13 ms·

Glad that ended well and her neighbor didn't get his throat slashed.

raganwald 15y ago
Wisely put. People who steal and fence the goods on the Internet are obviously inept criminals who act impulsively without thinking through the consequences. Inevitably, a DIY sting operation is going to end up with a criminal panicking and trying to cover his tracks by killing the "witness." It's an unlikely outcome, but imagine this as a reverse-slot machine. You get one pull of the handle. Three of any fruit and you win a used laptop. But if three skulls come up, you are executed. How good a bet is this?
- pavel_lishin 15y ago
  Is the slot machine located in a back alley, in a windowless van, or a Starbucks? I'd feel pretty safe pulling that lever in a Starbucks, as they did.
  - raganwald 15y ago
    Comparatively, some of these hypothetical slot machines are less likey to kill you than others. But no location is truly safe, thus I contend they all have three skulls waiting for someone. If a used laptop is enough of a reward to wager your life, I admire your courage, but when I think of it in financial terms, the thought gives me the heebie jeebies.
    - pavel_lishin 15y ago
      In financial terms, she could not afford to buy a new one, and I'd wager that she couldn't complete her studies without it. I would have done the same thing, except I would bring more friends, at least some of whom would have professional photography rigs to get some nice snapshots of the thieves, as well as their car - assuming they arrived in one.
    - sedev 15y ago
      In this scenario, I think that the 'three skulls' result was about as likely to come up getting in the car and driving to the public location as it was during the actual confrontation.
    - khafra 15y ago
      I completely agree with all the other arguments you make here, which makes me re-evaluate my disagreement on this one. But I think my interpretation still holds up: In 2010, Ottawa saw 27,446 property crimes, and 14 homicides[1]. In general, about half of murders are committed by a friend or family member[2]. So even if the other 7 murderers _all_ started out doing petty theft, there's still only 1 in 3,920 laptop thieves who's going to kill someone. Now, as a high-falutin' tech blogger for whom laptops grow on trees, that still may be an unnacceptable risk/reward ratio for you. But if a laptop represented a more substantial investment, its value might begin to approach the value you personally would place on, say, 50 separate scuba dives. Which, at a death rate of 1 per 200,000 dives, is about where the risk evens out. [1]http://www.ottawapolice.ca//Libraries/Publications/2009_-_2010_Crime_Trends_for_the_City_of_Ottawa_resize_1.sflb.ashx http://www.ottawapolice.ca//Libraries/Publications/2009_-_20... [2]http://www.ncjrs.gov/ovc_archives/nvaa/ch16hom.htm http://www.ncjrs.gov/ovc_archives/nvaa/ch16hom.htm
      - raganwald 15y ago
        In 2010, Ottawa saw 27,446 property crimes, and 14 homicides[1]. In general, about half of murders are committed by a friend or family member[2]. So even if the other 7 murderers _all_ started out doing petty theft, there's still only 1 in 3,920 laptop thieves who's going to kill someone. I appreciate what you're trying to say, and believe me when I say that if you consider the risks and want to go get your laptop, that's fine and I'm not arguing with you making your choice. However, the statistics you quote above do not support your quoted odds. Since the 27,446 reported property crimes did not all involve the owner confronting the thieves, we cannot use the numbers to draw a conclusion about the risk of a confrontation resulting in a murder, much less an attempted murder or assault. On the flip side, while I do not have statistics handy, deep diving, dry suit diving, cold water diving, decompression diving, mixed gas diving, drift diving, and other activities I have enjoyed of are thought to be associated with slightly higher risks than the overall statistics suggest, although not as high as the three big killers: Cave/wreck diving, rebreather diving, and commercial diving.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- dhughes 15y ago
  I'd be the one executing the person who stole my stuff.
  - comatose_kid 15y ago
    So a theif's life is worth less than the things they stole from you?
    - oconnore 15y ago
      If they are also attempting to slit your throat at the local Starbucks, then yes.
      - raganwald 15y ago
        This is an interesting problem, and I don't know the answer. If you go to Starbucks, someone assaults you, and you kill them defending yourself, I'd say you haven't done anything wrong. But if you go to the police about your laptop, they don't do anything, and then you go out of your way to create a possibly tense situation by confronting the thieves... And an altercation breaks out... And you fight to sieze the laptop... And an alleged thief is killed... It's easy to say you have done nothing wrong because the thief brought it upon themselves by stealing the laptop and attempting to fence it. But blame is a non-zero-sum game. You also made choices that perhaps involved knowingly creating a risk of a physical altercation. On the whole, if you are going to try to do a sting, I'd hope that you do not press the issue if the thieves refuse to run away without a fight. Although it may sound like you are defending yourself, in reality you are saying that the laptop is worth more to you than a human life, and that is disturbing to me.
        pbhjpbhj 15y ago
        >in reality you are saying that the laptop is worth more to you than a human life, and that is disturbing to me. // I think you've misconstrued the situation. If the thief refuses to return the stolen item and save their life then they are the one that has chosen to value their life below the return they can get on a used stolen laptop. Assuming that they are the thief and are not acting under some complex duress ("steal that laptop or we kill your child") then at any point they can return it and save themselves. The onus is not on those who have been stolen from to act in favour of the thief. The thief assumes, and interestingly controls, all risk. My instinct is that if someone does a self-motivated major immoral harm to you, are in a position to relieve or remove that harm and chooses not to then you're pretty much justified in carrying out any pre-warned harm against them. (Like I said that's just my instinct, very interested in contra-positions).
