> it seems oddly ironic that a proportionately harmless response to a thief (caught in the act) would be more likely to see prosecution than the act of theft itself.

In certain jurisdictions the ideological pendulum (closely followed by official public policy) has swung a little too far toward idea that criminals have no agency and are victims of an unfair system that forces them to commit crime to get by and that prosecuting minor crimes is a path to further criminality.

The idea is that by not prosecuting certain crimes we can prevent people from becoming criminals at the ground floor which will prevent them getting stuck in a loop where they can't get a real job and have to commit crime to survive and become a career criminal. While this is not totally baseless and is something I generally agree with there's a categorical difference between applying this thinking to victimless crimes and crimes with a victim (a trap which pretty much all real world implementations fall into).

In the case of petty victimless crimes where there's disagreement over whether or not the crime should be a crime at all (e.g. weed possession) having a don't prosecute by default policy is fine IMO. For petty crime with a victim that pretty much everyone agrees should be a crime (like petty theft) having a don't prosecute by default is stupid because it increases crime in order to score political virtue points for the people who implement it at the expense of the community as a whole (I'm looking at your SF and your failure to prosecute minor property crimes, yes I'm fully aware this will not be a popular opinion circa 9am and 12pm West Coast time).

If locking up the criminal will only make it worse, then do something else. Take the crime as an opportunity to remove them from their criminal environment. Or let them do community service. There are tons of better options than locking people up.

But intentionally doing nothing about theft is just harmful. It rewards the crime and breeds vigilantism.

I believe your point is based on a false premise: that people commit crime because they don't see a better option.

A lot of times people commit crime for the same reasons they eat unhealthy, fight with their family members, and get addicted to harmful behavior. They aren't thinking long term and they don't care about the consequences that much.

There is no political or economic system that you can design that will keep people from being stupid.

There are different reasons why people commit crimes. Some do out of need: they don't see a better option. Others do so out of opportunity: it's easy and they can get away with it. And I suppose a rare group does it out of a commitment to pure evil.

I have very different degrees of sympathy for these groups. The first group needs access to better options. The second group needs to be held accountable. The third group cannot really be allowed to participate in our society.

I agree on all those points.

We might disagree on the prevalence of each group.

First, you're unlikely to be prosecuted for setting a trap for a thief. Your liability is almost certainly civil, not criminal. Second, have you found many cases where a thief sued their victim without themselves facing charges for the theft?

not exactly harmless if it gets you in the eye..

I just could not have less sympathy for a thief who injurs himself while stealing. It's bizarre that we live in a world where this is controversial.

It's not bizarre. There's a concept of proportionality. Also of latent cruelty. I don't want someone to steal my packages, but I would feel bad if they were blinded or maimed stealing something that ultimately I can afford to lose. People > Property.

EDIT> I think part of why the glitter fart bomb works so well is that it has a sense of humour, and that the designer doesn't come off as cruel.

There’s also a sense of justice and personal responsibility. It’s not hard not to steal, and thieves shouldn’t expect safety. Anyway, compassion is a privilege, not a right.

Noone said anything about sympathy. And lack of sympathy is irrelevant to legal liability.

Ok, let me spell it out: that the law protects criminals and punishes innocent citizens in such cases is indicative of a problem with the law. And yes, defending your property from theft is categorically "innocent".

Booby traps are not "innocent". What happens if you stop responding and paramedics are sent to your property? They get paintballed because they approached your porch at night when there should have been no visitors?

What happens if you put a car airbag in a booby trapped package, and someone steals the package and brings it home. Then later that day their child or spouse finds and opens the package not realizing it was stolen. Boooom, an airbag in their face and they're seriously injured.

We don't need a world where we're surrounded by booby traps. It's a disaster waiting to happen because there are countless edge cases that people wouldn't consider.

We're quickly moving towards a future with door bell cameras and facial recognition software. We also have more parcel lockers showing up in different cities and neighborhoods where you can have packages safely delivered, available for pickup 24/7. These are better alternatives than setting traps.

We're not talking about liability when a trap injures an innocent person; of course the innocent person would not be held liable. When a trap injures a thief, the thief should be liable.

I agree that traps are a bad idea because I don't trust most people to devise traps that don't harm innocents; however, this is markedly different than the argument that "when a trap hurts a thief, the thief bears no responsibility". Also, the specific scenario we're discussing is a thief getting a bit of glitter in their eye.

Anyway, I welcome any advancement that can help deter thieves (and/or make sure they're prosecuted) while protecting innocent bystanders. I'm not convinced pervasive facial recognition software is the key given the privacy concerns, but maybe it's inevitable. However, all of this is orthogonal to the question of who is culpable for injuries incurred by a thief during a theft.

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.

> 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...

"A reasonable person would not suspect glitter to cause bodily injury" seems like a good defense. Setting a trap that can maim is obviously dumb, for the reasons you mention.

Then the thief would be liable, same as if you commit an illegal act and get somebody shot.

Proving things in court is much less efficient, and more likely to harm those who are innocent, than to make sure the crime is punished immediately.

Trapping is a form of vigilantism and subject to the same problems. What happens when a little kid walking with their parents runs over and picks up the box randomly, and gets show in the eye with a paintball?

