NASA scientist vs. Porch Pirates

[Tyndmyr]

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.

Because one already pays for the police, and that's what they ought to do? Plus, they've already got criminal records and such like, whereas the private citizen does not. Ought to be easier for them to look up a person's info and stop by.

Edit: Plus, police are supposed to protect everyone. People paying for a PI only protects people who can afford a PI.

[Peelee]

How's it disproportional? The package thief likely experiences such consequences fairly rarely, and they are not grievous even so.

Irrelevant. Thief stole a package worth $X. Victim does $Y damage to car. If X=/=Y, it's disproportional.

And they'd have experienced exactly no consequences if they'd have just not stolen it to begin with.

Irrelevant. You're not Batman. Don't be a vigilante.

What lesser, "proportional" action would you have him take against the robbers instead?

Get the license plate along with the video evidence and give it to the cops. Don't be a vigilante.

Theft is injury because injury is not limited to direct physical harm.

True. I'll rephrase: "bodily injury."

[Tyndmyr]

Irrelevant. Thief stole a package worth $X. Victim does $Y damage to car. If X=/=Y, it's disproportional.

Hey, all the hardware he put in there, that package is probably worth a decent amount. It's fine.

Irrelevant. You're not Batman. Don't be a vigilante.

There is perhaps a reason why Batman is an admired pop culture hero.

Get the license plate along with the video evidence and give it to the cops. Don't be a vigilante.

He already had pictures, and the police weren't interested.

So, what else do you propose?

[Peelee]

There is perhaps a reason why Batman is an admired pop culture hero.

Yeah, escapism is great. Superman is also an admired pop culture hero, but "dont jump off a building" remains sound advice.

He already had pictures, and the police weren't interested.

So, what else do you propose?

They weren't interested because it told them exactly as much as it told you. A that-looking-guy took it. This isn't NCIS, they can't just toss a picture into a computer and find all the deets. License plate will actually give the cops information on where to look, where they could find a that-lookin-guy. Unless you think they should just start knocking on doors in the immediate area and branch out from there.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Peelee
This isn't NCIS, they can't just toss a picture into a computer and find all the deets.

Yes, they can.

According to that site, as a resident of Alabama, your photo may already be available for unrestricted searches. Tyndmyr’s as well.

[Peelee]

Yes, they can.

According to that site, as a resident of Alabama, your photo may already be available for unrestricted searches. Tyndmyr’s as well.

My driver's license photo. How much you wanna bet I can walk around my house, hit all the cameras, and none of the stills match up with my driver's license photo?

ETA: I'm always ready to throw down on incompetence in my area.

[Traab]

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.

Do you really think that middle class people arent thieves? How many stories are there of lunch thieves in the office as just one example? Gainfully employed people at a decent job making a solid living straight up going into the fridge and stealing peoples food for themselves. Thieves dont always creep around dressed as the hamburgler. In fact, very few do that at all. Almost none really.

[Mith]

A complete side note: I cannot be the only one who doesn't appreciate the one thief essentially going "Fair enough" by the glitter bomb, and admiring the package build before cleaning up? Much better than those that got offended for "damages" done by the package. The only concern I can see is the fart spray having problems with those with asthma, but I don't know if I have heard of any cases where short exposures cause such severe reactions.

[Glorthindel]

Going on the "if the thief was injured" subject, and I am aware I am speaking from complete ignorance here (as I am British), but I thought American Law had some rule that placed blame for any injury and death (even of the perpetrator themselves) caused during the committing of a crime upon the perpetrator of the crime.

Given that the only reason the perpetrator could be (theoretically) injured was because they stole the item that injured them, wouldn't that rule apply here, or does the fact the item was left with the intent that someone would steal it trump that (or is this rule completely untrue - I am aware I have only came across it in books and TV/movies, so am fully aware it might be complete nonsense)

[Maelstrom]

Going on the "if the thief was injured" subject, and I am aware I am speaking from complete ignorance here (as I am British), but I thought American Law had some rule that placed blame for any injury and death (even of the perpetrator themselves) caused during the committing of a crime upon the perpetrator of the crime.

