7 ms·

Anyone else found it unsatisfactory that there was nothing about forwarding the footage of the thieves to the police?

Itaxpica 8y ago
The article mentions that he built this in the first place because the police told him that there was nothing they could do even with footage
- izzydata 8y ago
  They couldn't do anything with the footage of them taking it from the front porch. But with close up footage of their face and GPS coordinates of some of their houses it seems like a different story.
  - weberc2 8y ago
    Not to mention license plates that are caught in the video.
  - SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
    I’m not trying to be cynical “at you” but my time with police has taught me they are there to document crime always and stop it directly almost never. TV and Movies mislead.
    - logfromblammo 8y ago
      My time with police has taught me that they will make you do your own documentation by filling out the crime reports yourself, and then just rubber-stamp them for the benefit of your insurance company. Vigilante justice is the only kind there is for misdemeanor property crimes. You could track the thief down, talk him into giving your property back and turning himself in, and drive him to the police station yourself, and the cops would still tell you both to get lost and stop wasting their time. Petty thieves and burglars are pretty low priority for US cops, as long as it's poor people stealing from poor people. Thus you can have an entire class of people that can routinely steal anything they come across that isn't nailed down, yet never get caught. Because no one tries to catch them. And then they get jobs that give them access to things that are only lightly nailed down, because they have no criminal records. The cops aren't really there to protect you or your property. They will if it's convenient, but if you need real protection, you'll have to pay someone and have a contract in place. Or just do what most people do: get insurance with a reasonable deductible and keep all your stuff locked up or nailed down.
      - learc83 8y ago
        I sat on a jury for a misdemeanor shoplifting trial. We voted to convict and he got jail time, and when I worked retail during college, misdemeanor shoplifters were almost always arrested and prosecuted when there was good evidence. I also know people working in the my county solicitor's office and a large amount of their caseload is prosecuting misdemeanor property crimes. I'm sure this varies by location, but I don't think prosecuting misdemeanor property crime is as rare as you think. Additional, In most states the bar for felony theft is pretty low, and the way that the value is calculated makes it very easy to go over that limit. For example, I knew a girl who stole some lip balm in high school, but several other girls she was in the store with stole items with a higher value. The DA lumped all of the items together and charged them all with felonies.
        logfromblammo 8y ago
        The cops may care when someone steals from a retail business. They don't care when the same person steals from you, an individual. The reason why I know this should be self-evident. I might also mention that if you know someone in the prosecutors' office, your experience will be very different from the majority of theft victims. Cases that never get referred to the prosecutor due to lack of evidence, due to lack of looking for evidence--or lack of taking the evidence when handed in on a silver platter--are not included in the prosecutors' caseloads.
        learc83 8y ago
        Cops don't treat retail businesses that much different from individuals in my experience. If you have video evidence plus a person in custody, a license plate, or an address, there's a good chance of an arrest. If all you have is a picture, then they will blow you off. >Cases that never get referred to the prosecutor due to lack of evidence That's most cases of misdemeanor property theft though. No evidence, video and no idea who the person is, or a he said she said between neighbors that's probably better dealt with through a civil case. In the vast majority of these cases the problem isn't that the police/prosecutors are being wilfully ignorant, it's that there's nothing they can realistically do.
  - tomcam 8y ago
    Here in Seattle the police and DA explicitly do not give a shit about property crimes. Awesome at parking enforcement though.
    - Pfhreak 8y ago
      [Citation Needed] 'Explicit' means something. I'd love to see the reference where the DA explicitly says they do not give a shit about property crimes.
Buldak 8y ago
In the video, Rober mentions that he previously brought his security camera footage to police (the camera monitoring his house, not the camera in the prank box), but that they said it wasn't worth their time to pursue such cases.
- berdon 8y ago
  Yes but that's because the security footage didn't provide any actual information on the thief. Whereabouts, identity, etc. The GPS location of the thief, clear footage of the face, should be a slam-dunk case for a DA.
  - jayess 8y ago
    > Yes but that's because the security footage didn't provide any actual information on the thief. No, as he stated in the video, the police said it just wasn't worth their time.
