this bit of info.
about 10 years ago or so, there was a robber who broke into a ladys home and was bitten by her pitbull, spent 6 months in the hospital getting bone and skin graphs. The robber who actually made it into the house had sued the homeowner and won his case. merely because there were no signs posted warning of "dog on premesis". which what was the sole reason to sue.

 

[Kleanbore]

just as the prosecutor "may" try to bend the informationi n the states favor, however there is not always going to be a case of murder.

Of course not.

I will never try to kill someone. I will take some arms and legs out, so they feel the pain and potentially live as a cripple living every day thinking of thier mistake.

Deadly force is deadly force--period.

BTW, it is not prudent to "shoot to wound".

its no different than a camera warning sign and the perp continues, and gets caught on camera. it was a mere warning.

It is entirely different. A warning sign about a camera cannot indicate that the resident may have been be predisposed to violence.

until ther is creditable evidence posted to back up this theory, its just speculation.

One more time: this is not untested theory.

and a waste of time to continue throwing theorys back and forth.

You could use your time a lot more wisely by reading everything that you can from Massad Ayoob. You should find ample discussion of this subject, based on real cases.

 

[bdickens]

ever since the "sign" came up in here it has been an "assumption" that it wil end in murder.
and thats the problem with asumptions, they are not always correct, especially in a hypothetical situation where there is no fact to base the assumption off of.

No. No one is "assuming" that childish yapper dog tough guy signs = murder.

but until ther is creditable evidence posted to back up this theory, its just speculation. and a waste of time to continue throwing theorys back and forth.

It isn't just speculation. Things like this have come up at trial.


"To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill."

-Sun Tzu


Sun Tzu was a pretty smart guy. He understood that it is preferable to avoid the battle in the first place. If possible.

Even if everything goes according to the script in your Walter Mitty fantasy and you are acquitted, just having to address the sign issue is going to take money and energy from your legal defense that would be better spent elsewhere.

Putting yourself anywhere near that is just stupid when you can sidestep the whole issue altogether with 0 effort by not putting the stupid signs up in the first place.

 

[Pudge]

Because the perpetrator of criminal intent doesn't think the same way that normal people do.

"One study that surveyed over 400 incarcerated burglars found that security system signage was one of the top 10 deterrents when selecting a home to break into." Signs do have an impact on perpetrators of criminal intent.

I'm not saying that an aggressive or threatening sign won't get you into trouble. I don't have any. But I'm not convinced that there is no potential benefit, only potential risk, in employing them.

 

[Jeff White]

The lawyers will be fighting to prove the use of the signs were a preventative measure. Warning the potential robber that there can and will be harmful consequence if thry procede. just as the prosecutor "may" try to bend the informationin the states favor, however there is not always going to be a case of murder.

I know that a certified mechanic has thousands of hours personal experience in the court system. How many criminal investigations and trials do you have personal experience with? What are the elements of the crime of murder in your state? Do you know? What about criminal trespass and burglary? I'd suggest that before you start talking about what crime someone might be charged with that you actually find out what elements have to occur for the crime to be committed. I know it sounds crazy but legal experts who advise against the kind of signage you prefer are not trying to put the novelty sign makers out of business. People with a lot of experience in the "justice system" recommend against posting them because they have been used in criminal prosecutions and civil actions. I know that the next words off your keyboard are going to be: "My state's castle doctrine law says I can't be sued for a legal self defense use of force." or something similar. That is the most misunderstood law in the firearms community. All those laws do is give you a statute to use to try to have an action filed against you dismissed. Here is the thing those laws don't say. The judge doesn't have to dismiss the action against you. Nope you have no real protection from a civil suit. It seems to me that antigunners sue gun manufacturers all the time even though federal law says they can't. Even if the judge dismisses the suit the gun manufacturer still has thousands of dollars in lawyer fees. A sign like yours could be the tipping point that will allow a plaintiffs attorney to convince a judge that your defensive gun use doesn't deserve the protections the statute gives you.

I will never try to kill someone. I will take some arms and legs out, so they feel the pain and potentially live as a cripple living every day thinking of thier mistake.
its no different than a camera warning sign and the perp continues, and gets caught on camera. it was a mere warning.

Plaintiffs attorneys all over the country are hoping to get this statement into court. "You honor, the defendant wanted to take the power to punish away from the state and wanted to make my client suffer everyday of his life." I bet your insurance company will love that.