Given that the only reason the perpetrator could be (theoretically) injured was because they stole the item that injured them, wouldn't that rule apply here, or does the fact the item was left with the intent that someone would steal it trump that (or is this rule completely untrue - I am aware I have only came across it in books and TV/movies, so am fully aware it might be complete nonsense)

Though that would be common sense, it really depends on where the crime is committed. The US, being a federation of separate states, does not have consistent laws on specific situations such as these; each state/jurisdiction decides and makes it's own applicable laws.

[pendell]

Though that would be common sense, it really depends on where the crime is committed. The US, being a federation of separate states, does not have consistent laws on specific situations such as these; each state/jurisdiction decides and makes it's own applicable laws.

Correct. Also, remember that we have jury trial, which means that there's no telling which way any group of 12 ordinary men and women will go. Even in a state where the applicable laws protect the owner, sufficiently skillful rhetoric+ emotional appeal can still suffice to win damages. Especially if the jury detests the owner and sympathizes with the victim. I'm sure there are both lawyers and veterans of jury duty here who can tell horror stories.

...

which doesn't mean I *oppose* jury trial. I'd rather have that than be judged solely by a magistrate, as I believe is common in continental Europe. Jury nullification is the last defense against an unjust government and unjust laws. But I do recognize it has flaws even so.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[hamishspence]

Correct. Also, remember that we have jury trial, which means that there's no telling which way any group of 12 ordinary men and women will go. Even in a state where the applicable laws protect the owner, sufficiently skillful rhetoric+ emotional appeal can still suffice to win damages. Especially if the jury detests the owner and sympathizes with the victim. I'm sure there are both lawyers and veterans of jury duty here who can tell horror stories.

And there's also the converse - where owner breaks the law and prosecutor refuses to prosecute, or jury refuses to convict:

Juries have been known to refuse to convict, because they feel an act is justified.

Prosecutors have been known to not ask for an indictment, because they feel an act is justified.

A few years ago we had a nearly week long power outage after tornadoes wrecked every one of the power mains into the county. During this outage, a store owner shot a would-be looter. Under the law it was a clear cut 1st degree murder. He'd deliberately stayed in the building (not his residence), with the intention of guarding it, and he'd shot without warning when not in fear of his life.

The local government used the half hour daily emergency broadcast that was the only local media available to say in effect: "Good! Keep doing that! The police can not respond in a timely manner under these circumstances since phones are largely down and alarms are completely out. Under these circumstances you can and should act to defend your own property."

AFAICT: No one cared what the law said (except maybe the dead man's family), and no charges were ever filed, despite the fact that in different times, shooting someone for a property crime (other than home invasion of an occupied residence) is a nearly sure way to end up defending against a murder charge.

That said, an element of "better safe than sorry" applies.

[Lord Torath]

There's also the case of the would-be burgler who dropped through a skylight into a wealthy family's garage (said family being gone on a week-long vacation) and discovered he could not get out and was forced to eat dogfood to survive. The family returned from vacation, discovered the perp, and called the cops. Then the would-be burglar successfully sued the homeowners for damages for being trapped in their garage.

This story is fake according to Snopes.com.

[hamishspence]

There's also the case of the would-be burgler who dropped through a skylight into a wealthy family's garage (said family being gone on a week-long vacation) and discovered he could not get out and was forced to eat dogfood to survive. The family returned from vacation, discovered the perp, and called the cops. Then the would-be burglar successfully sued the homeowners for damages for being trapped in their garage.

I thought that was an urban myth? Liar Liar has something similar.

