SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Just in time for all those holiday packages stacking up at your door, former NASA engineer Mark Rober released on Sunday a video of his new and improved "Glitter Bomb Trap 2.0" that exacts stinky, sparkle-filled revenge on porch pirates. The new trap features design upgrades and even more fart spray. Macaulay Culkin, whose character in Home Alone inspired the original viral prank, makes an appearance in the new video.
Source: https://www.cnet.com/news/youtuber-debuts-glitter-bomb-2-0-to-get-back-at-package-thieves/
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
YouTuber's Glitter Bomb 2.0 Slaps Back at Package Thieves
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 32 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
belief, n:
Something you do not believe.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 17 2019, @03:08PM (7 children)
I doubt they checked on the legality of the device. The point isn't the lethality, but rather whether it's deployed automatically without human intervention and causes damage. Waiting for the first person to get busted by this (like get caught and have nothing left to lose) but get glitter in their eyes and have to go to the hospital for a lavage. The creator of the device will be sued for the hospital bill and likely have to pay it. Plus damages if permanent damage is caused by, say, cornea scratches.
OTOH, if they device does require human intervention it could still be construed as an intentional assault depending upon the laws of the jurisdiction regarding ability to use force to stop a crime. For example: Someone trying to steal your package does not necessarily justify your cracking them over the head with a baseball bat and putting them into a coma - it's a disproportional use of force. May be stupid but them's the rules.
They'd be much smarter to use something like pepper spray than glitter IMVHO.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday December 17 2019, @03:14PM (5 children)
Does it actually cause any damage? A lawyer could argue it is a practical joke. Any claims of damages by anyone could be countered by claims of theft of the package from the porch.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 17 2019, @09:33PM (1 child)
Yes. [ceenta.com] And it can cost an eye [cosmopolitan.com]. Granted, that's only one case out of uncountable many.
Yeah, except that the law doesn't really work that way in either case. The action would be that the creation of the bomb, intentional or not or joke or not, caused the damage. Attempted theft or not, there is still a duty of a reasonable and prudent person to not cause unnecessary injury if that injury could be forseen.
That it was done in the commission of a crime isn't relevant; that was settled by the lawsuits where lethal booby traps were used to stop a trespasser. The trespass was only relevant to the amount of force employed against it and booby traps take out the ability to judge what level of force is appropriate - that is why castle doctrine or stand your ground laws are regarded as necessary where they exist. A camera with the GPS is plenty enough evidence to identify the perpetrator - the other elements (glitter and spray) are not necessary. One might even make the case that the fake package was an attractive nuisance (it did not have to be there).
In any events, the people who are trying to do this are actually asking for a costly lawsuit. I'd rather doubt that they'll recover their expenses.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday December 17 2019, @10:06PM
Bomb? I don't seem to recall any pyrotechnics. The glitter was in a 'spinner'. Once the motor spun up, the glitter goes flying out, for what looked like 2 to 3 feet. It ends up on floor, shoes, pants, etc. Now someone could be in just the wrong place to get some in their face.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 17 2019, @09:36PM
Also should have said regarding damage, the fact that cornea scratches and infection are possible are plenty enough justification to demand a trip to the hospital to wash the eyes out.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 18 2019, @12:02AM
It could. But regardless, you can only use reasonable force against a thief to be considered justified, which this might cross. Not to mention traps in general are frowned upon because it is definitely foreseeable that innocent third parties might be harmed and force against innocent bystanders is never justified.
(Score: 3, Informative) by doke on Thursday December 19 2019, @05:43PM
No. It does not cause any damage. It just makes a mess, a bad smell, and plays amusing sounds to scare the thieves. The glitter is bio-degradable, not the glass, plastic, or aluminum grit mentioned in the links in other replies.
This is just a funny prank to teach thieves there are consequences to stealing from their neighbors. In the video, he explains he had reported the issue to the police, and they did nothing.
No one is going sue him, because they would have to publicly admit to being thieves. That would go on their permanent record, and be broadcast on social media. Their friends and any potential employer would see it on the internet. If they were still stupid enough to sue, he can afford a lawyer who would easily point out the plaintiff was offending the judge's intelligence.
(Score: 2) by doke on Thursday December 19 2019, @05:50PM
Please actually watch the video before making uninformed comments. It contains a clear explanation of how the device is triggered, and what it does. The device is triggered by the thief opening the package, not by any operator intervention. It is carefully designed not to cause any harm. It uses a small electric motor to throw bio-degradable giltter a few feet, emit a "fart" smell, and play sounds. There are no explosive compounds. It's a harmless prank.