12 ms·

Catalytic converter theft is obnoxious, and I'm fine with it being a felony (in particular as the cost of repairs is substantial higher than the "raw cost" of t

Catalytic converter theft is obnoxious, and I'm fine with it being a felony (in particular as the cost of repairs is substantial higher than the "raw cost" of the stolen converter itself). That being said: It isn't a capital crime and shouldn't be. If people can legally justify deadly force without self-defense (e.g. finding someone under their vehicle and shooting them) then the law itself is a problem. If the state wants to make things a capital crime they should just do so directly, because at least then you get your day in court, a jury who could nullify, and lawmakers have to suffer the political ramifications of killing a bunch of petty thieves.

dylan604 5y ago
>If the state wants to make things a capital crime they should just do so directly, whoa, easy there fella! Don't go giving this guy any more zanny ideas. He'll call another special session just for it (no governor has called this many). The wackier the idea, the better he'll like it.
xenocyon 5y ago
Considering that lawmakers in Texas and other places have recently been trying to make it legal for car drivers to mow down pedestrian protesters, I don't think they are worried about the political ramifications of people killing petty thieves, or rather they believe such ramifications will play to their advantage rather than disadvantage.
- djanogo 5y ago
  You should provide proof of actual law/bill, penal code and case law where what you claim was applied before posting bigoted comments on entire state. Edit: Did you even bother to read the law before you commented?, the first fkin line, and (b), Line (1) burden of proof is on the defendant, not the prosecution, it will be judged by his peers. The (2) will fail if protestors are on allowed/blocked road ways and will only apply if protestors are illegally on non-permitted road ways. (1) the person operating the motor vehicle was exercising due care; and (2) the person injured was blocking traffic in a public right-of-way while participating in a protest or demonstration. (b) This section does not affect a person's liability for an injury caused by grossly negligent conduct.
  - dylan604 5y ago
    https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/851/billtext/html/HB00250I.htm https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/851/billtext/html/HB00250I... what else can I google for you? While I agree the "whole state" is a really big brush to be painting with, it's not an inaccurate description of what the state legislature is doing.
    - barbacoa 5y ago
      >what else can I google for you? I don't think asking for clarification was an unreasonable ask. Too many people today use emotional charged rewordings to describe things. It's honestly hard at times to know what people are referring to anymore.
      - dylan604 5y ago
        I'm glad that the cat is no longer being killed by curiosity. You can dismiss anything because no proof, or you can prove to yourself yay/nay. It took seconds to find the specific texas legislation. It's not like it was hidden. You can then come back and say, "hey i tried looking for this in a websearch, but it was too muddled. got something more definitive?" vs "i don't believe you so the onus on you."
        benchaney 5y ago
        The onus is inherently on the person making the claim to support it with evidence. That is just how burden of proof works. That aside, people supporting their own claims with evidence provides a whole host of secondary benefits. It makes it more clear makes it more clear who is claiming what, it pushes back somewhat on the problem of "it takes an order of magnitude more effort to produce bullshit than to refute it", and it prevents some obnoxious debate tactics that reduce discussion quality. To be honest it don't understand why anyone would advocate any other convention on a discussion board. It seems super short sighted to me.
        dylan604 5y ago
- Jiro 5y ago
  Pedestrian protestors have developed the tactic of gathering on high speed highways, surrounding cars, and trying to assault the drivers. If the driver is not permitted to "mow down" protestors (meaning trying to get away when the pedestrians are trying to prevent that), this means that drivers have no way of defending themselves against such attacks at all.
  - tessierashpool 5y ago
    > Pedestrian protestors have developed the tactic of gathering on high speed highways true > surrounding cars, trying to assault the drivers false
    - Vecr 5y ago
      What do you mean by "false"? Did you forget the LA riots? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots#Attack_on_Reginald_Denny https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots#Attack_... Do not stop the car. Do not get out. Do not surrender. Kill as many as you need to save yourself.
      - dctoedt 5y ago
