[HN Gopher] Why thieves love to steal catalytic converters ___________________________________________________________________ Why thieves love to steal catalytic converters Author : yarapavan Score : 184 points Date : 2021-11-21 14:13 UTC (8 hours ago) (HTM) web link (thehustle.co) (TXT) w3m dump (thehustle.co) | sharken wrote: | So another effect of shutting down societies. This should | hopefully make politicians worldwide think long and hard of the | consequences of lockdown. | | Given that we have excellent vaccines for Corona, there is no | reason to consider lockdowns anymore. | acdha wrote: | This has been going on for decades in various forms - catalytic | converters briefly became the most profitable thing to steal | but if you search news archives you'll find stories about | things like copper theft predating lockdown by many years. The | broader societal problems have nothing to do with public health | measures, especially since in most countries those were | accompanied by significant public aid. | jbverschoor wrote: | There was an item by Kees vd Spek about this | https://app.nlziet.nl/vod/1yKdJfPQWUKDrLg9dvpH1Q | | Basically people are renting a car for a day on a p2p platform, | and stripping it from the precious metals. The same could be done | for any p2p service, such as airbnb. | camillomiller wrote: | Off topic: this entire article is text inside images, plus the | same text copypasted below, probably for indexing purposes. I | would have wanted to be inside the meeting were they decided to | go with that implementation. | acdha wrote: | I had to use Reader mode just to get it to render on iOS | instead of displaying a blank page so their front end team is | clearly top-notch. | ddtaylor wrote: | You may also like this video on attempting to extract those | precious metals from the pavement itself: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5GPWJPLcHg | Animats wrote: | Now I have to find out how to sell a catalytic converter. | | I had mine replaced a few years ago, when I started to get error | codes indicating a problem. But I went to a place which put on an | aftermarket converter. After a few years, that failed. Wasn't | even the right unit for the vehicle. So I went to a dealer and | had a proper OEM unit installed. The dealer wouldn't give me | credit back for the aftermarket converter, so now I'm stuck with | the converter and pipe assembly, which is too bulky to ship. | kristopolous wrote: | Also going unmentioned is the classic car battery logic. | | The thieves steal a car component not necessarily because they | want that one but because they now know where they can find a | brand new one to take next week | mynameishere wrote: | You mean, they're going to rob the same car? That takes some | balls, because the probability of getting some high-velocity, | unprecious metal in the head will increase tremendously in the | next week. I guess it depends on the neighborhood. | ericbarrett wrote: | These guys are _fast_. They can saw off your cat while you | 're inside the gas station buying a drink. | caturopath wrote: | Is that a fun way of putting it or does that actually | happen? | rmetzler wrote: | You can find videos of these on youtube. It's really | possible to do in less than a minute and it depends on | whether the thieve(s) jack up the car or not. | | Here is one video of a rather dangerous job, but the | removing of the cat takes less than 40s. | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVKFNhuEkN8 | | Thieve goes under the car at 2:30 | mygoodaccount wrote: | Haha great comment section: | | "Why can't a hydraulic jack fail when you want it to?" | jcrawfordor wrote: | Depends on the vehicle. Late '90s, early '00s trucks and | SUVs, and still some new ones, all you need is a battery | sawzall and you can reach it lying on the ground. Newer | vehicles and smaller vehicles it tends to be harder to | get at, thief may need a jack which will slow them down | and require carrying more stuff around. | | A lot of newer vehicles are putting at least the first- | stage catalytic converter(s) (for those with two-stage | systems) closer to the exhaust manifold, more in the | wheel well space like where the oil filter is on Ford | light diesels. I'm not sure what all the motivations are | for this but it does make it a lot harder to steal as you | kind of need to take the wheel off and sometimes more to | get access. Of course that might just lead some thieves | to take an even more destructive approach but I at least | haven't seen it myself. | zitterbewegung wrote: | Its in the article that it can be that fast. | caturopath wrote: | My question wasn't whether it was fast enough, it's | whether it happens. There are so many other places cars | are parked that seem so much better choices, so I was | asking about whether it actually happens rather than if | it were feasible. | NikolaeVarius wrote: | Its a thin pipe. 60 seconds of work. | danlugo92 wrote: | It does happen. | _tom_ wrote: | One of my friends was recently hit for the second time. Same | car. Insurance did not want to pay to install a shield, the | first time. | | He no longer drives a Prius. | | Was in a nice part of Mountain View, CA | s5300 wrote: | Believe it or not, humans in developed countries aren't | exactly keen on murdering people. A portion are, but not the | majority. Else, it wouldn't particularly be a developed | country. | kevin_thibedeau wrote: | In more civilized societies the threat of hand amputation | is an effective theft deterrent. | s5300 wrote: | "more civilized", perhaps. Not civilized, though. Unless | we have wildly different definitions of civil. | kevin_thibedeau wrote: | Any definition you can come up with is based on an | arbitrary standard of morality. There is no absolute. | Pearl clutching over thieves who supposedly can't help | themselves because of unfair externalities doesn't serve | much benefit to society. | eps wrote: | /r/NormalDayInAmerica | vgeek wrote: | One of Click and Clack's (of NPR's Car Talk) stories come to | mind, where they replaced the stolen battery with a junky used | one to spite the would be 2 time thief. | pkrotich wrote: | There was a news story [0] recently about 2 teenagers that died | in the back of the car due to carbon monoxide poisoning - I | thought it was very unusual and had wondered if the cat was | faulty. I now wonder if it was damaged due to attempted theft. | | [0] https://people.com/human-interest/n-c-teens-found-dead-in- | ca... | yborg wrote: | Much more likely to have been a perforated rusty tailpipe. A | car with an even partially severed cat converter would be | unbearably loud to sit in. | Someone1234 wrote: | Between that story and this one[0] wherein Ford modified a | bunch of vehicles for police usage and carbon monoxide was | leaking into them (potentially causing crashes and sickness). | Almost makes me think I should have a cheap battery CO monitor | in any gas vehicle. | | [0] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ford-rushes-repair- | poli... | pkrotich wrote: | Thank you for the comment - just had a lightbulb moment - | that's what's going to socks stockings for Christmas. | Keychain version is perfect & portable. | Someone1234 wrote: | Where did you find a keychain CO detector? | pkrotich wrote: | Looked on Amazon - even Walmart has them. It's a little | pricy but I think it's worth it. I bring keys with me | everywhere. | jcrawfordor wrote: | Very affordable option since NTSB recommended CO | detectors in