Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lawmakers added $1 to car insurance policies. That money paid for Flock cameras

texastribune.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 326 posts

Re: Lawmakers added $1 to car insurance policies. That money paid for Flock cameras

#91

Post by logicchains »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #17
sokoloff wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can’t see a catalytic converter theft on a car parked on the street as burglary. Parked in a (private) 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.

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 comm…

>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.

They're not at all fully interchangeable, just many Americans have a poor grasp of the English language.

Re: Lawmakers added $1 to car insurance policies. That money paid for Flock cameras

#92

Post by jrflowers »

earth-tattoo wrote: post #72
jrflowers wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You want thieves to be armed?

It's much more safe for a law abiding citizen to assume that all thieves are armed, because they most likely are.

That’s awful, it’s terrible that the thieves fear for their lives so much that they arm themselves

Re: Lawmakers added $1 to car insurance policies. That money paid for Flock cameras

#93

Post by bpodgursky »

DarmokTanagra wrote: post #73
johnnyanmac wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to voting turnout: yes. That's the thing the 70+ year old voterbase learned from their peak working year. And yet there are still so many working class people who try to profess how "voting is useless, it doesn't change anything".

In American style representative democracy there certainly are places where voting is useless depending on your political affiliation.

Only if you are too stubborn to register as the dominant party and vote in the primary.

Re: Lawmakers added $1 to car insurance policies. That money paid for Flock cameras

#94

Post by ElProlactin »

huimang wrote: post #83
qlte wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Same deal with states with "stand your ground laws". It's astonishingly easy to not get shot: don't invade someone's home. Florida road rage incident leaves 2 girls shot after fathers' stand-your-ground gunfight https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/florida-road-rage-incident-...

I was referring to homes. This situation likely could've been avoided by not engaging in recklessly stupid behavior like road rage and escalating the situation (with one's family present, to boot). Also, a news article of some random altercation doesn't change anything about what I said: It's simply impossible to be shot (or clubbed, or beaten up, or whatever) by someone in their home for invading, if you never invad…

In your original comment, you stated:

> It's astonishingly easy to not get shot: don't invade someone's home.

The clear, plain-English implication of what you're suggesting is: your risk of getting shot (in the US) is, to a large extent, directly correlated to your invasion of other people's homes.

Except that there's no evidence to support this. According to FBI data from 2015-2019, the ratio of criminal gun homicides to justifiable homicides (as in self-defense) was 34:1.

Over 10,000 innocent people are killed by guns every year in the US, including more than 1,000 young people. This excludes suicides, which itself is a number that you'd probably be wise to pay attention to.

Re: Lawmakers added $1 to car insurance policies. That money paid for Flock cameras

#95

Post by bilbo0s »

rayiner wrote: post #89
StanislavPetrov wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because deploying these cameras is anti-social conduct.

[flagged]

Depends on who you ask?

Are you asking someone who just had their car stolen?

Or are you asking a mom who just found out there's a Flock camera that has been filming her 6 year old daughter playing in a splash pad all summer?

Re: Lawmakers added $1 to car insurance policies. That money paid for Flock cameras

#96

Post by aussieguy1234 »

k310 wrote: post #3

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!!!

EV batteries weigh hundreds of kilos. They typically require a mechanical workshop with a hoist to remove, not something your typical theif could easily steal on a street corner.

Re: Lawmakers added $1 to car insurance policies. That money paid for Flock cameras

#97

Post by Scrapemist »

earth-tattoo wrote: post #72
jrflowers wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You want thieves to be armed?

It's much more safe for a law abiding citizen to assume that all thieves are armed, because they most likely are.

Burglars in particular tend to target empty houses precisely to avoid confrontation. To bring a weapon only make sense if there is a chance of getting shot at.

Re: Lawmakers added $1 to car insurance policies. That money paid for Flock cameras

#98

Post by comrh »

slashdev wrote: post #29
sokoloff wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can’t see a catalytic converter theft on a car parked on the street as burglary. Parked in a (private) 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.

It also mentions: > theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime. Seems like that qualifies

I think this even covers graffiti during the nighttime.

Re: Lawmakers added $1 to car insurance policies. That money paid for Flock cameras

#99

Post by dodger-dog »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #17
sokoloff wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can’t see a catalytic converter theft on a car parked on the street as burglary. Parked in a (private) 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.

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 comm…

I have a friend who came out of his house to shoot and kill a guy who was inside his car attempting to steal it. Friend was literally a local celebrity for months.

Re: Lawmakers added $1 to car insurance policies. That money paid for Flock cameras

#100

Post by Scrapemist »

earth-tattoo wrote: post #71
huimang wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A catalytic converter can be replaced, a life cannot. So don't go around stealing catalytic converters. Same deal with states with "stand your ground laws". It's astonishingly easy to not get shot: don't invade someone's home. And on the "replacing" part- on whose dime? What if someone's only means of transportation is affected, and they lose wages or outright lose their job? Are you going to pay for it? Of course…

All lives are not equal. The value of the life of a thief whose only impact on the society is negative, cannot be compared to e.g. a doctor.

So why would someone risk his live and become a thief instead of a doctor?
Post reply on HN