Then there is the factor on the criminal side that will cast doubt that your use of deadly force was even necessary. Castle doctrine? Stand your ground? Neither is a license to shoot people indiscriminately. In this thread alone you have created a permanent record of statements that a prosecutor and/or plaintiffs attorney will be able to use to challenge your claim that your use of deadly force was necessary. An online gun forum is not the same as shooting the breeze at the range or across the counter at the gun shop. It's a permanent record and it's now standard for investigators and attorneys to search out all of one's online activity for something they can use in their case. Chest thumping bravado online is simply stupid in this day and age. Do you want to explain to an investigator that you had to shoot the intruder so he had to live in pain for the rest of his life for his transgression against you?

While you may think you're among friends here, anyone can surf in and read your posts and make whatever they want out of them....."But I used a screen name?" You aren't anonymous anywhere online. It's standard procedure to issue a search warrant for electronic devices in an investigation.

 

[old lady new shooter]

"One study that surveyed over 400 incarcerated burglars found that security system signage was one of the top 10 deterrents when selecting a home to break into." Signs do have an impact on perpetrators of criminal intent.

I'm not saying that an aggressive or threatening sign won't get you into trouble. I don't have any. But I'm not convinced that there is no potential benefit, only potential risk, in employing them.

It should be clear to anyone with a functioning brain that there is a world of difference between a "protected by XYZ Security Company" sign and "We prefer 1911 over 911" or "Never mind the dog, beware of owner" signs.

 

[Kleanbore]

In this thread alone you have created a permanent record of statements that a prosecutor and/or plaintiffs attorney will be able to use to challenge your claim that your use of deadly force was necessary.

I'm afraid so, and much was posted after we explained the dangers of such in Post #77.

 

[bdickens]

"One study that surveyed over 400 incarcerated burglars found that security system signage was one of the top 10 deterrents when selecting a home to break into." Signs do have an impact on perpetrators of criminal intent.

"Protected by XYZ alarm system" is a whole world away from ankle-biting yapper dog wannabe tough guy chest thumping.

 

[Pudge]

It should be clear to anyone with a functioning brain that there is a world of difference between a "protected by XYZ Security Company" sign and "We prefer 1911 over 911" or "Never mind the dog, beware of owner" signs.

Maybe. Not everyone lives in the same part of town. Consider two similar houses in a rough neighborhood, yards fenced in with chain link. One fence has a sign that says: "Protected by XYZ Security Company". The other has a big aggressive rottie and GSD, both behind the fence which has a sign that reads: "Never mind the dog, Beware of Owner". Which one looks like a place to avoid, and which one looks like there might be something inside worth stealing?
I'm not advocating the signs. I do not have any, nor do I condone the message they convey. I'm just saying that using such a sign may well add to your risk after a shooting, but could reduce the likelihood of someone breaking in and precipitating a shooting in the first place.

 

[GEM]

Even if the judge dismisses the suit the gun manufacturer still has thousands of dollars in lawyer fees. A sign like yours could be the tipping point that will allow a plaintiffs attorney to convince a judge that your defensive gun use doesn't deserve the protections the statute gives you.

Just for general information, even though cases may be dismissed or even the gun companies win, they often pay the plaintiffs significant funds with an NDA to prevent appeals, future cases based on a nuance and/or continued bad publicity.

As far as blood lust signs or shooting in the leg, let the Dunning - Kruger 'expertise' flow. Sign - Bad Dog - please bring steak or burgers to feed dog.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Maybe. Not everyone lives in the same part of town. Consider two similar houses in a rough neighborhood, yards fenced in with chain link. One fence has a sign that says: "Protected by XYZ Security Company". The other has a big aggressive rottie and GSD, both behind the fence which has a sign that reads: "Never mind the dog, Beware of Owner". Which one looks like a place to avoid, and which one looks like there might be something inside worth stealing?
I'm not advocating the signs. I do not have any, nor do I condone the message they convey. I'm just saying that using such a sign may well add to your risk after a shooting, but could reduce the likelihood of someone breaking in and precipitating a shooting in the first place.

I would think seeing the dogs you describe in the yard would serve as a deterrent, especially if they growl and bare their teeth.

I do agree that "Protected by XYZ Security Company" looks like the people might have valuables inside. (Personally I think private security is mostly overrated anyway. If you're rich enough to have armed guards on duty 24/7 that's one thing, but if they have to be summoned by phone or alarm it can be just like the police, they'll be there in minutes when seconds count.)

