A "beware of the dog" sign would probably be just as (if not more) effective regardless of whether there's an actual dog.
A dog and a sign send different messages, and the message of the sign is “the resident is afraid of being robbed”.
EDIT:
I want to make explicit that I am comparing something that gives the impression of a dog without a sign vs a sign with no other evidence of a dog. I am explicitly not commenting on the message sent by a sign combined with other evidence of a dog, just “fake (but, for the sake of argument, convincing) dog” vs. “dog sign”, each alone, as deterrents.
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.
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.
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.
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"
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.
They typically are, yet mail delivery personnel are attacked by dogs constantly.
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/us-postal-service-r...
>...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...
Installed security cameras, they still came onto the property.
So, next I installed a sign "BEWARE OF THE SECURITY CAMERA", and didn't work, infact one guy broke into my car and simply just covered his face from the canera.
So then I installed a cheap security light next to the sign that would light up when they entered.
That worked.
Somehow, I can't parse this.
Now on this scale estimate how dumb someone is. If you say 2 (a little dumb) but in actuality they’re a 7 (very dumb) you underestimated how dumb they are.
See? He overestimated how dumb crooks are, and was robbed.
Totally changes the meaning of the comment if one assumes that it was a typo and OP intended to use "underestimate".
"Don't overestimate how dumb they are" is logical and correct. However, because "how dumb they are" is in the sentence, it emphasizes, well, that they are dumb, which is not what the OP intended to say.
Writing it as "don't underestimate how smart they are" is more readable, although logically, it's stating the same thing.
Even better, I would have written it as "don't underestimate how smart they can be."
Same with cars - even if you don't have a licence plate, there are tons of little fingerprints around your car that licence plate reader companies use.
I don't know... you setup deterrents, as a bluff and it took a while before one worked.
The light still works as a deterrent because the light makes them visible to a potential occupier. They'll fear real, immediate confrontation/violence, not some lazy policeman looking 5 minutes at the picture before moving onto something easier such as kids dealing weed.
Might scare the neighbors away too though, but that’s not always a bad thing.
No break ins, must work.