    - berdon 8y ago
      Yes - not worth their time to investigate and try to track down that information. In this instance - the police spend 0 time investigating, and 2 hours arresting, booking, and forwarding criminal charges.
    - rtkwe 8y ago
      That was for the first one though, where all he had was a random persons face, way harder to actually track that person down. For the later ones like the car and even more so the apartment/house it's a much easier case so they might have actually bothered because they can directly link the theft to an actual ID through the plates/address. Even with that the chances they'd bother is medium to low but it's much more likely given the amount of data Mark could hand over.
      - eric_h 8y ago
        But is it there actually a crime in this case if the owner intended for the package to be stolen (of which there is also video evidence)?
empath75 8y ago
It's in the first minute of the video. The police don't care.
- DoofusOfDeath 8y ago
  I think there's a difference between "don't care" and "wasn't worth their time". It's possible that with the number of complaints the police needed to investigate, the particular thefts in question were below the triage threshold.
- Someone1234 8y ago
  Given the police's complete inaction vigilantism was inevitable. I wonder if an industry of decoy packages will spring up, maybe "sticky" or "smelly" glitter. Or heck just go full ink bomb. I wonder where the law stands on this? Can you really be liable if someone steals your property then causes property damage using it?
  - matt4077 8y ago
    The law says booby-traps are illegal. Depending on the damage/injury you cause, you will be prosecuted. Two wrongs etc etc
    - TheLoneAdmin 8y ago
      Booby-trap is usually defined as "to cause bodily injury when triggered". Spreading glitter in someone's car isn't causing bodily injury. However, if the glitter caused someone to choke and die, or blinded an eye, then a crime would be committed.
    - Someone1234 8y ago
      Here's the legal definition of a booby-trap: > A booby trap may be defined as any concealed or camouflaged device designed to cause bodily injury It doesn't apply.
  - igneo676 8y ago
    I think the technical answer here is yes but, given the fact that the police themselves were too occupied to pursue the original thieves, I find it equally unlikely they're going to pursue the vigilante IANAL - but I'd suppose they could sue you and may even win but it's not going to do much for their public image in the best case and the worst case they get prosecuted for theft.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
laurentl 8y ago
Yeah. “Hello officer, I made a booby trapped package and I...” gets tased “argh no you don’t under- “ is handed off to the secret service I doubt the cops would look kindly on what is at best (funny) vigilante justice, at worse a violation of some federal law.
- learc83 8y ago
  The package was on his porch, not in his mailbox, and it has a fake UPS label. Nothing federal about it--definitely nothing involving the secret service. The only way he might get charged with something is if the glitter bomb manages to injure someone (and even then it wouldn't be a federal crime).
  - LinuxBender 8y ago
    Agreed. If an accomplice in the passenger seat opens the package while they are driving and glitter gets in the drivers eyes, that could end poorly. Maybe instead, nix the glitter and use an oily fart spray that can't easily be cleaned off, but won't potentially blind the person might be safer. Maybe even design it so that when you open it, a cup of really nasty fart oil pours out in 4 directions. The more I think about this, you could probably make a much safer solution for less than a few dollars if you forego the video capture. Is there a safe non-toxic stinky oil? All you would need is a box that once opened, is very difficult to put back together, that holds stinky oil. I would probably also put wording on the package that says, "By taking or opening this package, you consent to recording and agree to manage the discharge of a very stinky oil. The opener of the packages assumes all responsibility and liability for any damage that results from touching this package".
- tptacek 8y ago
  What federal law do you think this would violate?
  - laurentl 8y ago
    I was thinking of what you can and cannot mail; specifically, that what he did could be construed as a letter bomb. Granted, it’s much much less dangerous, but the mechanism is the same. At a time when public figures get pipe bombs in the mail, rigging a package to “explode” once opened... I think there’s enough material for a humorless DA (or one with an agenda) to make hay, or at least for a uneasy explanation with some serious people. Obviously IANAL, and I don’t know if the federal laws on mail extend to packages left on the porch as the other poster pointed out, but still. Source: what my teenage self thought was a hilarious prank got to the attention of the FBI. Although the matter was cleared up in the end, being interviewed by an FBI agent at 17 taught me not to count on the understanding and second degree of law officers.

