6 comments

  • k310 1 hour ago
    Texas

    > In 2023, the Texas Legislature unanimously passed a law raising auto insurance costs for Texans by $1 to combat rampant catalytic converter theft.

    > The Motor Vehicle Crime Prevention Authority, led by a board mostly appointed by Gov. Greg Abbott, has turned the $1 fee hike into at least 3,200 Flock cameras.

    More coming. Meanwhile, secure your EV!!! Batteries will be next!!!

    • SoftTalker 47 minutes ago
      In Texas I'm surprised it's not legal to shoot a catalytic converter thief if caught in the act. That's what they used to do for cattle rustlers.
      • ceejayoz 41 minutes ago
        https://guides.sll.texas.gov/gun-laws/stand-your-ground

        links to https://www.uslawshield.com/defend-property-texas/

        > Texas law allows you to use deadly force to protect property if you would be justified in using force, and you reasonably believe it is immediately necessary to prevent the imminent commission of specific enumerated property crimes. These are arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime.

        I'd think that'd qualify.

        https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/?tab=1&code=PE&chapter=PE...

        > Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

        > (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

        > (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

        > (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

        > (3) he reasonably believes that:

        > (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

        • sokoloff 24 minutes ago
          I can’t see a catalytic converter theft on a car parked on the street as burglary. Parked in a garage? Yes, burglary. Parked on the street? No. So, daytime theft of a converter from a car parked outside wouldn’t qualify I don’t think.
          • nonethewiser 0 minutes ago
            Parked in your driveway
          • thaumasiotes 4 minutes ago
            If you sleep in the car it will qualify no matter where you're parked. This also appears to be true of an RV or any vehicle that clearly accommodates sleeping.

            For reference:

            "Burglary" under the Texas penal code is defined by entering a habitation or any portion of a building that is not open to the public, either with the intent to commit a crime, or when followed by the actual commission of, or the attempt to commit, a crime.

            "Robbery" is theft in which the thief causes an injury to someone else. (Or intentionally threatens to do so.)

            "Theft" is what it sounds like.

            Most notably burglary need not include any element of theft. I feel like it's a mistake for the legal code to distinguish between what are fully interchangeable terms in the language the code is supposedly written in.

            On topic for this particular comment, "habitation" is specifically defined to include vehicles "adapted for the overnight accommodation of persons".

        • chadgpt3 15 minutes ago
          You can legally murder people to prevent mischief, as long as it's at night? Wow.
          • nekusar 1 minute ago
            Yeah.

            You expect pigs to defend you?

          • thaumasiotes 1 minute ago
            The alternative would be completely incoherent. If it's OK to prevent theft, the appropriation of property, it must also be OK to prevent criminal mischief, which is the destruction of property.
      • dghlsakjg 25 minutes ago
        You can use force in Texas to stop property crime.

        Fire away, I guess.

  • qwerpy 19 minutes ago
    Strange that someone else’s question “Did it reduce catalytic converter theft?”, directly relevant to the article, got downvoted to death. Not sure if we’re meant to have discussions here or just dutifully complain about topics that are fashionable to complain about.
    • CamelCaseName 16 minutes ago
      I agree. I "revived" the comment by clicking on the timestamp ("33 minutes ago") and then clicking "vouch". I believe only users with a score of 200+ (points? karma?) can do so.
      • kryogen1c 7 minutes ago
        Been here 8 years, always wondered how comments died. I assumed it was algorithmic. TIL
  • Waterluvian 16 minutes ago
    I hope that the sustained negative publicity of Flock prevents it from successfully metastasizing outside the United States. I think this is one way in which Trump’s campaign to make the world distrust America helps. American surveillance systems abroad ought to be absolutely political suicide.
    • wahnfrieden 6 minutes ago
      They’re in Toronto
    • chadgpt3 14 minutes ago
      It's only taught them to keep a lower profile. Nobody's heard of Axon cameras, which are exactly like Flock, and getting installed in all the places that don't have Flock.
  • ihsw 52 minutes ago
    Did it reduce catalytic converter theft?
  • wewro 37 minutes ago
    [dead]
  • DivingForGold 1 hour ago
    Snooping Bastards !