-
Re: NASA scientist vs. Porch Pirates
Quote:
Originally Posted by
pendell
My understanding is that the anti-theft powder/dye banks use is a kind of bomb in its own right that can take fingers off. The
wiki article describes it as a "radio-controlled incendiary device" which sounds much more likely to go wrong than a glitter bomb would.
I think some people are right up-thread; if a thief was injured by this homemade booby trap they could probably sue the homeowner and collect damages. Such is the perversity of modern law that a robbery victim is more likely to get in trouble for defending themselves from such a thief than the thief would for the original offense.
Like Zim said, that's not perversity, that's fairness. The thief didn't have the right to take the package, and the homeowner didn't have the right to glitter-bomb the thief's car (or injure the thief). Booby-traps will almost always get the booby-trapper in trouble if the police/courts get involved.
You could go the legal booby-trap route, which would be to order something with a high enough value that it'd be a more serious crime, or get a high-level job with the feds and get something with classified information on it stolen (one of my friends actually had this happen; some kids stole a laptop out of his car, and didn't realize they took the wrong damn laptop), or stuff like that.
Of course, "legal booby-trap" in this sense is "don't do vigilante stuff and let the police take care of it."
-
Re: NASA scientist vs. Porch Pirates
It seems to me (having seen the video muted) that there's a non-zero chance that this whole video is fabricated. All of the "perpetrators" look like middle class people, and the dude doesn't look a NASA type to me.
-
Re: NASA scientist vs. Porch Pirates
Quote:
Originally Posted by
halfeye
It seems to me (having seen the video muted) that there's a non-zero chance that this whole video is fabricated. All of the "perpetrators" look like middle class people, and the dude doesn't look a NASA type to me.
What does a NASA type look like?
-
Re: NASA scientist vs. Porch Pirates
The last couple I've seen on YT videos? Dyed hair, facial piercings and visible tats.
-
Re: NASA scientist vs. Porch Pirates
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rogar Demonblud
The last couple I've seen on YT videos? Dyed hair, facial piercings and visible tats.
I'll be sure to let my father-in-law know he the standards he has to meet now. And complain to Randall Munroe and Jim Bridenstine for bucking the trend.
-
Re: NASA scientist vs. Porch Pirates
Quote:
Originally Posted by
zimmerwald1915
That's not perverse, that is moral. Bodily harm is worse to experience and harder to fix than theft, and inflicting bodily harm, especially when your body is safe at a distance from the thief and you work by means of a trap, is a disproportionate defense against mere loss of property.
Eh. I would disagree with it being moral. If someone makes a habit of stealing packages, particularly without knowing what's inside it's only a matter of time before they steal something from someone that's important to their continued well being.
They are recklessly rolling the dice on whether or not that package contains someone's medicine or something of the sort.
And that's leaving aside the fact that, from a moral standpoint, someone who has chosen to operate outside the law is using the law for protection is hypocrisy.
-
Re: NASA scientist vs. Porch Pirates
Quote:
Originally Posted by
druid91
Eh. I would disagree with it being moral. If someone makes a habit of stealing packages, particularly without knowing what's inside it's only a matter of time before they steal something from someone that's important to their continued well being.
So we should be punishing for things that haven't happened now?
-
Re: NASA scientist vs. Porch Pirates
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Peelee
So we should be punishing for things that haven't happened now?
We do that all the time. Just because no one was hurt doesn't mean you won't get in trouble for risking it. Driving down the wrong side of the road is wrong whether it hurts someone or not.
The idea that 'its just stuff, not worth hurting someone over' is a form of basic morality is wrong when stuff can be vitally important to a person's life and livelyhood.
-
Re: NASA scientist vs. Porch Pirates
Quote:
Originally Posted by
pendell
According to the video, he first reported the issue to police along with security camera footage and received a flat no-sale from the police. That is when he resorted to glitter bomb vigilantism.
If there's any LEO (Law Enforcement Officers) here who'd like to comment, I'm curious myself as to why this would be.
I mean, I had a vehicle vandalized to the point of destruction in front of my house, with an eyewitness to point them to the local kids who did it, and the police did nothing, so...yeah, packages they don't care about.
They consider such things "not worth enforcing", whereas sitting by the road to give out parking tickets is clearly worthwhile. If you are cynically inclined, one might observe that the package enforcement doesn't benefit the cops, whereas increased funding generally does.