I don't know whether the assertion made elsewhere in this thread that anyone can get past dogs by bringing them hamburgers is true, nor do I know if dogs capable of attacking intruders can be trained to a) stay in the yard (= not jump the fence) and b) not attack the mail carrier, UPS person, or visitors.

"Never mind the dog, beware of owner" (the version of this sign that I saw had an illustration of a handgun pointing at the reader) seems to me a lot like starting the monkey dance.

 

[GEM]

There have been studies of the average house dog and without special training, it is iffy if they protect the house and you. There are great ones of big dogs running away. Granted barking might scare away the crook.

Second about alarm systems. They tell the oncoming burglar:

1. A loud obnoxious alarm will sound which may alert the neighbors. Whether they do anything is a different story but it will shorten the amount of time the crook feels comfortable. Thus, the sign might move them to other places. If you have no signs except a gun sign, it says:

Wait till dude isn't home. Then break in and look for guns!!

2. They do call the law and it is always good to have them on the way, even if it takes time. It establishes you are the good guy being invaded. It also speeds up resources if you need them, like EMTs.

While it is true that the law takes time to get to you, it is idiocy not to have mechanisms to start them to you, despite your great Dunning-Kruger estimate of your fighting prowess.

About the legal issues. You can avail yourself of the well known training experts for civilians like my friend Mas or Branca's work. Also, if you are into it (like some of us), you will read the technical legal, law enforcement and psychological literature on jury decisions. That will inform you that various foolish posturings, bad appearance choices, internet blather has been shown in real cases and jury simulations to have effects. Thus the typical show me a case, Internet bluster convinces me even more that such a poster has little idea of what they are talking about.

 

[bdickens]

I would think seeing the dogs you describe in the yard would serve as a deterrent, especially if they growl and bare their teeth.

Maybe. Not everyone is scared of dogs. I'm not.
Dogs are easy to make friends with. A couple of yummy treats - like the afforementioned hamburgers generally does it. A real bad actor will just kill the dog.

"Never mind the dog, beware of owner" (the version of this sign hat I saw had an illustration of a handgun pointing at the reader) seems to me a lot like starting the monkey

Bingo. Monkey dance. Exactly.

About the legal issues. You can avail yourself of the well known training experts for civilians like my friend Mas or Branca's work. Also, if you are into it (like some of us), you will read the technical legal, law enforcement and psychological literature on jury decisions. That will inform you that various foolish posturings, bad appearance choices, internet blather has been shown in real cases and jury simulations to have effects. Thus the typical show me a case, Internet bluster convinces me even more that such a poster has little idea of what they are talking

Lemme see if I can explain something here:
I am "one of us," OK. Red-blooded American, Collectivism-averse, believe in Liberty, Individual Responsibility, Self-reliance, Second Amendment etc..

I see those ankle-biting yapper dog wannabe tough guy signs all over the place during the course of my day. And you know what? Like Shania Twain said, "that don't impress me much."

When I see them, I don't immediately think "why there's a red-blooded American who believes...." No, I roll my eyes with a smirk, sigh and think "dear God, here's another one...."

And in case you've forgotten, I'm "one of us."

Sometimes I see what I'm gonna call "the shrine." You may have seen it yourself; a veritable shrine to ankle-biting yapper dog wannabe tough guy posturing - a collage composed of a half dozen or so variations on the "stay offa MY PROPERTY or I'll blast ya" theme.

I remind you again, I'm "one of us."

What do you think my immediate reaction is? "why there's a red-blooded American who believes...." Not hardly. What I think instead is "paranoid nutjob looking for an excuse to shoot someone."

And remember, I'm "one of us." But if I'm ever on this person's jury, he and his legal team are going to have an uphill battle convincing me that he's not a paranoid nutjob looking for an excuse to shoot someone. Because he's got a billboard in front of his house telling the world he is.

And just in case you missed it, I'm "one of us."

How do you think someone who isn't "one of us" is going to react to the ankle-biting yapper dog wannabe tough guy chest thumping?

 

[Blue Jays]

This is an excellent thread about stout locks and solid doors.
No sense it getting into personal insults towards fellow posters.

 

[tomrkba]

Defense in depth. A gun only does not qualify.

 

[old lady new shooter]

A real bad actor will just kill the dog.

I know, but I hated to post that.

 

[old lady new shooter]

While it is true that the law takes time to get to you, it is idiocy not to have mechanisms to start them to you, despite your great Dunning-Kruger estimate of your fighting prowess.

