> 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.
Fire away, I guess.
I'm guessing that as scrutiny increases, we'll begin to hear about questionable, at best, sales tactics, if not outright bribery. Trips, sponsored speaking/training engagements that puts money in the pockets of cops and policymakers, etc. The whole thing stinks of it.
But I can't find any evidence of this claim. Who here can help lead to it?
- 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.
and i’d be more shocked if the same stores weren’t already sharing their own inside cameras facial recognition directly with companies like flock already.
and from what we’ve seen, these companies cameras are linked up with names from frequent shopper cards, cc data, what people buy, when they buy it, etc…
From their views, the right isn't trampled. It's a win
It feels like some juvenile "I can't kill you but I can pay this guy $200k to make you go away"
I don't live in the US, but it seems that constant monitoring via government sanctioned facial recognition technology falls under that umbrella.
Such extensive surveillance is likely a necessary precondition for governments to be able to take any number of horribly authoritarian steps against their populace. Given the likelihood that this leads to violations of all other rights, I find it hard to argue that these cameras don't violate people's rights.
1. I don't think Texas was around during the Tea Party, and
2. Property is also a right, so this is just about how much privacy you are willing to sacrifice for how much property.
The first amendment, fourth amendment, and the fourteenth amendment of the US Constitution. You should read it.
I'm still upset that we have a TCPA to protect consumers from spam calls, and then refuse to ever enforce it.
"These Americans", "Modern Americans".
If you have never heard of that before then someone failed you during your education.
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.
I commented under a post about some skill claiming to unleash the superpower of Claude Code. I asked, is there any evidence aka benchmark that shows it's any better than vanilla Claude Code that is statistically significant?
Dead silence. But not downvotes -- easily got to -4.
SMH.
There are also a ton of one-line comments now, some that get upvoted to the top. That's 100 percent Reddit and 0 percent intellect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932022_catalytic_co...
> Janice Ayala joined Dowa Metals & Mining America as their Chief Compliance Officer on March 3, 2023. During Ayala's 27-year tenure at the Department of Homeland Security, her most recent role before joining Dowa was as Director of Joint Task Force – Investigations. This agency oversaw the investigation into both DG Auto Parts and Dowa.
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.
Second: "(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." - YOU HAVE TO BE AFRAID FOR YOUR LIFE Texas gives citizens enourmous latitude in these matters, but it's not carte blanche for murder.
That reasonably covers pretty much all cases, especially in a state where lots of people have guns.
Could also be that the difference comes from owning land works differently in Germany (because it's much more densely populated) and of course owning anything except small guns is completely forbidden.
I'm trying to keep this neutral, so I'm using a rather cut and dry example: Somebody kicks in your door with a pump action and starts shooting- There are _some_ jurisdictions that require you to try and flee. You kill them and they werent bodily blocking your car in? Murder charge. investigation finds a sabatoged engine? Doesn't matter.
Stand Your Ground assumes reasonableness and codifies leaveing the fight or flee decision up to the individual.
Ultimately- you're going to have PTSD either way.
Counter-example: You're walking on the streets, at night, in the "bad part" of town. Someone walks towards you with their hands in their pockets, and their head covered with a hoodie. They say "Hey, what are you doing here?". You perceive this to be a threatening situation and fear for your life. Are you supposed to: a) pull out your gun and shoot them, or b) run away?
Some proponents of Stand Your Ground would say that option A is perfectly fine, some proponents of Duty To Retreat would say that you must attempt option B first, and fall back to option A only as a last resort.
Which jurisdictions? Is this in the US? I’ve lived in a bunch of European countries and in none would you be charged with murder in that situation.
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.
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.
It's worth pointing out that night is doing some of the work in this statement. Texas is unusual, as far as I know, that darkness makes a big difference in how self-defense and danger are viewed. It kinda makes sense, because in the dark, the would-be victim is less able to fully and accurately assess the situation. So Texans need to be aware that their actions may be interpreted more harshly in the dark.