Anyways, the video is great, and I love that some of the thieves seem personally offended by it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
zimmerwald1915
And yet all I can think of from this is that the engineer set up a chemical-weapon spring gun. That ain't kosher.
That's amazing! Sure, sure, in this case, he took pains to make it safe so it's merely an amusing bit of justice, but the guy's got some super villain potential here.
-
Re: NASA scientist vs. Porch Pirates
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brother Oni
He could have filled it with the anti-theft powder/dye that shops and banks use.
Alternately he could have put a flashbang or a firework inside - that would definitely make the police take notice, although probably in the wrong way.
Yeah, rigging a booby trap that HARMS someone (or has a reasonable chance of harm)? Will get you in more trouble than they would be for a misdemeanor theft. Most states have adopted laws similar to the California one that resulted in this verdict.
-
Re: NASA scientist vs. Porch Pirates
Quote:
Originally Posted by
druid91
We do that all the time. Just because no one was hurt doesn't mean you won't get in trouble for risking it. Driving down the wrong side of the road is wrong whether it hurts someone or not.
Driving on the wrong side of the road is illegal. Stealing packages is illegal. If someone is hurt from that act, then they're charged for that too. I fail to see your point.
-
Re: NASA scientist vs. Porch Pirates
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Peelee
Driving on the wrong side of the road is illegal. Stealing packages is illegal. If someone is hurt from that act, then they're charged for that too. I fail to see your point.
The point is, folks get in trouble for dangerous behavior even if nobody was hurt that time. Driving drunk is illegal even if you ain't run anyone over yet, because you very probably might.
Theft is similar. Steal enough stuff, and you'll steal something important. Yeah, my video games might not be a big deal, but someone's medicine might be.
I believe that's the argument being made.
-
Re: NASA scientist vs. Porch Pirates
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Peelee
Driving on the wrong side of the road is illegal. Stealing packages is illegal. If someone is hurt from that act, then they're charged for that too. I fail to see your point.
I'm not talking about law.
Theft is Immoral. A theif getting harmed as a direct consequence of the one they are robbings attempts to recover their property is not immoral.
There are certainly scenarios in which that can be taken too far and BECOME immoral. But facing physical harm because you robbed someone and they are trying to get their stuff back is a natural consequence of the initial immoral act. Not a separate immoral act.
-
Re: NASA scientist vs. Porch Pirates
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tyndmyr
The point is, folks get in trouble for dangerous behavior even if nobody was hurt that time. Driving drunk is illegal even if you ain't run anyone over yet, because you very probably might.
Theft is similar. Steal enough stuff, and you'll steal something important. Yeah, my video games might not be a big deal, but someone's medicine might be.
I believe that's the argument being made.
Yeah, but you won't get in trouble for anything more than theft until you steal the medicine, and you shouldn't, because you didn't hurt anyone until then. Just like how if you drive drunk, you won't get in trouble for hitting anyone until you do. The chance existing and the chance of it being a reasonable thing to foresee are two different things.
In other words, if the package has Amazon tape on it, that's a bad argument. If it's got WeMailMedicine Inc. packing label on it, that's a whole 'nother story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
druid91
I'm not talking about law.
Theft is Immoral. A theif getting harmed as a direct consequence of the one they are robbings attempts to recover their property is not immoral.
There are certainly scenarios in which that can be taken too far and BECOME immoral. But facing physical harm because you robbed someone and they are trying to get their stuff back is a natural consequence of the initial immoral act. Not a separate immoral act.
OK, but reasonably forseeing the consequences still applies.
-
Re: NASA scientist vs. Porch Pirates
Quote:
Originally Posted by
druid91
We do that all the time. Just because no one was hurt doesn't mean you won't get in trouble for risking it. Driving down the wrong side of the road is wrong whether it hurts someone or not.
The idea that 'its just stuff, not worth hurting someone over' is a form of basic morality is wrong when stuff can be vitally important to a person's life and livelyhood.
The body is also important to a person's life and livelihood. And we are still talking about a $50.00 package, right?
-
Re: NASA scientist vs. Porch Pirates
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Peelee
Yeah, but you won't get in trouble for anything more than theft until you steal the medicine, and you shouldn't, because you didn't hurt anyone until then. Just like how if you drive drunk, you won't get in trouble for hitting anyone until you do. The chance existing and the chance of it being a reasonable thing to foresee are two different things.
