> 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!!!
SoftTalker 4 hours ago [-]
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.
> 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 the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime.
> Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
> (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
> (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
> (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
> (3) he reasonably believes that:
> (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or (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.
sokoloff 4 hours ago [-]
I can’t see a catalytic converter theft on a car parked on the street as burglary. Parked in a (private) garage? Yes, burglary. Parked on the street? No.
So, daytime theft of a converter from a car parked outside wouldn’t qualify I don’t think.
slashdev 3 hours ago [-]
It also mentions:
> theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime.
Seems like that qualifies
nonethewiser 3 hours ago [-]
Parked in your driveway
thaumasiotes 3 hours ago [-]
No, the driveway wouldn't count. Texas doesn't define burglary by property boundaries; you have to enter a "building" or a "habitation", and a habitation must be a "structure" or a "vehicle".
pclmulqdq 45 minutes ago [-]
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.
thaumasiotes 4 hours ago [-]
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 commit, a crime.
"Robbery" is theft in which the thief causes an injury to someone else. (Or intentionally threatens to do so.)
"Theft" is what it sounds like.
Most notably burglary need not include any element of theft. 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.
On topic for this particular comment, "habitation" is specifically defined to include vehicles "adapted for the overnight accommodation of persons".
logicchains 10 minutes ago [-]
>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.
You can legally murder people to prevent "mischief", as long as it's at night? Wow.
bryanlarsen 3 hours ago [-]
IANAL.
Mischief is typically a serious crime; the legal and common uses of the word are different and confusing.
But I don't think Texas is restricting this to the more serious felony mischief here.
thaumasiotes 43 minutes ago [-]
In this case Texas defines "criminal mischief" in three clauses, and separately defines circumstances under which it constitutes a felony. Felony mischief is largely but not exclusively defined by the amount of pecuniary loss.
The first two clauses are destroying property and damaging property in a way that causes pecuniary loss to anyone.
The third clause is making marks on property. This seems like it would always be included under "damaging property in a way that causes pecuniary loss", so I would guess it's there to make it completely explicit that graffiti counts as criminal mischief.
The quoted section of the penal code does not appear to apply any restrictions to the specific variety of criminal mischief that justifies deadly force (other than that it occurs at night).
For something like graffiti where the general sentiment is that deadly force shouldn't be considered justified, I could see an argument that the use of deadly force violates §9.42(3)(A), which requires the person using deadly force to reasonably believe that the land or property in question "cannot be protected or recovered by any other means". If we view both verbs as applying to criminal mischief, you could make the argument that when you catch someone spraying graffiti on a wall on your property, your property can be recovered, though not protected, by e.g. repainting the wall.
The counterargument might be that "recovered" is in there as the appropriate verb for cases of theft, and "protected" is in there for cases of mischief.
I don't think restricting §9.42 to felony mischief would be an improvement to the law; it's difficult to know whether criminal mischief is or isn't a felony until you've tried to recover from it and learned how much that will cost. If you catch someone keying your car, for example, that probably is a felony, but as far as social impact I would rate it similarly to graffiti.
budman1 2 hours ago [-]
It ain't murder.
(other words apply)
thaumasiotes 4 hours ago [-]
The alternative would be completely incoherent. If it's OK to prevent theft, the appropriation of property, it must also be OK to prevent criminal mischief, which is the destruction of property.
Note that the harm to the victim is identical in both cases, except that in the case of theft, recovery may be possible.
nonethewiser 3 hours ago [-]
“Legal” murder makes absolutely no sense. If its legal its not murder. You mean “legally kill”
aidenn0 3 hours ago [-]
It can also mean unjustified/immoral killing, which can be a useful definition (otherwise e.g. a true dictator can never murder anyone).
rayiner 12 minutes ago [-]
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.
nekusar 3 hours ago [-]
Yeah.
You expect pigs to defend you?
exabrial 3 hours ago [-]
I would love to live in a world where thieves feared for their lives.
cosmicgadget 2 hours ago [-]
Sounds like Texas is the place for you.
3eb7988a1663 2 hours ago [-]
Yet I believe crime still happens in Texas.
kelseyfrog 42 minutes ago [-]
This is why Texas has the lowest rate of crime in the US.
jrflowers 2 hours ago [-]
You want thieves to be armed?
earth-tattoo 59 minutes ago [-]
It's much more safe for a law abiding citizen to assume that all thieves are armed, because they most likely are.
jrflowers 10 minutes ago [-]
That’s awful, it’s too bad that the thieves fear for their lives so much that they arm themselves
AlexandrB 1 hours ago [-]
They frequently already are. Even here in Canada[1] where any kind of "carry" is generally not allowed. Shockingly, thieves often don't care about gun laws though.
