Is it unethical to use fake Amazon packages as "bait" to combat against "Porch Pirates"?

[NurseJackie]

Is it unethical to use fake Amazon packages as "bait" to combat against "Porch Pirates"? I saw a YouTube video that had a critic of the practice saying that the GPS devices inside the packages was an invasion of the thief's privacy. And he also argued that using fake Amazon packages was entrapment.

I don't agree with that. I think it's perfectly fine to use any means possible to catch "Porch Pirates".

What do you think?

[LisaL]

1. What's unethical about it?

[NurseJackie]

16. I guess criminals and their lawyers will try ANY angle.

[NurseJackie]

65. CBS This Morning covered this...

The criticisms of this practice are discussed at the 1:42 time-mark, if anyone wants to skip to that part.

[TheBlackAdder]

64. Mark Rober videos are funny. This is the second Porch Pirate Glitter/Stink Bomb video he made.

.

.

[SheltieLover]

2. Hell no!

So sick of crime! 🤬

[silverweb]

3. Absolutely not.

The porch pirates are criminals and baiting them is one way to catch them, so GO FOR IT!!

[soothsayer]

4. No. It's unethical to be a porch pirate

[Vinca]

5. That's a great idea and I'd fill the box with collected dog poop, too.

[NurseJackie]

17. There are some videos showing how the thieves look inside to see if it's WORTH stealing.

... they don't want to take home a box of Depends, but are eager to find electronics.

[Tink41]

6. No

Right now I have a 40lb bag of cat litter sitting on my front porch since Friday. I'll drag it in when I have the energy. So far no takers!!
I'd love to watch someone lug that down the street.

[keithbvadu2]

61. Watch out for 'cat lady'.

[Tink41]

72. Hahhahah!

I'm sure it's possible, but being in the age range of what I believe "cat ladies" to be... barely got it in front door let alone down the block!!

[ck4829]

7. Sounds like an argument Alan Dershowitz would make

[Blues Heron]

8. Only if they cause harm

the glitter one was questionable

[brush]

9. Wouldn't the stealing of the packages be what's unethical?

[FoxNewsSucks]

10. Hell No!

If the damn thief wasn't invading someone else's space and STEALING, they wouldn't have to worry about it.

This is as maddening as when the thief who breaks into someone's house sues the homeowner if they get injured during the commission of the burglary.

[abqtommy]

11. Nopety nope!

[Throck]

12. I suppose any thief would think it's unethical.

As Jack Sparrow would say it's part of the pirate code.

You'd think they'd at least leave me a thank you note.

[DonaldsRump]

13. Not at all.

Porch pirating involves theft, trespassing, and the tort of conversion, at the very least.

[marybourg]

14. No. And "entrapment" means inducing someone

to do something they wouldn’t have done otherwise. So his argument is that a package on a porch is an inducement to someone who wouldn’t have stolen the package if there hadn’t been a package. Not a real compelling argument.

[NurseJackie]

18. "But, Your Honor... if it hadn't been there, I wouldn't have been tempted!"

[marybourg]

19. Yep, that's what it comes down to. Of course -and I didn't read the article, but-

he was probably driving around looking for a package on a porch to unduce him to steal it.

[NurseJackie]

23. Criminals will say anything. I saw another "Ring" video where the woman was caught...

Criminals will say anything. I saw another "Ring" video where the woman was caught redhanded by a neighbor, and pretended that she was being a Good Samaritan. "Oh I'm not stealing this... I was just making sure that my 'aunt' knows that it's out hear because someone might see it and steal it." (Or something like that.)

Absurd.

[NurseJackie]

54. Here's the video I was referring to... go to the 3:30 time-mark

Here's the video I was referring to... go to the 3:30 time-mark... she's not fooling anyone! (The rest are worth watching too!)

I might have to get one of these "RING" video doorbells!

[Ms. Toad]

26. As an attorney, that argument doesn't pass the laugh test.

I prepare students to start law school - and to pass the bar exam. They are often so fixated on arguing both sides of an issue that they are creating straw-men arguments to knock down. My message to them is: If you could not stand in front of a judge and say it without bursting out laughing, don't include it in an essay to your professor or the bar examiners.

This falls into that category.

[Hortensis]

73. Good lesson, thanks. :)

[unblock]

15. For the most part, funny though it may be, it is unethical and maybe illegal

I have no sympathy for thieves, but ordinary people aren't supposed to go out of their way to tempt others to commit crimes, and they certainly aren't then supposed to inflict any kind of punishment.

