Ironically, I think there could be a path here to avoiding liability. If the use of these devices (which are harmless except for a distraction element if opened in a car) became famous and very widespread, then there is an argument that the person stealing the package could now reasonably be expected to anticipate this possibility. (I doubt this argument would prevail, but it’s conceivable.)
And the security guard who forgets and gets shot?
The point of the law is that in the case where there is no chance for human life to be at risk, i.e. nobody’s home, the general principle is that it is not a good idea to allow deadly traps. You can’t untake a life and the principle is that taking a life is not something that should be done lightly, and protecting mere property is not a sufficiently high bar to make it ok.
The difference is that if you are there, there is an intelligent will actively directing the actions. Beyond that, if you are there, an intruder presents a potential risk to the physical well-being of a live person. A booby-trap has no discernment and if nobody is home, there’s nobody physically at risk from an intruder.
That’s substantially different. I’m much less likely to pull the trigger on an 8 year old than an automatic booby trap. And if I’m there, I am potentially at risk of physical harm, which would not be the case if I were not there.
So, yes, not so crazy case law on this.
As much as I hope he’s legally in the clear. The fact that we’ve seen this happened in the in the last three videos would suggest to me that not only could he not “not foresee” this, he knows that people will open it in their car.
OTOH, short of an allergic reaction to the fart spray or getting some glitter in your eye or inhaling it, it’s not designed to injure anyone. If someone gets into a car accident because of it, Mark’s team may be able to argue that the driver got into the accident not because of the glitter bomb, but because they were driving while distracted.
It’s should also be noted that there’s no explosion involved. The glitter comes from a rotating object flinging it outward.
When I saw that, I was wondering if that might make it a “spring trap”.
But from that POV, what about other distractions? Can I sue the maker of a radio commercial that thinks it’s a good idea to including the sound of screeching tires if it causes me to swerve or hit the brakes and get into an accident? What about truck riding up next to me and hitting their engine brakes? A women walking down the street without a shirt on? Just a bra and blazer?
In general, it’s not illegal to annoy someone. Sure, I can’t mow my lawn at 1 in the morning because of the noise issues. I don’t think there’s any legal reason I can’t Rick Roll my neighbor every time I see him.
So he says.
Viewers noticed the same people had been showing up. Maybe he is legit, or maybe he’s simply more cautious regarding who appears in the videos. Plenty of people on YouTube etc. stage videos for attention, all I’m saying is that he could be one of 'em.
One might be able to argue that if you’re distracted, to the point of crashing your car, due to hearing a car horn, while driving…maybe you shouldn’t be driving.
I know, I know, it’s a lot louder and a lot closer and it’s coming from a box you opened, I’m just saying that being distracted by a car horn while driving might be a difficult case to make.
We’re looking at different aspects. Of course it’s a bad idea for the reasons you cite. BUT that could be distinct from the case of the clear intruder who gets zapped by the booby-trap. In that case, there’s no innocent, so one could argue that there’s nothing actionable by the intruder’s heirs. Yet the law has not seen it that way.
Anything is possible, but without further evidence I believe his entirely plausible explanation.
I don’t think the “potential innocent person” issue is relevant. Let’s stipulate that the intruder is a criminal. It’s still reasonable to have laws to protect that criminal, even during the commission of a crime, from deliberate disproportionate severe injury or summary execution.
The situation where someone defending their home has a right to shoot is different - the justification is that the person is at risk, not just the property. (And civilized non-redneck jurisdictions don’t allow you to just start shooting without any conditions.)
Exactly this.
Let’s say somebody broke into your house, picked up a TV, and started running and was already halfway across your lawn.
In theory, you can’t just shoot the thief in the back. You are not judge, jury, and executioner. Mere property is not sufficient justification to willfully take a life without repercussion. That’s what juries and trials are supposed to be for. In practice, a DA may opt not to prosecute or a jury may still let you go for it but that’s a separate issue from why we, as a society, don’t consider it crazy to disallow lethal booby traps.
And the reason given is exactly it - if you are physically present in your home, you can protect yourself or anybody else in the house and preserving physical well-being is considered a sufficient justification to harm another human being but your property is not extended the same courtesy.
