Is it wrong to pull this prank?

[Purpelia]

Nah. Those pranks aren't about tricking people but about hurting them. For that sort of think you should get sued for assault.

So, any pranks are crimes to you. Does that mean people who do that kind of pranks deserved to be sentence for some months in the prison (I also saw that offenders who committed assault got sentenced to some months of imprisonment to years)

Why not? Why is punching someone less of a crime than dropping a bucket on his head? Both are acts of physical assault that cause harm. If anything the bucket is worse because it is by definition premeditated.


Am I seriously the only one that finds it very odd that in any other context society would condemn such actions but because it's intended to be "funny" we let it slide? If I set up a trap for you with a shotgun to shoot you in the chest as a "prank" how is that less murder than if I take the shotgun and just shoot you? And before you shout that my example is too extreme do note that the OP of this thread is about someone cutting break lines.

[21st Century Rome]

I mean yes, it is against a thief, and thiefs are assholes but:

A: This may or may not be assault.

B: It would strain medical systems.

C: Pranks are meant to be harmless funny things, not whatever it's been corrupted to today.

Pranks should be, Surprise Snowball / water gun/water ballon attacks,whoopie cushions, pies to the face, bunny ears in photos, surprise perfume spray (if victim isn't allergic of course) , ect.

Not hurting people. This is just more unfunny corruption. Sad.


We need to Make Pranks Great Again.

Stop the corruption, drain the swamp of bad hurtful pranks.

I'm being both serious and jokeing at the same time.

By far, the best prank channel I've seen is Improv Everywhere, which often has "victimless pranks" that usually leave smiles on everyone's faces or confuses them.They especially like subway pranks. :P
Examples:
Time travel subway prank:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1Gq7Q3B9xU
Reverse times square*:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huJpdolLjH0
Elevator marathon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzVkMMt6i1A

Enjoy. :P
* = this one was actually a prank on the viewers and didn't happen

[Cadonica]

Perfectly fine. It's the riders responsibility to make sure the vehicle he or she is using is safe.

[The Alma Mater]

I much prefer pranks that are not primarily aimed at causing serious bodily harm or death.

Say: the exploding poop package a guy left outside when his packages kept getting stolen. While this could cause harm by startling the thief in a car etc, that is not the primary goal nor needed to be a succes.

[Purpelia]

I much prefer pranks that are not primarily aimed at causing serious bodily harm or death.

Say: the exploding poop package a guy left outside when his packages kept getting stolen. While this could cause harm by startling the thief in a car etc, that is not the primary goal nor needed to be a succes.

Harm is harm, serious or not. The only thing that should effect is the severity of the sentence and not the nature of the crime.
And frankly I would make sure to slam the poop packet guy with the full weight of the law including charges for bio terrorism and unsanitary waste disposal.

[Dytarma]

Yes. It is a setup, that "criminal" is a bit numskull if he/she doesn't look for the chain, and if it isn't bad, let's replace it with a 6 year old child. Is it bad now?

[The Alma Mater]

I much prefer pranks that are not primarily aimed at causing serious bodily harm or death.

Say: the exploding poop package a guy left outside when his packages kept getting stolen. While this could cause harm by startling the thief in a car etc, that is not the primary goal nor needed to be a succes.

Harm is harm, serious or not. The only thing that should effect is the severity of the sentence and not the nature of the crime.
And frankly I would make sure to slam the poop packet guy with the full weight of the law including charges for bio terrorism and unsanitary waste disposal.

There is no law against putting the trash outside

[Purpelia]

Yes. It is a setup, that "criminal" is a bit numskull if he/she doesn't look for the chain, and if it isn't bad, let's replace it with a 6 year old child. Is it bad now?

Either way it's victim blaming.

[Dytarma]

Yes. It is a setup, that "criminal" is a bit numskull if he/she doesn't look for the chain, and if it isn't bad, let's replace it with a 6 year old child. Is it bad now?

Either way it's victim blaming.

Agreed, that's why I hate pranks like this.

[Minoa]

It appears to be staged, but even then I could not get any entertainment out of it.

Maybe because the pranks genre is so overused.

[Tokora]

It would've been fine if he left a mattress at the bottom.

[New Wikola]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GLBvXnGo8fw

THIS IS AN ETHICAL DISCUSSION, NOT A LEGAL ONE
There was a prank where somebody left a bike ready to be stolen, and removed the brakes from that bike, leaving the theift to tumble down the hill and get serverly injured. The their was left to tumble down the hill and get very injured in the process. Do you think it is unethical to pull such a prank. I do. I know the thieves have committed a crime, but no matter how harsh the crime committed Is, nobody deserves to cop that kind of injury. The riders of the stolen bikes could have potentionally gotten really injured and badly hurt themselves. Regardless of crime, no human being deserves such treatment. What do you think NSG?

I think it was ok to do. It was the thieves fault after all. If they got injured, thats on them.

[Industrialaska]

Not seeing an issue with it. Sometimes a painful learned lesson is a long lasting learned lesson.

When I was out walking my dog once, I put some of his feces into a paper bag I had leftover from lunch. I didn't realise that I had written a to do list on it, and the number one item was go to the bank, simply expressed as "bank" in large block letters. I left it on my porch steps to grab my key and let the dog in the house, and when my back was turned the neighbor kid swiped the bag. I went back for it, and saw the kid running off.
I shouted "DON'T BRING IT BACK" and waited for him to learn his lesson. I hope he did.

Not exactly a painful lesson, but a gross one.

[Abraxim]

I think it is great. Perhaps of the thief died, other thieves would think twice about stealing.