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 reason many believe that.
Defending yourself with a gun against an attacker with a knife is well within your rights (assuming that drawing and defending with a gun would even be effective).
See here for example as reference: https://zjs-online.com/dat/artikel/2020_2_1383.pdf
First 1-2 sentences.
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 threaten you back, the situation changes.
The problem is having a gun in the outside, in Germany, good luck with that... of course, if it's someone stealing something inside your house, it becomes a home invasion, which is a completely different thing than someone stealing your property on the street.
It's way more nuanced than Texas, which has a bit more clear cut law.
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".
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.
They're not at all fully interchangeable, just many Americans have a poor grasp of the English language.
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?
For the first, assumably you think you can’t be observed coming or going from a riot? That’s not true.
For the fourth, a Flock camera existing is not inherently a search, just like how a database of cell records is not unconstitutional (Carpenter, Chatrie, Katz).
Is the 14th just a nebulous due process argument? Again, the camera existing is not an unconstitutional, see 4th.
You should read them again.
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.
Our task force made x cat theft arrests
Our task force used flock y times
Flock isn't their only investigative tool, cats aren't their only focus.
There were always negative objection comments (like the famous dropbox one), but those are different. Many of these new cynical comments are not objecting, they're concurring with a poisonous cynicism.
I remember making this topic in late 2016 regarding it:
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".
Just a year later during the mall shooting in Allen Texas, cops took down the white supremacist, neo-nazi perpetrator in under 5 minutes, probably saving at least a co couple dozen lives (he’d already killed 9). You can watch the bodycam footage from that event if there’s any doubt
"Here's another outlier anecdote!"
And regardless of state, there's always revenge - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071402/
This has to be made up.
[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-police-cash-r...
I live a few minutes away from one of the facilities where capital punishment is administered. The local community is extremely pleasant. I don't bother locking my doors at home or at the grocery store. The only place any real crime occurs is within a few hundred yards of the interstate. Target and Home Depot get robbed occasionally, but that's about it around here. I don't think it's physically possible to steal from my local Home Depot without ending up in the flock database. The geometry and overlapping coverage they have is pretty crazy now. You can tell they waged a full scale war against an army of meth addicts and won decisively. Every time I go into that store looking for a Milwaukee product, I find it in stock and unmolested.
At no point do I worry about a western style shootout with a bandit. The most prolific criminal around here has 4 legs and only really cares for the contents of particular trash cans and gardens.
For a few to be very wealthy, the many may remain impoverished.
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.
You already have a unique plate tied to the registered owner of the car, and a range of court cases have held you can be stopped, ordered out of the car, questioned (by both police and immigration enforcement), etc.
If you happened upon me on a public street, I'd say "that I'm here on this street now is not private information".
If you installed sensors across the entire city with 2-5 block resolution and could tell me everywhere I have been in the last 30 days (and hence where I'm liable to be tomorrow), I'd say "you are grossly violating my right to be secure in my person against unreasonable search - this is wrong".
The panic over Flock is silly unless you're already living in a hut in the woods, because it's not capturing 5% of what you describe. But, I guarantee your phone provider, Meta, and email provider do know all those things.
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".
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).
The knife vs gun example is from legal education to teach that §32 StGB requires the mildest means available in the concrete situation.
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.
As the saying goes, only break one law at a time!
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?
New York also has five degrees of arson: https://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article150.php
(Did this happen in Texas?)
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.
Is this true in any context other than a potential fourth amendment violation by an agent of the state?
> Same deal with states with "stand your ground laws". It's astonishingly easy to not get shot: don't invade someone's home.
https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/florida-road-rage-incident-...
But I also think that it is often more-useful and much, much safer to know how to de-escalate when that's possible. When I took martial arts classes, they taught me that the first step towards winning a fight was to avoid fighting to begin with, and always calm things down one notch at a time. If, and only if, that becomes impossible, then: Kick the snot out of them until they stop being a threat.