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.
huimang 2 hours ago [-]
> 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 not.
No, a better reason to not allow shooting of common thieves is that you don't want ordinary people shooting randomly at each other. The government / police should be able to handle this, but they either don't care or are incompetent.
Which leaves the ordinary upstanding citizen stuck between a rock and a hard place. The Man extracts taxes from their earnings, and thieves who ruin lives get a slap on the wrist because "lives are oh precious".
qlte 1 hours ago [-]
> Same deal with states with "stand your ground laws". It's astonishingly easy to not get shot: don't invade someone's home.
I was referring to homes. This situation likely could've been avoided by not engaging in recklessly stupid behavior like road rage and escalating the situation (with one's family present, to boot).
Also, a news article of some random altercation doesn't change anything about what I said: It's simply impossible to be shot (or clubbed, or beaten up, or whatever) by someone in their home for invading, if you never invade people's homes in the first place. So don't do that. And don't steal catalytic converters either.
earth-tattoo 1 hours ago [-]
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.
phil21 19 minutes ago [-]
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 am exceedingly privileged. I would not put my life, or anyone else's on the line to defend anything but my and my family's personal safety. But I remember what it was like to not be so ridiculously privileged. So I get it.
Only someone who has never lived a hard day in their life can spew such stuff at other folks. It's entirely circumstantial.
The laws should reflect the prior case, not the privileged one. At least if you want to disincentivize criminal behavior.
GaryBluto 2 hours ago [-]
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."
arjie 42 minutes ago [-]
Ah, but that’s not the choice. The choice is whether there exist probability p, life L, and material possession m such that the possession is worth more than p times L.
The conclusion that there is no such triad seems clearly absurd since we allow people to build things for us the construction of which offers them a non-zero chance of death.
It is reasonable to say that a precise frontier is not describable because of Sorites but to say no triad exists implies that you only participate in an economy consisting exclusively of zero risk behaviour[0] That seems improbable.
Once we’ve dealt with that, perhaps we may be able to conclude that catalytic converters exist on one side of the frontier or on the other side or perhaps we might say that they lie along the Sorites boundary.
0: we are not unreasonable. We might even choose to consider imperfect information about the risk, the risk being at a Pareto optimum, the risk being at optimum against counterfactual, etc.
budman1 2 hours ago [-]
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.
honeycrispy 1 hours ago [-]
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.
rossy 42 minutes ago [-]
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 themselves and their property isn't one I would call higher "trust" than one that maintains the same crime levels without that threat.
rayiner 2 hours ago [-]
You’re removing context by referring to a generic “human life” as if we don’t have more information than that.
bryanlarsen 2 hours ago [-]
That's not cliché; Texas is the only state that applies stand-your-ground to crimes against property alone.
kashkhan 1 hours ago [-]
its not about the money. its about the threat to your life.
A mugger may be stealing $50 in your wallet, but the crime is the threat to your life.
AlexandrB 2 hours ago [-]
This sounds great in theory, and I used to agree, but:
a. There's no guarantee against escalation, a property crime turns into a violent crime very easily.
b. Property crime can have a deep psychological impact on the victim - something the perpetrator demonstrably gives zero fucks about.
c. The police and justice system in 2026 don't care about prosecuting property crime. Having no recourse at all if you're being robbed (a common situation when defending your own property is effectively illegal because of the risk to the perpetrator) is grossly unfair.
2 hours ago [-]
none2585 26 minutes ago [-]
Life is pretty easy to make actually
Eueudhsbsj32 1 hours ago [-]
The life of most of the people who steal catalytic converters is not worth much.
Geonode 2 hours ago [-]
The thief shouldn't value something more than his life then.
mannanj 56 minutes ago [-]
this is so untrue, gullible and naive. so if I steal your home, your car, your food, your water, and everything material, and you end up starving and dead or stranded on the side of a ride in a desert where no ones coming to help you - are you are saying that is ok since that stuff can be replaced?
You absolutely can cause death to a human and take a human life through material theft.
dghlsakjg 4 hours ago [-]
You can use force in Texas to stop property crime.