I feel no sympathy for the thief, whether it be a bicycle, car, identity, or time. It really makes me wish there was Sharia Law, just for a second, so we could cut the person's hands off.

Baiting a thief is perfectly okay and acceptable. It's a convenient method of rounding them up and locking them away. Having been burgled twice, and my finances and live ruined, I wish I had the chance to enact revenge so easily as this. I think I might.

[Grinning Dragon]

Not seeing an issue with it. Sometimes a painful learned lesson is a long lasting learned lesson.

When I was out walking my dog once, I put some of his feces into a paper bag I had leftover from lunch. I didn't realise that I had written a to do list on it, and the number one item was go to the bank, simply expressed as "bank" in large block letters. I left it on my porch steps to grab my key and let the dog in the house, and when my back was turned the neighbor kid swiped the bag. I went back for it, and saw the kid running off.
I shouted "DON'T BRING IT BACK" and waited for him to learn his lesson. I hope he did.

Not exactly a painful lesson, but a gross one.

Reminds me of the few articles of where a person rigged a dye pack with liquefied dog shit and placed it into a package and left it on his porch for a porch pirate to steal, I'm sure the porch pirate didn't like his ill gotten booty when he finally opened up the package and boom, liquid shit everywhere.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Even if you for some reason consider thieves the absolute worst sort of scum for whom no punishment is too severe, this sort of prank endangers others just as much as it does the thief.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

I mean yes, it is against a thief, and thiefs are assholes but:

A: This may or may not be assault.

B: It would strain medical systems.

C: Pranks are meant to be harmless funny things, not whatever it's been corrupted to today.

Pranks should be, Surprise Snowball / water gun/water ballon attacks,whoopie cushions, pies to the face, bunny ears in photos, surprise perfume spray (if victim isn't allergic of course) , ect.

Not hurting people. This is just more unfunny corruption. Sad.


We need to Make Pranks Great Again.

Stop the corruption, drain the swamp of bad hurtful pranks.

I'm being both serious and jokeing at the same time.

By far, the best prank channel I've seen is Improv Everywhere, which often has "victimless pranks" that usually leave smiles on everyone's faces or confuses them.They especially like subway pranks.
Examples:
Time travel subway prank:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1Gq7Q3B9xU
Reverse times square*:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huJpdolLjH0
Elevator marathon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzVkMMt6i1A

Enjoy.
* = this one was actually a prank on the viewers and didn't happen

See, this is the kinds of stuff i'm talking about. Why can't more people do this?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

The USA does not get to be sanctimonious about crime until they do more about its root causes.

[Petrolheadia]

Yes. It is a setup, that "criminal" is a bit numskull if he/she doesn't look for the chain, and if it isn't bad, let's replace it with a 6 year old child. Is it bad now?

Either way it's victim blaming.

Because in this case, the victim should be blamed.

It would only be negligence if he had asked the owner and the owner told him nothing about the defect. However, the dude just took the bike.

[Petrolheadia]

The USA does not get to be sanctimonious about crime until they do more about its root causes.

Yes, because a YouTube prank is obviously official government policy.

/sarcasm (duh!)

[Methodological Individualism]

Meh... I'm going with "let the thief beware" - there is no reasonable expectation that something you steal will be safe for use.

There is a reasonable expectation, however, that self-defense, or defense of property, do not include laying traps for the specific purpose of killing/injuring someone. Where the latter is generally considered premeditated assault/battery/murder.

This case seems relevant:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-mon ... story.html

Tl; dr - reasonable measures to prevent a burglary (locks, alarms, calling police, etc.) are one thing. Intentionally forumulating a plan by inviting the burglar in with a trap specifically to kill him, however, is probably murder.

[Methodological Individualism]

So, the perpetrator got onto someone else's bike without checking for usability, thus getting wrecked due to his own actions. I do not see why the reason for the brakes' absence should matter here...

It matters because it informs us about the bike owners intent, which in turn informs us as to the difference between defense of property vs. laying a trap with the specific intent to injure/maim/kill.

Intentionally removing a necessary safety device specifically expecting someone to be injured as a result is probably not defense.

[Western-Ukraine]

It's not wrong. I could have my door unlocked and open, but it would not make entering my home without my consent any less of a crime. I can do what I want with my property (in the bounds of law) and I am not responsible if someone touches that stuff and gets hurt. Even if I intentionally set it up as harmful.

[Dominatus (Ancient)]

So, the perpetrator got onto someone else's bike without checking for usability, thus getting wrecked due to his own actions. I do not see why the reason for the brakes' absence should matter here...

It matters because it informs us about the bike owners intent, which in turn informs us as to the difference between defense of property vs. laying a trap with the specific intent to injure/maim/kill.

Intentionally removing a necessary safety device specifically expecting someone to be injured as a result is probably not defense.

Who cares? If the "prank" results in a dead criminal, I'm all for it. If the prank was real, it teaches other people not to steal stuff. If you rob someone's bike and end up dead because of it, although the owner got rid of the chain, it's fine. He's just rooting out the weeds, so it should be accepted among society.

[Methodological Individualism]

It matters because it informs us about the bike owners intent, which in turn informs us as to the difference between defense of property vs. laying a trap with the specific intent to injure/maim/kill.

Intentionally removing a necessary safety device specifically expecting someone to be injured as a result is probably not defense.

Who cares?

Civilized people who presume innocence until guilt is proven in a court by a jury of peers.

Or just those who don't want to give free reign to assault and murder by trap setting.

I can see how assuming the injured and killed always deserve it might be convienient, but, unfortunately real life frequently refuses to cooperate in this way, so rules and laws, etc.