- huherto 15y ago
  May be Randy really bet to be Amy's hero. We (Men) tend to do a lot of stupid sh*t to impress a girl.
- barrkel 15y ago
  I thought you were being sarcastic but it turns out, from the rest of the thread, that you're serious. You need to get out from this culture of fear you've gotten into. It really is not healthy.
  - raganwald 15y ago
    I resent the expression "culture of fear." I wear a seat belt when I drive. I will be wearing armour tomorrow when I risk my life riding DH-MTB. I train extensively to dive deep, cold water. I rock climb. I do not live in a "culture of fear." I do, on the other hand, come up with a different result when asking myself if I wish to hurtle down a mountain vs. if I wish to recover a used laptop from petty criminals. I am pointing out that it is prudent to consider the risks, rewards, and potential for catastrophe when making a decision. Having done so, you make your own call. If you think the balance tips in favour of trying to recover the laptop, that is your opinion and I do not argue with your conclusion. But there is no "culture of fear" involved, there is simply a decision that differs from your own. Now if you want to condone the idea of psycho-analyzing strangers based on their HN posts, I would encourage you to ask whether people who set out to recover the laptop are thinking strictly about the utility of the laptop, or whether they have an emotional desire to one-up the thieves or perhaps show the police up as inept. Or maybe... And I encourage you to spend some quality time with a mirror while thinking about this... Maybe there is an emotional desire by some people to prove that they not afraid. This latter emotion is particularly dangerous. Ironically, it is often motivated by fear of being cowardly. (And yes, the point is NOT to be taken seriously. I am not Dr. Phil!)
    - barrkel 15y ago
      The culture of fear I'm talking about is a social fear, this idea that there are lots of evil people in the world, ready to do you harm. It divides society; makes people even more individualistic, suspicious of one another, and it has corrosive effects on public goods. Instead of helping out your neighbour (metaphorically, and perhaps even literally), you sneak past and think "there but for the grace of God go I". And the irony is that this attitude actually makes the world less safe. Situations can be taken advantage of in the knowledge that people won't interfere, precisely because they are too afraid. It's a culture that leads to people driving around in SUVs, living in gated communities, to the point of carrying guns where legal, and voting for governments who promise safety and deliver it with mechanisms of control: filtered internet, surveillance society, TSA, etc. Its endpoint lies somewhere in a Ballardian dystopia, like High Rise or Super-Cannes.
GiraffeNecktie 15y ago
Probably not such a likely outcome since the encounter took place at a very busy cafe in a busy big box shopping centre. Still, I would have wanted a couple of extra friends on hand for intimidation and maybe someone with a video camera with a really bright light.
- raganwald 15y ago
  Here in safe, polite Toronto, there was an altercation a few years past on a street crowded with shoppers seeking Boxing Day deals. It ended in a running gun battle and a passerby was killed. I agree that death is an unlikely outcome, but i beg of you, never bet your life on the rationality of petty criminals who engage their "fight or flight" reflex.
  - dpark 15y ago
    > I agree that death is an unlikely outcome, but i beg of you, never bet your life on the rationality of petty criminals who engage their "fight or flight" reflex. This seems a pretty unhealthy attitude. Basically you're saying to never, ever attempt to protect your belongings from a petty criminal. If you have reason to believe that your life is truly at risk (e.g. you're in a dark alley, criminal has a gun), sure. You should probably surrender your property. If you do not believe that you are in danger, there's no reason to give up your property. You're just sacrificing your property for nothing, and emboldening those same criminals. Sitting in a crowded Starbucks with a couple of guys who are not visibly-armed is not a high-risk situation. There's always some danger to your life. A random person on the street could snap and kill you for no reason. You can't dedicate your life to avoiding it. Don't make yourself powerless.
    - raganwald 15y ago
      This seems a pretty unhealthy attitude. Basically you're saying to never, ever attempt to protect your belongings from a petty criminal. Well now, we are going in an interesting direction. I live in Toronto. I am happy that we do not have as many firearms as you might find in Texas. There is a massive and somewhat difficult chasm to cross between the two cultures around the question of "Protecting your belongings from petty criminals." I'm willing to engage you on this question, but I fear that the HN server will run out of disk space before we can find a common ground.
dean 15y ago
I supposed getting your throat slashed is always a possibility in situations like this. But, then again, this is probably a comforting story for the criminals when you consider that the police officer was given "the names, phone numbers, and locations of the suspects", and yet decided to go away on vacation for a week before going to arrest them. If the criminals had murdered the neighbor, the police might be more inclined to go after them right away, and the criminals would have been worse off. Of course, it would take logical criminals to realize that murder would get them into more trouble than (unarmed) robbery.