        From the linked Wikipedia article about the Rodney King riots: "In another incident, the LAPD and Marines intervened in a domestic dispute in Compton, in which the suspect held his wife and children hostage. As the officers approached, the suspect fired two shotgun rounds through the door, injuring some of the officers. One of the officers yelled to the Marines, "Cover me," as per law enforcement training to be prepared to fire if necessary. However, per their military training, the Marines interpreted the wording as providing cover by establishing a base of firepower, resulting in a total of 200 rounds being sprayed into the house. Remarkably, neither the suspect nor the woman and children inside the house were harmed."
      - greedo 5y ago
        Thirty years ago. And this wasn't on a "high speed highway" it was on Florence Ave. And equating largely peaceful protests with the LA riots is really a mistake. The LA riots turned violent very quickly, while the BLM marches stayed peaceful by and large with the exception of right-wing agitators who started looting and fires under false flag operations.
- 123pie123 5y ago
  Does Texas have a law about standing your ground against someone trying to stop you? If so, could the protestors then start shooting the driver in for of self defense? Even if the law does not exist could the protestors could use self defense to shoot the driver anyway?
  - qweqwweqwe-90i 5y ago
    You can't stand your ground going something illegal -> a criminal doesn't have the "right" to shoot at police .
  - dahfizz 5y ago
    The castle doctrine would not apply if you're illegally blocking the road. It applies to your "castle" i.e. your property.
tessierashpool 5y ago
Texans are like this about everything. Bloodthirsty and armed to the teeth, even when they're going to a flower garden to drink herbal tea. I live in a neighboring state and we get a lot of Texan tourists. You can't get them to honor a stop sign or even drive on the right side of the road with anything less than the threat of deadly force. It's utterly exhausting. edit: in the interest of a having worthwhile discussion, let me acknowledge that there's an over-generalization here. Sorry about that. But, in the interest of valuing expertise, let's also keep in mind that Texas has to be experienced to be understood.
- dminvs 5y ago
  We also are all given horses and a Stetson by the state government at birth! /s
- dang 5y ago
  Flamewar comments in general, and regional flamewar in particular, are not allowed here. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and not post like this again, we'd appreciate it.
HelixEndeavor 5y ago
Or, alternatively, thieves could decide to not try and steal catalytic converters knowing they could get shot for it at no legal repercussion for the owner. If you gamble with your life, you're bound to lose eventually, and I just struggle to feel sympathy for those who knowingly ruin their own lives with full conscience of the consequences. I have the right to defend my property.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  Another vote for failed state anarchy. Where all did you grow up and go to school if you don’t mind, I’m building a list of no-go zones.
  - 0x0nyandesu 5y ago
    Oy vey go away. Move to Europe if you don't like it. Your anarchy is my justice
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      Ah yes Europe famously the only place on earth you can’t unload a clip and murder someone for stealing the catalytic converter out of your Ford truck lol. Absolutely embarrassing. Think of all the failure that went into someone making this statement with a straight face. Federal, state, local, moral. Just wow. “Your anarchy is my justice” is the rallying cry of every criminal out there. The state losing its monopoly on violence is the definition of a failed state. Other places you’re welcome to murder people for stealing from you are likely Somalia, parts of El Salvador, the Sudan, Western Sahara and uh, I want to say cartel controlled states in Mexico. Not exactly sterling examples of well run areas. Even there it’s due to absence of state control, not outright abdication.
- capableweb 5y ago
  It doesn't worry you that people could misuse the law? For example, shooting someone to death first, then placing them under their car, and that way get away with murder?
mgraczyk 5y ago
I also agree that it shouldn't be a capital crime, but I don't think that automatically implies that deadly force cannot be allowed to prevent the theft in the first place. The distinction really comes down to your belief on public vs private use of force. On one extreme, you could believe that only the state should be allowed to use deadly force to enforce, on the other extreme you could believe the state should never use deadly force. I would guess that many Texans who support the use of deadly force in this situation accept this difference. Personally I feel there should be no death penalty, but also believe individuals should generally be allowed to use deadly force to protect themselves and their property. I'm worried about cases or mistaken identity or collateral damage, but that should be an empirical question rather than one of justice.