all light aircraft: | https://www.asa2fly.com/Carbon-Monoxide-Detector-- | P822.aspx | [deleted] | lamontcg wrote: | The people that buy the catalytic converters and buy these metals | on the secondary market really need to be more highly regulated | and inspected. Someone showing up with a van full of catalytic | converters needs to get bounced out of every metal scrapyard they | show up to. | Lammy wrote: | Instead of more surveillance and regulation how about we as a | society work to ensure prosperity for everyone so there's no | reason for anyone to want to scavenge trace metals from car | parts? | Nasrudith wrote: | Prosperity and insecure property ownership rights don't go | together - see every third world shantytown where making | something which could be a road out of pauperdom gets it | seized or you extorted by local strongmen. | twblalock wrote: | It's not like people are stealing catalytic converters | because they can't afford food. | | To a large extent this is organized crime. These are not | thefts of desperation caused by poverty, and the thefts are | not perpetrated by individuals stealing one or two catalytic | converters at a time. There are crews of thieves stealing | dozens of converters in a night and selling them in bulk to | unscrupulous purchasers. | jdlshore wrote: | That's a laudable goal, but the suggestion comes across as | either naive or disingenuous. I assume that's why you're | being downvoted. | | Sure, work to ensure prosperity. But don't let that stop you | from implementing faster, more tractable solutions. | bluGill wrote: | I suspect most are half legitimate. Tow cars for free, or steal | parts when it is slow | dkdk8283 wrote: | It's an arms race. Regulation is a terrible option as | governments are not known for their efficiency. It will likely | hurt honest people and thieves will adapt and pivot, creating a | "laundering" market. | Spooky23 wrote: | It's a more complex issue than you might think. There's a lot | of grey market business in auto repair and parts, and you'll | just push the shady stuff underground and support a new | business for organized crime. | | The only controls that work are with limited source scrap like | railroad equipment. You'll get banned from a scrapyard if you | show up with rail ties or signal components. | gopher_space wrote: | They're taking them to backwoods smelting places, according to | the cop I spoke with. Who'd be buying meth-smelted blocks of | metal? I'm assuming the quality would be poor. | Nasrudith wrote: | Well if you are already in the purifying ores business it | would be better than what they usually work with. It would | serve as a laundering step - it isn't stolen catalytic | converters with serial numbers or ones with their numbers | filed off, it is generic low quality scrap metal now. | kube-system wrote: | There have been a lot of states that have passed regulation | requiring documentation for scrap transactions regarding | catalytic converters, and other frequently stolen types of | scrap. But I'm not sure that it's as easy as kicking people out | for having a lot of them. The people who have legitimate scrap | also tend to have a lot of it, because it is waste from their | business. | cyral wrote: | I wonder how they are enforced. I'm sure many shops are not | keeping up with passed regulations much less abiding by them | if they even know about them. | TrispusAttucks wrote: | I recycle bulk amounts of aluminum cans. Mostly because | it's good for humans and the earth but you also get a small | check. | | Usually deliver a truck load to the recycling plant. I | always have to show ID and they often cut a check if it's | over a certain dollar amount. | | So there are definite attempts to keep a light on things to | prevent black markets and stay credible and prevent fraud. | | Copper piping is also a big problem area. Thieves will go | and strip entire houses of all copper piping in a night. | sillysaurusx wrote: | And here I actually thought that the thieves smelted their own | block of palladium from catalytic converters. You're probably | right that they offload them to some unscrupulous smelter. Kind | of disappointing. | | Still, regulated how? What you're talking about is criminal | activity. Are regulations the antidote to that? | | And would you really turn down a million dollars if someone | showed up and offered it to you with no questions asked? I'd | like to think I would, but that'd be a _tough_ decision. | | (One thief group got caught with $300k _in cash_. That means | whoever they sold the converters to must 've made way more, by | definition.) | ChuckMcM wrote: | >Still, regulated how? What you're talking about is criminal | activity. Are regulations the antidote to that? | | Yes, the creation of a regulation with a civil (cash) and | personal (imprisonment) penalty is required in order to | create enforcement actions. Then you load up a van full of | Catalytic converters and drive to metal places and offer to | sell them, if they accept, they arrest who ever accepted and | seize assets of the owning entity. | d136o wrote: | encouraging these sorts of sting operations could lead to | all sorts of weird stuff down the line. | | See: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/10/18/stash- | house-st... | zdragnar wrote: | Isn't entrapment of this sort stupidly easy to avoid? If | you don't know the person offloading goods to you, ask if | it is legit. Let them make up a story about how they got | them, or kick them out if they admit it is stolen. | ChuckMcM wrote: | Ask the people convicted of soliciting a prostitute? | | Not a lawyer but had a brief introduction to the | entrapment defense as a youngster. As explained to me, in | the US, an entrapment defense requires the prevention of | choice on the part of the criminal. | | So if the LEO offers the converters and the guy says "Get | out of here with those things!" then no arrest and no | entrapment. | | If the LEO says, "I work at a place that replaces | catalytic converters and we need to convert these older | non-working ones to cash." Then the person making the | choice can reasonably say he believed that it was a legal | transaction, so even if he is arrested the defense would | be entrapment. | | I will leave the other script (LEO is the buyer) as an | exercise for the reader :-) | lamontcg wrote: | There needs to be something like KYC laws so that if agents | show up with a van full of catalytic converters and get a no | questions asked pile of cash for that scrap that people get | arrested and assets get seized, making it highly risky to be | on that side of the trade. Make it so that they cannot deal | in cash and require ID and a bank account for payment. Move | the goalposts so that the scrap dealer accepting the | converters must be engaging in criminal conspiracy with the | thieves, then if you bust thieves you can get them to easily | roll on the scrap dealers. | zizee wrote: | > Still, regulated how? What you're talking about is criminal | activity. Are regulations the antidote to that? | | Perhaps similar to pawn shops, which (I think) have to keep | records of who sold you what. If you are a smelter, you | should be able to account for where you get certain expensive | metals that you are on-selling. | reaperducer wrote: | _Still, regulated how?