Show Off your ATF here, Minus the A [guns]

[BROBS]

That’s one if the reasons the law confuses me so much. The nicest dog in the world can still be protective of his people. I look at that sign the same way I do a horse (odd comparison, I know), if I walk up behind a horse who doesn’t know I’m there I could be kicked. If I hop the fence into a generally nice dogs yard who doesn’t know I’m coming I could get bit. Perhaps I’m just odd, “beware of dog” and “dog on premises” carry the same connotation in my head. But I guess lawsuits are a sport, someone is bound to sue over semantics...

It’s crazy but yes. In court you have to look at the connotation of the words. Beware means danger. Dog on premises simply informs someone there is a dog. If they make a decision to trespass they have already broken the law, and have been informed of the dog. If bitten, they made the choice to trespass with knowledge of the dog.

 

[lawdawg]

The statistics on that are surprising. I believe (not positive) it was Lott that estimated 2.5-3 million non-discharge (ex: Letting it be seen to speak for itself) uses of a firearm in self defense a year. It sounds high when you first hear it, but I can believe it. Not much use in an argument I have found though. It can’t really be qualified easily where as homicide stats can.

Years ago, my dad had a confrontation in a parking lot with some rather aggressive teenagers carrying a tire iron and a baseball bat... as they came towards him and challenged him verbally, he pulled a .45, leveled it at one of them, and said "Get back in your f-in car." As he and another witness tell me, the teenagers complied, and the confrontation was over.

EDIT: and they were wise to do so! My dad is a "don't step on my toes" type and he absolutely would've unloaded on them if they appeared to be escalating the situation to violence. Basically, this was a situation where my dad was fully willing to use his firearm, but he gave them a chance to back off first, which they did.

 

[Wifesbain]

It’s crazy but yes. In court you have to look at the connotation of the words. Beware means danger. Dog on premises simply informs someone there is a dog. If they make a decision to trespass they have already broken the law, and have been informed of the dog. If bitten, they made the choice to trespass with knowledge of the dog.

I should probably just stick to engineering. My numbers aren’t really open to interpretation from the calculation perspective. Granted you can interpret how your data got you that number, or what to do with that number, but that isn’t my department.?. I don’t mind being simple, I’m not abstract enough to be a lawyer, and not enough of a narcissist to be a politician. Plus, if it weren’t for the Bell curve I would have failed chemistry, so doctor is out as well.

Not exactly related, but my favorite dork t-shirt displays my belief from more perspectives than just the one written. “English is important, but math is importanter.” And as I have to end so many of my posts, there is my obligatory- the wife didn’t think it was funny...

 

[Wifesbain]

Years ago, my dad had a confrontation in a parking lot with some rather aggressive teenagers carrying a tire iron and a baseball bat... as they came towards him and challenged him verbally, he pulled a .45, leveled it at one of them, and said "Get back in your f-in car." As he and another witness tell me, the teenagers complied, and the confrontation was over.

EDIT: and they were wise to do so! My dad is a "don't step on my toes" type and he absolutely would've unloaded on them if they appeared to be escalating the situation to violence. Basically, this was a situation where my dad was fully willing to use his firearm, but he gave them a chance to back off first, which they did.

I’m willing to bet there wasn’t much delay in that compliance either.?

 

[lawdawg]

I’m willing to bet there wasn’t much delay in that compliance either.?

My understanding is that they stopped in their tracks, took a few steps back, and got in the car and left. Knowing my dad, I imagine they sensed his seriousness.

 

[Richmond B. Funkenhouser]

Sort of to the contrary, I know things don't always unfold the same way:

Years ago, when my life was less calm.. I witnessed an altercation on a dirt road. Guy 1 pulled a gun on another Guy 2, I was with Guy 1. As soon as Guy 1 pulled the gun out, you could really feel the weakness in the air.. I was relived he wasn't going to shoot the guy, but everyone there knew it instantly. Guy 2 grabbed the gun out of his hand, after yelling "do it then", and put the gun in Guy 1's own pocket. Guy 2 choked Guy 1 out completely.. When he got off the ground, his still loaded gun was in his pocket. haha

After that night I looked at the whole thing differently. I basically stopped carrying a gun, because it occured to me that having one on you greatly increases the chance you might actually have to shoot somebody.. It's like Andy Griffith said, "If somebody needs shootin, I'll go get a gun and shoot em."

 

[lawdawg]

It’s crazy but yes. In court you have to look at the connotation of the words. Beware means danger. Dog on premises simply informs someone there is a dog. If they make a decision to trespass they have already broken the law, and have been informed of the dog. If bitten, they made the choice to trespass with knowledge of the dog.

This is all true. I believe the legal term of art is "vicious watch dog" or something along those lines. A "Beware of Dog" sign would be evidence that your dog is in fact a "vicious watch dog" that you keep for the purpose of protection, and as such, your dog is dangerous, and you would have a heightened duty of care towards others in keeping them safe from your "vicious watch dog" as compared to say, a family pet Golden Retriever, and this duty of care can even extend to trespassers.