And running away can be useful: An attacker's ability to do harm decreases with distance. When I took army basic training, we trained a lot on running. They taught me that being able to run reasonably-quickly for reasonably-long distances was a skill that most people lack. Just keep running and the attacker will probably get tired and give up long before you do, which generally resolves the threat. If the threat persists after running away, then: Use the element of surprise and just turn around and stab them until they stop being a threat.
---
This is not an exhaustive list of methods and it is possible for any of them to go wrong. It's also possible to do nothing at all as a response and still have a very bad time of things.
It's a complex world. We've got billions of other people with different backgrounds, different problems, and different ideas of how they're going to get a little further ahead today than they were yesterday.
If we all had all of the answers, then we wouldn't have the kinds of desperation that leads to these problems to begin with.
But we don't all have all of the answers.
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.
> It's astonishingly easy to not get shot: don't invade someone's home.
Is pat to the point of naiveté.
People get shot turning into the wrong driveway[1], or knocking on the wrong door[2]. If anything, it's astonishingly easy to get shot in the US of A.
But, you probably meant something like that when you said
> you don't want ordinary people shooting randomly at each other. The government / police should be able to handle this [but don't.
And I agree with that on both points.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kaylin_Gillis [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Ralph_Yarl
Doesn't quite roll off the tongue, does it?
> If anything, it's astonishingly easy to get shot in the US of A.
No, not really. It's easier than other countries, but I'm afraid you've bought into media sensationalism. The country has a population of 349,000,000 people. There will be crazy incidents. And they won't happen to the vast majority of people, at least, people who aren't tempting fate by doing stupid things like home burglary. But the ones that do happen, can get televised around the world.
The way the news talks about life in the US is completely out of touch. I myself have pulled into random driveways perhaps dozens of times. It's not uncommon when navigating suburbia. The way the news discusses it, I should be dead probably a dozen times over. The problem is they never discuss all the other times people do that and nothing happens, which is nearly all of the time.
And what constitutes "invading" someone's home? You know what, don't answer that.
What about a bad medic? Or a thief that helps homeless people in their free time?
If it was easy, we would have simpler laws and better justice systems...
There's a classic saying: "When seconds count, the police are minutes away."
...and going back to the original topic, even the Flock cameras aren't going to stop criminals, if that's what you're implying.
The stolen goods have to be sold and bought somewhere. If they can't accomplish this with the vast resources available to them, (amongst other longstanding issues), then we should probably rethink the taxation process, the election process, or both.
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.
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.
But if you had died in the interaction, and let's say the thief at that point even left the goods and decided to leave, that would have totally been a win outcome, because the property with which you provided your livelihood was saved… wait…
> Only someone who has never lived a hard day
Yeah right…
I never understood why people forget this:
- Life is more valuable esp. if "you + property" combo is the livelihood. Okay, let's make this simpler. Probability of tools replacement ≠ 0; definitely >0. Possibility of you being replaced after death =0. Yup, it's not >0 yet, folks.
- When you are going for a life-losing/taking-possibility escalation level, maybe don't forget it's a two-way street..
Except poverty, ignorance, hunger, addiction, untreated mental illness...
Otto's "I blame Society" speech from the movie Repo Man:
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.
There was nothing that I was doing that was wrong in any way. I was quietly minding my own business when they came up from behind me with other ideas and one of them hit me in the side of my face, from behind, with an intensity that I'd never really experienced before in all of my years.
I lost hours of my memory and years of my mental health. I gained years of occasional intense neck pain that consistently put my mind in very dark places, and thousands of dollars of medical bills.
They gained two unopened packs of Camels and the pocket knife that I apparently failed to effectively utilize. I still had my wallet and my phone.
The police did nothing of any productive impact. A report was taken, and it was taken poorly. When 3 guys were arrested a couple of weeks later for robbing someone with a baseball bat and I recognized their pictures, they didn't care. I walked the local law-enforcement ladder all the way up to the city prosecutor, and also through parallels in the sheriff's department.
