Lawmakers added $1 to car insurance policies. That money paid for Flock cameras • Hacker News Board

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

#311

Post by whstl » Sun, Aug 30, 2026, 6:03 PM UTC

weinzierl wrote: post #302

whstl wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

§32 StGB requires "Erforderlichkeit" (necessity) AND "Gebotenheit" (appropriateness). The knife vs gun example is from legal education to teach that §32 StGB requires the mildest means available in the concrete situation.

But if the "mildest mean available" of self-defence against a knife assailant is a gun, the a gun is the most appropriate, simply because others aren't available. Naturally pretty much nobody has a gun, so not a problem, but this has happened and has been discussed. Germany doesn't have proportionality.

And there are even other articles like §33 StGB, which excuses excess arising from fear, fright or confusion, which is what happens if someone points a knife at you.

"Gebotenheit" refers mainly to what I'm talking about in my second sentence (trying other means before shooting) and to sozialethische Einschränkungen (e.g.: psychosis, provocation, trivial attacks, etc), it doesn't "forbid" using a legal gun against an assailant actively attacking you with a knife as a last resort.

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

#312

Post by giardini » Sun, Aug 30, 2026, 6:04 PM UTC

ssl-3 wrote: post #301

lenkite wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or basic simple profit for sociopaths. Organized criminal rings have turned catalytic converter theft into a multi-million to billion dollar+ industry. Its basically steal from the POOR middle-class and make the sociopaths even more rich. Nobody desperate will dare steal from the gangs since its not just death, but PAIN before death.

What causes people to join gangs in the first place, might you suppose?

What causes people to become Democrats?

Who knows?! Companionship?

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

#313

Post by mythrwy » Sun, Aug 30, 2026, 6:04 PM UTC

Gigachad wrote: post #114

cosmicgadget wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I was a construction superintendent a couple of decades ago and had a rented backhoe stolen overnight after I had parked it directly under cameras.

This was in Sunland Park, New Mexico which is basically Eastern El Paso.

The police weren't interested in getting camera footage at all. They also weren't very interested in following the backhoe tracks through the sand that went through a backyard gate at this trailer house a few hundred feet away containing cerement mixers, junk, and dozens of bicycles in different states of repair.

I came back to that job a few months later to check on some things and there was another backhoe parked in that backyard yard. I called the police. They said "what crime are you reporting? stop calling if you don't have a crime".

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

#314

Post by bulbar » Sun, Aug 30, 2026, 6:05 PM UTC

weinzierl wrote: post #303

lwkl wrote: post #187

Earlier 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. 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 knife vs gun is literally the example from legal education to teach that §32 StGB requires the mildest means available in the concrete situation.

Your are not arguing against the parent comment, right?

Because when somebody attacks you with a knife, drawing a gun oftentimes will not even be an effective defense. But if that is all that's available to you, it's only reasonable to give it a try. You should shoot multiple times or empty the whole magazine though and yes, that's generally justified by the law if that's what it takes to stop the attack.

The exact thing has happened to police man and woman and yes, they get trained to shoot multiple times to defend themselves. Was an outcry in media a few times because people don't understand the situation those people were put into.

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

#315

Post by giardini » Sun, Aug 30, 2026, 6:06 PM UTC

hackable_sand wrote: post #267

earth-tattoo wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Same value. They're the same value.

hackable_sand says "Same value. They're the same value."

How do you come by that? By that logic, Joseph Stalin is as valuable as Mother Theresa!

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

#316

Post by aidenn0 » Sun, Aug 30, 2026, 6:14 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #220

Planktonne wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a useful definition, because it allows you to talk about places where the law might be unjust. You can't have a functioning democracy if it's impossible to criticise the current setup. This is the whole idea behind newspeak [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

> It is a useful definition, because it allows you to talk about places where the law might be unjust. Unjust according to whom? Wouldn't it be better to just make our premises explicit?

While some philosophers may disagree with me, all statements made by an entity with agency contain the implicit prefix "I believe that..."

In terms of rhetoric, explicitly adding "I believe that..." to the beginning of a statement softens the statement to a degree that the speaker may not desire. When a vegetarian holds up a sign saying "Meat is murder" I don't think very many people are confused about "according to whom" or that they think the person waving the sign believes that killing animals is actually against the law. "I believe that killing animals for food is immoral and unjustified so we should stop" certainly lacks the punch of the original statement, and the number people who are confused about the original statement is small enough to justify the punchier language.

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

#317

Post by cindyllm » Sun, Aug 30, 2026, 6:14 PM UTC

alex43578 wrote: post #252

aqme28 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> being in the middle of a public roadway in a registered vehicle shouldn't confer the expectation of privacy And this is where US caselaw and my personal beliefs about privacy start to differ. Why can't we expect some level of privacy in a public place? There are some countries that confer that, to certain levels.

“Why can't we expect some level of privacy in a public place?” Because it’s a public place. We already have laws covering things like harassment, voyeurism, etc; so existing legal conduct in a public place should remain legal.

[dead]

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

#318

Post by giardini » Sun, Aug 30, 2026, 6:16 PM UTC

naijaboiler wrote: post #243

phoghed wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I agree. Insurance is generally a better solution for this than engaging some burglar

You don't have to engage the burglar, you just need to shoot a gun once (a shotgun is especially effective) b/c the blast will render the perp deaf temporarily.

Sometimes you get some mechanics' tools. But the best part is the laugh, watching someone running away with their pants full of shite.

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

#319

Post by giardini » Sun, Aug 30, 2026, 6:28 PM UTC

carlob wrote: post #125

GaryBluto wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is forcing people to risk their lives to infringe on other people's rights. Whenever I see a news article about a criminal killed in the act, I never think "I wish they were alive.", I think "I wish they never went down that path in the first place that lead to that scenario."

> Nobody is forcing people to risk their lives to infringe on other people's rights. Except poverty, ignorance, hunger, addiction, untreated mental illness...

Hey there, Otto!

Otto's "I blame Society" speech from the movie Repo Man:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3b5Q7b8YXo

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

#320

Post by giardini » Sun, Aug 30, 2026, 6:30 PM UTC

budman1 wrote: post #57

hopelessluca wrote: post #34

Earlier 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.

If I kill you over a $2K catalytic converter, my sanity is gone. I could never sleep at night without thinking about what I have done.' A life is worth a lot more than $2k for my sanity.

So how much?