[pendell]

Sounds to me like Bodine Versus Enterprise High School

Around 1 A.M. on March 1, 1982, recent graduate Rick Earl Bodine (18) and three others trespassed onto Enterprise High School, allegedly to steal spotlights off the roof. After handing down one of the spotlights, Bodine reportedly walked across to take a second spotlight, but in the dark and rain fell through a painted-over skylight; the trespassers called an ambulance. Brain damage from the 27-foot fall initially left Bodine mute and quadriplegic. The state declined to prosecute Bodine, viewing that the injuries were more than sufficient punishment. Bodine's attorney sued the school district, arguing the district was negligent, given that a similar painted-over skylight in Shasta High School in Redding had resulted in a death in 1981. Judge Joseph Redmon ruled that (under the precedent of Rowland v. Christian)[3] criminal conduct would not bar Bodine from suing or collecting. The district's insurance company settled the case for $260,000 up front plus $1,500 per month for the rest of Bodine's life.[4] Outrage over the settlement spurred the introduction of California bill A.B. 200 in 1985[5] and the subsequent adoption of statute 847, which restricts property-owner liability toward plaintiffs engaged in certain felonies.[3][6]

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[hamishspence]

That makes sense as the prototype for the story.

[Tyndmyr]

A complete side note: I cannot be the only one who doesn't appreciate the one thief essentially going "Fair enough" by the glitter bomb, and admiring the package build before cleaning up? Much better than those that got offended for "damages" done by the package.

Good call. That guy I can respect. Yeah, he might be breaking the rules, but he's got the self awareness to take his comeuppance.

[The Random NPC]

Going on the "if the thief was injured" subject, and I am aware I am speaking from complete ignorance here (as I am British), but I thought American Law had some rule that placed blame for any injury and death (even of the perpetrator themselves) caused during the committing of a crime upon the perpetrator of the crime.

Given that the only reason the perpetrator could be (theoretically) injured was because they stole the item that injured them, wouldn't that rule apply here, or does the fact the item was left with the intent that someone would steal it trump that (or is this rule completely untrue - I am aware I have only came across it in books and TV/movies, so am fully aware it might be complete nonsense)

It depends on how reasonably a non criminal would be injured. If a thief trespasses through your broken window, there isn't much of a case. If however you put up a sign directing guests to enter through the window, you are liable for those injuries.

[Lord Torath]

There's also the case of the would-be burgler who dropped through a skylight into a wealthy family's garage (said family being gone on a week-long vacation) and discovered he could not get out and was forced to eat dogfood to survive. The family returned from vacation, discovered the perp, and called the cops. Then the would-be burglar successfully sued the homeowners for damages for being trapped in their garage.

I thought that was an urban myth? Liar Liar has something similar.

Snopes.com confirms your assertion that the story I quoted was, in fact, fake. I shall henceforth cease spreading knowledge of the dis-proven stories, and call them out as false whenever I encounter them in the future.

Thanks for pointing that out to me. I seem to remember hearing that story from an official news source (can't remember which), but such are the tricks my memory plays on me.

[pendell]

Snopes.com confirms your assertion that the story I quoted was, in fact, fake. I shall henceforth cease spreading knowledge of the dis-proven stories, and call them out as false whenever I encounter them in the future.

Thanks for pointing that out to me. I seem to remember hearing that story from an official news source (can't remember which), but such are the tricks my memory plays on me.

Even so, Snopes goes on to say:

Although the cases described in the e-mail are fake, real lawsuits of equal silliness can be found in abundance. An equally impressive list could easily have been compiled by anyone with access to a news database and a few moments to spare. For instance:


In March 1995, a San Diego man unsuccessfully attempted to sue the city and Jack Murphy Stadium for $5.4 million over something that can only be described as a wee problem: Robert Glaser claimed the stadium’s unisex bathroom policy at a Billy Joel and Elton John concert caused him embarrassment and emotional distress thanks to the sight of a woman using a urinal in front of him. He subsequently tried “six or seven” other bathrooms in the stadium only to find women in all of them. He asserted he “had to hold it in for four hours” because he was too embarrassed to share the public bathrooms with women.

A San Carlos, California, man sued the Escondido Public Library for $1.5 million. His dog, a 50-pound Labrador mix, was attacked November 2000 by the library’s 12-pound feline mascot, L.C., (also known as Library Cat). The case was heard in January 2004, with the jury finding for the defendant. In a further case which was resolved in July 2004, the plaintiff in the previous suit was ordered to pay the city $29,362.50, which amounted to 75% of its legal fees associated with that case.