Fire away, I guess.
tehwebguy 2 hours ago [-]
What an insane trade off. Seems like a few bait cars and a couple of trackers would be plenty to figure out where the converters are getting fenced. Obviously there is a small number of buyers driving the entire catalytic theft economy.
mannanj 53 minutes ago [-]
So to fight abuse and overreach by your leaders, you can:
- give up your car/vehicle propery
- let an LLC take ownership
- reside in the privacy protections of LLC and corporation
I don't think any successful case has happened yet where flock et al have pierced the corporate veil to get address information, nor dug into insurance records to find who the LLC-license plates belong to.
qwerpy 4 hours ago [-]
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.
CamelCaseName 4 hours ago [-]
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.
kryogen1c 4 hours ago [-]
Been here 8 years, always wondered how comments died. I assumed it was algorithmic. TIL
throwup238 3 hours ago [-]
“[dead]” usually means algorithmic (could be as simple as an account registered via Tor that hasn’t been vouched for enough times). “[flagged][dead]” usually means it was flag-killed by users, except I’ve been noticing some AI written comments that are flagged instead of just dead, but they’re minutes old so unlikely to be user flagged.
defrost 3 hours ago [-]
There's been an "AI comment detect" algo trialed and running for a month or so now.
If you see any probably human comments tagged as Mr Roboto either vouch (weak indication, needs a few others to boost) or email hn@<this site> for dang / tom to cast a meat based eyeball over it.
lostlogin 3 hours ago [-]
I wondered that too. It doesn't say, but does state: "Data from the license plate readers, known in law enforcement as LPRs, was searched 62,000 times in 2025, leading to about 1,660 cleared catalytic converter theft cases, a report from the authority said."
Also, how many missing people are there? finding 10k seems quite a lot. “one of the most effective ways Flock has been able to help find, just last year, over 10,000 missing persons”.
Zak 3 hours ago [-]
The term "missing person" calls to mind someone who is in serious danger, but a majority are something minor, like someone quitting a job without notice or taking an unannounced trip. The vast majority are resolved by finding the person alive.
Flock helping close 10K cases doesn't surprise me at all, but it doesn't meant those people wouldn't have been found without it. It may mean less work for the police, but the police don't usually put a lot of effort into a missing person without evidence they're in danger.
cosmicgadget 2 hours ago [-]
Based on the cited document, "leading to" seems entirely made up.
medellin 1 hours ago [-]
This site is pure horse crap and has gotten exponentially worse every year. I rarely open the comments anymore but every time i do i am disappointed to see it is just reddit liberal idiots with no curiosity
2 hours ago [-]
ihsw 4 hours ago [-]
Did it reduce catalytic converter theft?
floralhangnail 3 hours ago [-]
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.
Number of LPR Deployments by taskforce investigators 42,878
Number of vehicles recovered from LPR detection 1,963
Number of Cleared Cases – Catalytic Converter Theft 1,658
Number of arrests from LPR detection 569
Number of identified/documented prolific catalytic converter theft offenders 266
Number of Catalytic Converter Theft bait operations 236
The problem is they don't define "deployments". There are ~13,500 ALPR cameras and they do thousands of plates per hour and neither of those numbers matches the deployment. My best guess is it is a targeted search and so a vehicle is recovered or a case is cleared 2-3 times out of every 100 times they search the database.
Regarding actual reduction, as another comment said, the amount of crime fluctuates with metal prices, pretty much lockstep. But at least they can lock the people away.
baldeagle 3 hours ago [-]
It’s hard to say. As the economic got better, trade policies stabilized and the price of commodities and therefore the metals in a converter dropped in value. As the price of the metals went down, the thefts dropped nationally. Texas thefts seemed to have dropped inline with the national trend. Since the supply side issues are picking up again, the thefts are going up likewise.
p_j_w 2 hours ago [-]
If what you say is true it doesn’t sound hard to say at all, it seems clear that the cameras didn’t reduce the thefts at all.
cosmicgadget 2 hours ago [-]
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?
wewro 4 hours ago [-]
[dead]
Waterluvian 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
cromka 3 hours ago [-]
Wish you were right, but Palantir continues to gain adoption.
chadgpt3 4 hours ago [-]
It's only taught them to keep a lower profile. Nobody's heard of Axon cameras, which are exactly like Flock, and getting installed in all the places that don't have Flock.
jrexilius 3 hours ago [-]
Also Motorola, which is the big incumbent provider for LE systems (911, traffic cams, et al). Axon and Motorola re LOVING Flock taking all the ... flak.
wahnfrieden 4 hours ago [-]
They’re in Toronto
Waterluvian 3 hours ago [-]
I’m searching for positive confirmation on this. I’ve heard rumours but non-Flock cameras keep getting flagged in the dataset.
