5 ms·

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, d

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.

thaumasiotes 1mo 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".
- thejazzman 1mo ago
  > Private Domicile, BITCH https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEdaQcq4w88 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEdaQcq4w88
- logicchains 1mo 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.
  - thaumasiotes 1mo ago
    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
    - spolitry 1mo ago
      So? Are you proposing that huge classes of law simply must not exist just because laypeople are casual with language?
      - thaumasiotes 1mo ago
        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.
        sokoloff 1mo ago
        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.30.htm https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/PE/htm/PE.30.htm They further go on to define "building" and "habitation" in Penal Code § 30.01. If you find a dictionary definition that conflicts with the Texas Penal Code's definition of burglary or of a building, guess which one prevails in a criminal proceeding in Texas?
        thaumasiotes 1mo ago
        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.
  - nkrisc 1mo ago
    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 why we have "legalese" which many completely fluent and native English speakers may have trouble understanding without specialized legal training.
    - mafuy 1mo ago
      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.
      - nkrisc 1mo ago
        And those meanings are generally true in English as well, and yet, people use them interchangeably all the time nonetheless.
- dodger-dog 1mo ago
  I have a friend who came out of his house to shoot and kill a guy who was inside his car attempting to steal it. Friend was literally a local celebrity for months.
  - thaumasiotes 1mo ago
    So what happened? Was there a legal judgment? Did he get legal advice? Did local newspapers commission and publish legal analyses? (Did this happen in Texas?)
    - giardini 1mo ago
      Yeah, what happened? Shooting someone inside a car will undoubtedly make a mess! Did he drag the thief out of the car ASAP afterwards, did the guy run off, or what? My actions would likely depend on how fond I was of the car: New Tesla - try talking the guy out of the car, 1971 (maybe any year) Volvo wagon - shoot him dead, etc.
- smelendez 1mo 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. I’ve thought about this too. They often vary from state to state as well. But the alternative would be to create new legal terms, which would be more confusing, or use just use numbers, which would be hard for laypeople to discuss.
  - thaumasiotes 1mo ago
    > But the alternative would be to create new legal terms, which would be more confusing, or use just use numbers, which would be hard for laypeople to discuss. Well, compare homicide, which in popular culture is divided into "murder in the first degree", "murder in the second degree", and "murder in the third degree" alternately known as "manslaughter". It's not clear to me whether you consider those "new legal terms" or "just using numbers", since in my eyes they are terms invented for the purpose of the law, distinguished from each other by numbers. But they appear to be superior to the division between "burglary", "robbery", and "theft" either way. They have no preexisting meaning (unlike "burglary" and "robbery", which are used in spite of existing contradictory meaning) and they cause no difficulties in discussing the crimes, which we can be certain of because these terms already exist and people discuss them all the time. In the Texas penal code, homicide is actually divided into "murder", "capital murder", "manslaughter", and "criminally negligent homicide". These are clearly "new terms" rather than "numbers". They seem pretty straightforward: "murder" is defined in harmony with its natural English-language meaning. "Capital murder" is a variety of murder that allows for capital punishment. "Manslaughter" is homicide caused recklessly rather than intentionally, and is in harmony with the popular understanding of the word "manslaughter". And "criminally negligent homicide" is homicide caused negligently rather than intentionally, and that's also in harmony with the normal construction of noun phrases in English. If we were instead to give those four categories names that nobody without special training was even capable of distinguishing from one another -- as Texas has already done for "burglary", "robbery", and "theft" -- what would improve? I submit that that would make some things worse while making nothing better. Compare also the popular-culture division between "assault" and "assault with a deadly weapon". What would giving those two crimes synonymous names accomplish?
nonethewiser 1mo ago
Parked in your driveway
- thaumasiotes 1mo 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 1mo 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 1mo ago
      > 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?
      - pclmulqdq 1mo ago
        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.
        thaumasiotes 1mo ago
        Well, I found an analysis by a Texas law firm: https://www.lapinlawtx.com/firearms-blog/2025-001 https://www.lapinlawtx.com/firearms-blog/2025-001 This does say that > Arguably, the protections contained in the [self-defense] statute include what is referred to in legal parlance as the “curtilage” of the property (a home’s porch, steps, garage, or yard) But the reasoning is, specifically, that defending yourself against someone who is in the curtilage must be protected, because defending yourself against someone who is "attempting to enter" your habitation is protected, and it's impossible to attempt to enter the habitation without being in the curtilage. This is not compatible with your analysis, which assumes that a person present in the curtilage has already entered the habitation.
slashdev 1mo ago
It also mentions: > theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime. Seems like that qualifies
- comrh 1mo ago
  I think this even covers graffiti during the nighttime.
  - worthless-trash 1mo ago
    [flagged]
  - slashdev 1mo ago
    Yes, I think so. I doubt a court would interpret that as being reasonable use of force though. In English common-law it's not just the wording of the laws that matter, one must also look at how the courts have interpreted and applied them.
    - joquarky 1mo ago
      And all of that is overridden if you have enough wealth.
timcobb 1mo ago
What's the point of Texas, then? Maybe Florida?