In 1994, a student at the University of Idaho unsuccessfully sued that institution over his fall from a third-floor dorm window. He’d been mooning other students when the window gave way. It was contended the University failed to provide a safe environment for students or to properly warn them of the dangers inherent to upper-story windows.

In 1993, McDonald’s was unsuccessfully sued over a car accident in New Jersey. While driving, a man who had placed a milkshake between his legs, leaned over to reach into his bag of food and squeezed the milkshake container in the process. When the lid popped off and spilled half the drink in his lap, this driver became distracted and ran into another man’s car. That man in turn tried to sue McDonald’s for causing the accident, saying the restaurant should have cautioned the man who had hit him against eating while driving.

A point, however, in that each of these cases common sense won out and the frivolous suits were dismissed. This was probably cause for no great cheer among the defendant, however, as they still needed legal fees and lawyers et al. "The process is the punishment", which is why so many people settle even when totally not at fault.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[zimmerwald1915]

https://gizmodo.com/viral-video-of-g...1831254130/amp

[OracleofWuffing]

Welp, I'll be the first to apologize to halfeye. Even if the reasoning wasn't quite tight and parts of the video were genuine, fair is fair. Sorry.

---

In other discussion, one other contributing factor to the ease of package theft and getting away with it is that there's already a construct in place for the consumer to get restitution without utilizing legal enforcement, at least as far as typical catalog/online ordering goes. Speaking as someone with experience in that front, the consumer's generally expected to call the business that sent the package, and the business files a claim for the lost/stolen item with the deliverer for compensation. It's typically expected that the business then refunds or replaces the item at the deliverer's expense, and in such cases it is usually done as a rush and with signature delivery.* This is also because the goods will generally cost the business less than dealing with a chargeback from the consumer's financial institution. The actual theft deterrence is supposed to occur when the delivery company realizes an area is costing them a lot in do-overs and imposes restrictions to that area, so thieves have to travel farther to get things or otherwise obtain items legitimately. (In reality, I would guess it is more likely customers stop doing business with catalog/online ordering, but either way it means there aren't as many packages to steal). In other words, by breaking the system on every level and placing the blame on nobody who caused it, the system works. For certain definitions of "works."

Granted, it doesn't really help in the situation of life-saving medicine that is needed immediately. Don't know what happens there, and it might need to happen in order for someone to actually do something to prevent that.

*I also grant that package theft occurs even with signature delivery, but if we did things 100% perfectly we'd be whittled down to doing nothing and failing at it.

Edit: Oh, and just because we need to have another layer on this, yes, there are totally people who will call a business and claim a package was intercepted or not delivered to them and keep or resell the extra merchandise without returning it or the replacement, thus taking advantage of both sides of the system for ill gain.

[Peelee]

Welp, I'll be the first to apologize to halfeye. Even if the reasoning wasn't quite tight and parts of the video were genuine, fair is fair. Sorry.

Being lucky is different than being right. I can think of a number of other reasoning that could have been given where you likely wouldn't be so quick to apologize. "Doesn't look like a thief/NASA worker" are pretty shoddy at best.

[LordEntrails]

So, what happens if you put a box on your porch and put warning labels on it that it is dangerous, do not touch, do not open, hazardous materials and all that? Then if the thief opens it and is harmed by it, would you still be liable? Even if it was just glitter in the eye and stink gas in the mouth?

Would they have to prove that you intended for the box on your porch to be opened by a thief with the intent to harm the thief? Now what about if I take reasonable precautions to prevent unauthorized people from accessing a dangerous device/situation on my property and they bypass the precautions and cause themselves harm? i.e. they jump my wall and drown in my pool, or they break the lock on my garage door and cut their hand off with my power tools?

Seems to me, that these situations are akin to the comments from Bryan P about the value of a life, but perhaps with the caveat of how much "rights" does someone have to expect to not be harmed when they commit a crime...

Note, I'm not taking a stand, just pointing out vague similarities, and the complexity of the issue when you take it to extremes. I will also note, that in many cases, its about intent. Do you intend to harm someone who steals from your property or not?

