Instead of constructing all those "traps" recently shown on the internet, wouldn't it be more efficient just to build a deposit box for the packages, which, like a letter box can recieve parcels, but not take from?
Or the post office can have a secure storage house where undeliverable packages are held for up to a week, and they leave you a notice to come pick it up.
After the guy with the package has the girl who tried to steal come back to his porch, he tells her to get a job while weilding a gun and she lists off excuses why she doesn't. Perhaps she made excuses for her own self-preservation, but I feel like that part really shows how they practically live in different worlds. It's scary, and I know people who feel similarly to her. I wonder, what structures exist to help such people get into the workforce?
To be clear: I'm not excusing her actions (they were very deliberate and wrong), nor am I saying thieves are all just victims of circumstances. But I do think that bridging the gap between those two worlds would be helpful for both of them.
Still think we need a jobs board that can someone parse all of the available jobs in each city that do not do drug tests. (and ones that hire even if you have felony record)
Along with added info for bus routes to this job, daycare near this job with hours, closest place you could afford to live if you had this job. Government assistance you qualify if you had this job, how long it takes to get all that.
there is obviously a need for workers and a need for employers. Job board tech has gotten better in a few ways, yet it still does not serve the undeserved as well as it could.
A tech solution would help the same way that google maps having info right there in app and visible for options for bussing / rideshare , etc helps people using maps to get around.
It's all out there already? Is it though? I am not aware of any source of jobs that do not test for drugs or felony. Maybe there is a reddit thread or forum somewhere I am not aware of? I have not looked for that specifically, only looked at the main job finding resourcing on the first page of google in my area.
So to make it work, I think first a need to find all the jobs that people can actually not waste time reading about and applying for - only list jobs that do not test.
Have additional options for selecting distance, transportation, childcare, which programs they will not qualify for based upon checkboxes like felonies - and all that that becomes barriers would be helpful as well.
I have engaged beggars / homeless in our city many times over the years (and I do not engage purposely most of the time). When I find challenges I don't know the answer to I look up what I can find.
Some things are hard (won't sleep / eat at the mission due to a real conflict with the forced religious sermon) - I get that. Some things are easy when you have broadband, a big screen, the mental capacity to search and call and find and put together pieces of the puzzle...
Easy for me to look up things does not make it easy for others to put it all together - and I have not seen any resource that adds a checkbox to filter options based upon drug test passabl-ity, felony on record, things like that.
One guy down the street says he can't get food stamps and similar things because of felony.
I'd love to be able to point to a resource and save time for people. At the moment I can't think of any resource that lists jobs people can get without tests. Even good resources like indeed which give you nice location based results, you still spend tons of time scrolling through things that sound great until you get to the bottom of the listing and the requirements, and most don't even list all the requirements (tests for example).
Certainly the bigger problem with people feeling they need to steal in order to eek out a living in the US society is going to take more than tech to fix - but here is something that should be simple to add some solution to the mix, and yet it's still not done - for many reasons I'm sure.
He would have been better off chasing her off the porch with a 12 gauge shotgun, firing blanks into the air. You basically have to make it super painful for them so they won't try to do it again.
I didn't downvote you, but I think whoever did downvote you did it because you missed the important parts of my comment. To summarize, the thief and the person with the shotgun "practically live in different worlds" and "bridging the gap between those two worlds would be helpful for both of them"
Shooting blanks and chasing someone away doesn't bridge the gap, it widens it. I'd argue that many thieves may come away from that experience NOT thinking "wow, I did a bad thing" but rather thinking "wow, that guy was such a rich asshole who wanted to end my life over A PACKAGE"
We don't need thieves thinking that the people they're stealing from deserve it. We need to get thieves to relate and sympathize with the people who they're considering stealing from - maybe thay way, they won't actually steal in the first place! And also, as my comment harped on, we need to take away excuses for thievery. Ensure that people who might turn to theft CAN get a job, and without tooooo much difficulty. Chasing someone away with a gun does not help out with these things.
In this particular case the cops refused to act. And your solution somehow forces the criminals to feel empathy.
Not everyone can feel empathy, notably sociopaths. And trying to rationalize with a sociopath about why he should feel empathy, seem problematic from the start. And that girl that stole the package off his porch is more likely to be a sociopath than the average citizen.