dylan604 5y ago

>If the state wants to make things a capital crime they should just do so directly, whoa, easy there fella! Don't go giving this guy any more zanny ideas. He'll call another special session just for it (no governor has called this many). The wackier the idea, the better he'll like it.

xenocyon 5y ago

Considering that lawmakers in Texas and other places have recently been trying to make it legal for car drivers to mow down pedestrian protesters, I don't think they are worried about the political ramifications of people killing petty thieves, or rather they believe such ramifications will play to their advantage rather than disadvantage.

djanogo 5y ago
You should provide proof of actual law/bill, penal code and case law where what you claim was applied before posting bigoted comments on entire state. Edit: Did you even bother to read the law before you commented?, the first fkin line, and (b), Line (1) burden of proof is on the defendant, not the prosecution, it will be judged by his peers. The (2) will fail if protestors are on allowed/blocked road ways and will only apply if protestors are illegally on non-permitted road ways. (1) the person operating the motor vehicle was exercising due care; and (2) the person injured was blocking traffic in a public right-of-way while participating in a protest or demonstration. (b) This section does not affect a person's liability for an injury caused by grossly negligent conduct.
- dylan604 5y ago
  https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/851/billtext/html/HB00250I.htm https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/851/billtext/html/HB00250I... what else can I google for you? While I agree the "whole state" is a really big brush to be painting with, it's not an inaccurate description of what the state legislature is doing.
  - barbacoa 5y ago
    >what else can I google for you? I don't think asking for clarification was an unreasonable ask. Too many people today use emotional charged rewordings to describe things. It's honestly hard at times to know what people are referring to anymore.
    - dylan604 5y ago
      I'm glad that the cat is no longer being killed by curiosity. You can dismiss anything because no proof, or you can prove to yourself yay/nay. It took seconds to find the specific texas legislation. It's not like it was hidden. You can then come back and say, "hey i tried looking for this in a websearch, but it was too muddled. got something more definitive?" vs "i don't believe you so the onus on you."
      - benchaney 5y ago
        The onus is inherently on the person making the claim to support it with evidence. That is just how burden of proof works. That aside, people supporting their own claims with evidence provides a whole host of secondary benefits. It makes it more clear makes it more clear who is claiming what, it pushes back somewhat on the problem of "it takes an order of magnitude more effort to produce bullshit than to refute it", and it prevents some obnoxious debate tactics that reduce discussion quality. To be honest it don't understand why anyone would advocate any other convention on a discussion board. It seems super short sighted to me.
        dylan604 5y ago
Jiro 5y ago
Pedestrian protestors have developed the tactic of gathering on high speed highways, surrounding cars, and trying to assault the drivers. If the driver is not permitted to "mow down" protestors (meaning trying to get away when the pedestrians are trying to prevent that), this means that drivers have no way of defending themselves against such attacks at all.
- tessierashpool 5y ago
  > Pedestrian protestors have developed the tactic of gathering on high speed highways true > surrounding cars, trying to assault the drivers false
  - Vecr 5y ago
    What do you mean by "false"? Did you forget the LA riots? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots#Attack_on_Reginald_Denny https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots#Attack_... Do not stop the car. Do not get out. Do not surrender. Kill as many as you need to save yourself.
    - dctoedt 5y ago
      From the linked Wikipedia article about the Rodney King riots: "In another incident, the LAPD and Marines intervened in a domestic dispute in Compton, in which the suspect held his wife and children hostage. As the officers approached, the suspect fired two shotgun rounds through the door, injuring some of the officers. One of the officers yelled to the Marines, "Cover me," as per law enforcement training to be prepared to fire if necessary. However, per their military training, the Marines interpreted the wording as providing cover by establishing a base of firepower, resulting in a total of 200 rounds being sprayed into the house. Remarkably, neither the suspect nor the woman and children inside the house were harmed."
    - greedo 5y ago
      Thirty years ago. And this wasn't on a "high speed highway" it was on Florence Ave. And equating largely peaceful protests with the LA riots is really a mistake. The LA riots turned violent very quickly, while the BLM marches stayed peaceful by and large with the exception of right-wing agitators who started looting and fires under false flag operations.
123pie123 5y ago
Does Texas have a law about standing your ground against someone trying to stop you? If so, could the protestors then start shooting the driver in for of self defense? Even if the law does not exist could the protestors could use self defense to shoot the driver anyway?
- qweqwweqwe-90i 5y ago
  You can't stand your ground going something illegal -> a criminal doesn't have the "right" to shoot at police .
- dahfizz 5y ago
  The castle doctrine would not apply if you're illegally blocking the road. It applies to your "castle" i.e. your property.