In other words, if the package has Amazon tape on it, that's a bad argument. If it's got WeMailMedicine Inc. packing label on it, that's a whole 'nother story.
OK, but reasonably forseeing the consequences still applies.
Oh, if you drive drunk, you can definitely get in a great deal of trouble even without hitting anyone. It's a pretty bad idea, even if you're certain you won't hit anyone else. Statistically, it's dangerous, so it's not tolerated.
Amazon owns Pillpack, and thus, ships medicine. Also food and other things that could reasonably be important to the person ordering them. Their biggest competitor, Walmart, of course also ships medicines, foods, etc. I don't think it's reasonable to suppose that thieves can be sure to only steal things that will not seriously harm anyone.
And, in any case, this chap's countermeasure is fairly mild. He is causing them some inconvenience, not bodily harm or the like. It's on par with the inconvenience they cause others, and is quite just.
-
Re: NASA scientist vs. Porch Pirates
Quote:
Originally Posted by
zimmerwald1915
The body is also important to a person's life and livelihood. And we are still talking about a $50.00 package, right?
While I get your point, I'm kind of bothered by the idea that there's a fixed dollar amount at which a human life suddenly becomes expendable. $50? $500? $5000? $5 million?
Once we've conceded the point that there is a dollar amount worth injuring or killing over, from that point on we're arguing over price. The real question is, is it ever appropriate to kill another person over property at all?
And yet I can see the weakness in making that argument as well, because taken to extremes that would imply that a homeowner should simply stand aside and do nothing as thieves drove up in a moving van and proceeded to take all of the owner's possessions.
Even if you bring in the police in to stop the action with force instead ... well, instead of allowing the homeowner to use violence directly, now we're allowing the state to use violence, again based on a dollar amount, again, setting a dollar value on human life.
I seem to have tied myself in a philosophical knot; if I grant that it is right to intervene for a large $$ amount but not a small one, I am setting a price on a human life. But if I do not grant that right, I must either conclude humans have no right to private property at all (unsupportable) or that it is right to kill a man over the theft of a penny (also unsupportable) .
Puzzled,
Brian P.
-
Re: NASA scientist vs. Porch Pirates
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tyndmyr
Oh, if you drive drunk, you can definitely get in a great deal of trouble even without hitting anyone.
I wasn't aware anyone was arguing the opposite?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tyndmyr
And, in any case, this chap's countermeasure is fairly mild. He is causing them some inconvenience, not bodily harm or the like. It's on par with the inconvenience they cause others, and is quite just.
Depending on how much it costs to clean the car, it's disproportional. It'd be stupid for the thief to sue, IMO, but the thief could sue, and if successful, the booby trapper would be significantly more inconvenienced in the end.
But that's cool because it made an amusing video, amiright?
-
Re: NASA scientist vs. Porch Pirates
Quote:
Originally Posted by
zimmerwald1915
The body is also important to a person's life and livelihood. And we are still talking about a $50.00 package, right?
Those are the risks inherent in deliberately harming another human being. You open yourself up to damages in the process of preventing you from harming them.
-
Re: NASA scientist vs. Porch Pirates
Quote:
Originally Posted by
druid91
Those are the risks inherent in deliberately harming another human being. You open yourself up to damages in the process of preventing you from harming them.
Unless the thief knows what's in the package, it's not deliberately harming another human being, it's negligently harming another human being. Booby traps are almost always deliberate harming, on the other hand (and only not when they don't actually harm).
Not the best argument to make, there.
-
Re: NASA scientist vs. Porch Pirates
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Peelee
Unless the thief knows what's in the package, it's not deliberately harming another human being, it's negligently harming another human being. Booby traps are almost always deliberate harming, on the other hand (and only not when they don't actually harm).
Not the best argument to make, there.
Is it? Stealing literally anything is harmful. We're just talking about DEGREE of harm. The example of Stealing Medicine was simply to open the door, rhetorically speaking. Since the denial was that theft is not harmful.
Stealing Medicine someone needs to live is very harmful. Stealing a penny is less harmful, but that doesn't make it not harmful.
People go to work for their belongings. In many cases those people have to risk their lives on the job. A construction worker can die in a hundred different ways. By taking from them, you are forcing them to work extra to get whatever it is again. Therefore, putting them at extra risk.
Theft is not without harm.
