Quoted:
any suggestions
View Quote
Just one. Don't!
Getting a dog ... any dog ... is a 10-15 year commitment. Owning a dog with the wherewithal to truly protect "you and your'un" is sort of like a double-edged sword -- except in the case of a "guard dog" (your words, not mine), that sword has a mind of its own.
My suggestion? Except continuing to do what you've been chronicling in your other thread, describe in great detail for your representatives (and perhaps others) the inability of law enforcement to counter the transgressions against your property, and pray that it remains a property crime. Describe the impact to your peace of mind, and the resultant impact on your ability to enjoy the fruits of your labor.
And then ...
... lobby loudly and vocally for Texas-style jurisprudence. Whenever I hear some libtard or bleeding-heart (apologies for the redundancy) spout off about "just a property crime" I want to wring someone's neck. The violence enabled by such ass-hats, whose clarion call otherwise is "it was just a child" or "he dinna do nuffin" is undeniable. The scrotes know that nothing meaningful will happen to them if they're caught ... and that's the majority of the problem.
In Texas:
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; ?and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; ?or(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
View Quote
It's not a matter of 'defending property!' Rather, it's a matter of defending 'peace of mind.' Just ask anyone whose been a victim of a B&E (or worse). The emotional luggage from the incident has nothing to do with replacing the lost property.
{Edited ... to try to remove the <Brownell's link to "Sword"> automagically inserted by the ARF.com editor in the version I'm viewing using Internet Explorer. This sort of chicken-shit activity caused me not to renew my membership ... no thanks!}