_ | | This kind of regulation already exists for pawn shops. Just | expand it to cover more types of items and businesses. | ajsnigrutin wrote: | > Still, regulated how? What you're talking about is criminal | activity. Are regulations the antidote to that? | | Eg. signed ownership document for every catalytic converter | on premises (scrap yards,...), with a written 'source' - eg, | removed from car with VIN 123...789, or replaced on care with | VIN 123...789 with a proof of purchase of a new one (i'm | guessing it's illegal to drive without one). | | It's a pain in the ass to implement, but could work. | IkmoIkmo wrote: | Thing is that it's a lot easier to regulate a small number of | registered businesses, with known owners, in known locations, | versus a potentially endless amount of (unregistered) | customers that come and go. | | Not easy, just easier. | | Pinpointing those companies that see large growth in an old, | competitive or low-margin industry, is a risk-indicator that | allows you to filter out many companies and investigate only | a few. Seeing that some are selling large fractions of | palladium, is a risk-indicator. | | Appearing at these companies with fake offers to sell | palladium, can give insight. | | Requiring source-of-scrap forms to be filled in, can give a | paper-trail that either leads somewhere, or is obviously fake | and leads nowhere. If that happens routinely, licenses could | be revoked. | | Don't get me wrong, none of this solves the issue and none of | it is easy. It'll always be a cat and mouse game. AML | regulations have shown to be quite ineffective at rooting out | the problem, it's very much alive and kicking and perhaps | even bigger than ever. Yet it seems also obvious that, much, | much more money laundering would be happening in absence of | any such regulations. Regulations can be helpful without | solving the entire problem, if well designed (AML is very | much a clusterfuck for example). | c0nsumer wrote: | I recently bought a house and found two catalytic converters in | the garage. I'm hoping I can scrap them pretty easily, as I don't | want to just throw them out. | | It's clear they aren't cut off, as all the flanges are present | and intact, so hopefully I don't get flagged for anything. (The | previous owner is a car guy, removed them from one of his cars, | and left them behind.) | rmetzler wrote: | Maybe just sell them to a car repair shop? | kube-system wrote: | You can scrap them no problem. It won't be suspicious if you | have two and the flanges are intact. You'll just look like a | normal car guy that just did an exhaust job. Your local law may | require the scrapper to record your ID. | xchip wrote: | TL;DR: catalythc converters have valuable metals as rhodium and | palladium | lordnacho wrote: | Is it possible to have the catalytic converter stolen without | knowing about it? | ingalls wrote: | You would notice as soon as you turned on your car. It would | sound like a roaring sound from under your car and would get | worse any time you give the engine more fuel. You can drive a | car without a catalytic converter but it is almost universally | illegal and you assuredly won't pass emissions. | lotsofpulp wrote: | Emissions inspections are not required in most rural areas, | and not required in quite a few state (FL/WA/MI come to mind | as populous places that do not require inspections): | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_inspection_in_the_Unit. | .. | | I would just straight pipe it if someone cut out my cats. | Although, my cats have been dead for years, so I wonder if | they would even get paid for them. | rmetzler wrote: | You would think there is something wrong but you wouldn't | necessarily think there was a part stolen. We only found out | there was something stolen when the mechanic sent us pictures | from underneath the car. It was his first of these cases. | bittercynic wrote: | >You can drive a car without... | | There is at least one case where this doesn't hold: | | On a 3rd generation prius the coolant loops around the cat to | warm up the engine faster, and the coolant will leak out if | someone steals your cat. The engine would be destroyed pretty | quickly if you run it without coolant I think. | shbooms wrote: | removing the catalytic converter essentially renders your | muffler useless since it's located in the middle of the exhaust | pipe [0]. therefore removing the cat. converter will make your | car incredibly loud and virtually impossible to go | unrecognized. | | [0] | https://media.hswstatic.com/eyJidWNrZXQiOiJjb250ZW50Lmhzd3N0... | rmetzler wrote: | Thieves stole the catalytic converter of our 1996 Mitsubishi | last year. They can do this in ~1 minute and you don't realise | it is missing until you start the motor and then you probably | think something is broken instead it is missing. | | Our car was very loud, we thought there might be a hole in the | exhaust pipe. And the missing catalytic converter is indeed | something like a hole. :-) And we don't use it daily, as the | city I live in is very bike friendly. So our car can stand here | a whole week without getting moved. | | Fixing it cost us I think between 700 to 1000 EUR, and I think | we were lucky at that time. Because it was one of the first of | the cases in our area and we were lucky to find a used one. | gregoriol wrote: | If your exhaust line is cut, broken or just rusted to the point | of having holes, the sound of it will change, but also the | exhaust gases won't come out from the back of the car but in | the middle under it, and go inside the cabin very easily, | you'll be able to smell it, and this might get seriously | dangerous to inhale if you try to drive | PragmaticPulp wrote: | > The amount of precious metals in a catalytic converter varies | widely, but a standard part might contain: At current market | value, that's an average of $595 to $1,420 worth of precious | metals. | | > Victims often have to shell out $500 to $3k+ to fix the damage. | | Their estimates for the value of the precious metals seems high. | It also doesn't make sense that their floor for the value of the | precious metals is $595 but the floor for the replacement cost of | an entire catalytic converter is $500. | ashalhashim wrote: | The price of a catalytic converter is much higher. My friend's | catalytic converter was stolen from her late 2000s Accord, and | her car was totaled as a result. | 14 wrote: | It would only be $500 dollars to replace if you could find a | used one from say a salvage yard if you have to go brand new | then it is expensive. Source I am a backyard mechanic and that | is how things are done. Poor means you do the job yourself and | salvage while soccer mom means you pay a premium for a new part | and pay someone to install it. | rfrey wrote: | If catalytic converters have enough value for people to steal | them at night, and have >500 bucks of raw material in them, | there are none at the wreckers. When steel went through the | roof in price I couldn't get leaf springs anymore because the | wreckers knew they could sell them for scrap more profitably | - yards are a low margin business and they know how to | maximize revenue. | | Source I am a backyard mechanic who doesn't feel the need to | be condescending to those who aren't. | jeffbee wrote: | At least in Berkeley where this kind of theft is common the | parts aren't going to scrap dealers, they sell the whole | thing to small repair garages. It's basically an evil cycle | where the repair garage charges you $5000 or whatever to | replace your stolen converter with another stolen converter | and the thieves are getting their share. | 14 wrote: | Well I said