The article mentions that he built this in the first place because the police told him that there was nothing they could do even with footage

izzydata 8y ago
They couldn't do anything with the footage of them taking it from the front porch. But with close up footage of their face and GPS coordinates of some of their houses it seems like a different story.
- weberc2 8y ago
  Not to mention license plates that are caught in the video.
- SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
  I’m not trying to be cynical “at you” but my time with police has taught me they are there to document crime always and stop it directly almost never. TV and Movies mislead.
  - logfromblammo 8y ago
    My time with police has taught me that they will make you do your own documentation by filling out the crime reports yourself, and then just rubber-stamp them for the benefit of your insurance company. Vigilante justice is the only kind there is for misdemeanor property crimes. You could track the thief down, talk him into giving your property back and turning himself in, and drive him to the police station yourself, and the cops would still tell you both to get lost and stop wasting their time. Petty thieves and burglars are pretty low priority for US cops, as long as it's poor people stealing from poor people. Thus you can have an entire class of people that can routinely steal anything they come across that isn't nailed down, yet never get caught. Because no one tries to catch them. And then they get jobs that give them access to things that are only lightly nailed down, because they have no criminal records. The cops aren't really there to protect you or your property. They will if it's convenient, but if you need real protection, you'll have to pay someone and have a contract in place. Or just do what most people do: get insurance with a reasonable deductible and keep all your stuff locked up or nailed down.
    - learc83 8y ago
      I sat on a jury for a misdemeanor shoplifting trial. We voted to convict and he got jail time, and when I worked retail during college, misdemeanor shoplifters were almost always arrested and prosecuted when there was good evidence. I also know people working in the my county solicitor's office and a large amount of their caseload is prosecuting misdemeanor property crimes. I'm sure this varies by location, but I don't think prosecuting misdemeanor property crime is as rare as you think. Additional, In most states the bar for felony theft is pretty low, and the way that the value is calculated makes it very easy to go over that limit. For example, I knew a girl who stole some lip balm in high school, but several other girls she was in the store with stole items with a higher value. The DA lumped all of the items together and charged them all with felonies.
      - logfromblammo 8y ago
        The cops may care when someone steals from a retail business. They don't care when the same person steals from you, an individual. The reason why I know this should be self-evident. I might also mention that if you know someone in the prosecutors' office, your experience will be very different from the majority of theft victims. Cases that never get referred to the prosecutor due to lack of evidence, due to lack of looking for evidence--or lack of taking the evidence when handed in on a silver platter--are not included in the prosecutors' caseloads.
        learc83 8y ago
        Cops don't treat retail businesses that much different from individuals in my experience. If you have video evidence plus a person in custody, a license plate, or an address, there's a good chance of an arrest. If all you have is a picture, then they will blow you off. >Cases that never get referred to the prosecutor due to lack of evidence That's most cases of misdemeanor property theft though. No evidence, video and no idea who the person is, or a he said she said between neighbors that's probably better dealt with through a civil case. In the vast majority of these cases the problem isn't that the police/prosecutors are being wilfully ignorant, it's that there's nothing they can realistically do.
- tomcam 8y ago
  Here in Seattle the police and DA explicitly do not give a shit about property crimes. Awesome at parking enforcement though.
  - Pfhreak 8y ago
    [Citation Needed] 'Explicit' means something. I'd love to see the reference where the DA explicitly says they do not give a shit about property crimes.

Buldak 8y ago

In the video, Rober mentions that he previously brought his security camera footage to police (the camera monitoring his house, not the camera in the prank box), but that they said it wasn't worth their time to pursue such cases.