If the police are involved, that's one thing. But doing it on your own is vigilantism.

There's a big difference between setting up a camera to view where legitimate packages get dropped off, so as to catch a thief in the act, versus putting something of perceived value where others may have access to it to lure someone and tempt them into committing an act of thievery that might never have happened without your having created those circumstances in the first place.

In some of these videos I've seen, the box is designed to cause minor damage to whoever opens it, with noises or stinky odors or to create a mess that's hard to clean up.

Generally speaking, people don't have the right to go around harming other people, even if there's solid evidence they committed a crime. We have a whole branch of government dedicated to doing that with elaborate processes, and we aren't supposed to circumvent that even if we have the guy dead to rights.


I get the instant karma appeal and the entertainment value, and also the frustration involved in working with the real police, but I'm not fond of this approach to "justice"

[NurseJackie]

20. Those calling it unethical are those nabbed by the police (and their lawyers)

Those calling it unethical are those nabbed by the police (and their lawyers) ... I wasn't really talking about the glitter-bombs or poop-packages.

[SiliconValley_Dem]

22. you are wrong in every way in this

[Ms. Toad]

27. Nonsense -

Do ordinary homes have packages delivered to their porches? Yes - obviously - that is why there is such a thing as porch grabbers.

The police are doing nothing more, as far as inducement, than recreate the situation that is exploited by criminals.

What the police can't do is catch someone's attention and say, "Hey - a whole bunch of packages got delivered - why don't we go steal them.)" That woudl be inducement.

Merely putting packages on porches where packages are ordinarly found is not.

As I said in response to an earlier post - that argument doesn't pass the laugh test.

[unblock]

33. I have no problem with the police doing this

I've seen quite a number of videos where there was no police involvement, just an individual seeking a personal sense of justice. That i have a problem with.

It's minor compared to the crime of theft, of course, but still something I would certainly never do.

[Ms. Toad]

36. The article was specific to police.

I don't see any legal issues with privated individuals doing it (there are generally more restrictions on police entrapment than privite citizen entrapment). Although I would leave detecting to the police.

Our hoodlum neighbors taped their (former) buddies talking about breaking into our house - police were all too happy to get the information & two were convicted. (Always befriend the neighborhood hoodlums . . . never know when their stealth information - and fondness for you - might come in handy.)

[unblock]

41. Well then I'm off-topic

The video is about a police sting, but the text isn't specific. It mentions online videos and I've seen a ton of them all about individuals getting revenge on porch pirates.

If the point was meant to be specific to police, then my comment was a tangent. Again, I have no problem with police stings.

[Hortensis]

75. Whatever. Fwiw, seems like filming thieves at work and

Last edited Mon Aug 10, 2020, 10:03 AM - Edit history (1)

putting a GPS in a package in a private package delivery spot on private property are two different things -- albeit for the same purpose. Identifying thieves and evidence of theft. Is a GPS different from marking paper money to track it?

Private boobytrapping to assault the thief with paint is something else. If it could conceivably cause harm, we know it's illegal for private homeowners.

A visible package, real or fake, or just a visible package delivery, regardless of who puts it out, including all the delivery services, is an enticement to crime. When would it become solicitation of a crime?

To get to it the thief has to enter the property for criminal purposes, i.e., already be committing a crime. Intent would be proven in most cases by the theft.

All states have laws defining what constitutes criminal trespass, and I suspect most states have upgraded laws as more and more shopping is done on line. And of course courts have rendered decisions. The public has always had a compelling interest in safe delivery to homes and businesses, but to the home has become even more compelling. And here we have the police putting tracking devices in planted packages, a big indicator.

[qazplm135]

29. no and no

1. You are allowed to leave a box filled with whatever you want on your own property.
2. How does leaving a box on your own property "tempt" others to commit crime?
3. You go on someone's porch and you open up a box that doesn't belong to you, then if the result is you get a little embarrassed or messy then sorry but that's not "vigilantism."

[unblock]

37. There have been court cases about this

The usual homeowner rights against trespassers don't hold up very well if the homeowner effectively lured people in, even if they then catch a criminal in the act

I remember a case in texas or maybe Louisiana ever the homeowner put something valuable in the driveway or open garage and he hid in the dark garage with a gun and shot someone when they came and tried to take the valuable thing.

