Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 940 posts

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#361

Post by deadmetheny »

scarejunba wrote: post #344
EForEndeavour wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better yet, we could wall in the criminals and declare the inside of their "cells" to be the outside, thus walling them out.

Nah, to do that you need to curtail people’s freedom. What I’m proposing is simply that we privatize large parts of society and exclude people from the private areas based on their tendency to be bad actors. It’s not about restricting freedom. It’s about enabling free safe association for everyone who opts in. Like a massive HOA.

Yes, that shining paragon of virtue that is well-loved by everybody, the HOA.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#362

Post by ergothus »

vorpalhex wrote: post #140
MagicPropmaker wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In California, thefts of under $950 are not felony crimes. And there's no more "three strikes". So you can steal packages for a living and, at worst, have to spend a week or two in jail over the course of a year. Not a bad living.

If I paid you $200, would you spend two weeks in jail? If getting that $200 meant risk to you (someone confronting you, someone else taking your money, risk of an officer giving you a beat down), would you still take it? It doesn't take a lot of risk to offset the "value" of stealing $950 labeled-worth goods (which will net you <$250 in cash).

When I was a young kid, my mom once told me that she never wanted to hear of me committing a crime I couldn't retire on. She doesn't remember saying it, this was an offhand statement when we saw a news item about someone stealing $20 from a gas station and doesn't really reflect how she looks at things AFAIK.

Oddly, it really stuck in my mind and was present when I decided not to be peer pressured into a few incidents. It changed the equation - it wasn't about fear of getting caught, which everyone was saying wouldn't happen, it became about BEING STUPID, which would be true regardless. What's more, it wasn't an outright "don't do this", but instead "do this only if" which also changed the evaluation (It wasn't "I must be good, always"). Of course, I never HAD the chance to do a crime I would retire on when I was a kid, so the end result was that I lived generally crime-free.

Later I developed my own sense of morals and criteria on why to do/not do things, but I really feel like that advice helped me avoid potential problems in life before I reached that point. I recommend the advice to all new parents, though I don't think anyone has taken me up on the advice yet :)

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#363

Post by axaxs »

jboy55 wrote: post #285
bufferoverflow wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which makes no sense. You pretty much have a criminal case ready, there's video evidence. They will likely plead guilty without going to trial.

What's the crime? Stealing something that is less than $1000? They could have stolen that from the front of a store and if they weren't detained by a store cop, the police won't do anything typically. If they plead guilty, they probably would just get a small fine, not worth the time of a detective to make the case.

Serious question then... what's the deterrent? Sounds like a person could spend all day looking for packages, resell the contents, at the risk of just paying a small fee if one happens to prosecute...

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#364

Post by mr_tristan »

cosmotron wrote: post #73

What are people's thoughts on if this is staged? Considering the views / subscriptions are the main motivation here, it might justify the expenses poured into this project – that is, it would be quite a waste if all that effort went into the build just to have no one actually take it off the porch. If actors were used, it would explain the lack of police involvement (it's easy to say, "police weren't interested" ). A…

Unfortunately, it's becoming a pretty common problem. Here in Portland, the police is understaffed, largely because the hiring process is insane. (It can take a full year to complete the background check - so onboarding new officers is a slow process.) Thus, they prioritize responding to violence or possible major damage - given the high number of homeless addicts on Portland streets, it's unfortunately frequent. Even home break ins wont warrant much investigation time, just a report, unless there is a violent act to go along with it.

So, I have no problem believing Mark when he said police weren't interested. It's definitely par for the course here in Portland. I would imagine that in other areas, it's similar.

We have a lot of homeless people in our area just walking around. I see "package stolen" notifications on Nextdoor pretty much every other day.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#365

Post by sotojuan »

ragebol wrote: post #61

In the Netherlands, when I order a package and no one's at home when it's delivered, it either gets delivered to my neighbors or to the post office, with a note of where to pick it up. It's never left at my door AFAIK. How is this not an option in the US?

I forward all my UPS packages to a local grocery store and pick up from there. If I don't do this, UPS will try to deliver up to 3 times and then leave it in a remote warehouse for me to pick up.

I think if you have get the note, you can do this for that one package but for all you need to create a UPS account.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#366

Post by floatingatoll »

dmarlow wrote: post #349

Why glitter though? I'd choose something that is far more difficult to remove; like ink, motor oil, etc.

He's using glitter that's as fine as sand. It coats every available surface and sinks into the pores of all soft materials (such as leather car seats).

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#367

Post by bufferoverflow »

jboy55 wrote: post #285
bufferoverflow wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which makes no sense. You pretty much have a criminal case ready, there's video evidence. They will likely plead guilty without going to trial.

What's the crime? Stealing something that is less than $1000? They could have stolen that from the front of a store and if they weren't detained by a store cop, the police won't do anything typically. If they plead guilty, they probably would just get a small fine, not worth the time of a detective to make the case.

> What's the crime?

That's a ridiculous question. It's theft. Which is illegal.

> If they plead guilty, they probably would just get a small fine

1) That's only if it's their first time.

2) It reduces future crime. With the current attitude (like yours) more criminals are incentivized to steal packages.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#368

Post by raverbashing »

rootusrootus wrote: post #310
netsharc wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having lived in a "3rd world" country, I know the police there is useless, but it's interesting how things like resource issues (not enough manpower) is slowly turning living standards of rich countries like the US and UK towards "3rd world" levels.

In some areas perhaps. In my neighborhood the police respond to any property crime, and pretty fast at that. But ... maybe we are just boring. Perhaps there are some areas in the US where this is a problem, but I don't know if it's safe to generalize that the US is degrading to third-world status just yet.

Well given the police in the US works at city level, if you are in a suburb that's not "the capital city" your police might be bored enough to go for every call, things like "suspicious person walking on street"

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#369

Post by mcv »

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #238
mcv wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems extraordinarily harsh to punish the recipient for the bad practices of the delivery service. Is there any legal jurisprudence about this? It feels to me like the delivery service should be responsible.

Responsible for what? They delivered the package to the location that it was supposed to be delivered to.

Outside, where anyone can take it. That's not responsible delivery.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#370

Post by learc83 »

ineedasername wrote: post #288
vorpalhex wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I paid you $200, would you spend two weeks in jail? If getting that $200 meant risk to you (someone confronting you, someone else taking your money, risk of an officer giving you a beat down), would you still take it? It doesn't take a lot of risk to offset the "value" of stealing $950 labeled-worth goods (which will net you <$250 in cash).

It doesn't take a lot of risk to offset the "value" of stealing $950 labeled-worth goods (which will net you If you're trying to say the risk isn't worth it, sure, you're right. And the average person wouldn't do it. But plenty of criminals don't live their lives by such risk/reward calculations. Roughly 5% [0] of people in prison in the US have decided to disregard the risk/reward ratio and go ahead with relatively…

The question though is would that 5% react to increased punishment. The studies done on raising felony theft thresholds indicate that they don't.
Post reply on HN