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.
They typically are, yet mail delivery personnel are attacked by dogs constantly.
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/us-postal-service-r...
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.
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.
Most prosecutors will not charge a home owner due to this change in laws. Civil liability is separate factor, but criminal charges are rare.
>...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.
https://www.drakeinjurylawyers.com/do-beware-of-dog-signs-le...