Wisely put. People who steal and fence the goods on the Internet are obviously inept criminals who act impulsively without thinking through the consequences. Inevitably, a DIY sting operation is going to end up with a criminal panicking and trying to cover his tracks by killing the "witness." It's an unlikely outcome, but imagine this as a reverse-slot machine. You get one pull of the handle. Three of any fruit and you win a used laptop. But if three skulls come up, you are executed. How good a bet is this?

pavel_lishin 15y ago
Is the slot machine located in a back alley, in a windowless van, or a Starbucks? I'd feel pretty safe pulling that lever in a Starbucks, as they did.
- raganwald 15y ago
  Comparatively, some of these hypothetical slot machines are less likey to kill you than others. But no location is truly safe, thus I contend they all have three skulls waiting for someone. If a used laptop is enough of a reward to wager your life, I admire your courage, but when I think of it in financial terms, the thought gives me the heebie jeebies.
  - pavel_lishin 15y ago
    In financial terms, she could not afford to buy a new one, and I'd wager that she couldn't complete her studies without it. I would have done the same thing, except I would bring more friends, at least some of whom would have professional photography rigs to get some nice snapshots of the thieves, as well as their car - assuming they arrived in one.
  - sedev 15y ago
    In this scenario, I think that the 'three skulls' result was about as likely to come up getting in the car and driving to the public location as it was during the actual confrontation.
  - khafra 15y ago
    I completely agree with all the other arguments you make here, which makes me re-evaluate my disagreement on this one. But I think my interpretation still holds up: In 2010, Ottawa saw 27,446 property crimes, and 14 homicides[1]. In general, about half of murders are committed by a friend or family member[2]. So even if the other 7 murderers _all_ started out doing petty theft, there's still only 1 in 3,920 laptop thieves who's going to kill someone. Now, as a high-falutin' tech blogger for whom laptops grow on trees, that still may be an unnacceptable risk/reward ratio for you. But if a laptop represented a more substantial investment, its value might begin to approach the value you personally would place on, say, 50 separate scuba dives. Which, at a death rate of 1 per 200,000 dives, is about where the risk evens out. [1]http://www.ottawapolice.ca//Libraries/Publications/2009_-_2010_Crime_Trends_for_the_City_of_Ottawa_resize_1.sflb.ashx http://www.ottawapolice.ca//Libraries/Publications/2009_-_20... [2]http://www.ncjrs.gov/ovc_archives/nvaa/ch16hom.htm http://www.ncjrs.gov/ovc_archives/nvaa/ch16hom.htm
    - raganwald 15y ago
      In 2010, Ottawa saw 27,446 property crimes, and 14 homicides[1]. In general, about half of murders are committed by a friend or family member[2]. So even if the other 7 murderers _all_ started out doing petty theft, there's still only 1 in 3,920 laptop thieves who's going to kill someone. I appreciate what you're trying to say, and believe me when I say that if you consider the risks and want to go get your laptop, that's fine and I'm not arguing with you making your choice. However, the statistics you quote above do not support your quoted odds. Since the 27,446 reported property crimes did not all involve the owner confronting the thieves, we cannot use the numbers to draw a conclusion about the risk of a confrontation resulting in a murder, much less an attempted murder or assault. On the flip side, while I do not have statistics handy, deep diving, dry suit diving, cold water diving, decompression diving, mixed gas diving, drift diving, and other activities I have enjoyed of are thought to be associated with slightly higher risks than the overall statistics suggest, although not as high as the three big killers: Cave/wreck diving, rebreather diving, and commercial diving.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
dhughes 15y ago
I'd be the one executing the person who stole my stuff.
- comatose_kid 15y ago
  So a theif's life is worth less than the things they stole from you?
  - oconnore 15y ago
    If they are also attempting to slit your throat at the local Starbucks, then yes.
    - raganwald 15y ago