salvage yard but in reality it could be buy it | used from someone who crashed their car. Even my local | salvage yard has some they will sell for cheap because they | haven't had the time to go under and remove it. The point | is in some cases you can get the parts for scrap prices. | Around here the most scrap cars go for is about $300. Lots | of people have a yard with 2-3 dead cars. I have 3 | currently. Yes if I take every part off and sell | individually I can make more money but for just as is $300. | The other means of fixing this issue is just not add a | catalytic converter but then you need to install a cat | delete device so you don't get a CEL and fail emissions | testing. That too would cost several hundred dollars. | Wasn't trying to be condescending perhaps you woke up wrong | side of the bed. Good day. | sagarm wrote: | This was the part that came off as condescending to me: | | > while soccer mom means you pay a premium for a new part | and pay someone to install it. | | "soccer mom" is generally not a compliment. | 14 wrote: | Perhaps it was me who woke up on the wrong side of the | bed. I'm going through some heavy health stuff right now | and don't feel great. I guess I meant by soccer mom | someone in a better position financially who would've | paid someone to do the job thus costing them more. I hope | all is well in your life, cheers. | bagacrap wrote: | unless the cost to extract the metals from a catalytic | converter is > $95, and the replacement is a spare catalytic | converter (from a junkyard say) | sokoloff wrote: | Used converters are not legal for sale for installation | unless they've been individually tested for function. | | There are numerous catalytic converters for sale on Amazon | around the $100 price point. If there's $500 of rare metals | inside, I think I'll supplement my tech job and do a bunch of | drop shipping from Amazon to a scrap metal place someplace. | kube-system wrote: | The amount of precious metals in catalytic converters vary. | OEMs make high quality units that actually do a very good | job of lowering emissions, because regulators are closely | looking at their vehicles. | | The aftermarket units you see on Amazon skimp out on | materials so they have lower purchase prices. They may have | significantly less or sometimes zero catalytic material. | While these wouldn't fool EPA inspectors hooking test | equipment up to a vehicle coming right off of Ford's | production line, they'll likely pass a visual inspection by | your local Jiffy Lube. | mindslight wrote: | I've heard from a mechanic that the aftermarket cats don't | work particularly well, and they're basically just for | fulfilling the legal requirement to repair an emissions | system as designed. Presumably they skimp on the expensive | catalyst. Does the CA smog test for newer cars still | include an actual sensor stuck into your tailpipe, or is it | all ODB2? And does the typical emissions system have any | sensors past the catalytic converter? | hellbannedguy wrote: | They do check the sticker, and they will get you by. | (keep all your smog checks to see if you got a working | unit. Check HC's, CO, and Oxides of nitrogen against old | tests. | | I was about to divulge a secret to poor people who want | to pass smog, and can't budget a missing catalytic | converters. | | It's a pretty good trick. The poor guys who work on their | ride can probally figure it out. | | I will refrain though. | | (My biggest fear of smog, and Global warming, is the | powers at be will make the poor pay for it. A two year | smog is rediculious. Right now CA only exempts 1975, or | earlier vechicles. Most states gave a 25 year rule. | People who drive old cars are usually poor, and don't put | a lot of miles on an older car. Some of those 25 year old | cars are bought by collectors. Most are crushed.) | toast0 wrote: | Last I looked, CA smog test for post 2000 model year cars | is ODB2 only. There's a handful of 2000 and earlier | models that also qualify. Anything earlier gets probed | until it's old enough. | brianwawok wrote: | Many (most) states never actually hook cars up to | sensors. So for most of the country, a half working | converter looks right, at the cost of our air quality.... | oasisbob wrote: | And, some states which used to have emission tests like | Washington have discontinued them entirely, via OBD or | sniffing. | | Justification was diminishing returns as the distribution | of cars on the road has naturally changed and eliminated | many problems. | lotsofpulp wrote: | Yes, people in the states without testing can just | straight pipe it for $10 and half an hour of labor rather | than shell out thousands to get a new cat installed. | | Save money and future proof yourself from further thefts. | slobiwan wrote: | The last time I took my car in for a (California) smog | check, they definitely stuck a sensor up the tailpipe. | Also run the engine for fixed duration at several set | speeds to get a variety of readings, on a dynomometer (a | treadmill, basically) to simulate actual driving speeds. | kube-system wrote: | I think California is the only state that does this. Most | other states do visual inspections or OBD-II tests. | dmckeon wrote: | Apparently Californians get a double whammy on cat thefts | - a generic replacement cat converter for most states | costs about $500, but the exact same replacement cat that | is certified by CARB (California Air Resources Board) | runs about $2k. This explains why older CA cars are more | likely to be totaled out by a cat theft. | mgarfias wrote: | Anything made after '96 has an o2 sensor downstream of | the cat to verify the cat is working. If it stops working | the ecu will toss a p0420 code and turn on the check | engine light. | mindslight wrote: | Is it physically downstream on another part though? It's | been a while since I've been under a car but I remember | seeing what I thought was the O2 sensor, and it was part | of the whole catalytic converter assembly. If it comes as | part of the same assembly, it would be easy enough for | new ones to include a fake O2 sensor. | mgarfias wrote: | It screws into either the cat, or the pipe right behind | it. But it's a separate part. | sokoloff wrote: | Those downstream checks are easily defeated in most cars. | They work fine as a signal that the converter isn't | working iff you're like most people and not trying to | defeat them. | | If you're _trying to defeat them_ , a simple RC or other | timer circuit on the signal pins and enough current flow | on the other pins to stand in for the heater (if | equipped) will result in the ECU concluding everything is | fine. Presumably someone trying to work around a | catalytic converter issue would be more likely than | average to fall into this category. | mgarfias wrote: | Oh sure. But if you're trying to defeat them, just take a | broom handle to the cat and smash the matrix out. Put it | back in, and put the o2sims in (or turn off the p0420 | code with some tuning software, which is what I did with | my race car when I pulled the cats). | asguy wrote: | That's true for many early OBD-2 cars, but anything | reasonably modern (e.g. 2006) correlates signals between | upstream and downstream O2 sensors. | | Most workarounds you see on the market are patched ECU | firmware to fib a scaled second O2 sensor value based on | the first, so all of the diagnostic tests keep running. | | You're seeing cars fail smog with these workarounds | because states like California have