DivingForGold 5 hours ago [-]
Snooping Bastards !
DarmokTanagra 1 hours ago [-]
For a country that staged a revolution over a tea tax modern Americans sure seem to love having their rights trampled.
ergocoder 27 minutes ago [-]
Because many people agree with having cameras to help reduce/monitor crimes.
From their views, the right isn't trampled. It's a win
bpodgursky 1 hours ago [-]
Over a tea tax without representation. Very common to forget that part!
DarmokTanagra 1 hours ago [-]
Do 84 year olds on life support count as representation?
johnnyanmac 1 hours ago [-]
According to voting turnout: yes. That's the thing the 70+ year old voterbase learned from their peak working year.
And yet there are still so many working class people who try to profess how "voting is useless, it doesn't change anything".
DarmokTanagra 58 minutes ago [-]
In American style representative democracy there certainly are places where voting is useless depending on your political affiliation.
bpodgursky 8 minutes ago [-]
Only if you are too stubborn to register as the dominant party and vote in the primary.
johnnyanmac 27 minutes ago [-]
Useless because everyone around you genuinely thinks differently from you? Or useless because said 70+ yo retired asset owners with more means to vote without more than the working class?
Big difference in issue. You can't gerrymander a local bill so those kinds of votes are arguably more important than nationals. And you'd be surprised how big a difference a visit with a few dozen of your peers can make to a townhall meeting. That's something we seem to forget until our backs are truly to a wall.
troyvit 1 hours ago [-]
Yep. We asked for the nightmare we've brought upon ourselves
rayiner 2 hours ago [-]
Why are we made at these cameras? Are the cameras beaming out rays causing people to engage in anti-social conduct?
fluidcruft 2 hours ago [-]
Because the users of the cameras have proven themselves untrustworthy.
BirAdam 1 hours ago [-]
That and it’s against the spirit of the bill of rights.
StanislavPetrov 22 minutes ago [-]
Because deploying these cameras is anti-social conduct.
rayiner 15 minutes ago [-]
More antisocial than stealing cars?
Rendered at 04:37:52 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
> 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!!!
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 the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime.
I'd think that'd qualify.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/?tab=1&code=PE&chapter=PE...
> Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
> (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
> (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
> (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
> (3) he reasonably believes that:
> (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or (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.
So, daytime theft of a converter from a car parked outside wouldn’t qualify I don’t think.
> theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime.
Seems like that qualifies
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 commit, a crime.
"Robbery" is theft in which the thief causes an injury to someone else. (Or intentionally threatens to do so.)
"Theft" is what it sounds like.
Most notably burglary need not include any element of theft. 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.
On topic for this particular comment, "habitation" is specifically defined to include vehicles "adapted for the overnight accommodation of persons".
They're not at all fully interchangeable, just many Americans have a poor grasp of the English language.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEdaQcq4w88
Mischief is typically a serious crime; the legal and common uses of the word are different and confusing.
But I don't think Texas is restricting this to the more serious felony mischief here.
The first two clauses are destroying property and damaging property in a way that causes pecuniary loss to anyone.
The third clause is making marks on property. This seems like it would always be included under "damaging property in a way that causes pecuniary loss", so I would guess it's there to make it completely explicit that graffiti counts as criminal mischief.
The quoted section of the penal code does not appear to apply any restrictions to the specific variety of criminal mischief that justifies deadly force (other than that it occurs at night).
For something like graffiti where the general sentiment is that deadly force shouldn't be considered justified, I could see an argument that the use of deadly force violates §9.42(3)(A), which requires the person using deadly force to reasonably believe that the land or property in question "cannot be protected or recovered by any other means". If we view both verbs as applying to criminal mischief, you could make the argument that when you catch someone spraying graffiti on a wall on your property, your property can be recovered, though not protected, by e.g. repainting the wall.
The counterargument might be that "recovered" is in there as the appropriate verb for cases of theft, and "protected" is in there for cases of mischief.
I don't think restricting §9.42 to felony mischief would be an improvement to the law; it's difficult to know whether criminal mischief is or isn't a felony until you've tried to recover from it and learned how much that will cost. If you catch someone keying your car, for example, that probably is a felony, but as far as social impact I would rate it similarly to graffiti.
Note that the harm to the victim is identical in both cases, except that in the case of theft, recovery may be possible.