berdon 8y ago
Yes but that's because the security footage didn't provide any actual information on the thief. Whereabouts, identity, etc. The GPS location of the thief, clear footage of the face, should be a slam-dunk case for a DA.
- jayess 8y ago
  > Yes but that's because the security footage didn't provide any actual information on the thief. No, as he stated in the video, the police said it just wasn't worth their time.
  - berdon 8y ago
    Yes - not worth their time to investigate and try to track down that information. In this instance - the police spend 0 time investigating, and 2 hours arresting, booking, and forwarding criminal charges.
  - rtkwe 8y ago
    That was for the first one though, where all he had was a random persons face, way harder to actually track that person down. For the later ones like the car and even more so the apartment/house it's a much easier case so they might have actually bothered because they can directly link the theft to an actual ID through the plates/address. Even with that the chances they'd bother is medium to low but it's much more likely given the amount of data Mark could hand over.
    - eric_h 8y ago
      But is it there actually a crime in this case if the owner intended for the package to be stolen (of which there is also video evidence)?

empath75 8y ago

It's in the first minute of the video. The police don't care.

DoofusOfDeath 8y ago
I think there's a difference between "don't care" and "wasn't worth their time". It's possible that with the number of complaints the police needed to investigate, the particular thefts in question were below the triage threshold.
Someone1234 8y ago
Given the police's complete inaction vigilantism was inevitable. I wonder if an industry of decoy packages will spring up, maybe "sticky" or "smelly" glitter. Or heck just go full ink bomb. I wonder where the law stands on this? Can you really be liable if someone steals your property then causes property damage using it?
- matt4077 8y ago
  The law says booby-traps are illegal. Depending on the damage/injury you cause, you will be prosecuted. Two wrongs etc etc
  - TheLoneAdmin 8y ago
    Booby-trap is usually defined as "to cause bodily injury when triggered". Spreading glitter in someone's car isn't causing bodily injury. However, if the glitter caused someone to choke and die, or blinded an eye, then a crime would be committed.
  - Someone1234 8y ago
    Here's the legal definition of a booby-trap: > A booby trap may be defined as any concealed or camouflaged device designed to cause bodily injury It doesn't apply.
- igneo676 8y ago
  I think the technical answer here is yes but, given the fact that the police themselves were too occupied to pursue the original thieves, I find it equally unlikely they're going to pursue the vigilante IANAL - but I'd suppose they could sue you and may even win but it's not going to do much for their public image in the best case and the worst case they get prosecuted for theft.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

laurentl 8y ago

Yeah. “Hello officer, I made a booby trapped package and I...” gets tased “argh no you don’t under- “ is handed off to the secret service I doubt the cops would look kindly on what is at best (funny) vigilante justice, at worse a violation of some federal law.

learc83 8y ago
The package was on his porch, not in his mailbox, and it has a fake UPS label. Nothing federal about it--definitely nothing involving the secret service. The only way he might get charged with something is if the glitter bomb manages to injure someone (and even then it wouldn't be a federal crime).
- LinuxBender 8y ago
  Agreed. If an accomplice in the passenger seat opens the package while they are driving and glitter gets in the drivers eyes, that could end poorly. Maybe instead, nix the glitter and use an oily fart spray that can't easily be cleaned off, but won't potentially blind the person might be safer. Maybe even design it so that when you open it, a cup of really nasty fart oil pours out in 4 directions. The more I think about this, you could probably make a much safer solution for less than a few dollars if you forego the video capture. Is there a safe non-toxic stinky oil? All you would need is a box that once opened, is very difficult to put back together, that holds stinky oil. I would probably also put wording on the package that says, "By taking or opening this package, you consent to recording and agree to manage the discharge of a very stinky oil. The opener of the packages assumes all responsibility and liability for any damage that results from touching this package".
tptacek 8y ago
What federal law do you think this would violate?
- laurentl 8y ago
  I was thinking of what you can and cannot mail; specifically, that what he did could be construed as a letter bomb. Granted, it’s much much less dangerous, but the mechanism is the same. At a time when public figures get pipe bombs in the mail, rigging a package to “explode” once opened... I think there’s enough material for a humorless DA (or one with an agenda) to make hay, or at least for a uneasy explanation with some serious people. Obviously IANAL, and I don’t know if the federal laws on mail extend to packages left on the porch as the other poster pointed out, but still. Source: what my teenage self thought was a hilarious prank got to the attention of the FBI. Although the matter was cleared up in the end, being interviewed by an FBI agent at 17 taught me not to count on the understanding and second degree of law officers.