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This discussion has been archived.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.
Most of our lives are about proving something, either to ourselves or to
someone else.
(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.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.