Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Tuesday December 18 2018, @06:52PM   Printer-friendly
from the glitter-lining dept.

Hackaday:

[Mark Rober] was fed up with packages going missing. He kept receiving notifications that his shipments had been delivered, but when checking his porch he found nothing there. Reviewing the CCTV footage revealed random passers-by sidling up to his porch and stealing his parcels. It was time to strike back. Over six months, [Mark] and his friends painstakingly designed, prototyped and iterated the perfect trap for package thieves, resulting in a small unit disguised as an Apple HomePod. The whole scheme is wonderfully over-engineered and we love it.

The main feature of the device is a spinning cup on the top which contains a large amount of glitter. When activated, it ejects glitter in every directions. You could say it's harmless, as it's just glitter. But then again, glitter has a way of staying with you for the rest of your life — turning up at the least expected times. It certainly leaves an emotional impression.

The trap uses an accelerometer to detect movement, geo-fencing to determine when the package has left the property, glitter and a fart spray to make the thief regret it, and smartphones to capture the thief's reaction for the enjoyment of the hacker.

Also at BBC.

See also: Jersey City PD, Amazon work together to catch package thieves
Jersey City PD nabs 12 this week in porch package sting


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Knowledge Troll on Tuesday December 18 2018, @07:18PM (45 children)

    by Knowledge Troll (5948) on Tuesday December 18 2018, @07:18PM (#775980) Homepage Journal

    This does not seem wise. I'm not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.

    Booby traps are generally not legal to leave around even if someone will encounter them in the furtherance of a crime at least to my understanding. While on the surface this may seem closer to a prank than a trap and has a low risk of injury in practice this can go very wrong leading to injury of other people and prosecution of people who attempt this.

    Ponder if the thief opens the package in a car, the glitter goes off, gets in the thief's eyes, they crash into another car and some unrelated third party dies.

    You have a chance of not being found culpable in this situation but it has a high risk of going to trial and that is never good. It is also a reasonable decision to say that there is some culpability here. It is just as reasonable as saying the thief should take all the blame and the difference will be in your jurisdiction.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=2, Interesting=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 3, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday December 18 2018, @07:33PM (2 children)

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday December 18 2018, @07:33PM (#775993) Homepage Journal

    He was a NASA guy. Wise doesn't necessarily even get a cameo when nerds get their project on and NASA guys are some of the nerdiest.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 18 2018, @07:48PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 18 2018, @07:48PM (#776005)

      They caught him leaving booby traps on NASA instruments, to keep meddling aliens at bay.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by cmdrklarg on Tuesday December 18 2018, @07:37PM (12 children)

    by cmdrklarg (5048) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday December 18 2018, @07:37PM (#775996)

    Perhaps, but if I were on the jury I'd never vote to convict. Glitter bomb would not have been left out if those asshole thieves weren't out stealing packages.

    --
    The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday December 18 2018, @08:40PM

      by nitehawk214 (1304) on Tuesday December 18 2018, @08:40PM (#776030)

      If there was a time for jury nullification, this would be it.

      --
      "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by bobthecimmerian on Tuesday December 18 2018, @09:45PM (2 children)

      by bobthecimmerian (6834) on Tuesday December 18 2018, @09:45PM (#776061)

      Add in the fact that he contacted the police first, and they said they couldn't help him. So it's not like the prosecutor can say, "You should have called the police!"

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @02:46AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @02:46AM (#776151)

        Police apparently don't even have a duty to protect children from a shooter even when they are present and witnessing (listening to the gunshots). They certainly don't give a sh*t about your stupid amazon package.

        https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/parkland-shooting-lawsuit-ruling-police.html [nytimes.com]

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @07:30PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @07:30PM (#776452)

          Politicians, and rich people who pay them for 'security patrols'.

          The rest of us plebs can just fuck right off, unless it's a campaign year, or they need to look tough to sidetrack from that internal investigations corruption proceeding just long enough for a few of the IA folks to be threatened, bought off, or have accidents on the hard hard streets of (insert your city).

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 18 2018, @10:32PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 18 2018, @10:32PM (#776082)

      Let me know when I can have you on my jury.