Nothing was productively done on my behalf.
It made me feel so angry and powerless. A follow-up that I requested came along with the cop that took the first report, and resulted in such profound and obtuse stonewalling that I became tremendously and irreverently furious. I left the room, while demanding from the other side of a wall that he get the fuck out of my apartment.
This all conspired to make it clear that it was my cross to bear. Nobody of any influence was going to help me along the way.
(I'd probably have a very different story to tell if I'd shot the attackers all dead, but I don't have that story. I was not equipped to do that so there is no direct comparison here for me to make. It is definitely my hope that I never have any opportunities to make such a comparison.)
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.
I think I would consider myself in that group.
I think some lives are worth negative, and everyone is better off with them dead.
Not true.
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.
A mugger may be stealing $50 in your wallet, but the crime is the threat to your life.
I have weeds in my yard that are more useful than most of the fancy primates that occupy Congress.
"Let's not harm the thief but force the victim to cover the damages" is what it comes down to and imo it's a very immoral stance.
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.
The thief valued the gain of the crime more than the risk of the crime.
You absolutely can cause death to a human and take a human life through material theft.
Roberts did use the word 'narrow' in the Carpenter opinion. That part is accurate. But read what narrow actually meant: the Court said it wasn't overturning all of third-party doctrine at once, and wasn't addressing every possible surveillance technology.
It was not saying 'this principle only applies to cell phones forever.' The actual holding was that a warrant is required whenever someone has a legitimate privacy interest in records held by a third party.
That's not phone-specific. Roberts even wrote that the ruling must account for 'more sophisticated systems already in use.' He was explicitly anticipating future applications.
Chatrie v. United States, decided June 29th this year, just 2 months ago, is exactly that next application:
Chatrie v. United States, decided June 29, 2026, 6-3: SCOTUS held that when police use a "geofence warrant" demanding that Google hand over location data from all devices near a crime scene during a specific time window constitutes a Fourth Amendment search requiring a warrant backed by probable cause.
There’s the potential for searching the database to require a warrant, but the cameras themselves, and being recorded on a public street (which everyone’s crying about) has no reasonable pathway to being unconstitutional.
Flock cameras using facial recognition to surveil citizens in public spaces without a warrant is a 4th amendment violation under any rational reading, and it is up to the American people whether they want to live in country that no longer holds itself accountable to the law or not.
It really has no impact on my life beyond the looming existential crisis of the world's largest military and nuclear power slowly becoming a rogue fascist state.
As just mentioned, being watched in a public space doesn't constitute a violation of the 4th Amendment. Under any rational reading, you are not being searched.
It really has no impact on anyone's life, especially if they participate in any part of society. Your phone records, credit cards, and every social media and email account are all far more invasive tracking and without even the veneer of accountability. Even for criminals, it hardly makes a difference if they pull an ID from Flock, your cell records, or the bodega security camera and Ring doorbell footage people would happily offer to a cop. Investigating a crime by looking at a security camera is not fascism, just like deporting an illegal immigrant or dispersing a riot isn't fascism.
New wrongs aren't justified by existing wrongs.
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.
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 drama series, like Law & Order, and see the privacy erosion in the TV show. That transition is basically a reflection of what happened in the US.
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.
The fact of being in public or on a vehicle isn't the key point. It's that electronic systems aggregating location data are 4th amendment protected. Which was established in Carpenter.
The aggregation creates a comprehensive system.
Aggregated location data over months creates a comprehensive chronicle of your life that's categorically different from someone observing you on one street corner. Aggregation changes the constitutional analysis.
It’s only the government searching that database without a warrant that would be unconstitutional under some hypothetical future case.
You got me there, pal ;) I didn't use the exact technical terms you expected, my argument is now void, nooo.
I guess I should go and install one of those cameras right outside my house now.
