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

921–930 of 940 posts

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#921

Post by rconti »

King-Aaron wrote: post #892
rconti wrote: post #872

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with all of your points except for the package theft one. The package theft "solutions" proposed really are insanely inconvenient and unworkable* in most suburban environments. I've seen all of the reasons listed many places here, so I won't bother rehashing them. If I'm at work on Tuesday, for example, a redelivery attempt on Wednesday doesn't really help, does it? * unworkable in the sense that they're less…

My local Caltex/7-11/Fuel Stations all do package holding here in Aus, I honestly had similar thoughts until they started doing it. In the last 12 - 18 months I'd say I've had completely seamless package delivery because of it.

Thinking about it a bit, I bet one reason package holding isn't more popular in the US is the (very Australia-like) combination of suburbs, and people driving to work.

Assuming your employer allows it, it's convenient to have packages sent to work, AND if you drove a personal car to work, it's easy to drive your own package home. This equation gets flipped if you use transit or live in a multi-unit building where it might get easier to just hold it "downstairs".

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#922

Post by frogpelt »

mcv wrote: post #480
frogpelt wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe your point is based on a false premise: that people commit crime because they don't see a better option. A lot of times people commit crime for the same reasons they eat unhealthy, fight with their family members, and get addicted to harmful behavior. They aren't thinking long term and they don't care about the consequences that much. There is no political or economic system that you can design that will ke…

There are different reasons why people commit crimes. Some do out of need: they don't see a better option. Others do so out of opportunity: it's easy and they can get away with it. And I suppose a rare group does it out of a commitment to pure evil. I have very different degrees of sympathy for these groups. The first group needs access to better options. The second group needs to be held accountable. The third group…

I agree on all those points.

We might disagree on the prevalence of each group.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#923

Post by irundebian »

sneak wrote: post #800
manigandham wrote: post #778

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're a lawyer then this seems like a personally targeted situation. What happened to the police who ignored you? All of these interactions should be recorded so do you have a civil suit against the police department?

You cannot sue police for most things without permission from the government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity Additionally, police have no legal duty or obligation to protect or investigate.

I'm not living in the US, but that's crap. It's one of the top principles of state of laws that governmental power is constrained by law which also applys to the state and its bodies hence also for the police and its officers. I think you're mixing something up.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#924

Post by prepend »

flukus wrote: post #810
prepend wrote: post #768

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If two people are running from a bear, you don’t need to outrun the bear. Armed victim is more trouble for perpetrator so they will find easier prey. Most crimes aren’t specific but are opportunistic. If you’re a crackhead with a gun or whatnot do you stick up the crazy with a gun on their belt? Or wait 5 minutes for an unarmed victim? This seems like such simple logic that it surprises me that I frequently hear argu…

> If you’re a crackhead with a gun or whatnot do you stick up the crazy with a gun on their belt? Or wait 5 minutes for an unarmed victim? Since I'm not a rational long term thinker, I shoot my victim and take the wallet from the body, why give them a chance to shoot back?. This is the end result of the arms race you advocate for.

I’m not advocating for this.

Crackheads aren’t random, they have some reasoning.

I’ve had a lot of experience with crackheads and robbing an armored car and a random care aren’t equally likely to them. Again, a crackhead doesn’t want to rob a particular person. They just want money.

The bear doesn’t want to eat you. They just want to eat someone.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#925

Post by agensaequivocum »

tripzilch wrote: post #905
agensaequivocum wrote: post #790

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's an example: https://youtu.be/TmWnvN_XsMY

Of course this is the pretty example that got on TV. The scenario that ends ugly, deadly and gruesome doesn't get posted to YouTube and (fortunately) not linked on HN. It's a nice justice boner but it doesn't mean this is the usual outcome. Especially without military training like this guy had.

Two points: 1. This was a specific example to an assertion I made that another poster had a hard time believing.