thaumasiotes 1mo 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".

thejazzman 1mo ago
> Private Domicile, BITCH https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEdaQcq4w88 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEdaQcq4w88
logicchains 1mo 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.
- thaumasiotes 1mo ago
  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
  - spolitry 1mo ago
    So? Are you proposing that huge classes of law simply must not exist just because laypeople are casual with language?
    - thaumasiotes 1mo ago
      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.
      - sokoloff 1mo ago
        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.30.htm https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/PE/htm/PE.30.htm They further go on to define "building" and "habitation" in Penal Code § 30.01. If you find a dictionary definition that conflicts with the Texas Penal Code's definition of burglary or of a building, guess which one prevails in a criminal proceeding in Texas?
        thaumasiotes 1mo ago
        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.
- nkrisc 1mo ago
  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 why we have "legalese" which many completely fluent and native English speakers may have trouble understanding without specialized legal training.
  - mafuy 1mo ago
    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.
    - nkrisc 1mo ago
      And those meanings are generally true in English as well, and yet, people use them interchangeably all the time nonetheless.
dodger-dog 1mo ago
I have a friend who came out of his house to shoot and kill a guy who was inside his car attempting to steal it. Friend was literally a local celebrity for months.
- thaumasiotes 1mo ago
  So what happened? Was there a legal judgment? Did he get legal advice? Did local newspapers commission and publish legal analyses? (Did this happen in Texas?)
  - giardini 1mo ago
    Yeah, what happened? Shooting someone inside a car will undoubtedly make a mess! Did he drag the thief out of the car ASAP afterwards, did the guy run off, or what? My actions would likely depend on how fond I was of the car: New Tesla - try talking the guy out of the car, 1971 (maybe any year) Volvo wagon - shoot him dead, etc.
smelendez 1mo 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. I’ve thought about this too. They often vary from state to state as well. But the alternative would be to create new legal terms, which would be more confusing, or use just use numbers, which would be hard for laypeople to discuss.
- thaumasiotes 1mo ago
  > But the alternative would be to create new legal terms, which would be more confusing, or use just use numbers, which would be hard for laypeople to discuss. Well, compare homicide, which in popular culture is divided into "murder in the first degree", "murder in the second degree", and "murder in the third degree" alternately known as "manslaughter". It's not clear to me whether you consider those "new legal terms" or "just using numbers", since in my eyes they are terms invented for the purpose of the law, distinguished from each other by numbers. But they appear to be superior to the division between "burglary", "robbery", and "theft" either way. They have no preexisting meaning (unlike "burglary" and "robbery", which are used in spite of existing contradictory meaning) and they cause no difficulties in discussing the crimes, which we can be certain of because these terms already exist and people discuss them all the time. In the Texas penal code, homicide is actually divided into "murder", "capital murder", "manslaughter", and "criminally negligent homicide". These are clearly "new terms" rather than "numbers". They seem pretty straightforward: "murder" is defined in harmony with its natural English-language meaning. "Capital murder" is a variety of murder that allows for capital punishment. "Manslaughter" is homicide caused recklessly rather than intentionally, and is in harmony with the popular understanding of the word "manslaughter". And "criminally negligent homicide" is homicide caused negligently rather than intentionally, and that's also in harmony with the normal construction of noun phrases in English. If we were instead to give those four categories names that nobody without special training was even capable of distinguishing from one another -- as Texas has already done for "burglary", "robbery", and "theft" -- what would improve? I submit that that would make some things worse while making nothing better. Compare also the popular-culture division between "assault" and "assault with a deadly weapon". What would giving those two crimes synonymous names accomplish?

nonethewiser 1mo ago

Parked in your driveway

thaumasiotes 1mo 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 1mo 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 1mo ago
    > 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?
    - pclmulqdq 1mo ago
      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.
      - thaumasiotes 1mo ago
        Well, I found an analysis by a Texas law firm: https://www.lapinlawtx.com/firearms-blog/2025-001 https://www.lapinlawtx.com/firearms-blog/2025-001 This does say that > Arguably, the protections contained in the [self-defense] statute include what is referred to in legal parlance as the “curtilage” of the property (a home’s porch, steps, garage, or yard) But the reasoning is, specifically, that defending yourself against someone who is in the curtilage must be protected, because defending yourself against someone who is "attempting to enter" your habitation is protected, and it's impossible to attempt to enter the habitation without being in the curtilage. This is not compatible with your analysis, which assumes that a person present in the curtilage has already entered the habitation.

slashdev 1mo ago

It also mentions: > theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime. Seems like that qualifies

comrh 1mo ago
I think this even covers graffiti during the nighttime.
- worthless-trash 1mo ago
  [flagged]
- slashdev 1mo ago
  Yes, I think so. I doubt a court would interpret that as being reasonable use of force though. In English common-law it's not just the wording of the laws that matter, one must also look at how the courts have interpreted and applied them.
  - joquarky 1mo ago
    And all of that is overridden if you have enough wealth.

timcobb 1mo ago

What's the point of Texas, then? Maybe Florida?