Given the police's complete inaction vigilantism was inevitable.

I wonder if an industry of decoy packages will spring up, maybe "sticky" or "smelly" glitter. Or heck just go full ink bomb.

I wonder where the law stands on this? Can you really be liable if someone steals your property then causes property damage using it?

  > Given the police's complete inaction vigilantism was inevitable.

This makes me wonder: who is responsible for the lost package? I would expect, if the deliverer can't prove they delivered the package (because they didn't get a signature), they're responsible for the loss and need to pay for the loss.

The recipient certainly can't help that someone left a package outside. If the loss is for the recipient, then I can certainly understand the vigilantism, but that's a pretty awful system.

I'm glad I can usually pick up my packages at my neighbours'.

The delivery company sometimes takes pictures of the package left at the door. The customer is ultimately responsible for the package, not the shipper. It's the customer who files the police report.

It seems extraordinarily harsh to punish the recipient for the bad practices of the delivery service.

Is there any legal jurisprudence about this? It feels to me like the delivery service should be responsible.

Responsible for what? They delivered the package to the location that it was supposed to be delivered to.

Outside, where anyone can take it. That's not responsible delivery.

But it's still certainly delivery.

Anyone can file a police report.

The sender and the sender's agent (shipping company) own the package until it is delivered. That's why the sender insures it and insurance payments go to the sender.

But often it is more complicated than that, because there's a commercial contract between the sender and the recipient that also has to be taken into account.

I'd call it a legally grey area, with the commercial sender often likely filing an insurance claim and re-sending the lost merchandise.

> I'd call it a legally grey area, with the commercial sender often likely filing an insurance claim and re-sending the lost merchandise.

Really I think that's more a customer service nicety than anything the company would be legally required to do. Seems like everyone has done their part to fulfill their obligations once the package hits your doorstep.

I think the technical answer here is yes but, given the fact that the police themselves were too occupied to pursue the original thieves, I find it equally unlikely they're going to pursue the vigilante

IANAL - but I'd suppose they could sue you and may even win but it's not going to do much for their public image in the best case and the worst case they get prosecuted for theft.

The law says booby-traps are illegal. Depending on the damage/injury you cause, you will be prosecuted. Two wrongs etc etc

Booby-trap is usually defined as "to cause bodily injury when triggered". Spreading glitter in someone's car isn't causing bodily injury. However, if the glitter caused someone to choke and die, or blinded an eye, then a crime would be committed.

Here's the legal definition of a booby-trap:

> A booby trap may be defined as any concealed or camouflaged device designed to cause bodily injury

It doesn't apply.

He says he took the first video to the police. That video was of pedestrians walking up to the house. No real way to track them.

In later videos he had license plates--that's an easy arrest, and I'd bet they'd take that video a bit more seriously.

I think there's a difference between "don't care" and "wasn't worth their time". It's possible that with the number of complaints the police needed to investigate, the particular thefts in question were below the triage threshold.