The usual right to shoot trespassers in that state didn't hold up under those circumstances and the homeowner went to prison.

Obviously we're not talking about shooting the thieves in the case of porch pirates, but vigilante revenge isn't appropriate either way.


Again, I have no problem with the police doing this and just catching the thieves and bringing them to proper justice.

But glitter or stink bombs, no. Not appropriate.

[qazplm135]

40. sigh...so as a criminal defense attorney

who has also done prosecution, and has, ya know, taking basic tort law in law school like every other attorney...I'm well aware of the concept of "attractive nuisance" and the rules generally and in several specific states over the limits of protection of property or trespassing a homestead.

This is NOWHERE NEAR that.

The first "case" you cite is NOT about putting something valuable in an open area, it's about using the SHOTGUN to shoot someone who has entered your property but not your home.

You've insanely linked "you can't generally shoot someone over property theft" (cf. Texas and several other states that either allow deadly force to protect property or deadly force to repel trespassers) to you can't leave out bait and then ya know, get them messy, or stinky.

Let me know when you find a "case" that actually criminalizes that act and get back to us.

You don't know what you are talking about legally, so, at best, stick to trying to make an ethical argument against it, which quite frankly you have yet to do in any cogent way.

[unblock]

43. Ok, how about a slap in the face?

Let's say someone commits a crime. I catch them on video and actually recognize them. Do it have the right to later go up to them and slap them in the face? No, that's unethical and probably illegal.

I have the right to send the video to the police, or to sue the thief, but I have no right to send the criminal stink bombs or anything like that.

In practice, face slaps rarely involve the legal system (unless you're Zsa zsa gabor and your victim was a police officer), and not too many porch pirates would call the cops over a glitter bomb, but that doesn't make it ethical or right or technically legal.

[qazplm135]

52. Let's break that down

1. If someone were actively stealing your property on your property you ABSOLUTELY have the legal right to use low level physical force to retrieve that property while they are in the act of stealing it. You can grab them, wrestle, and yes probably even slap them to get them to release your property. What you can't generally do is use force likely to cause death or grievous bodily injury (again unless you are in Texas, where the law can allow up to deadly force to protect property).

2. Once they LEAVE your property can you go up to them and slap them? Technically could be a crime, but if that's all you do in an attempt to retrieve your property, no one is going to charge you with assault, and no one is going to convict you of assault. Putting a smelly box on your property or a box that spits up glitter that then gets on a thief is NO different than a bank that puts a dye bomb in with a bag of money to dye the thieves after they leave with the money. Neither are illegal. Neither are an attractive nuisance because there is nothing about the box that SHOULD attract a child or otherwise cause anything to do something they wouldn't ordinarily do. Your example doesn't line up, it's an attempt to shoe-horn it into your theory, but it's not the same, and even if it was, it's not remotely clear that using minor physical force to retrieve a stolen item is a crime. If someone steals my bike, starts riding it down the street, and I catch them and punch them in the leg to get them to jump off, that's not a crime, but your "legal theory" would make it so. It's ridiculous, and it's not based on anything other than "Unblocks' theory of the law." And putting it in a box on your property is not "sending the criminal stink bombs." Are you kidding me with this?

3. Just saying something is "unethical" is not actually an argument. You get that right?

[unblock]

59. notwithstanding your tone, we're mostly in agreement

yes, some degree of force may be legal to try to stop a crime already in progress. personally, i think texas goes way overboard, but yes, deadly force to protect... stuff. ok. for me, i think any force has to be limited to what's reasonable necessary to stop the crime and recover the stolen items. anything beyond that is unethical in my view, even if it may be legal or in any event, legal consequences are rare.

i meant "later" to mean after the crime had been completed, as a parallel to when the porch pirate opens the booby-trapped package back in their own home. glitter bombs, stink bombs, don't help in stopping the crime or retrieving the item. they're about hurting someone else (even if the hurt is very minor) for the sake of revenge. i don't think that is ethical.

banks using dye is largely meant to identify the stolen money rather than the robbers. the money legally belongs to the bank still, so there's no problem with them marking it. to the extent the thieves get dyed as well, this may help identify and catch them, which is i have no problem with.

back to the porch pirates, if a glitter bomb or stink bomb were used in conjunction with calling the police and the glitter or stink helped identify the criminals, then i would have less of a problem with it, though i would still prefer it be coordinated with the police in advance rather than as a vigilante. i don't recall seeing any youtube videos where the police were contacted and the glitter/stink were used to help identify the perpetrators.