started checking | calibration IDs against the manufacturer's listed values | at the time of production. | dylan604 wrote: | Does the p0420 code get triggered if you smoke a doobie | in/around the car? | mgarfias wrote: | No. | jcampbell1 wrote: | Catalytic converters can use many combinations of platinum, | palladium, and rhodium. Many older cats have right much rhodium | which used to be less than $1000 an oz, but now is closer to | $10,000/oz. If someone steals your high rhodium cat, and you | replace it with a rhodium free cat, it can be the case that the | scrapped cat is worth more than the replacement. | [deleted] | Eduard wrote: | Catalytic converters are also stolen for making the drug _bombe_: | https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/new-drug-in-the-d... | LargoLasskhyfv wrote: | Das Schmiergel? Mit diesen Standluftpumpen machen Sie richtig | Druck auf Ihrem Treppenlift! | halfmatthalfcat wrote: | That was a really interesting article, thanks for sharing. | hericium wrote: | After reading news about such unusual substance abuse being | increasingly popular in Congo recently, I have actually thought | that this is the main reason behind catalytic converters' | thefts all over. | | But it's still rare metals thieves are after so I assume the | substance abuse popularity may grow outside Congo. | wiremaus wrote: | Be fascinating to hear more about how that _actually_ works; or | is it a fabrication by police or drug manufacturers? What | mechanism of action would a bunch of metal and exhaust | particulate possibly have to produce drug-like effects? | wiml wrote: | I'm with you; it does kind of sound like a drug-panic story. | | The article does suggest that bombe is made from conventional | drugs and basically _cut_ with converter residue, so perhaps | the residue slightly modifies its chemistry. Or it might do | nothing at all; I 'd be surprised if there's been a blind | study comparing the effects of bombe made with cat residue to | the same made with, say, clay. | Eduard wrote: | In case it's not a fabrication/not a lacing with conventional | drugs , my very uneducated guess: the crushed catalysators | contain nanoparticles which cross the blood-brain barrier | easily | aidenn0 wrote: | There's been a rash of this all over SoCal. It's very | professional. They hit a fixed number of cars of a given | make/model in just a specific year range (presumably so they can | do it quickly), then move on to a different city. By the time | they swing back around they are hitting a different make/model | (though as TFA mentions, it seems to always be Priuses and Ford | trucks). | robbmorganf wrote: | I didn't realize how much metal was in these converters. I always | thought it would be milligrams at most. | nikkinana wrote: | I love it! Nobody cares about this tax on those that own cars. | Insurance pays for it, but those who are honest pay insurance. So | it's really a tax on those who work and are honest. | bluedino wrote: | It's also way to easy for thieves to get quick money for almost | any metal object at scrapyards. | | They can get a couple hundred dollars for copper piping, air | conditioner condensers, etc and the homeowner is out thousands in | repairs | macintux wrote: | Local food bank was robbed of copper tubing about 15 years ago, | and the resulting loss of refrigeration destroyed nearly a half | million dollars' worth of food. | PeterisP wrote: | Some time ago it seemed popular to steal elevator motors from | apartment buildings, since they contain a significant amount of | copper. | fmajid wrote: | The Tunnel de Saint Cloud, one of the main highway tunnels into | Paris, had to be closed for almost an entire day because copper | thieves stole the copper from the security systems of the | tunnel, with horrendous ensuing traffic jams. | | Telcos and electric utilities have to deal with this on a daily | basis. | dougSF70 wrote: | Before the 2008 financial crisis, the value of copper in (UK) 2 | pence pieces was worth more than 2 pence. For a short while it | was economically worthwhile to melt the two pence pieces down for | copper. At the same it was also worth risking life to pull down | the electric cables on the UKs electrified train lines (east | coast). | bb123 wrote: | The worst part of this that it's not uncommon for the thieves to | total the car in the process of stealing the cat. They can warp | the chassis by jacking the car up in the wrong spot, or simply by | dropping the car off the jack once they're done to make a quick | getaway. | caturopath wrote: | What is "not uncommon"? I know a several people who've had | their cats stolen from older cars and hadn't heard of this yet. | Is not-uncommon like....10%? | nikanj wrote: | Not uncommon as in the mechanic will say "Oh yeah, sometimes | that happens" vs "Holy bob, I've never seen that one before! | Mind if I post it on the social media?" | bb123 wrote: | Source: https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-95 | 12053/amp... | | Not sure the sarcastic comment is warranted, or really adds | anything to the conversation. | mlyle wrote: | I believe he wasn't being sarcastic, but instead was | trying to illustrate what was meant when you wrote "not | uncommon". The question of what "not uncommon" meant in | this context was explicitly raised, and nikanj tried to | clarify on your behalf. | | I'm not sure how you got such a bad read from what he | said. | nikanj wrote: | I'm sorry if my comment came across as sarcastic. I don't | think anyone is keeping good statistics on "how often | does a car get frame damage from cat theft", but I know | that mechanics treat it as "not uncommon" as per my | previous comment. | nathias wrote: | They took mine one month ago in Europe, weird to see how | widespread it is. | bb123 wrote: | I've heard stories of people being advised not to install cat | protector shields on their car, as often the thief will smash the | windows and slash the tyres as payback for inconveniencing them. | The leaps in mental logic that must take is astonishing. | Someone1234 wrote: | It seems like nonsense someone made up. | | People committing catalytic converter theft want to be in and | out fast and quiet. They want to hit X vehicles a night. | Including multiple in the same _street_. They often run across | vehicles that aren 't theft compatible (e.g. parked on a hill, | already missing cat/not installed, etc), if they took the time | to commit loud and pointless damage that is time they're not | using stealing more catalytic converters elsewhere (and | increase the chance of being spotted). | | Likely someone just had criminal damage committed against them | and because they had a cat-shield device installed arbitrarily | decided A+B=C. | | Here are security camera videos showing how quick and almost | professional cat theft is: | | - 90 seconds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93r5PSP2rI4 | | - 1 minute: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnaUL7d1YBQ | | - 1 minute: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwHL-rSV8_M | dylan604 wrote: | Sure, there are some smart crews out there, but by and large, | most criminals are dumb. Never underestimate the rationale of | a criminal who may or may not be sober during the "heist". | jccooper wrote: | Even if it is true, windows and tires are cheaper and easier | replacements than a cat. | tomc1985 wrote: | There was a video a while back on reddit of an old man who | got knocked out trying to stop a bunch of