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

191–200 of 324 posts

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

#191

Post by whstl »

weinzierl wrote: post #184
bulbar wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Only when threatened and self-defense has to be proportionate. If someone attacks you with a knife you would not be allowed to defend yourself with a firearm if you had one. This is very different from the law in Texas, where, from what I understand, if you catch someone in the night stealing you could just kill them even if they never threatend you.

About Germany, §32 StGB doesn't require proportionality, the test is "Erforderlichkeit" or "necessity". So if you only have a gun and get attacked by a knife, you don't have to "make things even".

Of course, if someone is simply stealing a Catalytic Converter you can't really shoot them, as it's a bit much... you can point a gun at them, and possibly even shoot the air, that's easier to argue as self-defence. If they threaten you back, the situation changes.

The problem is having a gun in the outside, in Germany, good luck with that... of course, if it's someone stealing something inside your house, it becomes a home invasion, which is a completely different thing than someone stealing your property on the street.

It's way more nuanced than Texas, which has a bit more clear cut law.

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

#192

Post by mlrtime »

ssl-3 wrote: post #181
jstanley wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In your other comment you state that you've taken 3 different types of combat training (concealed carry, martial arts, army basic). I am curious if you did all this training after the incident with the 3 young men or before?

Over time. Decades. I got involved in martial arts for a few years after I was attacked for no particular reason by people who were much older than me when I was a little kid, twice in short succession, and my parents felt that this was a good way to help with that kind of situation. I don't know if that was the best response that they could make but I don't disagree with it. Army training happened later, in a just-p…

Sorry that happened to you.

"None of any of the training I've ever had really covered dealing with a surprise attack from three motherfuckers at once. It wasn't exactly ideal."

Not much will, I practiced Krav Maga for years and we train for 3:1 , but a surprise attack that knocks you unconsciouses is hard to plan against. But it does teach you to be ultra-aware of your environment, who's around you, what attack surfaces are risky, objects you can use to defend yourself.

You may know this already, so maybe it would help someone else.

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

#193

Post by mlrtime »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #112
rossy wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Correct, the "No object is worth someone's life" is easy to say. However if you want a high trust society, it needs property rights. That only comes through enforcement of some sort.

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

#194

Post by mlrtime »

SwellJoe wrote: post #151
bob1029 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that world largely exists. There are some counties in Texas where crime is essentially negligible. I live a few minutes away from one of the facilities where capital punishment is administered. The local community is extremely pleasant. I don't bother locking my doors at home or at the grocery store. The only place any real crime occurs is within a few hundred yards of the interstate. Target and Home Depot ge…

Texas has among the highest crime rates in the country, 17th for violent crime, even worse for property crime. Given the wealth of Texas, having such high crime rates is even more embarrassing (crime and poverty go hand in hand, but Texas doesn't have that excuse). In short, you're talking out of your ass.

Try researching rural vs urban, most of this crime happens in urban areas, Houston, Dallas etc. Texas rural rates of crime are significantly less than Texas urban and the US overall.

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

#195

Post by alex43578 »

AngryData wrote: post #170
alex43578 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a pretty nebulous answer. Just to help solidify my understanding of your position, can the government ever operate a camera recording a public roadway?

Not if its purpose is to surveil or monitor innocent people, that is the whole reason flock exists, to get around that restriction as a private entity. The government only has public cameras now because it is for other purposes like monitoring traffic congestion or things like floods.

Every security camera on Earth is there "to surveil or monitor innocent people". That's inherently how they work.

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

#196

Post by flexagoon »

CamelCaseName wrote: post #11
qwerpy wrote: post #10

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.

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.

Does the account registration date also matter? I have 2110 points and I dont think I have the vouch button

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

#197

Post by subscribed »

jrflowers wrote: post #56
exabrial wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would love to live in a world where thieves feared for their lives.

You want thieves to be armed?

They already are, including in the countries that penalise carrying anything for the self defense.

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

#198

Post by phoghed »

phil21 wrote: post #88
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…

Yeah. There were times in my life I would have put my life on the line (and that of the thief) to defend my vehicle and the tools within it. Those fed myself and my family. I would have had no reasonable means to replace my tools, and barely reasonable means to replace the damage a catalytic converter theft would have caused me. Today it's trivially easy for me to say "property can be replaced, a life cannot" since I…

> to defend my vehicle and the tools within it

This is a very normal commercial insurance problem. Sure, you can supplement it by buying a gun and staying up all night defending your truck, but the family ain’t gonna be happy if you bought the gun in lieu of insurance, especially if you lose that gunfight.

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

#199

Post by nkrisc »

logicchains wrote: post #91
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 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.

English is not some objective, natural thing which exists outside of its usage by people. English is only how it's used by people.

I would wager that for the majority English speakers, the words "theft", "robbery", and (to a lesser degree) "burglary" or more or less fully interchangeable.

They may not be interchangeable in law, but the usage of English in law is famously not always in line with common usage, which is why we have "legalese" which many completely fluent and native English speakers may have trouble understanding without specialized legal training.

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

#200

Post by alex43578 »

DarmokTanagra wrote: post #172
alex43578 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carpenter only covers cell data and was specifically meant to apply narrowly to that type of info.

Good thing that there isn't a court in the United States that exists solely to make those kinds of distinctions and revise previous interpretations of the law in order to apply them to an evolving legal landscape. Flock cameras using facial recognition to surveil citizens in public spaces without a warrant is a 4th amendment violation under any rational reading, and it is up to the American people whether they want t…

Good thing the courts are already upholding the constitutionality of Flock in US v Jackson and Schmidt v. City of Norfolk. If it reaches the SC, I think it'd be easy to see a limit similar to Carpenter on scope and duration of the searches of the database without a warrant, but recognize fundamentally that collecting the data itself is not violating anyone's rights.

As just mentioned, being watched in a public space doesn't constitute a violation of the 4th Amendment. Under any rational reading, you are not being searched.

It really has no impact on anyone's life, especially if they participate in any part of society. Your phone records, credit cards, and every social media and email account are all far more invasive tracking and without even the veneer of accountability. Even for criminals, it hardly makes a difference if they pull an ID from Flock, your cell records, or the bodega security camera and Ring doorbell footage people would happily offer to a cop. Investigating a crime by looking at a security camera is not fascism, just like deporting an illegal immigrant or dispersing a riot isn't fascism.

Post reply on HN