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

931–940 of 940 posts

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#931

Post by masonic »

bradknowles wrote: post #811
agensaequivocum wrote: post #792

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I admit I don't have stats for this, but it seems that most people who get CCWs do practice regularly or at least have extensive experience with firearms.

I don’t have the stats handy at the moment, but ISTR that the number one way that police officers get shot/killed is by having their own gun taken away from them by criminals and then used against them. Now, granted, many police officers don’t have anywhere near as much gun training than your average NRA member, but I submit they still have way more training with guns than the average person on the street. Given that…

  the number one way that police officers get shot/killed is by having their own gun taken away
No, that's not even in the top 5 causes of LEO death.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#932

Post by dang »

BigJono wrote: post #760
kortilla wrote: post #724

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What a stupid argument. I'll take the 1% chance an assailant executes an unarmed person for no reason over the 20% chance I lose a duel, thanks. I'm so glad I don't live in America.

Calling names in arguments breaks the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

Nationalistic flamewar is even worse. Please don't post this way to HN.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#933

Post by hjek »

MrStonedOne wrote: post #631
hjek wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good point. There's plastic free glitter[0], which I've seen used at environmentally considerate festivals. He should use that for his pranks. I hope campaigns against single use plastic become more mainstream soon, and that will not happen without it being talked about more, so thanks for raising the point. [0]: https://www.ecoglitterfun.com/the-eco-bit

Why are you assuming he didn't?

> Why are you assuming he didn't?

> > He should use that for his pranks.

I'm not.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#934

Post by hjek »

tylerl wrote: post #110
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…

Given who made the video, I'd give it about a 0% probably of being staged. That's not Mark's gig.

> That's not Mark's gig.

Apparently it is.

https://gizmodo.com/viral-video-of-glitter-bomb-for-package-...

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#935

Post by irundebian »

masonic wrote: post #930
irundebian wrote: post #923

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Proofs please. And case law doesn't disprove the validity of state of law principles.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#936

Post by nicoburns »

prepend wrote: post #768
nicoburns wrote: post #732

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? Because pretty much the only situation in which I'd be tempted to shoot another person is if they also had a gun (otherwise they're pretty likely to shoot me). If I'm unarmed, then I'm likely to be safe, even if I do get robbed.

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…

A bear isn't rational though. If I'm trying to avoid getting shot, then I don't need to outrun anyone. I can simply hand over my wallet/phone or whatever the criminal is after, and I'm safe.

I'd much rather choose an increase in the chance of having my possessions stolen (the chances of getting caught in this crime are pretty small anyway), than an increase in the chance I get shot.

Plus, by taking the "don't carry a gun" route, you can increase legal restrictions on guns. Gun control won't stop hitmen either, but crackheads in the UK don't have firearms.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#937

Post by jwdunne »

criddell wrote: post #245
duiker101 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if I just buy something very stupid that could scare someone but I actually wanted it for myself? Or what if I actually bought the same device in the video but I wanted it for some other use or for checking out how it's made?

Intent matters. If you have a baseball bat in your car along with your glove and cleats, you have a piece of sports equipment. If you step out of your car with the bat and smash a car that cut you off in traffic, it's a weapon.

In the UK, if the police find a bat without a ball or some kind of proof it's for sports, they can consider it an offensive weapon.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#938

Post by justtopost »

tripzilch wrote: post #907
kortilla wrote: post #830

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people that attack police have little overlap with those who attack regular people. Also, keep in mind police have their guns visible where they can be easily grabbed. You’re confusing open carry with concealed carry.

What does the gun do when it's concealed then?

Stops an assailant. What do you not understand?

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#939

Post by justtopost »

bbarn wrote: post #511
shaftway wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, we had a package stolen off our porch, so we did that. It's a bench with a liftable top. The plan was to put a padlock on it. All of our packages are addressed to: Shaftway Place in Bench - Code 1234 24601 Where I Live St. My City, ST, ZipZipZip We order a lot of stuff, and probably average 3 deliveries per day. In the last 3 months we've had exactly one package placed in the bench. And we never even got around…

I work from home full time, and get typically 1-2 a day. I have a sign that says "Please ring bell for deliveries, home all day!" on my front porch and it's never rung. Packages just tossed on the porch. Amazon I get a notification on Alexa sometimes before the UPS guy is back to his truck though, so that helps. Contrast to that - before I moved to this house, my old UPS guy used to honk and wave if he saw me walking…

This is one of the things I love about living outside the city. UPS, USPS, DHL, and FedEx drivers all know me by name, honk and wave, and stash my packages safely 98% of the time. Its as good as it gets. Never miss a pickup, or a sign-for. Magical, yet should be expected. I am still bummed that milk delivery ceased last year. It was like living in a 1950s propaghanda film.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#940

Post by DeepWorker »

I'm from India and packages there are always delivered in person. The delivery person knocks your door and if you're not there, the package is either delivered to your neighbor or another delivery is attempted. Why is this practice not prevalent in the USA?
Post reply on HN