      • (Score: 2) by RS3 on Tuesday December 18 2018, @10:57PM

        by RS3 (6367) on Tuesday December 18 2018, @10:57PM (#776095)

        Let us know when you need one.

      • (Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Wednesday December 19 2018, @02:46PM

        by cmdrklarg (5048) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 19 2018, @02:46PM (#776321)

        I would actually be a good choice, provided you were actually innocent.

        --
        The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
    • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday December 19 2018, @04:43AM (4 children)

      by hemocyanin (186) on Wednesday December 19 2018, @04:43AM (#776173) Journal

      The jury probably won't deciding if he should pay for reupholstering the thief's car interior. No, the plaintiff will be the sweet mom and her 5 year old kid who was playing in the front yard, got run over when the bomb exploded in the thief's car and the thief lost control, and the kid is now a mangled parapalegic with one arm, a grotesque face, and a wheelchair that looks like it would be sufficient for mars expeditions.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by cmdrklarg on Wednesday December 19 2018, @02:42PM (1 child)

        by cmdrklarg (5048) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 19 2018, @02:42PM (#776319)

        Does not matter to me. I'd want to know where this booby trap in the car came from, and why it was in his car. Nope, the ultimate responsibility lies with the thief.

        --
        The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
        • (Score: 1) by DeVilla on Thursday December 20 2018, @05:52AM

          by DeVilla (5354) on Thursday December 20 2018, @05:52AM (#776707)

          "Why was this guy unboxing a cell phone while driving!"

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @02:59PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @02:59PM (#776323)

        No. It would be the thief's fault. Why is the thief opening the package while driving? Opening boxes while driving seems like a pretty bad idea. Why is the thief going fast enough in a residential area where they can't slam on the brakes and stop in 5 feet?

        • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday December 19 2018, @05:15PM

          by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday December 19 2018, @05:15PM (#776389)

          This.
          Unless you have an actual explosion or other event causing injury or disabling the driver, they're responsible for keeping control of their vehicle at all times.
          Glitter bomb to the eyes would be disabling, but opening it at eye level is clearly distracted driving.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Tuesday December 18 2018, @07:37PM (22 children)

    by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Tuesday December 18 2018, @07:37PM (#775997) Homepage Journal

    Ponder if the thief opens the package in a car, the glitter goes off, gets in the thief's eyes, they crash into another car and some unrelated third party dies.

    Except it's not a booby-trapped package. From TFS:

    The main feature of the device is a spinning cup on the top which contains a large amount of glitter. When activated, it ejects glitter in every directions.

    As such, your concerns about liability are misplaced. I could see a lawsuit where the glitter got in someone's eye and blinded them. Or they inhaled/swallowed the glitter and had an allergic reaction.

    Beyond that, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of risk there, and that's what homeowners' insurance is for anyway.

    What's more, when the popo show up at such a thief's door (with the video of them stealing) and the thief is still trying to get rid of the glitter on his/her clothes, car and house, that's even more evidence.

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 18 2018, @08:01PM (16 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 18 2018, @08:01PM (#776015)

      From the video most were opened in cars, sometimes by an accomplice not the driver. A glitter / fart bomb is certainly enough to distract attention, which could cause a fatal accident if opened while driving.

      Not to say I'm non their side or anything, I think this is rad. It just could have gone poorly.

      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 18 2018, @09:13PM (13 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 18 2018, @09:13PM (#776049)

        In the law, you need to prove more than the sine qua non, you also need to prove legal causation. In that regard, the glitter/fart bomb, is less proximate than the behavior of the driver, an accident or injury is not reasonably foreseeable despite the heightened risk due to the required intervention of the driver, less efficient than the behavior of the driver.

        In addition, even if you punched through all of that, there is even more layers to such a tort, including whether there was even a duty, a breach, assumption of risk, good faith, comparative negligence or contributory negligence, reasonable defense of property, and more.

        • (Score: 2) by RS3 on Tuesday December 18 2018, @11:00PM

          by RS3 (6367) on Tuesday December 18 2018, @11:00PM (#776097)

          Great response- are you an attorney?