I'm not saying you have to reply in a technical term - just explain how being seen and recorded driving down a public street, in a vehicle that's required to display an identifiable plate you've registered with the government, constitutes a search, seizure, or even an invasion of your privacy.
Nobody's saying you have to install a camera outside your house (ignoring the dozens of cameras your neighbors have willingly installed to replace their doorbell or to deter theft/burglary). But you can't argue that the government or private businesses can't deploy cameras because you expect privacy in the middle of a road.
Privacy is about being in your home away from others, correspondence etc. Once you are interacting with others it's not a feature.
Unless we are agents of certain law enforcement agencies...
https://www.hrr-strafrecht.de/3/15/3-199-15.php
But there was even a case, where a hells angel shot a police officer in his home who were doing a raid - and got free (because they did not identify themself as police).
https://www.lto.de/recht/hintergruende/h/bgh-spricht-hells-a...
> But there was even a case,
I don't know the details of the case, but if somebody thought some criminals are raiding his house with guns and it's reasonable the he thought that, then he's fully within his rights to defend himself and, depending on the necessities, by shooting at them.
Still terrible what happened, of course.
No it does not in germany (and I think most other states of the world).
If fleeing is a safe option - this is what you have to do instead of shooting. Reality just seldom is so clear.
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"
> 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 case the judge decided that what he did was not covered by the law.
Local news say otherwise
They make money reporting what people want to read and that's not necessary what's true.
They may have been confusing or deliberately conflating things with the fact that in most western jurisdictions, you are not allowed to kill, for example, a fleeing trespasser or burglar. This is viewed as an entirely different situation from one where you are being threatened directly with immediate physical violence.
If someone comes through your home door guns akimbo in the US, blasting back is fine
US Supreme court has often leaned heavily on right to protect self in one's own home in ruling against local and state laws that might ban ridiculous things.
Unless that someone is a cop, of course.
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.
No, not even that, at least not in general. For example, it could be well within your rights to hit somebody who keeps insulting you.
And yes, not getting insulted is a protected right in Germany that you generally lawfully defendable under the "Notwehr" laws.
Wikipedia mentions more example of what you are generally allowed to protect:
> Das unberechtigte Anfertigen einer Fotoaufnahme stellt einen Angriff auf das Recht am eigenen Bild dar.[10] Das Anrauchen einer Person kann einen Angriff auf deren Ehre und Gesundheit darstellen.
Translation:
> Taking a photograph without authorization constitutes an infringement of the right to one's own image.[10] Exposed to secondhand smoke can constitute an infringement of a person's honor and health.
Will be easy enough to find more example if your are not satisfied with Wikipedia.
Neither of your sources supports "you may hit someone who keeps insulting you.". If you had linked the original sources, it would have been obvious that the examples are taken out of context.
> Bereits der Diebstahl mittelwertiger Gegenstände darf nach herrschender Meinung jedoch auch mit einer tödlichen Abwehrhandlung vereitelt werden, sollten mildere Mittel (wie Warnschüsse oder Schüsse auf die Beine) nicht zum Erfolg geführt haben bzw. nicht zur Verfügung stehen.[73][55][56]
> However, according to prevailing opinion, even the theft of items of moderate value may be thwarted by lethal self-defense if less severe measures (such as warning shots or shots aimed at the legs) have failed or are not available.[73][55][56]
More specifically, a teacher slapping a child to defend against six year old children: https://www.lawblog.de/archives/2016/09/08/richter-billigen-... https://famos.jura.uni-wuerzburg.de/wp-content/uploads/2017/...
He was also hit by the six year olds, but the court explicitly mentions the attack on his honor as well as foundation for their judgement.
Slapping the child was deemed to be the mildest mean for defence and therefore lawful.
Just to iterate on the first point, even theft of values starting as low as 100 Euro could justify lethal force. Knowing that honor is a protected right, it should not be surprising that hitting somebody can be justified when one get heavily and continuously insulted.
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.
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
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.