2. It's true that when we talk about life and death situations there are many ugly outcomes. It is, however, not clear that the ugly is the most common outcome when a law-abiding gun owner is involved. This is due to the fact that records are more than likely made when someone is shot, but not necessarily if one deters an assailant with a weapon.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#926

Post by lxmorj »

woolvalley wrote: post #890
lxmorj wrote: post #806

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sucks and shouldn’t be true, but it is: make this the police’s problem. Make it easier for them to do what you ask than to ignore you or give you platitudes. Call every damn day day. Explain the situation from scratch, in detail. When they say they can’t do anything, ask for a supervisor. Repeat. Do not get upset. Be friendly, but annoy them into submission. They are human. Lazy humans with a very easy out ‘this…

The problem with this is the police can harass you back in an asymmetrical way that involves you in jail with a record on trumped up charges. If they wont even bother with the most non-controversial of crimes, what makes you think they have the moral gumption to not do that to get rid of an annoyance?

Hence the "remain friendly". They need to believe you are just an annoying dude, not think you are trying to win a battle of wills.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#927

Post by jstewartmobile »

kaivi wrote: post #919
jstewartmobile wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That HN is downvoting you this hard is near-conclusive proof that the whole thing will be revealed as a hoax within a few weeks.

Well shit, I was just writing up a huge post exposing the guy on Reddit, and I've noticed that the scenes and timings in the video did not match with what I have downloaded. Turns out, Mark himself has already admitted that 2 scenes were staged, supposedly all because of a dishonest "friend" whom he paid to place the box on his porch.

Vindicated ahead of schedule!

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#928

Post by txcwpalpha »

weberc2 wrote: post #860
txcwpalpha wrote: post #836

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The very first sentence of your comment says "the law...". This is a discussion about the law, aka legal issues. Morality is not, and never was, in question. Stop moving the goalposts, it makes you look silly. And just for the hell of it, no , it is not categorically innocent even when talking about morals, either. Morality is, by definition, something that is personal to each person. Therefor there can be no such th…

We’re debating the morality of the law. My comment is criticizing the law. You’re trying to argue that the law is morally correct based on a legal definition of innocence (and probably also defense). And while each person may have their own opinion about morality, every society in the world has decided that theft is wrong enough to outlaw, so clearly morality isn’t purely subjective (certainly not by definition). Sim…

>You’re trying to argue that the law is morally correct

Find one place where I said that the law is morally correct. I'll save your trouble: you can't, because I never did so.

So now not only are you moving the goalposts, but you're setting up a strawman. Nice. Two fallacies for the price of one.

This conversation has been about the law and legal liability since the beginning. Nobody brought up morality until you did in your attempt to, yes, move the goalposts. It is very clear that you have done so, and it's absurd of you to accuse me of not participating in good faith, when you're doing all you can possibly do to avoid admitting that your argument is ridiculous.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#929

Post by emanuensis »

tivert wrote: post #531
jjeaff wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem is that some package thieves just trail behind the delivery truck. So even if hidden, they know it's there.

From what I've heard, they typically trail a block or more behind the delivery truck, which means they can't often see the exact houses that get packages. Their goal isn't to see where they're delivered, but to get to them before anyone else does. If they trail too closely, they'll make the deliveryman suspicious.

For package thieves most of the problem is solved, at least for those at home most of the time, like me, by simply having the delivery man RING THE BELL. Why this is not common practice for all deliverers, UPS/FEDEX/AZ etc. is beyond me. If the delivery man is already at the front porch all he has to do is reach for the bell. If the recipient knows about it he can be prompt, prompter than the thieves...

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#930

Post by masonic »

irundebian wrote: post #923
sneak wrote: post #800

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cannot sue police for most things without permission from the government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity Additionally, police have no legal duty or obligation to protect or investigate.

I'm not living in the US, but that's crap. It's one of the top principles of state of laws that governmental power is constrained by law which also applys to the state and its bodies hence also for the police and its officers. I think you're mixing something up.

  that's crap.
No, he's correct in the USA. It's been affirmed in case law multiple times.
Post reply on HN