[qazplm135]

60. no, we aren't

If we were, you'd not be making a lot of the arguments that you are making.

And yeah, my tone is watching non-attorneys try and make legal arguments with such definitive I know what I am talking about when you clearly do not.

So dye that gets them messy is ok because it's meant to ID the money (and no it's also meant to ID the robbers) but dye that gets them messy just cause is illegal?

Just say you personally don't like it or wouldn't do it and stick to that, the rest is nonsensical.

[yonder]

39. It's no different than parking your car in your own driveway.

It's there, visible and if somebody steals it, it's theft, not entrapment.

[unblock]

46. I didn't say it was entrapment

I have no problem with the police doing this if it's only to find out who the thief is and their location and catch them on video.

What I have a problem with is the revenge stink bombs or glitter bombs you can see in many YouTube videos about porch pirates.

Not the police one in the o.p.

[yonder]

55. No, you did not - my mistake.

[durablend]

44. Stay out of *my* packages

Seems simple enough, but maybe not?

[unblock]

48. The thief is doing something illegal, yes. That part is simple and obvious.

[gollygee]

47. No. I can put a fake package on my porch. It is not illegal. nt

[unblock]

49. If the package is intended to cause harm, then no

No glitter or stink bombs. That's the problem.

[gollygee]

51. Glitter and stink bombs are not like an actual bomb. nt

[qazplm135]

53. glitter and stink are not harm

certainly no less "harm" than that which you'd be ordinarily allowed to use to get back your property.

So you think if someone rips your bag off your shoulders you can't tackle them or hold them to get your bag back? That it's illegal and unethical to do so? Because if your standard is "can't cause ANY level of harm" then guess what, holding someone, tackling them are all forms of harm.

It's patently absurd.

[unblock]

70. Glitter and stink bombs aren't designed to get your property back

If someone takes my shoulder back, yes I can immediately tackle them and try to wrestle it back.

If I see them the next day without my bag, I do not have the right to slap them in the face or throw glitter at them. these things do not prevent a crime or recover property, they are just petty efforts at revenge.

I suppose I may have a right to detain them, assuming I have evidence tying them to the original theft. If so, I may have the right to tackle them, but still not the right to slap their face or throw glitter at them.

Glitter and stink bombs are harm, just as throwing a glass of water at someone is harm. Very minor harm, sure, but harm nevertheless. Causing harm is usually unethical unless there it is necessary for some larger purpose. Stopping a crime or recovering property can justify some level of force in those efforts, but force that doesn't serve such a purpose remains unethical.

[qazplm135]

71. the glitter and the stink ARE your property

it just so happens, they are worth very little, but they STILL are your property.

YOU didn't throw anything on them, THEY got it when they opened the box that didn't belong to them.

You keep trying to compare apples to oranges to get to the argument you want. It doesn't work.

And throwing water on someone to get them to stop committing a crime isn't a crime either.

Causing a lesser harm than the harm being caused to you is almost NEVER illegal or unethical.

[SiliconValley_Dem]

21. of course not. if they chose to come on your property and steal

then they lost any defense they were entrapped. someone would have to overtly coax them into wrongdoing.

GPS? no oroblem. booby trap? that would be a problem.

[NurseJackie]

24. I agree. The claim that the GPS device is an invasion of the thief's privacy made me laugh!

"I'm hiding! You don't have a right to know where I am! -- I'm escaping! Stop tracking me!"

[unblock]

38. Agreed. There's no reasonable expectation of privacy when on someone else's property.

Or when taking an unknown box into your own home.

[Happy Hoosier]

25. Only if it's unethical to put cheese on a moustrap

I mean.... wtf?

[WyattKansas]

28. The 'Porch Pirates' deserve a hell of a lot worse to be done to them and deserve no mercy.

Nobody is going to tell me that they don't know exactly what they are doing and how wrong it is, especially now when people are relying on deliveries during a deadly pandemic.

[lettucebe]

30. Invasion of a thief's privacy? That's hilarious

Committed a crime, lost the right to privacy.

[Xolodno]

31. I welcome the porch pirates....

....how else am I going to get rid of junk I don't want anymore.