You can't have a functioning democracy if it's impossible to criticise the current setup. This is the whole idea behind newspeak [1]
Unjust according to whom? Wouldn't it be better to just make our premises explicit?
By that logic, any country with a similar (or larger) population should have similar (or larger) gun deaths per capita as the USA, right?
Take India - population 4.3x but 15x fewer gun deaths per capita. Or Japan - 0.35x the population and 1500x fewer gdpc.
(Admittedly Brazil scuppers my counter-argument slightly - population is 0.6x but gdpc are 1.3x. Poverty and availability of guns seems to be the key rather than "random chance".)
I might suppose that it's usually more the former than the latter, but there's degrees to each characteristic.
They perceive that they need things, and they don't necessarily care who they harm to get the things that satisfy this need.
(When we dress it up all nice and back it with corporate layers and an army of lawyers, sometimes we get CEOs.)
Nobody desperate will dare steal from the gangs since its not just death, but PAIN before death.
How do you come by that? By that logic, Joseph Stalin is as valuable as Mother Theresa!
You get your catalytic converter stolen, and you will pay for it three times. The first is you paid for the original one. Then you paid for insurance to cover its theft, and likely your payments over the years have already paid for the catalytic converter a second time. And then after it's stolen, your insurance rates will raise such that you are paying for a 3rd (maybe fourth) converter, just on a monthly plan now.
Now, of course, shooting the thief is only cheaper if you don't invest much in your weapons and training, and don't face any legal scrutiny afterwards and need to hire a lawyer.
Sometimes you get some mechanics' tools. But the best part is the laugh, watching someone running away with their pants full of shite.
> Allerdings gilt besonders hier der Grundsatz, dass das Unrecht dem Recht nicht zu weichen braucht. Man darf sich zur Wehr setzten und muss nicht flüchten.
Translation: > However, the principle that wrongdoing need not give way to what is right applies here in particular. One is allowed to defend oneself and is not required to flee.
I believe that's pretty common and a sane approach.
"In bestimmten Situationen kann das sonst umfassend geltende Notwehrrecht eingeschränkt sein. Dies ist dann der Fall, wenn die Verteidigung außer Verhältnis zum Angriff steht."
"Besonderes gilt bei dem Einsatz von Schusswaffen."
"Auch wird das Notwehrrecht eingeschränkt, wenn der Angriff von schuldlos Handelnden wie Kindern, Betrunkenen oder Geisteskranken ausgeht. Hier muss zunächst versucht werden, dem Angriff auszuweichen. Erst wenn ein Ausweichen nicht möglich ist, ist eine Notwehrhandlung geboten"
In other words, my statement above was in those words indeed not exact correct - you don't must flee before shooting, but germany does not has a "home is your castle" law.
Generally however, you don't have to flee and the defence doesn't need to be proportionate to the attack or what you are defending.
You just generally have to choose the mildest defence available to you that you can reasonably know having under an ongoing or imminent attack - you don't have to "take your time and look around" if some milder defence is around the corner.
> It's astonishingly easy to not get shot: don't invade someone's home.
The clear, plain-English implication of what you're suggesting is: your risk of getting shot (in the US) is, to a large extent, directly correlated to your invasion of other people's homes.
Except that there's no evidence to support this. According to FBI data from 2015-2019, the ratio of criminal gun homicides to justifiable homicides (as in self-defense) was 34:1.
Over 10,000 innocent people are killed by guns every year in the US, including more than 1,000 young people. This excludes suicides, which itself is a number that you'd probably be wise to pay attention to.
The end state is you can trust others because nobody even wants to or considers it.
Punishing violators is being proposed as how to build the norm that no one wants to steal.
I got involved in martial arts for a few years after I was attacked for no particular reason by people who were much older than me when I was a little kid, twice in short succession, and my parents felt that this was a good way to help with that kind of situation. I don't know if that was the best response that they could make but I don't disagree with it.
Army training happened later, in a just-post-9/11 world where I was feeling strongly patriotic and also looking for a meaningful job. It had its ups and downs.