-
Re: NASA scientist vs. Porch Pirates
Quote:
Originally Posted by
druid91
Is it? Stealing literally anything is harmful. We're just talking about DEGREE of harm. The example of Stealing Medicine was simply to open the door, rhetorically speaking. Since the denial was that theft is not harmful.
Stealing Medicine someone needs to live is very harmful. Stealing a penny is less harmful, but that doesn't make it not harmful.
People go to work for their belongings. In many cases those people have to risk their lives on the job. A construction worker can die in a hundred different ways. By taking from them, you are forcing them to work extra to get whatever it is again. Therefore, putting them at extra risk.
Theft is not without harm.
I am reminded of this interaction between Moist Van Lipwig and Pump 19 in Terry Pratchett's Going Postal:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Going Postal
"I Worked It Out. You Have Killed Two Point Three Three Eight People," said the golem calmly.
"I have never laid a finger on anyone in my life, Mr Pump. I may be–– all the things you know I am, but I am not a killer! I have never so much as drawn a sword!"
"No, You Have Not. But You Have Stolen, Embezzled, Defrauded And Swindled Without Discrimination, Mr Lipvig. You Have Ruined Businesses And Destroyed Jobs. When Banks Fail, It Is Seldom Bankers Who Starve. Your Actions Have Taken Money From Those Who Had Little Enough To Begin With. In A Myriad Small Ways You Have Hastened The Deaths Of Many. You Do Not Know Them. You Did Not See Them Bleed. But You Snatched Bread From Their Mouths And Tore Clothes From Their Backs. For Sport, Mr Lipvig. For Sport. For The Joy Of The Game.”
Respectfully,
Brian P.
-
Re: NASA scientist vs. Porch Pirates
Quote:
Originally Posted by
druid91
Is it? Stealing literally anything is harmful.
Theft is not injury. If you want to argue deliberate harm, then booby traps will almost invariably be worse than theft on that front.
-
Re: NASA scientist vs. Porch Pirates
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Peelee
Theft is not injury. If you want to argue deliberate harm, then booby traps will almost invariably be worse than theft on that front.
Neither are glitter and a stink bomb in this context though. Had the package been intended to actually harm (such as the fireworks suggestion, which is a straight up explosive) this conversation would be very different, with significantly fewer people seeing it as a reasonable response. Not none, but fewer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Random NPC
Not just catch them in the act, you have to show the cops that it's worth their time to investigate. Off the top of my head, there are three things that would do that.
1. Show that it happens frequently enough that it would embarrass the local cops/government.
2. Show that the damages are high enough that it would embarrass the local cops/government.
3. Do most of the work for them (for example, identifying the criminal so all they have to do is send a cop to their home).
There's a few more categories.
4. You're a person the cops give particular favor to (sufficiently wealthy, friend of the police somehow)
5. They have reason to suspect the thief is someone they particularly dislike.
6. The package can be subject to civil forfeiture for being "involved" in a crime, and the police want it.
-
Re: NASA scientist vs. Porch Pirates
Quote:
Originally Posted by
pendell
While I get your point, I'm kind of bothered by the idea that there's a fixed dollar amount at which a human life suddenly becomes expendable. $50? $500? $5000? $5 million?
Once we've conceded the point that there is a dollar amount worth injuring or killing over, from that point on we're arguing over price. The real question is, is it ever appropriate to kill another person over property at all?
Of course there is. It's fair to kill a man in a fair fight... or if you think he's gonna start a fair fight. Or if he bothers you. Or if there's a woman. Or if You're gettin' paid. Mostly only when you're gettin' paid.
More seriously, one can use dollars, and the resources they represent, to save lives, to heal injuries, and to prevent harm. Theft is akin to violence, though small amounts of theft may be equivalent to comparatively small amounts of violence. Spitting on someone is assault, for instance, though usually little lasting harm is done. Surely a theft could occur that would inconvenience someone more than a bit of saliva, yes?
At some point, theft or destruction of property become akin to murder. If one were to vandalize ambulances such that they could not be driven, one could well be killing others, yes? If you instead vandalize other things, such that people cannot afford to pay for as many ambulances, what difference is there in the end?
Quote:
And yet I can see the weakness in making that argument as well, because taken to extremes that would imply that a homeowner should simply stand aside and do nothing as thieves drove up in a moving van and proceeded to take all of the owner's possessions.
There is also this. All rules must eventually be enforced, or they are not truly rules at all. If the rule is necessary, well, there must be some enforcement.
