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

721–730 of 940 posts

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#721

Post by weberc2 »

vec wrote: post #620
blueboo wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we as a society are OK with qualified law enforcement looking the other way, then we're OK with passing the buck to the unqualified. Yes, it's a "rabbit hole [we're] not sure we're prepared to go down". We're not prepared. We're going down it

> If we as a society are OK with qualified law enforcement looking the other way, then we're OK with passing the buck to the unqualified. You're excluding the admittedly somewhat bleak but still quite plausible third alternative: we as a society are in practice OK with this class of crime going largely unprosecuted. The legitimate authorities are resource constrained, the political process isn't prepared to allocate…

That is an outcome, but not a particularly desirable one depending on the degree of pettiness and the frequency of these crimes. Interestingly if you loosen restrictions on self defense and maintain penalties for self-defense gone awry (I.e., your defense system injure an innocent person) then you’ll probably end up in a pretty good place.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#722

Post by NullPrefix »

maccard wrote: post #633
bbarn wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compared to someone who leaves their home by car once per day to get routine items, it's arguably a lot better since that delivery truck makes hundreds of deliveries per round trip. Compared to someone who is super frugal, list driven, plans ahead, has one trip a month to get necessities, and grows their food in their yard, sure, it's more impactful. Perspective always matters.

>Compared to someone who is super frugal, list driven, plans ahead, has one trip a month to get necessities, and grows their food in their yard, sure, it's more impactful. That's being disingenuous. There are plenty of more moderate options which are perfectly viable for the vast majority of households, like planning a small amount know advance and getting essentials twice a week, or integrating it into other trips (…

>topic being environmental impact

>coffee runs

Can't you just brew coffee yourself if you care about the enviromental impact?

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#723

Post by dragonwriter »

stale2002 wrote: post #718
candiodari wrote: post #655

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it's not that simple. The thief could simply sue under private law (private law = anything that's not criminal law). Privacy violation, for example, is private law. Damage to property, is both criminal and private law. There's certainly options. Granted, the author of the video cannot be sent to jail in such a case, but it is a near-certainty that he'll have to pay. Second, I don't think the odds of the police…

> The thief could simply sue under private law.... There's certainly options But they won't, because they are a desperate individual who is going around stealing packages from people. The kind of person who does this is very unlikely to have the money to sue someone. They will instead just run away as they are probably just afraid of getting arrested themselves. Someone who has stolen one package has probably stolen…

> > The thief could simply sue under private law.... There's certainly options

> But they won't, because they are a desperate individual who is going around stealing packages from people.

The reason we know about the common law status of booby traps is that trespassers (including burglars) have sure after being injured by them.

So, no, I don't think your “porch pirates won't sue because they are desperate enough to steal” argument is convincing. Especially given that porch pirates often aren't destitute, and theft isn't always motivated by desperation.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#724

Post by kortilla »

yardie wrote: post #689
agensaequivocum wrote: post #663

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would get a CCW if you don't already have one.

Except he’d be dead and the perp would have 2 guns. Why is the solution to more gun violence more guns?

Getting a CCW involves training to use the gun properly to shoot assailants. People with CCWs are more likely to win a standoff than random criminals with stolen guns and no training.

If the assailant also had a CCW, he would know how stupid it is to approach someone else with a gun.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#725

Post by omegaham »

moate wrote: post #538
alexandercrohde wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, he has video of their faces, and possibly where they live, plus security cameras, so at least they'd get life or worse if they did.

I don't think arson carries life (or worse) sentencing.

When my wife worked as a prison nurse, her porter was an arsonist, doing 25 to life. Torching your ex-girlfriend's home with her inside it is looked upon dimly by the courts, even if she survives.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#726

Post by bena »

dragonwriter wrote: post #659
MrMorden wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Developers in the US have no choice; the city/county won't permit a subdivision without an HOA.

Developers love HOAs, they initially (until the development is largely sold) completely control them and they are a tool for maintaining the image they want to sell later units. No one is forcing developers to have HOAs. (If there is policy favoring them, it was lobbied for by developers.)

It also allows them to reclaim and resell units while swindling the people who bought the lot.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#727

Post by Aeolun »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #710
Sabinus wrote: post #707

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every other country seems to manage it.

Yeah I grew up in a country where it backfired royally, and now I concealed carry and stopped a murder-in-progress with it when the cops were still 10 minutes away, so y'all can fuck off with your statist ideas and cherry-picked examples for things that have no global correlation.

You realize your own example is cherry picked right?

I’ll be the first to admit that the stats for gun bans seem shaky, but that doesn’t make your own anecdote valid as a counterargument.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#728

Post by bena »

peterangular wrote: post #706
move-on-by wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to agree with you. But I'm also reminded of the policy to seize cash without pressing charges. [1] [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sessi...

Yep! If you look into civil forfeiture it's a racket... and directly infringes on our rights. Even in cases where there is NO wrongdoing you usually have to go through lengthy processes in order to get your property back, and even then you're considered lucky to get the majority of it back (if at all). Effectively you are guilty until proven innocent with stuff like this on the books. I just find it funny that the sa…

Because it's something that happens to "other people".

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#729

Post by caf »

mmcwilliams wrote: post #478
LanceH wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure you have an expectation of privacy with stolen goods. Booby traps causing injury are illegal everywhere. Calling a smell a "chemical agent" is just inflammatory. Everything is a chemical, sure, but there is no chemical reaction involved here. Would you call perfume a "chemical agent"? It's just something that smells bad. The only danger would seem to be getting glitter in their eyes.

My intention isn't to be inflammatory, but booby-trapping an aerosol spray can to release a spray designed to make someone uncomfortable just isn't a smart thing to do. Even if you think you're getting one over on a thief. If someone designed a trap to spray perfume on an unsuspecting person, I would describe it similarly.

It doesn't seem all that different to cash dye packs, really.
Post reply on HN