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

111–120 of 326 posts

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

#111

Post by fluidcruft »

BirAdam wrote: post #70
fluidcruft wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the users of the cameras have proven themselves untrustworthy.

That and it’s against the spirit of the bill of rights.

Well, the debate about the Bill of Rights itself was that the Constitution does not explicitly authorize those activities the first place (which is why they were amendments) and that listing any of them would imply that things not explicitly listed were somewhat endorsed.

But I do know the Founders had no clue about computers, networks, cameras or license plates so they certthad no opinions about Flock cameras when they drafted the Bill of Rights. The Founders were all rich white men who were more than happy to dragnet to find unauthorized non-whites so who really knows what was in the spirit of the Bill of Rights.

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

#112

Post by s1artibartfast »

rossy wrote: post #82
honeycrispy wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just $2k lost here. There's a lot to be said about the immeasurable value of a high-trust society. As another commenter said: It's incredibly easy to not get shot; don't burglarize someone's home the same way you wouldn't jump in front of a moving train.

Holding the threat of death over people isn't the way to a "high-trust society." Maybe you think it's the way to something similar, but you have to give up the word "trust" because it doesn't apply here. If the only reason I think a man isn't going to rob me is because I will shoot him if he does, I don't trust that man. A society which only has low crime because everyone is able to use lethal force to defend themsel…

I think that is the wrong way to think about it.

The end state is you can trust others because nobody even wants to or considers it.

Punishing violators is being proposed as how to build the norm that no one wants to steal.

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

#113

Post by bulbar »

ceejayoz wrote: post #6
SoftTalker wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

Deadly force can be lawful in Germany as well, reading Texas law I wonder which nuances of the laws make the biggest difference (assuming there's one).

Could also be that the difference comes from owning land works differently in Germany (because it's much more densely populated) and of course owning anything except small guns is completely forbidden.

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

#114

Post by Gigachad »

cosmicgadget wrote: post #44
ihsw wrote: post #4

Did it reduce catalytic converter theft?

Doesn't seem especially likely, does it? People report the thefts in unmonitored neighborhoods. The police... check the nearby intersection cameras for any vehicles passing between 11pm and 4am?

As much as I think the tech needs to be regulated to prevent abuse, if I was a driver in San Francisco I’d try to only ever park my car directly in view of a flock camera.

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

#115

Post by butvacuum »

ceejayoz wrote: post #6
SoftTalker wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

First off- Texas has an explicit law making copper and catalytic converter theft a "Jail felony"- but if you break any other laws on the way, it's upgraded to a class 3 felony. See: https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/?tab=1&code=PE&chapter=PE... And. if you really want to play cops and robbers, a personally witnessed jail felony seems to be enough for a citzen's arrest.

Second: "(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." - YOU HAVE TO BE AFRAID FOR YOUR LIFE Texas gives citizens enourmous latitude in these matters, but it's not carte blanche for murder.

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

#116

Post by ipaddr »

rayiner wrote: post #90
aidenn0 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can also mean unjustified/immoral killing, which can be a useful definition (otherwise e.g. a true dictator can never murder anyone).

That’s not a useful definition in a democracy. Who gets to define what’s justified if not the duly elected legislature? I bet if you put the current Texas law on the ballot today you’d get the same answer.

If you put that on the ballot in other states this would be more popular than initially thought by most.

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

#117

Post by s1artibartfast »

floralhangnail wrote: post #32
ihsw wrote: post #4

Did it reduce catalytic converter theft?

I doubt it helped much directly. The nationwide ring that was dismantled recently was busted partially due to surveillance from a pole mounted camera though. The article title initially baited my rage, but I can plausibly see how LPRC's could be used to track catalytic converter thieves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932022_catalytic_co...

Jeez, in not normally cynical but the Japanese buyer faced no charges and this has bad optics:

> Janice Ayala joined Dowa Metals & Mining America as their Chief Compliance Officer on March 3, 2023. During Ayala's 27-year tenure at the Department of Homeland Security, her most recent role before joining Dowa was as Director of Joint Task Force – Investigations. This agency oversaw the investigation into both DG Auto Parts and Dowa.

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

#118

Post by thaumasiotes »

dodger-dog wrote: post #99
thaumasiotes wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So what happened? Was there a legal judgment? Did he get legal advice? Did local newspapers commission and publish legal analyses?

(Did this happen in Texas?)

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

#119

Post by butvacuum »

bulbar wrote: post #113
ceejayoz wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Deadly force can be lawful in Germany as well, reading Texas law I wonder which nuances of the laws make the biggest difference (assuming there's one). Could also be that the difference comes from owning land works differently in Germany (because it's much more densely populated) and of course owning anything except small guns is completely forbidden.

people freqently conflate Stand Your Ground vs Duty to Retreat... with the entire rest of the debate.

I'm trying to keep this neutral, so I'm using a rather cut and dry example: Somebody kicks in your door with a pump action and starts shooting- There are _some_ jurisdictions that require you to try and flee. You kill them and they werent bodily blocking your car in? Murder charge. investigation finds a sabatoged engine? Doesn't matter.

Stand Your Ground assumes reasonableness and codifies leaveing the fight or flee decision up to the individual.

Ultimately- you're going to have PTSD either way.

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

#120

Post by kelseyfrog »

zoul wrote: post #107
kelseyfrog wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why Texas has the lowest rate of crime in the US.

Is this irony? Judging by https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/crime-rate-... it’s not true.

It has to be true, otherwise exabrial's wish isn't about lowering crime rates; it's based on something else.
Post reply on HN