tessierashpool 5y ago

Texans are like this about everything. Bloodthirsty and armed to the teeth, even when they're going to a flower garden to drink herbal tea. I live in a neighboring state and we get a lot of Texan tourists. You can't get them to honor a stop sign or even drive on the right side of the road with anything less than the threat of deadly force. It's utterly exhausting. edit: in the interest of a having worthwhile discussion, let me acknowledge that there's an over-generalization here. Sorry about that. But, in the interest of valuing expertise, let's also keep in mind that Texas has to be experienced to be understood.

dminvs 5y ago
We also are all given horses and a Stetson by the state government at birth! /s
dang 5y ago
Flamewar comments in general, and regional flamewar in particular, are not allowed here. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and not post like this again, we'd appreciate it.

HelixEndeavor 5y ago

Or, alternatively, thieves could decide to not try and steal catalytic converters knowing they could get shot for it at no legal repercussion for the owner. If you gamble with your life, you're bound to lose eventually, and I just struggle to feel sympathy for those who knowingly ruin their own lives with full conscience of the consequences. I have the right to defend my property.

arcticbull 5y ago
Another vote for failed state anarchy. Where all did you grow up and go to school if you don’t mind, I’m building a list of no-go zones.
- 0x0nyandesu 5y ago
  Oy vey go away. Move to Europe if you don't like it. Your anarchy is my justice
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    Ah yes Europe famously the only place on earth you can’t unload a clip and murder someone for stealing the catalytic converter out of your Ford truck lol. Absolutely embarrassing. Think of all the failure that went into someone making this statement with a straight face. Federal, state, local, moral. Just wow. “Your anarchy is my justice” is the rallying cry of every criminal out there. The state losing its monopoly on violence is the definition of a failed state. Other places you’re welcome to murder people for stealing from you are likely Somalia, parts of El Salvador, the Sudan, Western Sahara and uh, I want to say cartel controlled states in Mexico. Not exactly sterling examples of well run areas. Even there it’s due to absence of state control, not outright abdication.
capableweb 5y ago
It doesn't worry you that people could misuse the law? For example, shooting someone to death first, then placing them under their car, and that way get away with murder?

mgraczyk 5y ago

I also agree that it shouldn't be a capital crime, but I don't think that automatically implies that deadly force cannot be allowed to prevent the theft in the first place. The distinction really comes down to your belief on public vs private use of force. On one extreme, you could believe that only the state should be allowed to use deadly force to enforce, on the other extreme you could believe the state should never use deadly force. I would guess that many Texans who support the use of deadly force in this situation accept this difference. Personally I feel there should be no death penalty, but also believe individuals should generally be allowed to use deadly force to protect themselves and their property. I'm worried about cases or mistaken identity or collateral damage, but that should be an empirical question rather than one of justice.