Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

YouTuber's Glitter Bomb 2.0 Slaps Back at Package Thieves

posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday December 17 2019, @09:01AM   Printer-friendly
from the he's-back!! dept.

MrPlow writes in with a submission, via IRC, for SoyCow4408.

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/

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived.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
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: 4, Interesting) by richtopia on Tuesday December 17 2019, @07:57PM (1 child)

    by richtopia (3160) on Tuesday December 17 2019, @07:57PM (#933379) Homepage Journal

    The glitter bomb is designed to be non-lethal and non-harmful, so I assume it should be safe from legal retribution (not legal advice, IANAL).

    If you would like to read on the case that defined the precedence of booby-traps read up on Katko v Briney. This case had a spring loaded shotgun aimed at a bedroom door so a trespasser would be shot if the door is opened. From Wikipedia:

    The Court ruled that using deadly force on intruders in an unoccupied property was not reasonable or justified. Briney would have been justified in defending himself with the shotgun if he had been home during the intrusion. The plaintiff's status as a trespasser is irrelevant when assessing liability in this case.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katko_v._Briney [wikipedia.org]

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   4  

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 17 2019, @11:57PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 17 2019, @11:57PM (#933488)

    You can be liable for any act that is negligent. Your good intent does not matter. Praying for your child to get better while denying them medical care? Still your fault no matter how well intentioned. You owe a duty to prevent unreasonable harm to others. The fact that someone is a thief does not change that duty, only the measure of reasonableness, which never reaches serious physical harm to protect property. There is a good chance that a finder of fact would consider blinding (or other serious damage to) a thief or any damage to third parties to be reasonably foreseeable and unreasonable.

    Not that any of this matters. Last year's video was fake, so this one was likely faked too.