There is a reason we don't want a society where that kind of thing is OK.

Proportionality is a thing. I think spraying someone with glitter is fine. Shooting someone in the back would not be innocent.

To be clear, we were talking about a theif getting a little glitter in their eye; I understand why shooting someone is controversial.

You understand why shooting someone is controversial, but you don't understand why recklessly causing someone to go blind is controversial?

This is a silly comment. You're more likely to blind someone with the dust your car kicks up as you drive by them, and such a person would be actually innocent as opposed to our hypothetical vision-impaired thief.

Likelihood of injury is irrelevant. If your actions recklessly caused the injury of another person, you are liable for them, even if there was only a 1 in a trillion chance of it happening.

And yes, by the way, if you drive by someone knowing that by doing so you will launch debris towards another person in a manner that could injure them, and your car kicks up a rock and hits that person in the head, you would also be liable.

Innocence is also irrelevant, as you do not have the right to injure another person, even if they stole from you.

I think you're only liable if a "reasonable person" would have expected that result.

Your comment "And yes, defending your property from theft is categorically "innocent" sounded stronger. Glad to be in agreement with you.

Granted. Trying to be terse but nuanced. Glad we got it sorted though.

If your defense against theft ends up killing the thief do you think you shouldn't be liable?

The point is that at some point an "innocent" citizen crosses a line and is no longer innocent. We are just debating where the line should be.

> If your defense against theft ends up killing the thief do you think you shouldn't be liable?

That depends. Are we talking about a thief who was accidentally killed in a brawl with the property owner (or the troublesome death-by-glitter scenario that some in this thread are so concerned about)? Or a property owner who subdues, binds, and executes the thief? I'm open to arguments that it should be illegal to use lethal force against thieves when it's 100% clear that the thief poses no physical danger to the victim. I also believe that the property owner generally bears responsibility if their traps or other defenses are mistakenly employed against an innocent party. But in general, any injuries a thief incurs during a theft should be his own responsibility, and I'm okay with a world in which thieves live in fear of committing thefts.

It comes down to proportionality.

I don't think anyone would disagree that generally stealing is wrong and people who do it in general deserve to face consequences. But the consequences should be proportionate to the crime. I don't think anyone deserves to die for petty theft, regardless of circumstances.

It seems like you are suggesting that if someone takes a $50 package off of my front porch, and then I come outside to confront them, and in the altercation this person makes a threatening gesture towards me then I would be within my rights to use lethal force.

That seems like a disproportionate escalation to me.

Anyway I think we just disagree about some of these proportionality issues.

If someone steals something, that doesn't mean they automatically lose all of their rights to life and property simply because in your mind they are now a "criminal".

Defense is not about punishment. Thieves don’t deserve to die, but it’s okay that it’s a risk they run. As an aside, I see this all the time, usually in conversations about self-defense—“a rapist doesn’t deserve to die”; maybe not but they sure deserve to run the risk and they certainly deserve worse than their victims. At least they have a _choice_.

> Thieves don’t deserve to die, but it’s okay that it’s a risk they run.

Why is that okay?

Because they have the agency and can trivially choose to forego the risks. Why should thieves be guaranteed safety? What else should we fournish for them? A guaranteed minimum haul? :)

Innocence in this sense isn't binary.

Is the death penalty issued for thievery?

It is absolutely not categorically innocent. I don't know why you think it is.

It is by definition. You're simply mistaken.

No, it is not. It is in fact explicitly illegal to do a great many of things, even in defense of your own property.

It is. “Legal” != “moral”.

The very first sentence of your comment says "the law...". This is a discussion about the law, aka legal issues. Morality is not, and never was, in question.

Stop moving the goalposts, it makes you look silly.

And just for the hell of it, no, it is not categorically innocent even when talking about morals, either. Morality is, by definition, something that is personal to each person. Therefor there can be no such thing as "categorical innocence", as moral innocence will be different for each person.

We’re debating the morality of the law. My comment is criticizing the law. You’re trying to argue that the law is morally correct based on a legal definition of innocence (and probably also defense).

And while each person may have their own opinion about morality, every society in the world has decided that theft is wrong enough to outlaw, so clearly morality isn’t purely subjective (certainly not by definition). Similarly, every society respects an individual’s right to defend themselves (note that “defense” here is defined as some minimal force required to confidently stop an aggressor thereby excluding things like executing an aggressor after he’s been subdued) so clearly this is moral as well.

Please don’t accuse me of moving goal posts. It’s clear that I haven’t. If you can’t participate in good faith this conversation is over.

>You’re trying to argue that the law is morally correct

Find one place where I said that the law is morally correct. I'll save your trouble: you can't, because I never did so.

So now not only are you moving the goalposts, but you're setting up a strawman. Nice. Two fallacies for the price of one.

This conversation has been about the law and legal liability since the beginning. Nobody brought up morality until you did in your attempt to, yes, move the goalposts. It is very clear that you have done so, and it's absurd of you to accuse me of not participating in good faith, when you're doing all you can possibly do to avoid admitting that your argument is ridiculous.