street racers doing | donuts in an intersection. The camera then shows the guy | unconscious on the ground, and some kid in a hat comes up and | quickly steals his wallet. When he finds that the mans | pockets were empty he kicks and punches the guy then runs | off. | lb1lf wrote: | -I used to visit inmates at a prison nearby (I've since moved | too far away for it to be feasible to go on a regular basis) | | During my first visit, the guy I spent a couple of hours | chatting with suggested I never, ever remove the visitor's | parking pass from my car - as 'even speed freaks' (in his | words) would be reluctant to break into the car of someone on | the visitor's service. | | While one data point is hardly evidence, there was a number of | smash-and-grabs from curb parked cars on my street - my car was | indeed untouched. (Which, of course, might as well be because I | never ever leave any visible valuables inside...) | robocat wrote: | Have you had any problems with police seeing the sticker, and | assuming your support of convicts is bad? | | The opposite is the black rat sticker: | https://www.bennetts.co.uk/bikesocial/news-and- | views/feature... | PeterHolzwarth wrote: | Your comment (" _visitor 's service_") seemed to indicate | something more formal/organized than a simple one-off visit, | leading me to find the National Association of Prison | Visitors website. | | https://www.naopv.com/ | | Fascinating! I had not head of this before, and if that is in | fact what you were involved in, good on ya. | lb1lf wrote: | -Yes, it was basically my country's equivalent of this - | you're being vetted (basically no convictions; no | associating), are being briefed on what not to discuss with | whoever you end up visiting, then you get scheduled visits | at regular intervals. | | Once the inmate is released, you're not supposed to stay in | touch - though in the small town I lived in at the time, | you were bound to bump into each other on the street every | now and then; when we did, the rule was that the former | inmate initiated contact if he'd like to have a coffee or | just say hi - after all, it could quickly become awkward if | I greeted someone and their company asked where we'd met, | for instance. | | Most interesting, if nothing else I came to realise that | just about anyone could end up doing something which landed | them in prison. | | (Plus, inmates make for excellent conversation partners - | after all, they have all the time in the world to ponder | all sorts of things.) | caturopath wrote: | Would be interesting to find some stats on how much excess | vandalism there is of cars with cat shields. Sometimes these | stories people tell aren't born out by the data. | | Slashing tires is hard and smashing windshields is loud. | germinalphrase wrote: | Our car was broken into a couple years ago. We were sitting | in the backyard while a criminal broke a side window and | stole a laptop bag. Apparently, smashing is loud, but if you | take a screwdriver and pry, the window will pop instead which | draws less attention. | jes wrote: | As a former firefighter, we used to carry a tool used by | machinists: A spring-loaded center-punch. | | Position it at a corner of a door window and press until | the punch fires. The window just disintegrates into a | thousand pieces. | 41b696ef1113 wrote: | They sell these (with seat-belt cutters) for $5-10. | Billed as a way to get out of a car that is sinking into | a body of water (does this happen to more than a couple | of people a year?). Alternatively, if you are in a | cab/uber that locks the doors and traps you inside. Or if | you just want to break into some cars. | asddubs wrote: | i've heard if you throw the ceramic from a spark plug, the | window will break silently | dotancohen wrote: | The window does break, but not silently. | 8note wrote: | Does anyone actually care about the noise? | libertine wrote: | Well, I guess it's time to up the game and add a new layer of | social engineering: "people who install cat protector shields | have flash-bangs installed inside in case of glass break, and | tires filled with some toxic gas, for the inconvenience of the | thieves being inconveniently upset". | | Slap this in some social media groups, have some loud guy say | it on TikTok video and some fake video of it happening. | mc32 wrote: | I know you're saying put out misinformation but not really do | the boobytrapping just make them think it's a thing. | | People from ZA tell me people there actually boobytrap their | vehicles[1] and some carry flame throwers when they go on the | road. That was a few yeasts ago and not sure if it's still a | thing. | | [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaster_(flamethrower) | echelon wrote: | It's illegal to booby trap your property in a way that could | cause harm to a vandal. Even if you don't agree with this, | there's the chance that such mechanisms could misfire and | hurt someone innocent. | | A better solution would be to add more surveillance sensors. | Unfortunately this drives up the cost for people looking to | protect their property. | | I had my catalytic converter stolen as a college student, and | it was a huge pain in the ass. Not to mention costly at the | time to replace. | Digit-Al wrote: | OP is not suggesting actually booby trapping cars. Having | the sentence in quotes is the giveaway. He is saying to | spread the myth that this is happening so thieves aren't | sure if it is real or not and might be put off stealing | them. | yuppie_scum wrote: | They will see really fast that there is a shield or whatever | and move onto another car that doesn't. | Pxtl wrote: | That smells like the same kind of urban myth as the "guys | driving without headlights are gangsters who will shoot you for | flashing your highbeams at them" | pkrotich wrote: | This is a new one for me! I do it all the time as a courtesy | - now I would have to think twice, thanks to you! lol | silisili wrote: | They even made a movie where the whole story unfolds based | exactly on this scenario, which I'm sure doesn't help | anything - | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Sentence_(2007_film) | H8crilA wrote: | This reminds me of the crypto phishing scams which intensified so | much in this bull run. Ehhhh | jccalhoun wrote: | I'm lucky enough to live in a small city in the midwest so I own | a house with an attached garage like all the houses in my | subdivision. However, I always joke that my neighbors probably | think I'm weird because I park my car inside my garage instead of | in the driveway. If it really does only take less than a minute | to remove the catalytic converters then someone could make a mint | going up and down my street. | greedo wrote: | Why would it be considered weird to park inside your garage? | s5300 wrote: | In the MidWest, the garage is often for a hobby/storage, to | the point a car won't actually fit in it. You have plenty of | driveway space, so you just park there. | jccalhoun wrote: | that's the joke. everyone else has their garage crammed so | full of junk they can't use their garage as a garage. I can | so I am weird compared to their "normal" | codesections wrote: | > This honeycomb is sent to an illegal smelter, where the | precious metals are extracted, distilled, and sold to | manufacturers. | | Does anyone know any details about this part of the operation? | The article doesn't provide any, and I'm surprised to learn that | "illegal smelters" are a thing -- I've never thought of