[stale2002]

> So the thief (or whoever) can sue this person

Ah, see, but lack of enforcement from the police goes both ways!

If the police are unwilling to go after petty theft cases, why would they bother with the even smaller crime of "wiretapping" thieves?

Is the opportunist thief likely to have the resources to go after you for this? Almost certainly not.

And even then, it is additionally unlikely that a judge and jury would convict and punish someone. Stories, narratives, and being perceived to be "in the right" go a long way in the criminal justice system, which is enforced by people, not the legal words on a piece of paper.

[candiodari]

Well, it's not that simple. The thief could simply sue under private law (private law = anything that's not criminal law). Privacy violation, for example, is private law. Damage to property, is both criminal and private law. There's certainly options.

Granted, the author of the video cannot be sent to jail in such a case, but it is a near-certainty that he'll have to pay.

Second, I don't think the odds of the police pursuing this are quite as small as you perceive them to be. For one, the thief may BE a police officer. What do you propose happens then ? Do you think criminal police officers just arrest themselves ?

I mean, I sort of understand the "the law is just under all circumstances and the law sees all" train of thought, all nice, safe and secure. In reality, law is an imperfect and sometimes outright malicious system implemented by imperfect and sometimes outright malicious people. So I'd be interested in your opinion of what happens if the thief is an ill-tempered police officer, with the predisposition of Joe Arpaio towards you. You might note that this person was not just any police officer, but a 24-year sheriff (chief) of the police of a 4 million people county, including a large city. Those people are part of the police too, and can be very high up in the police force.

> judge and jury

Jury is only in criminal law. In other words, only if you're sued by the public prosecutor. Otherwise, no jury trial. And good luck convincing the jury if a police officer is testifying against you. I will say, it's not impossible. However, ...

> Stories, narratives, and being perceived to be "in the right" go a long way in the criminal justice system

Can I just say, I pity your lawyer if you ever apply this way of thinking in an actual case. In short: it does not. Police and public prosecutors are evaluated on their conviction rate (just ask a police officer. You should be very surprised that he knows that figure in the first place). There's even bonuses for achieving certain conviction rates (and of course you get fired below ...). Secondly there's a sort of constant "contest" between officers for the highest conviction rate. In the criminal justice system, therefore, the primary driver of who the police pursue is whether they believe they'll get a conviction. Nothing, and I do mean absolutely nothing, else.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

(That doesn't mean they don't apply sanity, but realistically, if that happens, it's the officer on the ground and they are under VERY high pressure to do "something", like arrest someone. "This guy is not innocent, let's arrest him" definitely happens regularly. If the officer on site doesn't just let you go, it is utter folly to count on anyone else in the criminal justice system to take stories or narratives into account)

[stale2002]

> The thief could simply sue under private law.... There's certainly options

But they won't, because they are a desperate individual who is going around stealing packages from people. The kind of person who does this is very unlikely to have the money to sue someone.

They will instead just run away as they are probably just afraid of getting arrested themselves. Someone who has stolen one package has probably stolen dozens. Rationally or not, they'd probably just be afraid of getting caught for all their past thefts.

> . In reality, law is an imperfect

Indeed it is imperfect! Which is why someone who "wiretaps" desperate thiefs is almost certainly going to get away with breaking the law.

Lots of people in this thread are talking about how the police just won't care if you bring them irefutable evidence of theft. If police don't care about that, what do you think is the likelihood that they will care about illegal wiretapping of thiefs? I'd guess that the answer is "a very low likelyhood".

> In other words, only if you're sued by the public prosecutor.

But you won't be sued by a public prosecutor or targeted by the police. Because they have better things to do with their time. They aren't even going after the thieves, if you will remember!

> For one, the thief may BE a police officer

This is extremely unlikely. Instead the thief is probably going to be some desperate individual or homeless person with no ability to go after you for "wiretapping".

My whole point is that if nobody is getting arrested for the theft, the chances of the police bothering to go after people for wiretapping is even less likely. And the desperate thief won't have the money, resources, or motivation to pursue you in private court.

If it is so easy to get away with theft, then it is certainly going to be much much easier to get away with wiretapping thieves.

[dragonwriter]

> > The thief could simply sue under private law.... There's certainly options

> But they won't, because they are a desperate individual who is going around stealing packages from people.

The reason we know about the common law status of booby traps is that trespassers (including burglars) have sure after being injured by them.

So, no, I don't think your “porch pirates won't sue because they are desperate enough to steal” argument is convincing. Especially given that porch pirates often aren't destitute, and theft isn't always motivated by desperation.