Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Guest10928391 2744 days ago
I don't see this as a black and white situation where the thief should always be responsible for injuries they sustain.

What happens if I setup a machine to fire baseballs at high speed when someone touches my fake parcel? Some teenager comes to steal my package, catches a baseball between the eyes and dies or ends up disabled for life. I'm in the clear because the kid was a thief? Now, I don't think a thief deserves a payday when they slip on ice running from my property, but I also don't believe people should be free to create harmful traps without consequence.

What about those people that run wires across trails on private property? They've killed and decapitated people trespassing on motorcycles or 4-wheelers. Once again, don't blame the property owner that installed the invisible wire? They're in the clear because the person decapitated shouldn't have been riding on that private trail?

How about we don't try to harm thieves. We document and report the case to the police to the best of our ability. Yes, the glitter bomb is extremely innocent, but it's easier to say no to all traps than it is to define what type of traps are acceptable.

2 comments

> How about we don't try to harm thieves. We document and report the case to the police to the best of our ability.

because the police are basically never going to do anything unless the squad car happens to roll by as the thief is running away with the package. you may as well send your documentation straight into the circular file.

now I understand that kids do dumb stuff from time to time. riding a dirtbike around someones fifty acre estate is not that serious, and could easily be done unintentionally if property lines are not well marked. going up to someones door/porch without an invitation is quite something else. if you can find a way to mess these people up without putting the mailman at risk, I am all for it. I would be very happy to live in a society where messing in/around a person's dwelling is understood to be a serious risk.

>I would be very happy to live in a society where messing in/around a person's dwelling is understood to be a serious risk.

Then move to a state with liberal firearm laws. Seriously, It's amazing how much an intangible line on a map affects the behavior of people seeking to commit property crime in the state I live vs the adjacent state I used to live in.

I address all of this in the post you replied to. Not sure how to make it clearer...