smelting | as especially subtle | xnx wrote: | Imagine a shipping container of stolen catalytic converters | unloading in China. | jcrawfordor wrote: | I don't know exactly how this is done for cats but I've gotten | into some backyard metal extraction before. If you have lax | safety standards and some ingenuity a lot of precious metal | extraction can be done with reasonably inexpensive and small | equipment, it's the kind of thing you could set up in a rented | garage for probably under $10k in equipment if you're thrifty | and clever. | https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jchem/2019/2318157/ suggests a | process, basic technique seems to be to extract the core, crush | it, and then chemical separation and precipitation using | reasonably easy to get reagents. And given that they talk about | it as an eco-friendly method I suspect that isn't the easiest | way. | 8note wrote: | Cody's lab has all kinds of chemistry and smelting videos: | https://youtu.be/UHStZrQ3OP4 for getting them from a | catalytic converter. | | He's also done an attempt at getting the precious metals from | the dust on the interstate | wiml wrote: | I would have expected any smelting/extraction to be on the | "legal" side of the fence -- usually, articles about cat theft | suggest they're sold to unscrupulous but legal scrap dealers, | who can mix the stolen converters in with their legitimate | stream of parts sawn off of junked cars. | | (It also, as a practical matter, seems easier to do that than | to convince manufacturers to buy odd batches of rare metals | from your illegal smelter.) | maxerickson wrote: | Another way to put it is that any smelter knowingly accepting | stolen materials is an illegal smelter. | [deleted] | anyfactor wrote: | Unrelated to this. | | Why did the website use text on pictures as opposed to using just | text like a blog? Wouldn't that harm their SEO? I enjoyed the | infographic approach but I feel sorry for the visually impaired | people trying to read this. | pkrotich wrote: | I wondered too... the normal text was below the infographic. | And like you I truly enjoyed the infographic as well. | jccalhoun wrote: | It is really weird. I use noscript so the cards were spaced out | weird but still readable. Then I saw that the story was | basically repeated at the end of the page. So I turned on | javascript to see if that was why. nope. spacing issues are | fixed but it was still weird. So i opened it in chrome without | any adblock and it still was weird. So I clicked on another of | their stories and the layout was different. I even thought | maybe the submitter had submitted some mobile version of the | site so I searched for the story on the site to see if another | version would come up and nope. Still weird looking. | kjrose wrote: | It felt like they were trying to double their keywords in a way | that might feel natural? | djanogo wrote: | Texas recently passed bill(House Bill 4110) making this crime a | felony, I wonder if this will make it easier for owners to be | covered under Sec. 9.42 code which will let owners use deadly | force against anybody who is under your car or running away with | your converter during night time. | | Texas is 2nd highest in US for this crime, somebody is gonna pay | with their life for this crime. | | https://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB4110/id/2408113 | https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm | seer wrote: | Huh only in America it might be considered OK to execute a | person for a theft of an automative part. | | Its like - there is someone committing a nonviolent felony of | stealing a minor part from your car, and now you are deputized | to be judge jury and executioner and can perform a quick public | execution, for your convenience... | | I mean I get it sucks very hard to have something being stolen | from you _in front of your eyes_ but does this justify an | execution? Isn't that why we have monopoly on violence and for | that matter insurance? | | I've had stuff like that stolen from me, by a member of my | country's repressed minority, and it was in front of my eyes, I | was sleeping when the act was committed, right next to me, so I | guess my life was also in danger. I woke up just as they were | making their escape. I did have the urge to chase them down | true, but never in my dreams have I thought these lives were | beyond redemption and I have the right to execute them then and | there, and I would live happy afterwards... | | How does the moral calculous work for Americans? Genuinely | curious. Is it "something bad is being done to me, I am | therefore justified to use any means necessary" kind of thing, | or there is something else/more? | rackjack wrote: | I think the logic is something like this: | | People who do wrong should be punished. Otherwise, they will | continue to do wrong. The wrongdoers, most likely, aren't | going get prosecuted by the relevant government officials and | the police aren't going to investigate. The best way I have | to punish them and prevent further crimes upon the area in | which I and my friends and family live and work is to use a | gun, as this is quick, highly punishing, can be explained by | self-defense, and used with minimal danger to myself. | [deleted] | mgraczyk wrote: | As someone who grew up in Texas and is generally in favor of | these sorts of "use of deadly force" prosecution defenses, I | think I can at least articulate the motivations in a way that | makes more sense, even if it's not convincing. | | Many Texans conceptualize government and state uses of force | (ie prosecution that can lead to imprisonment) as | restrictions on their rights. This "negative rights" | conceptualization is pretty common in the US, but especially | common in Texas. | | In the specific case of using deadly force to prevent | somebody from stealing your property at night, the idea is | something like the following. Absent any government | intervention, you have a "property right" which allows you to | prevent the thief from taking the property. In some cases, | the balance of public policy concerns should lean in favor of | government restrictions on this property right, to protect | potentially innocent people or to prevent nonviolent | criminals from dying, or to sustain an orderly justice system | without vigilantes. | | However, many Texans believe that the government should not | intervene in this case because the restriction on an | individual's right to protect his/her property is more | important than the other policy goals. | | Like I said, this is just my attempt to articulate the way | I'd guess many Texans feel about this. I don't necessarily | agree with all of the above. | today20201014 wrote: | > Many Texans conceptualize government and state uses of | force (ie prosecution that can lead to imprisonment) as | restrictions on their rights. This "negative rights" | conceptualization is pretty common in the US, but | especially common in Texas | | So, the government/state has guaranteed a negative right to | life, i.e. citizens are prohibited from actions that | deprive someone's right to life, and in order to enforce | this prohibition, citizens are deprived of their right to | arbitrarily commit violence to each other, while the | government/state has a monopoly. | | Where does our right to arbitrarily commit violence come | from? Is it just a "natural right"? | lotsofpulp wrote: | > Where does our right to arbitrarily commit violence | come from? Is