In states like Texas, it is legal to defend personal property with lethal force. The reason behind this is simple. If you're a rancher defending your cattle and the nearest sheriff is an hour away, the only means of defending your property is with a shotgun.
And if you're trying to defend your property and the cops are unable or unwilling to offer their protection, then warning shots with a shotgun seem like the best solution.
I was born and raised in Texas, I still live in DFW, and I'm aware of the law here.
I'm also aware of sociopaths and their symptoms, but I see no correlation between them and thieves. Googling revealed no studies or data on the topic. But I'd argue that most thieves are like most normal human beings, and that their theft happens towards the few people they don't have empathy towards. Just because you don't have empathy for a demographic (my guess: thieves tend to have less empathy for rich people) doesn't mean you're a sociopath, it means you have a prejudice. Everyone has some prejudice whether they like it or not, but we are not all sociopaths. In fact, there are many other symptoms that manifest within sociopaths, and you'll have a tough time showing that most thieves have them as well.
It's not that I don't have empathy for a demographic (sociopaths/psycopaths), it's just they are incapable of feeling empathy, so showing them some will not be an effective deterrent.
>> Googling revealed no studies or data on the topic.
> Ergo, there must be no articles on the subject, right?
Not at all what I said. In fact, my very next sentence was clearly making a guess, and it was just the opposite of your guess (without evidence, all we can do is guess).
> I would probably start with this one. [link]
That link is to a list of studies, not a single study. Also, they are studies of "crime", which includes things like "arsony" and "homicide", not just "package theft"
Those studies are useless to figure out how likely it is for package thieves to be sociopaths. A study on thieves specifically would be better, but if it made no distinction between violent and non-violent thieves it would also be pretty useless. Package thieves are being very non-violent by stealing packages on porches (hoping to not run into anyone) rather than violent thieves that may walk into homes and rob/kill people.
> It's not that I don't have empathy for a demographic
I didn't say you did, and I'm sorry if you thought I was implying that. I never meant to discuss your empathy. In fact, if you read my comment again, you may notice I'm actually talking about thieves lacking empathy for demographics, and I'm calling that prejudice (not sociopathy/psychopathy).
Unless you have a (good, not shitty) study that demonstrates a clear correlation between package thieves (or non-violent thieves in general) and significantly higher chances of them being sociopaths/psychopaths than normal people, your argument is based on conjecture that such a thing is true. By contrast, my argument relies on package thieves having similar chances of sociopaths/psychopaths to people who society doesn't deem as "theieves" - even if package thieves are a little bit more prone to being sociopaths/psychopaths that most people, my argument still holds because wouldn't be so many sociopathic/psychopathic package thieves that helping some would be a bad idea. You'd need there to be a small percentage of non-sociopathic/psychopathic package thieves to show that there is no point in trying to use empathy with most package thieves
Not everyone can feel empathy, notably sociopaths. And trying to rationalize with a sociopath about why he should feel empathy, seem problematic from the start. And that girl that stole the package off his porch is more likely to be a sociopath than the average citizen.
More likely, but still almost certainly not, although if you’re a fan of shooting people over property crimes it’s not hard to understand why it would help to see everyone as lacking essential human qualities you value.
I understood, but I understand a few other things too. Shooting at or near something is not the foolproof activity movies might lead some to believe. It’s also monumentally stupid to bring a gun into play unless you’re willing to use it for its intended purpose. You don’t draw a weapon until you intend to use it, don’t point it at anything you’re not prepared to destroy. Even if you don’t care about accidentally killing someone (including a neighbor you didn’t see for example) it is all too common that people have their weapon taken and used against them.
A gun is not a tool to make threats, it’s a tool to kill things. Respect that. The other people who hear the gunshot will, many police officers will, and in the worst case the person you’re seeking to threaten will too and you’ll be another statistic.
To clarify this video isn't linked in the article (at least not anymore). It really turns this guy from a sympathetic figure to a douche IMHO. FTR I'm a staunch supporter of gun rights and the US 2nd amendment (I believe it guarantees a certain level of decentralization, but that's irrelevant to the point I'm about to make), but this guy coming out and yelling at her while holding a shotgun is totally inappropriate, as is him posting this video of her on the internet presumably without her permission. True he didn't point the shotgun at her (at which point she would have been justified using deadly force, should she have been carrying a weapon herself), but simply holding it is a douche move meant to intimidate unnecessarily. No reasonable person would think she posed an imminent physical threat to him (therefore justifying the calling forth of his weapon). She was trying to flee and he called her back! Posting to the internet also isn't going to help her problems finding a job.