      This is an interesting problem, and I don't know the answer. If you go to Starbucks, someone assaults you, and you kill them defending yourself, I'd say you haven't done anything wrong. But if you go to the police about your laptop, they don't do anything, and then you go out of your way to create a possibly tense situation by confronting the thieves... And an altercation breaks out... And you fight to sieze the laptop... And an alleged thief is killed... It's easy to say you have done nothing wrong because the thief brought it upon themselves by stealing the laptop and attempting to fence it. But blame is a non-zero-sum game. You also made choices that perhaps involved knowingly creating a risk of a physical altercation. On the whole, if you are going to try to do a sting, I'd hope that you do not press the issue if the thieves refuse to run away without a fight. Although it may sound like you are defending yourself, in reality you are saying that the laptop is worth more to you than a human life, and that is disturbing to me.
      - pbhjpbhj 15y ago
        >in reality you are saying that the laptop is worth more to you than a human life, and that is disturbing to me. // I think you've misconstrued the situation. If the thief refuses to return the stolen item and save their life then they are the one that has chosen to value their life below the return they can get on a used stolen laptop. Assuming that they are the thief and are not acting under some complex duress ("steal that laptop or we kill your child") then at any point they can return it and save themselves. The onus is not on those who have been stolen from to act in favour of the thief. The thief assumes, and interestingly controls, all risk. My instinct is that if someone does a self-motivated major immoral harm to you, are in a position to relieve or remove that harm and chooses not to then you're pretty much justified in carrying out any pre-warned harm against them. (Like I said that's just my instinct, very interested in contra-positions).
huherto 15y ago
May be Randy really bet to be Amy's hero. We (Men) tend to do a lot of stupid sh*t to impress a girl.
barrkel 15y ago
I thought you were being sarcastic but it turns out, from the rest of the thread, that you're serious. You need to get out from this culture of fear you've gotten into. It really is not healthy.
- raganwald 15y ago
  I resent the expression "culture of fear." I wear a seat belt when I drive. I will be wearing armour tomorrow when I risk my life riding DH-MTB. I train extensively to dive deep, cold water. I rock climb. I do not live in a "culture of fear." I do, on the other hand, come up with a different result when asking myself if I wish to hurtle down a mountain vs. if I wish to recover a used laptop from petty criminals. I am pointing out that it is prudent to consider the risks, rewards, and potential for catastrophe when making a decision. Having done so, you make your own call. If you think the balance tips in favour of trying to recover the laptop, that is your opinion and I do not argue with your conclusion. But there is no "culture of fear" involved, there is simply a decision that differs from your own. Now if you want to condone the idea of psycho-analyzing strangers based on their HN posts, I would encourage you to ask whether people who set out to recover the laptop are thinking strictly about the utility of the laptop, or whether they have an emotional desire to one-up the thieves or perhaps show the police up as inept. Or maybe... And I encourage you to spend some quality time with a mirror while thinking about this... Maybe there is an emotional desire by some people to prove that they not afraid. This latter emotion is particularly dangerous. Ironically, it is often motivated by fear of being cowardly. (And yes, the point is NOT to be taken seriously. I am not Dr. Phil!)
  - barrkel 15y ago
    The culture of fear I'm talking about is a social fear, this idea that there are lots of evil people in the world, ready to do you harm. It divides society; makes people even more individualistic, suspicious of one another, and it has corrosive effects on public goods. Instead of helping out your neighbour (metaphorically, and perhaps even literally), you sneak past and think "there but for the grace of God go I". And the irony is that this attitude actually makes the world less safe. Situations can be taken advantage of in the knowledge that people won't interfere, precisely because they are too afraid. It's a culture that leads to people driving around in SUVs, living in gated communities, to the point of carrying guns where legal, and voting for governments who promise safety and deliver it with mechanisms of control: filtered internet, surveillance society, TSA, etc. Its endpoint lies somewhere in a Ballardian dystopia, like High Rise or Super-Cannes.