I have a PO Box, everything I order goes straight to the post office. Did have a problem with electronics, some companies....and I don't get why, won't deliver to a PO Box. But the post office offers a service, sign up to use their address and they will cross reference the name to the correct PO Box.

[NurseJackie]

34. When sellers and vendors use UPS or Fedex exclusively, then it's a hassle to ship to a PO Box...

When sellers and vendors use UPS or Fedex exclusively, then it's a hassle to ship to a PO Box... anyway, that's my understanding. I have a cousin who sells collectibles on eBay and Etsy, and she only uses UPS because (compared to USPS) it's easier to file a shipping-insurance claim (and get a prompt settlement) in the event of damage or theft.

I had never heard about that service you described. That's very interesting.

[DFW]

32. No mercy.

These people prey on others. They are no different from pickpockets who steal the last few dollars from senior citizens who just cashed their welfare checks in order to be able to eat.

I have even seen some people make explosive (non-lethal--just color dye) devices to put in packages to stain potential thieves. Fine with me. These are the cruelest of petty criminals. They have no remorse at stealing from people who can least afford to replace whatever is in those packages. Maybe Sharia Law is a little too drastic, but I have no sympathy for anything that may befall them, from arrest to public shaming to month-long purple staining of hands of faces. What they do is just outright mean.

[NurseJackie]

35. You've got my vote!!

[aikoaiko]

42. I recall someone making glitter-bomb packages with little cameras to watch.

It was a very funny video.

[csziggy]

62. Yes, and then they moved up to adding a stink bomb - neither hurt the perpetrators

B ut it sure got them to get rid of the package!

Here's the follow up video:

ETA - For those who think the thieves were "lured" in, the packages are about where UPS or FedEx would leave a package.

[USALiberal]

45. Silly question! nt

[LuckyCharms]

50. I do not think it is unethical per se, and I have no problem

with people doing it.

However, I would personally not do it because of my own personal view of "courting trouble".

If I was constantly getting packages stolen, I would set up a camera, and lie in wait for someone to steal a real package. I'd make sure to get a real good close-up of the thief on the camera while lying in wait for him or her. I'd get their license plate and any other descriptive information that I could. Then, when I caught them in the act, I'd blow an air horn out the window or something to scare them off. I'd then turn the video over to the police and let them handle it.

Before anyone criticizes this approach, you need to understand that I have had exactly one package stolen in my 61 years. A $20 item.

Therefore, I don't even go as far as setting a camera up. I might go the whole 9 yards with a dummy package, etc. if I had a serious problem with my stuff getting stolen, but personally, doing something like that does not warrant my effort. So if something is not causing me grief, I have no reason to want to lure someone to commit a crime.

[jrandom421]

56. Glitter bomb fart spray VS porch Pirates

[NurseJackie]

58. There's also a "Glitter Bomb 2.0" (New and Improved)

[brooklynite]

57. You have the right to place anything you want on your property...

The thief does not have the right to take them.

[ismnotwasm]

63. Nope.

I think it’s hilarious actually

[smirkymonkey]

66. Nope. Not at all.

This is why I live in a managed apartment building and always plan to as long as I can afford it. We have Amazon Locker down in our basement where we have to enter a code or scan to open the locker or we have a doorman to accept other packages that can't go in the locker.

I order a lot of things that are delivered so the security is important to me.

I think they also have Amazon locker locations all over the place, so even if you don't have one in your building, you can go pick up your package at one of those locations close to where you live. It's better than having to worry about your package being stolen.

[NurseJackie]

67. There's one at the grocery store I normally use. Is there a time-limit on how quickly...

There's one at the grocery store I normally use. Is there a time-limit on how quickly someone needs to pick up their package from the locker?

[smirkymonkey]

68. Yes, they usually give you a few days - 3 or 4, I think.

Even in my building. I usually let them sit for a few days before picking them up just to cut down on the risk of virus contamination.

[EllieBC]

69. Awww poor misunderstood porch pirates.

I’m trying to work up some tears for them but I got nothing. Keep your hands off other people’s purchases!

The glitter bomb trap videos are awesome. If you haven’t seen them I recommend it!

[Devil Child]

74. No, porch pirates and thieves are scum.

Anything which suppresses their unlawful ways is worth considering.

[Polybius]

76. Far from entrapment

No one is pushing them to steal them.