[The Random NPC]

So, what happens if you put a box on your porch and put warning labels on it that it is dangerous, do not touch, do not open, hazardous materials and all that? Then if the thief opens it and is harmed by it, would you still be liable? Even if it was just glitter in the eye and stink gas in the mouth?

Would they have to prove that you intended for the box on your porch to be opened by a thief with the intent to harm the thief? Now what about if I take reasonable precautions to prevent unauthorized people from accessing a dangerous device/situation on my property and they bypass the precautions and cause themselves harm? i.e. they jump my wall and drown in my pool, or they break the lock on my garage door and cut their hand off with my power tools?

Seems to me, that these situations are akin to the comments from Bryan P about the value of a life, but perhaps with the caveat of how much "rights" does someone have to expect to not be harmed when they commit a crime...

Note, I'm not taking a stand, just pointing out vague similarities, and the complexity of the issue when you take it to extremes. I will also note, that in many cases, its about intent. Do you intend to harm someone who steals from your property or not?

This is the kind of thing that I'd recommend talking to a lawer about.

[Peelee]

This is the kind of thing that I'd recommend talking to a lawer about.

Five bucks on the lawyer answer: "Dude, just don't do that. If you want a more detailed answer, here are my hourly rates."

[Knaight]

Would they have to prove that you intended for the box on your porch to be opened by a thief with the intent to harm the thief? Now what about if I take reasonable precautions to prevent unauthorized people from accessing a dangerous device/situation on my property and they bypass the precautions and cause themselves harm? i.e. they jump my wall and drown in my pool, or they break the lock on my garage door and cut their hand off with my power tools?

A trap is a very different situation than something that's just inherently dangerous (power tools, a pool). Someone jumping a wall and drowning in a pool is an entirely different situation than someone jumping a wall and falling into a covered punji pit trap, and while this is emphatically not legal advice I can tell you that as a hypothetical juror I'd have some serious side eye for someone putting spiked pits in their back yard in case of thieves.

[Traab]

Even so, Snopes goes on to say:



A point, however, in that each of these cases common sense won out and the frivolous suits were dismissed. This was probably cause for no great cheer among the defendant, however, as they still needed legal fees and lawyers et al. "The process is the punishment", which is why so many people settle even when totally not at fault.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Keep in mind I expect a number of those suits were only filed due to urban legends that shared stories of people getting huge settlements over things that were their own fault or exaggerations over actual cases. Like the infamous mcdonalds hot coffee lawsuit. People act like it was all about a clumsy woman spilling coffee on herself, like the milkshake story, and ignore or are ignorant of the part where she got third degree burns on her lap from it because mcdonalds sold their coffee so stupidly absurdly dangerously hot that im surprised it wasnt just packaged steam. On top of that, they had already gotten over SEVEN HUNDRED EARLIER REPORTS of injury caused by the hot coffee displaying disgusting levels of negligence.

[Peelee]

Keep in mind I expect a number of those suits were only filed due to urban legends that shared stories of people getting huge settlements over things that were their own fault or exaggerations over actual cases. Like the infamous mcdonalds hot coffee lawsuit. People act like it was all about a clumsy woman spilling coffee on herself, like the milkshake story, and ignore or are ignorant of the part where she got third degree burns on her lap from it because mcdonalds sold their coffee so stupidly absurdly dangerously hot that im surprised it wasnt just packaged steam. On top of that, they had already gotten over SEVEN HUNDRED EARLIER REPORTS of injury caused by the hot coffee displaying disgusting levels of negligence.

Third degree burns on very...sensitive, lets say, parts of her body. And she only sued for the medical costs, and was willing to settle for $20,000; a jury awarded her the large amount. Juries are weird.

[Studoku]

I am incredulous that the police didn't bother to do anything about thieves in broad daylight, though. This seems like the reason we have police. Were they too busy writing parking tickets for neighborhoods where there are literally insufficient parking spaces to hold all the cars?

It's as if a gang that has nothing to gain and no obligation to do something doesn't want to do it. Who'd have though it?