This is not my area of legal practice, so forgive the generalities, but I'll add that I think this entire line of legal reasoning is crap - trespassers who trespass despite a "beware of dog" sign are taking the matter into their own hands and should be deemed to "assume the risk" inherent to their activities. But hey, I'm just a lawyer, ain't no Supreme Court justice or an elected legislator.

 

[lawdawg]

Sort of to the contrary, I know things don't always unfold the same way:

Years ago, when my life was less calm.. I witnessed an altercation on a dirt road. Guy 1 pulled a gun on another Guy 2, I was with Guy 1. As soon as Guy 1 pulled the gun out, you could really feel the weakness in the air.. I was relived he wasn't going to shoot the guy, but everyone there knew it instantly. Guy 2 grabbed the gun out of his hand, after yelling "do it then", and put the gun in Guy 1's own pocket. Guy 2 choked Guy 1 out completely.. When he got off the ground, his still loaded gun was in his pocket. haha

After that night I looked at the whole thing differently. I basically stopped carrying a gun, because it occured to me that having one on you greatly increases the chance you might actually have to shoot somebody.. It's like Andy Griffith said, "If somebody needs shootin, I'll go get a gun and shoot em."

I think the scenario you described above, where someone pulls a gun without the full intent to use it and everyone immediately understands that to be the case, is probably more common. I mentioned the scenario with my dad because it's notable for his seriousness in wielding the gun. I expect that's exactly why the people on the business end reacted how they did rather than continuing with the threats.

 

[BROBS]

This is all true. I believe the legal term of art is "vicious watch dog" or something along those lines. A "Beware of Dog" sign would be evidence that your dog is in fact a "vicious watch dog" that you keep for the purpose of protection, and as such, your dog is dangerous, and you would have a heightened duty of care towards others in keeping them safe from your "vicious watch dog" as compared to say, a family pet Golden Retriever, and this duty of care can even extend to trespassers.

This is not my area of legal practice, so forgive the generalities, but I'll add that I think this entire line of legal reasoning is crap - trespassers who trespass despite a "beware of dog" sign are taking the matter into their own hands and should be deemed to "assume the risk" inherent to their activities. But hey, I'm just a lawyer, ain't no Supreme Court justice or an elected legislator.

It is absolutely BS but what I’ve found when searching wide and far about signage for liability etc.

 

[alaskanpiper]

This is all true. I believe the legal term of art is "vicious watch dog" or something along those lines. A "Beware of Dog" sign would be evidence that your dog is in fact a "vicious watch dog" that you keep for the purpose of protection, and as such, your dog is dangerous, and you would have a heightened duty of care towards others in keeping them safe from your "vicious watch dog" as compared to say, a family pet Golden Retriever, and this duty of care can even extend to trespassers.

So does the sign at my parents house fall under those with legal risk? (Rose is their German Shepherd)

 

[Wifesbain]

Sort of to the contrary, I know things don't always unfold the same way:

Years ago, when my life was less calm.. I witnessed an altercation on a dirt road. Guy 1 pulled a gun on another Guy 2, I was with Guy 1. As soon as Guy 1 pulled the gun out, you could really feel the weakness in the air.. I was relived he wasn't going to shoot the guy, but everyone there knew it instantly. Guy 2 grabbed the gun out of his hand, after yelling "do it then", and put the gun in Guy 1's own pocket. Guy 2 choked Guy 1 out completely.. When he got off the ground, his still loaded gun was in his pocket. haha

After that night I looked at the whole thing differently. I basically stopped carrying a gun, because it occured to me that having one on you greatly increases the chance you might actually have to shoot somebody.. It's like Andy Griffith said, "If somebody needs shootin, I'll go get a gun and shoot em."

Yikes! Guy 1 was rather lucky I’d say. Mine was more mundane. Used to live in a rougher part of San Diego, was all I could afford. Woke up one night to a shadow outside the window. Someone (or something ?) was checking out the entries. When I got to the front door the handle was rattling a bit. I found that night that the chunk-thump of a pump action seems to speak louder than words. He didn’t see me or it, and I never saw him, but no visitors came in for drinks that night... in truth I’m grateful that has been the only experience. I don’t gamble since I hate the feeling of chance (well, bad chance at least), and all adrenaline fueled encounters have a rather large component of chance involved. I’m fine being a burbs rat?.

 

[Wifesbain]

So does the sign at my parents house fall under those with legal risk? (Rose is their German Shepherd)

View attachment 38665

There must be something in the name Rose?. I saw a Facebook post a few weeks ago about a dog named Rose (I think a Doberman mix) in a picture looking sad next to an open window with blood all over the sill. I believe the post said something along the lines of “to whoever it was that came in through the window last night, you’ve made Rose sad. The least you could have done was stayed a while and play.”

