Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves • Hacker News Board

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#831

Post by kortilla » Wed, Dec 19, 2018, 7:23 AM UTC

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.

We’re talking concealed though. So if everyone used your simple thought process, the rational move would be to shoot everyone since you don’t know who has a gun.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#832

Post by kortilla » Wed, Dec 19, 2018, 7:25 AM UTC

adrianN wrote: post #807

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #801

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because in a society populated with a lot of violent people its important to have the ability to defend yourself. Pretending you live in a fantasy world where you can pass laws to protect people from violent individuals is delusional.

It works reasonably well for the majority of the developed world. What's different about the US?

Does it? “The majority of the developed world” has about as much violent crime or more depending on which country you examine. The only difference is that of course there is a lot less involving guns.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#833

Post by CamperBob2 » Wed, Dec 19, 2018, 7:28 AM UTC

rdtsc wrote: post #359

quotha wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think what needs more careful consideration is deciding whether or not to steal parcels!

The point was that the package owner can make the situation worse for themselves by engaging in a revenge scheme. It highly depends on the local criminal culture. I some countries, I can see a gang deciding that the homeowner needs to be "taught a lesson". Police might catch them even, but the package owner might be in the hospital or morgue by then.

(Shrug) There are worse things than glitter. If I order a gympie gympie plant on eBay and someone steals it off my porch, for instance, I can hardly be held responsible for the outcome. The police will just laugh at the thief, the doctors and nurses will stifle a chuckle or two of their own, and the jury in a civil trial isn't likely to be sympathetic.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#834

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Dec 19, 2018, 7:31 AM UTC

nkrisc wrote: post #753

will_brown wrote: post #693

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s fantastic. My very rough ideas are definitely more along the lines of identification and not vigilanteeism...However I am with you 100% and am pro glitter bomb.

I think even just the sink bomb part that instantly emptied as soon as it was opened would have the same effect. It's probably easier to build and could all be done mechanically. You can get some pretty foul stink bombs, then triple it. If it made their car unsellable out their house miserable I'd call that a success and no one got hurt.

[deleted]

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#835

Post by yarox » Wed, Dec 19, 2018, 7:39 AM UTC

learc83 wrote: post #347

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.

Itst not really a lack of manpower. It's that most of the time, evidence is grainy security camera footage. What are they going to do with that?

Enhance?

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#836

Post by txcwpalpha » Wed, Dec 19, 2018, 7:58 AM UTC

weberc2 wrote: post #715

txcwpalpha wrote: post #622

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it is not. It is in fact explicitly illegal to do a great many of things, even in defense of your own property.

It is. “Legal” != “moral”.

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 thing as "categorical innocence", as moral innocence will be different for each person.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#837

Post by EnderMB » Wed, Dec 19, 2018, 8:18 AM UTC

Emma_Goldman wrote: post #630

rconti wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody's home during the day. What neighbor? How do you know which neighbor will be home, or which neighbor to trust? When 90% of your package recipients are not home, you spend 3x as much time per package delivery. Carriers offload responsibility by allowing the sender or receiver to opt-out of signature/package acceptance, so why would they care? Just one data point, but I've been having packages delivered to my ho…

This is also the norm in the UK. If you're not in they try and leave the package with a neighbour. If that doesn't work, they'll try again, and if you're not there again, try for for a neighbour again. If that fails for a second time, they leave it at a nearby depot for you to pick it up. I've never heard of a package being stolen here in the UK.

I guess one reason it's less common over here is because it rains a lot, and it's a lot harder to leave a package in plain sight.

In Bristol, I've known a few people have packages stolen from porches or from under recycling boxes/bins, so it definitely does happen. My parents found someone in their hedge a few months ago trying to get one of their parcels.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#838

Post by blueboo » Wed, Dec 19, 2018, 8:26 AM UTC

fladrif wrote: post #549

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

I don't think the correct takeaway is that we're OK with law enforcement looking the other way. Clearly that is the best route to solve this issue, and we need more oversight into why certain cases are handled in this way and why. What is the priority of law enforcement, and where is the time allocation for case follow-up.

I agree with your principals, but I think that since people aren't spending political capital to change it, we're giving tacit approval -- however begrudging, however wrong-in-our-heart-of-hearts-we-think-it-is

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#839

Post by maccard » Wed, Dec 19, 2018, 8:31 AM UTC

NullPrefix wrote: post #722

maccard wrote: post #633

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

Absolutely, but my point was simply that people are already leaving their houses for necessity/pleasure, and if they need a daily trip to a shop they should combine their trips, regardless of the reason for said trip

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#840

Post by netsharc » Wed, Dec 19, 2018, 8:48 AM UTC

roseburg wrote: post #337

Jyaif wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Robbers and burglers basically have immunity now because the police is busy with... I'm not sure what.

Most departments are understaffed. Turns out all the negative press against police is having long term impacts on how many kids want to grow up and become a police officer. Also property crimes always take a backseat to more violent crimes.

Not sure if you're blaming the press for doing their jobs...