Quote:
I seem to have tied myself in a philosophical knot; if I grant that it is right to intervene for a large $$ amount but not a small one, I am setting a price on a human life. But if I do not grant that right, I must either conclude humans have no right to private property at all (unsupportable) or that it is right to kill a man over the theft of a penny (also unsupportable) .
Why's the latter unsupportable? You seem not to like it, but you demonstrate no logical reason for why it is wrong.
What if a person stole a penny many, many times? Sure, sure, it's an Office Space plot, but there are many real world examples of someone defrauding a great many people for tiny amounts each. Surely the harm of allowing theft below a certain bar is, cumulatively, no different from greater incidents. I view those who make their living in fraud and grift as pretty deeply evil, even if the amount per incident is low.
This does not mean that it is ideal to kill, of course. Killing is generally the sort of thing you go to when you have no other options. Lesser means of enforcement, such as jail time or, sure, glitter...why not? Even if, in extremis, killing would be justified, I think most folks would agree to use the least dangerous solution. We don't have to decide between death and nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Peelee
Depending on how much it costs to clean the car, it's disproportional. It'd be stupid for the thief to sue, IMO, but the thief could sue, and if successful, the booby trapper would be significantly more inconvenienced in the end.
How's it disproportional? The package thief likely experiences such consequences fairly rarely, and they are not grievous even so. And they'd have experienced exactly no consequences if they'd have just not stolen it to begin with.
What lesser, "proportional" action would you have him take against the robbers instead?
-
Re: NASA scientist vs. Porch Pirates
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyndmyr
Why's the latter unsupportable? You seem not to like it, but you demonstrate no logical reason for why it is wrong.
Logically, no. But if we acted on that logic, we would be back in the middle ages with street urchins being hung for stealing a loaf of bread. Intuitively, that is not a world I want to live in, not least because if I had a son or daughter I would not want them dancing the hemp fandango for shoplifting a candy bar. Punished, yes. Make restitution, yes. But the logical outcome takes no thought of ... proportion? Of the punishment fitting the crime?
Respectfully,
Brian P.
-
Re: NASA scientist vs. Porch Pirates
Quote:
Originally Posted by
pendell
Logically, no. But if we acted on that logic, we would be back in the middle ages with street urchins being hung for stealing a loaf of bread. Intuitively, that is not a world I want to live in, not least because if I had a son or daughter I would not want them dancing the hemp fandango for shoplifting a candy bar. Punished, yes. Make restitution, yes. But the logical outcome takes no thought of ... proportion? Of the punishment fitting the crime?
Well, in this case, we're at a bit of glitter for stealing a package, and some folks are suggesting that the police ought to bother to track them down and...probably give them a fine or something. I think that's a fair bit off from the middle ages.
-
Re: NASA scientist vs. Porch Pirates
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Peelee
Theft is not injury. If you want to argue deliberate harm, then booby traps will almost invariably be worse than theft on that front.
Theft is injury because injury is not limited to direct physical harm.
-
Re: NASA scientist vs. Porch Pirates
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tyndmyr
Well, in this case, we're at a bit of glitter for stealing a package, and some folks are suggesting that the police ought to bother to track them down and...probably give them a fine or something. I think that's a fair bit off from the middle ages.
Fair enough.
It occurs to me that this is probably the sort of thing a PI is good for -- to investigate and put together a case that's below the police radar. Of course you're talking about thousands of dollars to recover the cost of an Amazon package -- but then, if we're not willing to spend our own money for such a minimal return, why expect the government to?
Respectfully,
Brian P.
-
Re: NASA scientist vs. Porch Pirates
Quote:
Originally Posted by halfeye
…and the dude doesn't look a NASA type to me.
This is patently ridiculous. I have several friends who work for NASA, and they’re all very much like this guy in terms of appearance. Mild-looking middle-class types, clean-cut and crazy-smart.
It’s pretty silly to claim the video is “fabricated” based on the vague feeling that the guy somehow doesn’t seem NASA-enough. Also, anyone who actually looks up his name will find plenty of information online, and claiming this is all somehow “fabricated” is going pretty deep into tinfoil-hat country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pendell
...if we're not willing to spend our own money for such a minimal return, why expect the government to?
It's a fair question, but I think economies of scale are important here. Police departments have the budgets (and other sources of revenue) to support purchase of equipment that's far out of reach for most ordinary citizens. What would be a major expense for one household would be much more feasible for a major metropolitan PD.