View Single Post
  #2  
Old 22 May 2007, 03:39 AM
joshxrt22
 
Posts: n/a
Default ...

I would say less liable, if anything, soley for the reason that if there's a warning sign, they KNOW something bad is going to happen to them if they're tresspassing, breaking in, whatever. I mean, my two lab/pit bull mix dogs are huge sweethearts, but if you come in my house and aren't supposed to be there and are trying to hurt me, they will F#CK you UP, because they will protect me, themselves and their territory. And if my dogs didn't get to you first, *I* would, so does that make me a "dangerous" person?

No, it makes me a person that will protect myself if someone is doing something they shouldn't be.

Suppose you have two burglers, and each get shot by their victims. Victim A has a sign that says "Beware of owner with gun, if you're not supposed to be here, you'll be shot"; Victim B has no sign. But both shot their respective burglers. Does Victim A declaring the fact he'll shoot you make him more liable than Victim B, who was also packing, but didn't broadcast it? Only difference is Burgler B didn't KNOW his victim was armed and was gonna shoot him, but same result, but he wouldn't of had to worry about it if he hadn't been doing what he shouldn't have been in the first place, which is my main point.

Bottom line, if people aren't doing things they shouldn't be doing in the first place, nothing bad will happen to you, but the "beware of dog" thing, it's a warning, and a declaration not to do something you shouldn't be. It's a declaration that "This house isn't an easy, unprotected target, so don't something stupid, or you'll get mauled".

Honestly though, I seriously doubt it makes a difference either way.

Last edited by joshxrt22; 22 May 2007 at 03:55 AM. Reason: Editted for clarity and easier reading and understanding
Reply With Quote