To get to me means I'm home. I would call 911. Which has nothing to do with fighting prowess.

An alarm that would send police when I'm not home, yes, that would be useful, but these days I'm almost never not home.

 

[old lady new shooter]

There have been studies of the average house dog and without special training, it is iffy if they protect the house and you. There are great ones of big dogs running away. Granted barking might scare away the crook.

My dog was not trained in any kind of protection but she actually scared away a burglar or burglars once when nobody was even home, which is pretty amazing I think. I had a young lady renting a room from me at the time, I was a tax accountant then and it was tax season, I was at the office late. Roommate came home and noticed house was cold, discovered a window in her bedroom was broken and called me. I called police, they actually beat me home. When I arrived they told me "Lady, you have a really good dog. Based on how she reacted to us it's clear that she scared the BG away." I made a big pot of chicken soup and she got it for a whole week as her reward.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Defense in depth. A gun only does not qualify.

100%, LAYERED DEFENSE.

 

[hso]

Alarm systems have different purposes depending upon where you live. In exurban or suburban or rural areas alarm systems are often tied into fire, ems, and LE since getting the fire services folks moving ASAP becomes an important issue since neighbors may not see a house fire until it breaks through the roof or they see the "smoke signal".

Homeowner's insurance often provides a discount for them offsetting their monthly cost. As a result, a lot of families may elect to have alarm systems. As they've become more and more reasonably priced they become more and more common (e.g. the OP video of the front camera).

Their deterrent value is well established since a thief that isn't specifically targeting you in your home would rather not face the time pressure of an alarm system and often looks to the next house that doesn't advertise one. Self installed systems are readily available and often no more than the monthly cost of soda or drive up coffee to monitor. But a deterrent is of greatest value when the people you're trying to deter are made aware of it by posting your home (at least at the house if not the curb).

You want to keep bad people from coming in your home. Layers that make them more reluctant to do this are valuable. Landscaping, lights, cameras, alarms, noisy dogs and hardening your home with reasonably easy means discussed here are intended to keep you from never having to reach for a gun. If someone wants to break in through those layers it is almost certain that you have been selected for some reason and they've evaluated if the risk is worth the reward and decided you are worth the risk, but for the vast majority of us a break in is more random.

 

[vintovka]

Seems like we are more and more "on our own" these days. Current situation is not only affecting 911 response times but law enforcement as a whole. Some areas are desperate for officers and offering some hefty benefits like signing bonuses, Higher pay, retention payments and so on. Even housing assistance is in the mix. With diminished resources LEO may have no choice but to " triage" dispatches based on severity of a crime being reported. Think those already with little regard for the law are well aware of this

 

[Blue Jays]

Aside from having the 3M film applied, preventing approach to windows would also help.
I can see the value in landscape design that incorporates razor-sharp thorns or spikes.

Unless the thief is really motivated to endure LOTS of painful injuries they will be inclined to avoid home.
Very few thieves will be carting around heavy canvas cloth to drape over those types of difficult plants.

The only challenge is that steps will need to be taken for painting and home improvements.
My sense is that can be suitably addressed…even if new plants are needed post-maintenance.

 

[Jeff White]

With diminished resources LEO may have no choice but to " triage" dispatches based on severity of a crime being reported

I hate to burst your bubble, but LE has always had to "triage" calls. There have never been enough officers to handle the call volume on a busy shift. It's just the nature of things.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Aside from having the 3M film applied, preventing approach to windows would also help.
I can see the value in landscape design that incorporates razor-sharp thorns or spikes.

Unless the thief is really motivated to endure LOTS of painful injuries they will be inclined to avoid home.
Very few thieves will be carting around heavy canvas cloth to drape over thoses type of difficult plants.
r painting
The only challenge is that steps will need to b e taken foand home improvements.
My sense is that can be suitably addressed…even if new plants are needed post-maintenance.

In Arizona it is advised not to plant anything right next to a dwelling. The type of termites we have here ("subterranean") are different from for example California ("dry-wood"), instead of infesting your house they live underground, and go up into the house at night to feed, then back down to their nest. Apparently having plants right next to the house somehow facilitates their activities.

 

[vintovka]

I hate to burst your bubble, but LE has always had to "triage" calls. There have never been enough officers to handle the call volume on a busy shift. It's just the nature of things.

How about no response at all for theft or vandalism under $1000. Locals also have response only during "business" hours, Major stuff gets sent to State Police.