You expect pigs to defend you?
[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-police-cash-r...
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 not.
No, a better reason to not allow shooting of common thieves is that you don't want ordinary people shooting randomly at each other. The government / police should be able to handle this, but they either don't care or are incompetent.
Which leaves the ordinary upstanding citizen stuck between a rock and a hard place. The Man extracts taxes from their earnings, and thieves who ruin lives get a slap on the wrist because "lives are oh precious".
https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/florida-road-rage-incident-...
Also, a news article of some random altercation doesn't change anything about what I said: It's simply impossible to be shot (or clubbed, or beaten up, or whatever) by someone in their home for invading, if you never invade people's homes in the first place. So don't do that. And don't steal catalytic converters either.
Today it's trivially easy for me to say "property can be replaced, a life cannot" since I am exceedingly privileged. I would not put my life, or anyone else's on the line to defend anything but my and my family's personal safety. But I remember what it was like to not be so ridiculously privileged. So I get it.
Only someone who has never lived a hard day in their life can spew such stuff at other folks. It's entirely circumstantial.
The laws should reflect the prior case, not the privileged one. At least if you want to disincentivize criminal behavior.
The conclusion that there is no such triad seems clearly absurd since we allow people to build things for us the construction of which offers them a non-zero chance of death.
It is reasonable to say that a precise frontier is not describable because of Sorites but to say no triad exists implies that you only participate in an economy consisting exclusively of zero risk behaviour[0] That seems improbable.
Once we’ve dealt with that, perhaps we may be able to conclude that catalytic converters exist on one side of the frontier or on the other side or perhaps we might say that they lie along the Sorites boundary.
0: we are not unreasonable. We might even choose to consider imperfect information about the risk, the risk being at a Pareto optimum, the risk being at optimum against counterfactual, etc.
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.
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.
A society which only has low crime because everyone is able to use lethal force to defend themselves and their property isn't one I would call higher "trust" than one that maintains the same crime levels without that threat.
A mugger may be stealing $50 in your wallet, but the crime is the threat to your life.
a. There's no guarantee against escalation, a property crime turns into a violent crime very easily.
b. Property crime can have a deep psychological impact on the victim - something the perpetrator demonstrably gives zero fucks about.
c. The police and justice system in 2026 don't care about prosecuting property crime. Having no recourse at all if you're being robbed (a common situation when defending your own property is effectively illegal because of the risk to the perpetrator) is grossly unfair.
You absolutely can cause death to a human and take a human life through material theft.
Fire away, I guess.
- give up your car/vehicle propery
- let an LLC take ownership
- reside in the privacy protections of LLC and corporation
I don't think any successful case has happened yet where flock et al have pierced the corporate veil to get address information, nor dug into insurance records to find who the LLC-license plates belong to.
If you see any probably human comments tagged as Mr Roboto either vouch (weak indication, needs a few others to boost) or email hn@<this site> for dang / tom to cast a meat based eyeball over it.
Also, how many missing people are there? finding 10k seems quite a lot. “one of the most effective ways Flock has been able to help find, just last year, over 10,000 missing persons”.
Flock helping close 10K cases doesn't surprise me at all, but it doesn't meant those people wouldn't have been found without it. It may mean less work for the police, but the police don't usually put a lot of effort into a missing person without evidence they're in danger.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932022_catalytic_co...
Number of times an ALPR was deployed. 61,875
Number of LPR Deployments by taskforce investigators 42,878
Number of vehicles recovered from LPR detection 1,963
Number of Cleared Cases – Catalytic Converter Theft 1,658
Number of arrests from LPR detection 569
Number of identified/documented prolific catalytic converter theft offenders 266
Number of Catalytic Converter Theft bait operations 236
The problem is they don't define "deployments". There are ~13,500 ALPR cameras and they do thousands of plates per hour and neither of those numbers matches the deployment. My best guess is it is a targeted search and so a vehicle is recovered or a case is cleared 2-3 times out of every 100 times they search the database.
Regarding actual reduction, as another comment said, the amount of crime fluctuates with metal prices, pretty much lockstep. But at least they can lock the people away.
From their views, the right isn't trampled. It's a win
And yet there are still so many working class people who try to profess how "voting is useless, it doesn't change anything".
Big difference in issue. You can't gerrymander a local bill so those kinds of votes are arguably more important than nationals. And you'd be surprised how big a difference a visit with a few dozen of your peers can make to a townhall meeting. That's something we seem to forget until our backs are truly to a wall.