Note, in case this gets political, this isn’t some kind of liberal/conservative thing. This is the exact reasoning I was given by a (more or less unpaid advertiser for the NRA) firearms instructor in Texas for concealed handgun licensing (this was before the open carry craziness and licensing changes).
Why did you link to an article that you don’t believe? The article has Mark admitting that part of it was staged. But the very same article has him saying that while it was staged, he didn’t know it was happening and took full responsibility. But that part you don’t believe.
I’m not saying you have to believe every line of an article. But you’re accusing him of faking the entire thing and your cite is an admission that one part of this was staged but you don’t believe him that he didn’t know it was staged or that the others weren’t.
I’m not sure if this is considered cherry picking or some type of bias or just extrapolated from a single data point, but as of now there’s no reason to believe your accusation.
To me it seems similar to the exploding dye packs they give to bank robbers. It could certainly cause an accident during the get-away. That’s foreseeable. I’ve never heard of a lawsuit.
A stack of bills fitted with a dye pack is generally stored next to a magnetic plate at a bank teller’s workstation. Under these conditions, it remains in standby or safe mode until a bank employee removes it from the plate and hands it to a robber, causing it to become armed. Once the pack is taken out of the building, a radio transmitter located at the door triggers a timer (typically at least 10 seconds), after which the dye pack explosively releases[7] an aerosol (usually of Disperse Red 9) and sometimes tear gas. The release is intended to mark the money and/or the robber’s body with a brightly colored stain so that they can be easily recognized as having been involved in a crime. Depending on the specific contents of the pack, the release may incapacitate the robber and/or destroy the money as well. The chemical reaction causing the explosion of the pack and the release of the dye creates high temperatures of about 200 °C (392 °F) which further discourages a criminal from touching the pack or removing it from the bag or getaway vehicle.[5] Dye packs are used to foil robberies in over 75% of banks in the U.S.
Human nature. People tend to deny, deny, deny – especially if there’s monetary incentive to deny – until something forces them to do otherwise.
And people tend to accuse, accuse, accuse based on, literally, nothing more than not believing them.
Find a cite, prove the entire thing is staged, anything. Until then it’s a random accusation that has nothing to do with the conversation at hand since even if every single thing he’s done WRT the glitter bombs is fake, we can still have a discussion about their legality.
Oh, suddenly I’m tossing around accusations?
Again: maybe it is, maybe it isn’t.
Did anyone say you can’t?
Why would you say that and then link to the post where you said “Plenty of people on YouTube etc. stage videos for attention, all I’m saying is that he could be one of 'em.”. Yes, you’re tossing around accusations.
Always a great reply to being asked for a cite.
No one said I can’t try to drift this thread into a discussion about what brand of 3D printer he used or what cell plan those 4 phones had either. That wasn’t the point and I think you know that.
I am not a lawyer, but I did study business law a tiny bit in college (I switched my major from Computer Science to Business Administration at one point) and I remember a discussion about the difference between contributory negligence and comparative negligence.
So let’s say a thief steals a glitter bomb and opens it while driving and gets into an accident. The thief then sues Rober. If a state has adopted the principle of contributory negligence, since the thief was at least partially responsible for the accident (they shouldn’t be opening a package while driving) then the thief can’t get anything from Rober. If a state instead uses comparative negligence then Rober could be liable for damages but the jury would have to determine how much of the blame is on Rober and how much is on the thief, and then would award damages based on that determination.
Comparative negligence is much more common, so most likely he’d be liable to pay some damages if an accident occurred from one of his traps and the jury determined he was at least partially to blame.
No, an accusation would be “he is one of 'em.” I am not claiming that.
You want me to cite an opinion? For something which I don’t really care about in the first place?
Hey, you’re the one who asked why I didn’t believe him and I answered that.
Thanks for helping alleviate the monotony of my job.
Hehe, like this?
Interestingly enough, sometimes tear gas is also put in the stolen money. That’s pretty extreme.
In all seriousness, I do think the FCC needs to consider such things. There was a radio ad I kept hearing a few years back that featured the sound of a siren. Many times when it came on I would start frantically searching for the emergency vehicle I thought was getting closer to me. And once I heard the commercial enough times I stopped looking for the emergency vehicle when I heard the siren which is not an idea situation either.