 

[lawdawg]

So does the sign at my parents house fall under those with legal risk? (Rose is their German Shepherd)

View attachment 38665

Although comical, yes it is absolutely a liability risk. I'd make the same point for any sign at all announcing the presence of a dog - the intent is to warn. I know you and your parents are just joking around, but for example if a kid got bit while at your house, and they want to make a legal issue out of it, the lawyer will absolutely say something like "German Shepherds are frequently used as watch dogs, and the sign, despite comical intent, indicates a propensity towards treating the dog, at least in part, as a vicious watch dog and promoting aggressive responses"

 

[Richmond B. Funkenhouser]

I think the scenario you described above, where someone pulls a gun without the full intent to use it and everyone immediately understands that to be the case, is probably more common. I mentioned the scenario with my dad because it's notable for his seriousness in wielding the gun. I expect that's exactly why the people on the business end reacted how they did rather than continuing with the threats.

I believe people have way of knowing if someone doesn't intend to use a drawn weapon.

Your dad might have beat them to death with it if it jammed. Haha They must have known that

 

[alaskanpiper]

Although comical, yes it is absolutely a liability risk. I'd make the same point for any sign at all announcing the presence of a dog - the intent is to warn. I know you and your parents are just joking around, but for example if a kid got bit while at your house, and they want to make a legal issue out of it, the lawyer will absolutely say something like "German Shepherds are frequently used as watch dogs, and the sign, despite comical intent, indicates a propensity towards treating the dog, at least in part, as a vicious watch dog and promoting aggressive responses"

Yeah, I know, hahaha. I gave them shit about it many times but they won't move it. My dad thinks it's the funniest thing in the world.

 

[Wifesbain]

My understanding is that they stopped in their tracks, took a few steps back, and got in the car and left. Knowing my dad, I imagine they sensed his seriousness.

Dads are interesting creatures. I’m fairly certain mine was the inspiration behind Scott Adams’ Dilbert. Total teddy bear who would give you the shirt off his back, you just may have to remind him. He also happens to have spent some time in I Corps With the Marines back in Vietnam. You’d never know it meeting him at the store. I was teasing him one night about being said teddy bear, and he must have been in a mood I wasn’t used to (memories perhaps), looked me dead in the eye and said “never mistake my lack of violence for lack of ability to provide it.” Now I’ve never been afraid of my dad, but that was the only time in my life I could understand being such.

 

[Wifesbain]

This is all true. I believe the legal term of art is "vicious watch dog" or something along those lines. A "Beware of Dog" sign would be evidence that your dog is in fact a "vicious watch dog" that you keep for the purpose of protection, and as such, your dog is dangerous, and you would have a heightened duty of care towards others in keeping them safe from your "vicious watch dog" as compared to say, a family pet Golden Retriever, and this duty of care can even extend to trespassers.

This is not my area of legal practice, so forgive the generalities, but I'll add that I think this entire line of legal reasoning is crap - trespassers who trespass despite a "beware of dog" sign are taking the matter into their own hands and should be deemed to "assume the risk" inherent to their activities. But hey, I'm just a lawyer, ain't no Supreme Court justice or an elected legislator.

Golden Retriever... I have known people that are simply terrified of too much affection...

 

[brian64]

It's like Andy Griffith said, "If somebody needs shootin, I'll go get a gun and shoot em."

It also helps if you live in Mayberry.

 

[lawdawg]

I believe people have way of knowing if someone doesn't intend to use a drawn weapon.

Your dad might have beat them to death with it if it jammed. Haha They must have known that

Agreed. Instinct goes a long way in any number of situations. We honed it as a species over hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years, and people avoid listening to their instinct far too often. And yeah, that's my dad in a nutshell.

Dads are interesting creatures. I’m fairly certain mine was the inspiration behind Scott Adams’ Dilbert. Total teddy bear who would give you the shirt off his back, you just may have to remind him. He also happens to have spent some time in I Corps With the Marines back in Vietnam. You’d never know it meeting him at the store. I was teasing him one night about being said teddy bear, and he must have been in a mood I wasn’t used to (memories perhaps), looked me dead in the eye and said “never mistake my lack of violence for lack of ability to provide it.” Now I’ve never been afraid of my dad, but that was the only time in my life I could understand being such.

My dad is just straight up scary when pushed. Raises one eyebrow and gets this crazy look in his eye like he would kill someone bare handed. He's not particularly big or otherwise intimidating, but it's just something about his reaction if someone infringes on him in some manner. I've never seen him react like that except when justified, though sometimes it's probably an overreaction. Step on his toes on purpose metaphorically speaking, and he's immediately ready to throw down. He just doesn't take any crap at all. He kind of reminds me of a character you'd expect to see playing cards in a bar in an old Clint Eastwood western.

He even once jokingly threatened to shoot the county property tax assessor. The assessor was walking around the outside of my dad's house and looking in his windows, and my dad came outside and said "Sneaking around somebody's house is a good way to get shot!" The assessor said that he was there conducting a tax assessment for the county. My dad laughed and said "You ain't helpin your case!" It was in good spirits, and as my family who was there tells it, everyone laughed, but that's how he is.

Interestingly enough, he also constantly rescues abandoned animals, always has at least one dog that he takes everywhere with him, and he's also taken up kayaking with me, and every time we go out he talks nonstop about how beautiful and peaceful it is, even when we've gotten stuck out in terrible cold rainy weather.

 

[BROBS]

It also helps if you live in Mayberry.

You don’t wanna know where Barney stores his one allotted round....