          I'm not, but I would argue that the package contents were known to the addressee, so anyone else who opens it assumes all risks and consequences.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @01:03AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @01:03AM (#776131)

          I opened an air-fryer box today and found an arbitration agreement on top. Can't they just include a manditory arbitration agreement with the glitter bomb?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @01:57AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @01:57AM (#776141)

            No, there has to be some sort of communication of acceptance. An arbitration agreement or express waiver are not a situation where acceptance by silence is allowed in most jurisdictions, although your place or his may be different so IANYL, TINLA, and YMMV.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @05:02AM (9 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @05:02AM (#776179)

          You need to prove proximate cause, think domino chain -- a sequence of events that rely on the previous event happening. In legalese: But for the glitter bomb explosion, would the driver have lost control and caused the incident? To put this the opposite way: would the driver have lost control in that instant if there was no glitter bomb exploding in his face?

          To top it off, the standard of proof will be a preponderance of the evidence: is it more probable than not probable (*) that the glitter bomb led to a sequence of events that caused the incident?

          (*) if something is more probable than not probable, that means the certainty level is greater than a coin toss, greater than 50%. So if a jury is 50.0001% confident that the glitter bomb set the chain of events in motion, plaintiff wins. The preponderance of the evidence standard leaves a massive amount of room for doubt. Contemplate the implications of a trial in which you could lose everything where evidence that is a feather's weight over pure chance, is all it takes for entry to the poor house.

          IAAL, parent poster sounds like an Allstate defense lawyer. I'd bet every nickel I ever had or ever will have and any I could borrow, that if the glitter bomb went off in a car and immediately thereafter someone unrelated to and wholly innocent of the theft was injured or killed by the car of a driver impaired by that glitter bomb, the bomb maker is going to be paying damages.

          All that said -- his device is pure awesome. Glad nobody did get hurt. He should stop putting it out now.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @05:44AM (4 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @05:44AM (#776192)

            The problem with that reasoning is that you are not looking at the entirety of the decision chain. After placing the package on your porch, there are countless intervening causes-in-fact, not the least of which is the one where the thief made the decision to open the package. And that act is the proximate trigger to the chain. The driver is the one who decided to open and look at the contents while driving. The driver is the one with the last clear chance of preventing the whole incident and the only way anyone else could be responsible is through the decisions that person makes. If you are driving and opening packages, then anything inside of them could distract enough to cause an incident, whether or not it is a trap. What if he was shipping $30,000 of gold coins and someone stole it and opened it while driving (on a pure causal standpoint, not breach or duty)? Plus, the driver also has the ability to mitigate after it goes off; and if they didn't, then they would have crashed regardless of what is in it, which again means the glitter wasn't the proximate cause of the accident.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @06:28AM (3 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @06:28AM (#776200)

              But for placing an enticing bomb on the porch, none of the rest of the chain happens. The bomber will get figuratively slain in a civil trial if an injury occurs.

              Like I said, I'd bet everything on the bomber facing liability in this situation (I'll grant that thief will share liability). None of it happens without a bomb and the rest is all just hand-waving what-ifs that may or may not have caused something bad to happen in a comparatively unforeseeable fashion. Bad things happening from a bomb? That's basically a given.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @07:04AM (2 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @07:04AM (#776209)

                I better stop ordering live crickets and other feeders from Amazon then. After all, if some porch pirate steals them, opens them while driving, gets more distracted, and crashes, then I'm in hot water since I left them out to be snatched and opened in the car. Better bring in Amazon and USPS as my cross or third-party defendant too, since they sent it to me so it is also their fault it was left on the porch. I'd better also tell the car manufacturers to remove their radios and other car systems that might distract the thief and cause an accident too.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @04:07PM (1 child)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @04:07PM (#776356)

                  If you can't see the difference between a box of crickets which are not intentionally designed to blow up in one's face, and glitter bomb which is, you are a walking liability machine. Save up, you're going to need it.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @07:32PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @07:32PM (#776454)

                    And if you can't see that both have the same distraction potential, and that the only thing that sets off either is the driver's decision to open them while driving. It is the same reason why we hold people liable for people receiving or sending texts while driving, but not the non-drivers who sent or received those texts, even if they know the person is driving. Under your theory, sending a text to someone who could receive it while driving would make you liable to an accident they cause, as it is reasonably foreseeable that intentionally sending them a signal that could distract them at a key moment could cause the accident.

          • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday December 19 2018, @05:28PM (3 children)

            by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday December 19 2018, @05:28PM (#776396)

            My not-a-lawyer gut feeling is that the outcome might turn different if the resulting accident is a criminal case vs a civil case, where the threshold to get convicted is lower.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @06:49PM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @06:49PM (#776429)

              The standard of proof to prove liability in civil cases is "preponderance of the evidence" -- this means if the jury is convinced that the there is connection above pure change between defendant's actions and plaintiff's injuries, plaintiff wins. In other words, if the jury 50.1% certain there is a connection, and 49.9% uncertain about the connection, plaintiff wins.

              • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday December 19 2018, @06:59PM (1 child)

                by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday December 19 2018, @06:59PM (#776435)

                Man, that sucks ... I only have enough proof to get my jury up to 50.0364% !

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @07:19PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @07:19PM (#776445)

                  Different AC, but one of the best attorneys around here explains it like this:

                  What we are basically asking you to do is to decide, how well did the plaintiff prove his case and then put it on a scale from zero to ten. Zero, you rule for the plaintiff and 10 you rule for the defendant. But what about the numbers in between? You have to round them to either zero or 10. Think back to when you were in school. Do you remember when your teacher taught rounding to you? I bet you know that you round to the nearest number, so 3 is zero and 7 is 10, when you round. Well, what about when it is exactly half way? The extra-smart among you already know that when you are exactly 1/2, exactly at 5, then you round that up to one. Well folks, that is what I want you to do. Put the case on a scale and then round to zero or ten.

      • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday December 19 2018, @05:41AM (1 child)

        by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Wednesday December 19 2018, @05:41AM (#776190) Homepage Journal

        From the video most were opened in cars, sometimes by an accomplice not the driver.

        Geez Louise! You expect me to RTFA (or, in this case, WTFV)?

        TFS gave me the impression that it was a device separate from the package, rather than the "package" itself.

        That's was an erroneous assumption and I was wrong. Oops. Oh well.

        As to liability, I imagine that if I were to rig such a device with a GPS, where movement of more than a couple hundred meters would trigger the device, and the device activated in a moving vehicle, causing injury and/or an accident, all liability would rest on whoever stole the package. Because the thief actively created the conditions for this to happen. Had he/she not stolen the device, nothing would have happened.

        Contrariwise, if I were to be alerted by the GPS that the device had moved and I then activated the device with the knowledge (and quite possibly the data to confirm, in near real-time) that the device could be in motion (e.g. in a moving car), and injury and/or accident occurred, I suppose could be considered a civil tort and, possibly, even a criminal act.

        N.B: IANAL, but I saw one from across a crowded room once. It was terrifying!

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
        • (Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Thursday December 20 2018, @12:07PM

          by Pslytely Psycho (1218) on Thursday December 20 2018, @12:07PM (#776770)

          You really ought to watch the video. It's fucking hilarious.
          He doesn't trigger the device at all, nor does it trigger from simple movement. Opening it triggers the device.
          It is an amazing device as well, tosses glitter and sprays fart spray. Uses four cellphones that have a 360 degree view and are hidden within a printed housing, auto uploads so if it's lost the video isn't.

          I've seen a few others with minor explosives that go bang when the box is picked up, but this is a work of art...

          --
          Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Bot on Wednesday December 19 2018, @12:33AM (3 children)

      by Bot (3902) on Wednesday December 19 2018, @12:33AM (#776122) Journal

      When you drive you don't open packages. Still 100% driver's responsibility.
      Or is it my fault if I phone a guy and he replies when driving and crashes?
      Stop removing responsibility from society, you are already sheep enough.

      --
      Account abandoned.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @05:17AM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @05:17AM (#776181)

        Someone sends you a package bomb. You open it in your car and it kills you. The police will deem this your fault and if they find the person who sent the bomb to you, they'll shake their heads and say "whelp, the dead guy shoulda never opened the bomb, nothing we can do here, you're free to go."

        LOL -- Ask Ted Kaczynski if he tried that defense.

        No what will actually happen is that there may be some joint liability between you and the bomber if your car hits someone else, but to think the bomber gets off scott free? totally nuts.