Concealed carry classes happened much later, after the incident with the 3 young men, wherein: Either the previous training didn't help, or I was doomed anyway, or both.
I remember everything up to the first hit very clearly. I'd seen these folks way over there doing whatever they were doing, but I didn't suspect any trouble in that little town. I just kept walking. Soon, I heard a set of footsteps right behind me -- at least one of them closed the gap quickly. Before I could formulate a plan (including "run"), I got hit hard and it gets murky. I do remember standing and facing all three of them under a street light and saying "What in the fuck do you think you're doing?" as a means of negotiation; this clearly did not work.
After that, I remember a blur of fast-walking back to my apartment. They were gone, like they'd never been there, but I was scared because I was sure that they were watching me go home anyway. I went around the back side of the building, deviating from my normal route home, watching my back as well as I could in that state.
I got home and I was satisfied that nobody had followed me as I re-locked my front door, and for a period of time (I don't know how long), I didn't think anything else happened. I forgot that I needed cigarettes. I eventually looked in the mirror and saw that it looked like I'd been hit by a car, and later noticed dirt all over my clothes. I called my ex-wife for advice, and then called the police who showed up and took a report (badly) and promised to do ~nothing else, and then called my boss for a ride to the hospital.
None of any of the training I've ever had really covered dealing with a surprise attack from three motherfuckers at once. It wasn't exactly ideal.
I still can't walk around in public with headphones on. I wasn't wearing them that night, but it was something that I occasionally enjoyed and that concept is subsequently dead to me.
"None of any of the training I've ever had really covered dealing with a surprise attack from three motherfuckers at once. It wasn't exactly ideal."
Not much will, I practiced Krav Maga for years and we train for 3:1 , but a surprise attack that knocks you unconsciouses is hard to plan against. But it does teach you to be ultra-aware of your environment, who's around you, what attack surfaces are risky, objects you can use to defend yourself.
You may know this already, so maybe it would help someone else.
But we're not the only ones: all other animals do the same. Only now, that we've turned into Democrats, is there hope for our kind, now that we know every life is precious and irreplaceable.
Your claims were that "not getting insulted is a protected right in Germany that you generally lawfully defendable under the "Notwehr" laws." and that "you may hit someone who keeps insulting you.".
Both are false.
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
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?
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.
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.
Who knows?! Companionship?
A wealthy state like Texas has a lot of cops and a lot of prisons. And, those cops are given incredible leeway in how they do their job.
Texas is a case study in whether "law and order" Republican policies work, and the evidence indicates it doesn't. We're just killing people in capital punishment cases for the joy of killing, not because it reduces crime. We're spending half our cities funds on militarized police because we want our private prisons full, not because it keeps people safer.
Most extremely Republican states with lax gun laws and capital punishment are poor states, with less money for cops (though they still imprison people at a high rate, they often fund it with slave labor).
There are ways for states to spend money that reduces crime, but Texas chooses to spend it on violence, instead.
Similarly cops many times get incentivized to fill in quotas, and end up making up stuff to get paid more.
Also all the companies around making money around these problems, have 0 incentives to make the problems go away, quite the contrary are incentivized to make these problems visible and acute enough that their services remain warranted to be required.
Lobbying being legal, means Capital owns Democracy. Big money can buy out and make careers of any politican morally-lacking enough to sell their constituents wellbeing to some shameless Corp that will set him up for life and give him the money needed to get the votes, etc etc
If guns and capital punishment reduces crime, it doesn't matter whether the crime happens in rural or urban areas. If it works, Texas, the whole damned state, should have remarkably low crime, but that's not the case at all.
You're having a different conversation than the one I'm having.
Hallmark of a healthy democracy.
All of these require a search warrant.
Volume isn’t the distinction that matters, who holds the data and what is possible as a result is. Meta can sell my movements to an advertiser. It can’t pull me over, detain me unjustly, or hand my neighbor over to ICE. With Flock, police aren’t a downstream buyer; they’re the direct customer.
