Hacker News Reader

Comment by Buldak | Hacker News Reader

In the video, Rober mentions that he previously brought his security camera footage to police (the camera monitoring his house, not the camera in the prank box), but that they said it wasn't worth their time to pursue such cases.

View on HN

True, but with additional footage and in some cases, the location of the perpetrators homes, I would hope they would be able to do more.

Yes but that's because the security footage didn't provide any actual information on the thief. Whereabouts, identity, etc. The GPS location of the thief, clear footage of the face, should be a slam-dunk case for a DA.

> Yes but that's because the security footage didn't provide any actual information on the thief.

No, as he stated in the video, the police said it just wasn't worth their time.

Yes - not worth their time to investigate and try to track down that information. In this instance - the police spend 0 time investigating, and 2 hours arresting, booking, and forwarding criminal charges.

That was for the first one though, where all he had was a random persons face, way harder to actually track that person down. For the later ones like the car and even more so the apartment/house it's a much easier case so they might have actually bothered because they can directly link the theft to an actual ID through the plates/address. Even with that the chances they'd bother is medium to low but it's much more likely given the amount of data Mark could hand over.

But is it there actually a crime in this case if the owner intended for the package to be stolen (of which there is also video evidence)?

Not anywhere near a lawyer but I think the same theory applies here as with bait cars, cops intend for them to get stolen but it's not an issue. The person is still doing something illegal.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com