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @03:13PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @03:13PM (#776332)

          Your example if highly flawed. The package was not sent to the driver of the car. The package was *stolen* by the driver of the car. There is a huge difference there.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Thursday December 20 2018, @03:33AM

          by Immerman (3985) on Thursday December 20 2018, @03:33AM (#776651)

          Also, unlike an explosive, the glitter bomb is relatively harmless on its own. Which should be defense enough - otherwise nobody could afford to produce snakes-in-a-can and other novelty products that might startle you when driving, walking along the top of a cliff, etc.

    • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday December 19 2018, @04:44AM

      by hemocyanin (186) on Wednesday December 19 2018, @04:44AM (#776174) Journal

      Good luck getting your homeowner's insurance to cough up a defense for an intentional act.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by sjames on Tuesday December 18 2018, @07:52PM

    by sjames (2882) on Tuesday December 18 2018, @07:52PM (#776009) Journal

    On the other hand, the thief cannot report you at all without confessing to a crime. In many jurisdictions, any liability for harm that comes to anybody in the commission of a crime falls upon the criminal(s). The booby traps that are illegal are generally things such as bombs, shotgun wired to a door, tiger pits, etc that are designed to cause bodily harm. Glitter and fart spray simply don't rise to that level.

    The DA will have to consider that they would be seen as prosecuting a local minor hero for pranking the lowest form of life that richly deserved what they got. The king of thing an opponent would bring up during the next election.

    There is a long history of such packages being made and used against package thieves including stink bombs and spring loaded garbage ejectors. I've never heard of an attempt to prosecute the person who made the package.

    My only suggestion would be replace the fart spray with a more vigorously aerosolized artificial skunk spray. That stuff lingers. If they're going to be dirty skunks, they should smell like dirty skunks.

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by edIII on Wednesday December 19 2018, @12:46AM

    by edIII (791) on Wednesday December 19 2018, @12:46AM (#776127)

    The "bomb" should go off long before they get into a car. He is using geo-fencing, so there shouldn't be a reason why the "bomb" goes off in a car while driving. It should go off a few feet outside of the the fence, and the fence should clearly be the sidewalk.

    Get rid of the glitter anyways, and replace that with the same ink they use in the banks to mark thieves.

    --
    Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @02:39AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @02:39AM (#776148)

    Yeah, whatever. They’re thieves. The correct response is actually a .308 in to their heads from a couple hundred yards out. They should be thankful they were dealing with someone so nice.

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @03:39AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @03:39AM (#776163)

    His booby trap was pretty mild, unlike the ones I set.

    Mind you, this all took place back in 1985-86. I drove a convertible and got tired of people stealing my coat out of it. They'd get it unlocked somehow -- I don't exactly know how, maybe a hangar wire stuck between the ragtop and the door window? Anyway, I had a friend in Texas who was in the business of catching rattlesnakes. That's right, you probably guessed. I put a rattlesnake in a box, wrapped it with a bow and left it in the back seat of my car. The next day, it was gone. I didn't lose another coat that year.

    The next year when my coat got stolen, I repeated the gag. What fun! I did make sure to watch the news and read the papers for a few days but I never heard anything about a snake-bite victim. They get pretty sluggish in the cold anyway, and the rattle gives it away, so...

    Stealing packages. It's like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get.

  • (Score: 2) by Fluffeh on Wednesday December 19 2018, @04:25AM

    by Fluffeh (954) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 19 2018, @04:25AM (#776170) Journal

    I'm also not a lawyer, but if I understand correctly, most of the cases that involve a booby trap, the trap is on the premises eg break in and a crossbow shoots you in the ass. This then happens DURING the alleged crime taking place. In this case however, any potential "damage" happens long after the crime has been committed, and rights are waved after a crime has occurred if they happen as a direct cause of the crime.

    Could be wrong. Again, just my take. I'd be willing to take my chances on this one as well if I made this particular little gizmo!

  • (Score: 2) by stretch611 on Thursday December 20 2018, @04:27AM

    by stretch611 (6199) on Thursday December 20 2018, @04:27AM (#776676)

    Your are absolutely correct.

    Instead he should use an incendiary device. This way he can severely maim the thief and destroy all the evidence linking back to himself.

    --
    Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P