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!!!
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.
Lawmakers added $1 to car insurance policies. That money paid for Flock cameras
291–300 of 328 posts
Re: Lawmakers added $1 to car insurance policies. That money paid for Flock cameras
#292Earlier quoted context omitted.
The law says your are allowed to stand your ground. You don't have to flee. > But there was even a case, I don't know the details of the case, but if somebody thought some criminals are raiding his house with guns and it's reasonable the he thought that, then he's fully within his rights to defend himself and, depending on the necessities, by shooting at them. Still terrible what happened, of course.
"The law says your are allowed to stand your ground. You don't have to flee." No it does not in germany (and I think most other states of the world). If fleeing is a safe option - this is what you have to do instead of shooting. Reality just seldom is so clear.
See here for example as reference: https://www.heidelberg-strafrecht.de/notwehr.html
> Allerdings gilt besonders hier der Grundsatz, dass das Unrecht dem Recht nicht zu weichen braucht. Man darf sich zur Wehr setzten und muss nicht flüchten.
Translation: > However, the principle that wrongdoing need not give way to what is right applies here in particular. One is allowed to defend oneself and is not required to flee.
I believe that's pretty common and a sane approach.
Re: Lawmakers added $1 to car insurance policies. That money paid for Flock cameras
#293Earlier quoted context omitted.
My comment may sound cliché, but I genuinely believe this, no material possession is worth more than a human life. A catalytic converter can be replaced, a life cannot.
That's not cliché; Texas is the only state that applies stand-your-ground to crimes against property alone.
bryanlarsen says "Texas is the only state that applies stand-your-ground to crimes against property alone."
Not true.
Re: Lawmakers added $1 to car insurance policies. That money paid for Flock cameras
#294Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only if you are too stubborn to register as the dominant party and vote in the primary.
"Voting works, you just need to compromise your beliefs and pretend to be someone that hates everything you believe in to participate!" Hallmark of a healthy democracy.
I think that's an exaggeration, everyone does this in a FPTP system. I've never voted for a candidate in any party I particularly liked, you just pick the closest.
Re: Lawmakers added $1 to car insurance policies. That money paid for Flock cameras
#295Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like Texas is the place for you.
No, I think their civil forfeiture rates are quite a bit higher than average. Property taxes too. Quite a bit of fearless thievery going on in Texas.
Yeah, but who know how many thieves end up dead.
And regardless of state, there's always revenge - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071402/
Re: Lawmakers added $1 to car insurance policies. That money paid for Flock cameras
#296Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The law says your are allowed to stand your ground. You don't have to flee." No it does not in germany (and I think most other states of the world). If fleeing is a safe option - this is what you have to do instead of shooting. Reality just seldom is so clear.
See here for example as reference: https://www.heidelberg-strafrecht.de/notwehr.html > Allerdings gilt besonders hier der Grundsatz, dass das Unrecht dem Recht nicht zu weichen braucht. Man darf sich zur Wehr setzten und muss nicht flüchten. Translation: > However, the principle that wrongdoing need not give way to what is right applies here in particular. One is allowed to defend oneself and is not required to flee.…
Not so easy,
"In bestimmten Situationen kann das sonst umfassend geltende Notwehrrecht eingeschränkt sein. Dies ist dann der Fall, wenn die Verteidigung außer Verhältnis zum Angriff steht."
"Besonderes gilt bei dem Einsatz von Schusswaffen."
"Auch wird das Notwehrrecht eingeschränkt, wenn der Angriff von schuldlos Handelnden wie Kindern, Betrunkenen oder Geisteskranken ausgeht. Hier muss zunächst versucht werden, dem Angriff auszuweichen. Erst wenn ein Ausweichen nicht möglich ist, ist eine Notwehrhandlung geboten"
In other words, my statement above was in those words indeed not exact correct - you don't must flee before shooting, but germany does not has a "home is your castle" law.
Re: Lawmakers added $1 to car insurance policies. That money paid for Flock cameras
#297Earlier 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.
> 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.
No, that's explicitly not the case, it doesn't has to be proportionate, only needs to be the mildest defence available to you that will stop the attack.
Not sure where people get the idea that the defense has to be proportionate, for some reason many believe that.
Defending yourself with a gun against an attacker with a knife is well within your rights (assuming that drawing and defending with a gun would even be effective).
See here for example as reference: https://zjs-online.com/dat/artikel/2020_2_1383.pdf
First 1-2 sentences.
Re: Lawmakers added $1 to car insurance policies. That money paid for Flock cameras
#298Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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…
ESL here. To me, there is a very clear distinction between these terms, which also applies in my native language: A thiefs tries to steal without you noticing, a burglar is a thief that additionally enters a building, and a robber in contrast steals while intentionally confronting you. The intention and the level of danger each of these pose is quite different.
Re: Lawmakers added $1 to car insurance policies. That money paid for Flock cameras
#299Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> 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. Being attacked with a knife means your life is being threatened and using a firearm would be legal even in Germany. The response has to be proportionate to the threat on life or limb not the size of the weapon.
> The response has to be proportionate to the threat
No, not even that, at least not in general. For example, it could be well within your rights to hit somebody who keeps insulting you.
And yes, not getting insulted is a protected right in Germany that you generally lawfully defendable under the "Notwehr" laws.
Wikipedia mentions more example of what you are generally allowed to protect:
> Das unberechtigte Anfertigen einer Fotoaufnahme stellt einen Angriff auf das Recht am eigenen Bild dar.[10] Das Anrauchen einer Person kann einen Angriff auf deren Ehre und Gesundheit darstellen.
Translation:
> Taking a photograph without authorization constitutes an infringement of the right to one's own image.[10] Exposed to secondhand smoke can constitute an infringement of a person's honor and health.
Will be easy enough to find more example if your are not satisfied with Wikipedia.
Re: Lawmakers added $1 to car insurance policies. That money paid for Flock cameras
#300Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
The language is solely defined by what people think it means. The terms are in fact fully interchangeable. If you'd like it packaged in something that looks authoritative, you might consider the following definitions from Merriam-Webster: burgle: to commit robbery rob: to take away as loot : steal thieve: steal, rob
To my own surprise, I think that the nouns are less interchangable than the verbs. The verbs are way more commonly interchanged, even in my native language. Curious!