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

331–340 of 355 posts

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

#331

Post by weinzierl »

bulbar wrote: post #297
weinzierl wrote: post #184

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. 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 reaso…

"First 1-2 sentences"

First sentence is "Zur Erforderlichkeit der Notwehrhandlung" (About the necessity of self defense acts).

The whole document is about the necessity aspect but §32 StGB requires Notendigkeit (necessity) AND Gebotenheit (appropriateness).

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

#332

Post by weinzierl »

bulbar wrote: post #314
weinzierl wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

I'm saying that when you use a gun against an attacker with a knife you will end up before a judge as the defendant and not as the victim. The court will decide if using the gun in this specific case was necessary (notwendig) and appropriate (geboten). Only if it was both will you go unpunished.

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

#333

Post by weinzierl »

whstl wrote: post #311
weinzierl wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

§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, whic…

Doesn't change what I'm saying. When you use a gun against an attacker with a knife expect to end up before a judge as the defendant and not as the victim. The court will decide if using the gun in this specific case was necessary (notwendig) and appropriate (geboten). Only if it was both will you go unpunished.

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

#334

Post by guillybarres »

SoftTalker wrote: post #5
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!!!

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.

If you do that in Texas they'll give you the key to the city. A man was once acquitted after using an AK-47 to shoot an escort who was being driven away after robbing him of $150: https://www.nydailynews.com/2013/06/07/texas-prostitutes-jil....

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

#335

Post by thaumasiotes »

sokoloff wrote: post #326
thaumasiotes wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Laypeople aren't casual with language. You're not going to hear anyone referring to a theft as a bubble bath. They know what the words mean. But the law is using the language incorrectly in ways that are guaranteed to cause confusion. This is a problem. The law should be using the language correctly, which it isn't doing now.

The law is defining the language within the law, including the required elements that must be proven in order for the crime to result in a conviction. The law does not require nor permit you to bring your own dictionary for crimes; they give you the definition for free and require to use theirs. As an example, burglary is defined in Texas Penal Code § 30.02 - Burglary: https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/PE/htm/PE…

I'm aware of the structure. My comments have said that it is a mistake -- not a logical impossibility, but a bad idea -- to use existing, interchangeable terms for crimes that are legally distinct. This mistake is usually avoided, but in the case of robbery, burglary, and theft, it hasn't been.

For example, imagine that someone gets really drunk, stumbles into your home, collapses on your couch, and soaks it in urine. Hours later, you come home and find him sleeping it off.

Under Texas law, whether this is "burglary" depends on the value of your couch.

Suppose you've got a very fancy couch. It was "burglary". Any local newspaper is free to refer to that guy as having been convicted of burglary (assuming he gets prosecuted). But this is clearly a miscarriage of justice; no one in the world would consider that "burglary", and coverage using that term should be defamatory.

In general, if you seek to define new terms, they should actually be new terms. Redefining terms people already know has downsides, but not upsides.

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

#336

Post by xyzzyz »

bulbar wrote: post #310
zimpenfish wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I’ve lived in a bunch of European countries and in none would you be charged with murder in that situation. Presumably not the UK? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer) "Anthony Edward Martin was an English farmer who shot two burglars in his home [...] was convicted of murder, which was later reduced to manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility"

"Details" matter: > The prosecution accused him of lying in wait for the burglars and opening fire without warning from close range, in retribution for previous break-ins at his home.[13] No warning shot. He also llegally bought a semi-automatic pump shotgun, possibly with the explicit plan to kill the intruders (as he got robbed in the past). He also shot at them while they were fleeing. So, yeah, in this particular…

Just to nitpick, there is no such thing as “semiautomatic pump shotgun”. It’s either semiautomatic, or a pump.

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

#337

Post by pclmulqdq »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #104
pclmulqdq wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure that doesn't qualify on the basis that it is the curtilage of your home? Often this counts as "in your dwelling" because it's in your private space that immediately accompanies the dwelling.

> Often this counts as "in your dwelling" Is this true in any context other than a potential fourth amendment violation by an agent of the state?

I think this has applied in the case of self defense in Texas, at least on someone’s porch. Curtilage is a general concept, not specific to the fourth amendment.

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

#338

Post by ergocoder »

knollimar wrote: post #255
ergocoder wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because many people agree with having cameras to help reduce/monitor crimes. From their views, the right isn't trampled. It's a win

The whole "government can't spy on you, but can pay a corporation to do it" is crazy. From requesting data from big tech to this, it's just wild. It feels like some juvenile "I can't kill you but I can pay this guy $200k to make you go away"

These are public areas. It's not spying.

Almost every house in my neighborhood has 1-2 cameras pointing around their houses. When there's an issue, my neighbors share the footages with the group, and that's so useful. And I live in a very very democrat state/city.

Also, we should definitely address the privacy and access control issue with Flock. Removing the cameras isn't the right solution.

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

#339

Post by whstl »

weinzierl wrote: post #333
whstl wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, whic…

Doesn't change what I'm saying. When you use a gun against an attacker with a knife expect to end up before a judge as the defendant and not as the victim. The court will decide if using the gun in this specific case was necessary (notwendig) and appropriate (geboten). Only if it was both will you go unpunished.

Once again: Erforderlich, not notwendig.

And nope, nope, nope. It only goes to court if the police investigation supports it wasn't self-defence, and a public prosecutor decides to move the case forward. The realistic endpoint for a clean case is a dismissal letter from the prosecutor, not a courtroom. And this is true for everyone: even police can't kill someone and not expect an investigation. However naturally it doesn't go to court, for obvious reasons.

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

#340

Post by alex43578 »

disposition2 wrote: post #290
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? There are some countries that confer that, to certain levels. The US used to be one of those countries, then 9/11 happened and the loudest folks (or at least the folks with the most money to influence law) started eroding privacy and now more folks just accept our current state and views like OP’s. It’s really interesting…you can even watch a TV crime dra…

That's an erosion of privacy where you have (had?) an expectation of privacy. In the US, you could always be recorded in public, excluding narrow exceptions for things like voyeurism or harassment.
Post reply on HN