It does have a mostly happy ending, but he's lucky she wasn't armed herself.
>at which point she would have been justified using deadly force, should she have been carrying a weapon herself
I suppose you missed the part where she tried to steal from him on his property? Regardless of the lack of moral justification for her to turn a theft into an armed robbery, WA is a castle doctrine state.
If you don't want guns pointed at you, don't steal from innocent people, especially not at their homes.
I'm not familiar with WA state gun laws, but Alaska (where I am familiar) is a castle doctrine state too, but you aren't allowed to shoot someone in the back who is fleeing even if they did just try to rob you. It also matters whether the person is inside the house, or simply outside but on the property. I don't know for certain, but I don't believe you can use deadly for to protect property either, only life.
> If you don't want guns pointed at you, don't steal from innocent people, especially not at their homes.
I'll agree with you there, although I will state that it's poor firearm practice to point at something you don't intend to shoot (I know he didn't point it at her, just stating as a general rule since many people that read this board are totally unfamiliar with firearms).
I also don't think he really thought he was in any danger, as evidenced by the fact that he opened the door before calling for his weapon. If he really thought he was in danger, that would have been a foolish mistake.
That all said, I do cut the guy some slack because adrenaline makes us do and say things that we may never have done if rational faculties were engaged. This is why training is so important. You fall back on your training when adrenaline kicks in. If you have no training, you'll most assuredly do something unwise that you will regret later with a clear head.
> but you aren't allowed to shoot someone in the back who is fleeing even if they did just try to rob you.
This will probably vary from state to state and maybe even from locality to locality. A gas station attendant in Indiana shot and killed a man fleeing from an attempted hold-up. The police cleared the attendant.
If a person is willing to steal something off a front porch, you can't make the assumption that they're unarmed, and won't turn around and shoot you.
It’s very loud but technically harmless, Barrow said.
A 12ga shotgun round, when fired, emits a sound of about 165 dB SPL, re 20 uPa.
That is more than enough to cause immediate and permanent damage to anyone close by who is not wearing hearing protection, so I’m calling BS on this claim.
This is not so much a prank or deterrent device as it is a very justified lawsuit waiting to happen. I’ve watched the assembly video and there’s no evidence of any baffles or other noise intensity reduction devices, so this sure looks like someone’s getting the full noise level whenever it goes off.
Blanks are significantly quieter than regular rounds (not sure if the dB level you posted took that into consideration or not). In fact, you don't really need hearing protection with blanks at all. In the military we trained with blanks all the time without hearing protection, and they are anal about OSHA standards.
But I agree, it's a lawsuit waiting to happen. I would not recommend anybody do this.
hmm. A starter pistol is ~145 dB, and that’s a .22 blank.
i’m guessing you’re still well into “OSHA says there’s no safe exposure duration” territory... but i have not found a source for a shotgun blank sound intensity.
The publicity for all this nonsense is getting a little bit silly. Especially considering all the fanfare of the drone delivery vaporware announced prior to Holiday/Christmas 2016 season, which still has only extremely select, limited, niche pilot zones, mostly taking advantage of weather and isolation in desertified areas.
So we're arriving at a place where usage saturates norms beyond their capacity for civilized utility, much like in 1999 when file sharing suffered, all because the unprepared entertainment industry unleashed a violent backlash and counter campaign against Napster. From which, arguably, file sharing in general has never recovered (due to willful poisoning with malware, and fear/doubt spreading with highly publicized, yet rare child pornography pursuit and prosecution, which was then subsequently incentivized with paid informant programs leading to evidence fabrication, and perpetrator/suspect framing, no less), was destroyed, and now, we have a handful of centralized, moderated, controlled streaming services instead, all watching our every move.
So, what will this drop-off delivery arms race bring? Glitter bombs? Shotgun shells? Partially automated remote control (and over-hyped) quad-copter delivery? What else?