GiraffeNecktie 15y ago

Probably not such a likely outcome since the encounter took place at a very busy cafe in a busy big box shopping centre. Still, I would have wanted a couple of extra friends on hand for intimidation and maybe someone with a video camera with a really bright light.

raganwald 15y ago
Here in safe, polite Toronto, there was an altercation a few years past on a street crowded with shoppers seeking Boxing Day deals. It ended in a running gun battle and a passerby was killed. I agree that death is an unlikely outcome, but i beg of you, never bet your life on the rationality of petty criminals who engage their "fight or flight" reflex.
- dpark 15y ago
  > I agree that death is an unlikely outcome, but i beg of you, never bet your life on the rationality of petty criminals who engage their "fight or flight" reflex. This seems a pretty unhealthy attitude. Basically you're saying to never, ever attempt to protect your belongings from a petty criminal. If you have reason to believe that your life is truly at risk (e.g. you're in a dark alley, criminal has a gun), sure. You should probably surrender your property. If you do not believe that you are in danger, there's no reason to give up your property. You're just sacrificing your property for nothing, and emboldening those same criminals. Sitting in a crowded Starbucks with a couple of guys who are not visibly-armed is not a high-risk situation. There's always some danger to your life. A random person on the street could snap and kill you for no reason. You can't dedicate your life to avoiding it. Don't make yourself powerless.
  - raganwald 15y ago
    This seems a pretty unhealthy attitude. Basically you're saying to never, ever attempt to protect your belongings from a petty criminal. Well now, we are going in an interesting direction. I live in Toronto. I am happy that we do not have as many firearms as you might find in Texas. There is a massive and somewhat difficult chasm to cross between the two cultures around the question of "Protecting your belongings from petty criminals." I'm willing to engage you on this question, but I fear that the HN server will run out of disk space before we can find a common ground.

dean 15y ago

I supposed getting your throat slashed is always a possibility in situations like this. But, then again, this is probably a comforting story for the criminals when you consider that the police officer was given "the names, phone numbers, and locations of the suspects", and yet decided to go away on vacation for a week before going to arrest them. If the criminals had murdered the neighbor, the police might be more inclined to go after them right away, and the criminals would have been worse off. Of course, it would take logical criminals to realize that murder would get them into more trouble than (unarmed) robbery.