And “you already gave it away” is no longer good law. Chatrie v. United States (2026): Chatrie had opted into Google Location History, and the Court still held that disclosure to a third party doesn’t forfeit your Fourth Amendment interest.
Worth noting where we started, though. Two comments ago there was no plausible connection between public roads and privacy. Now there’s one, it’s just smaller than Meta’s. I'm really glad you have had this anparently eye opening moment here on HN.
Nice to see we got to what this really was though: not a genuine privacy concern, but an “Orange Man Bad” concern because ICE could use Flock to deport illegal immigrants.
Trying to discredit my substance based on a single of many examples tells me you're not arguing authentically here, nor elsewhere in this thread. We are failing to be productive past this point.
Obvious disclaimer: It is completely obvious that freak incidents occur, that there are other ways to die, that there is no way to guarantee the future or that harm will never come to someone, and that there are exceptions to just about every statement.
But one CAN choose to avoid deliberately putting themselves in situations where harm can befall them, such as comitting crimes like breaking into someone's home, or stealing someone's property. It should be completely obvious that one stands better chances in general by not doing things that make other people obscenely angry.
> Over 10,000 innocent people are killed by guns every year in the US, including more than 1,000 young people. This excludes suicides, which itself is a number that you'd probably be wise to pay attention to.
Out of a population of 349,000,000 people. Sad, but most people can live their lives and be completely unaffected. Stop being sensationalist.
Are you really now characterizing incidents of gun violence and suicide as "freak incidents"? They just happen, like a random bolt of lightning in a clear sky that strikes a person out taking a walk?
> Out of a population of 349,000,000 people. Sad, but most people can live their lives and be completely unaffected. Stop being sensationalist.
The figure I cited was for gunshot deaths of innocent people. Every year, over 100,000 people are shot in the US. More Americans die every year due to guns than they do because of auto accidents.
You can dismiss this as miniscule compared to the size of the population, and refuse to compare the numbers in the US to other developed nations, which shows how absurdly more risky the US is versus the rest of the "civilized world".
But what you can't do is pretend that gun violence doesn't have an impact on people that isn't measured in deaths and gunshot victims. Because there is plenty of evidence that the threat of gun violence has a major impact on the lives of Americans. For example, more than a third of Americans have avoided going to certain public places or events out of fear. See: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40205802/
Other statistics, with citations, that I'm sure you'd dismiss:
https://giffords.org/lawcenter/resources/gun-violence-statis...
Yup, as they basically are. Bolts of lighting would fall under "random acts of god/nature". Talking about whether or not guns should legally be ownable by citizens is an entirely different discussion.
> Every year, over 100,000 people are shot in the US. More Americans die every year due to guns than they do because of auto accidents.
Again, over 349,000,000 people. You do the math. Tons of car accidents, yet the world moves on and literally every adult I know, who doesn't live in Chicago/NYC/[rare place that's walkable + can afford it], drives. Find someone or something to blame for the geography of the country. Are we debating infrastructure now for a country the size of the US?
In any case, it does seem that you are capable of understanding what I meant by the original statement. It seems like all you want is to quibble over slight semantics in phrasing, and lecture someone who actually has lived in the US about how dangerous it really is. Have a day.
And a person using a gun to kill someone else is a "random act of god/nature" how exactly?
For someone who seems very confident of his knowledge of statistics, here's one for you: ~20-30 people die from lightning strikes in the US every year. Based on the averages, 4-6x that number died due to a gun yesterday alone.
I'm an American. Born and raised in one of the largest cities. I know at least half a dozen people who have been robbed at gunpoint, dated a woman who had been terrorized by a gun-nut ex, and one of my closest friends lost his father to suicide.
With all due respect, there's nothing more callous than believing that something doesn't impact vast numbers of people (proven by empirical evidence) simply because you apparently haven't experienced it yourself.
> Have a day.
You sure are pleasant.