Hacker News Reader

Comment by mauvehaus | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

Obviously people have guard dogs to guard things.

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.

Yeah some little kid wanders into the wrong space, shouldn't result in a dog attack.

By this logic nobody should be allowed to own a pool. Instead we require pools to be fenced, which is the same thing people do with guard dogs.

Pools don't jump over fences, though.

But kids do.

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"

In what reality are kids inadvertently wandering into junkyards and getting harmed by junkyard dogs in large numbers?

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.

That does sound serious. I wonder if there are any anti junkyard dog grassroots movements that one could join to help put an end to this madness?

https://www.dogsbite.org/

Mailboxes are typically outside of the fenced area where the dog is. Stay off my property and you won't have issues, is the point.

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.

> Mailboxes are typically outside of the fenced area where the dog is. Stay off my property and you won't have issues, is the point.

They typically are, yet mail delivery personnel are attacked by dogs constantly.

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/us-postal-service-r...

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.

You might get charged for it.

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

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com