it just a "natural right"? | | If you down the rabbit hole far enough, rights do not | come from anywhere other than the extent to which an | opposing party is able to punish you. Aka, might makes | right. | qweqwweqwe-90i wrote: | What's wrong with choosing rights democratically? | bluGill wrote: | Minority rights. | qweqwweqwe-90i wrote: | You either believe in a democracy or you don't. Minority | rights have been pretty well protected through democratic | decisions. | mgraczyk wrote: | See that's why there's a big difference in | conceptualization. Texans would certainly not say you | have a "right" to arbitrarily commit violence. They | conceptualize rights "negatively", as things the state | shouldn't take away from you. In this case, the right is | the freedom to not not go to prison after protecting your | property. | | In fact, a Texan may also believe that since you have no | right to violence, it would be perfectly fine for a | police officer to stop you from using deadly force, as | long as that police officer doesn't use deadly force on | you! | ramses0 wrote: | To add: an urban and rural split. By geography, Texas is | like 85%+ rural or semi-rural. | | In $MAJOR_CITY suburbia, you can call 911 and expect police | or fire response within 5-15min. | | In $RURAL Texas, response times may be significantly longer | which helps to explain a self-reliance culture. | | Property theft deterrence, prevention, and enforcement | being neatly bundled in the revolver at your hip (think | 1850s "old west" town) is what was codified into law in | Texas. Particularly theft of horses (eg: mobility or | necessary farm labor) was severely punished. | | Different challenges often call for different responses to | be most effective, and it's helpful to try and understand | the situation and expectations before passing judgement. | foxrider wrote: | I am not american, but I really wish it was legal to shoot | thieves where I live. I see no moral issues with that act - | it's really simple to justify. First - why should I value | life of someone who's actively robbing me? In my mind, the | moment they attack my rights, including my property rights - | I don't owe any moral consideration to them anymore, they | broke the social contract with me, and I'm going to use | anything at my disposal to stop them. Second - if it's | generally accepted that if you're gonna steal something you | are putting your life on the line - that means people would | think twice before stealing something from other people. You | should fear for your life if you're going to try and violate | other's rights, and I doubt there would be as many people | keen on stealing something valued at 100$ by betting their | lives on it. And finally, when you're getting robbed it | damages you. It's not even about the thing itself getting | stolen, but more about the fact that the sanctity of your | belongings vanishes and a bit of trust you had for others | vanishes with it. Ask anyone who ever got mugged or had their | house broken into - it's hard to feel safe after that happens | to you once, ever. I really don't think that someone who's a | victim of an ongoing crime should ever stop and think about | the criminal committing it as someone worthy of moral | consideration at all. | plantain wrote: | What gives you the right to make a life-ending | determination? | qweqwweqwe-90i wrote: | This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine | cmac2992 wrote: | How can the castle doctrine possibly be applied to most | catalytic converter thefts??? | twojacobtwo wrote: | > to use force (up to and including deadly force) to | _defend oneself_ against an intruder | | Perhaps only one place (Texas) uses this to justify | regaining possession of property, which is what the GP | was talking about. | | Also: | | > At most the Castle Doctrine is an affirmative defense | for individuals inevitably charged with criminal | homicide, not a permission or pretext to commit homicide. | lotsofpulp wrote: | Typically, the laws governing one's jurisdiction. | plantain wrote: | I'm asking on a moral level. | Viliam1234 wrote: | If human lives are valuable, then I suppose the same also | applies to _my own life_. If a hostile stranger appeared | at night in my house, I would take his life to protect | mine. Yes, the entire situation is regretful, but it was | his choice to make it happen, not mine. | | I wouldn't kill a person over stealing a candy from me, | or trespassing on my lawn. | foxrider wrote: | I think that you have the right to protect your rights at | all costs. If your rights are being violated it's OK to | reclaim it by returning the favor. If you don't believe | it then there's a discussion to be had about if you even | have any rights to begin with or if these are just | privileges granted to you by the others. | ketzo wrote: | But surely there are degrees to this? I mean, if someone | tall sits in front of you at the movies, they are | violating your right to full viewership of the movie. If | you get cut off in traffic, your rights are being | violated. | | Where is the line? Why is property theft deserving of the | end of a human life? | [deleted] | gretch wrote: | In the case of the article, we're not just asking about | blanket "property theft". I don't think any of the | proponents are say shoot someone who's stealing a loaf of | bread. | | In many parts of the world, a car used to get to work. If | you can't get to work, then you can't make money, and if | you can't make money then you can't eat. | | Does everyone who gets their catalytic converter stolen | have enough money to get it fixed? If not, then this | crime might be tantamount to depriving someone of their | whole car | foxrider wrote: | I think you're confusing rights with something else here. | I'm specifically talking about natural rights, and I | don't know if you're trying to steer the dialog into | "what is a right" or just have a wrong idea, but I am not | interested in philosophy or deconstruction of well | established concepts | CamperBob2 wrote: | _What gives you the right to make a life-ending | determination?_ | | The perpetrator delegated it to me when he chose to break | into my house. | | If you want to argue that human life has inherent value | that can't be voluntarily given up, such that it's never | right for me to take someone's life in defense of my | property, the arguments in favor of that seem to be | religious in nature. They don't always begin that way, | but ultimately you have to back up your opinion with | _something_ objective if you want to convince me that I | 'm in the wrong. Basically you'd need to cite a higher | authority in order to change my mind, and then proceed to | convince me that the authority (a) exists; and (b) backs | up your position. | | Unless there's an argument I've overlooked, which is | always possible. Are there other points of view on this, | that don't boil down to either appeals to emotion or | appeals to a mysteriously-absent higher moral authority? | (Yes, there's the philosophical argument that the state | should have a monopoly on violence, but that has the same | flaws as the original argument, and can't always be | applied in the heat of the moment.) | maxerickson wrote: | You are assuming a right to property (along the same | lines as your argument about people assuming inherent | value). | CamperBob2 wrote: | Not necessarily. In a home-invasion situation, the _only_ | person who really knows what 's going on is the burglar. | I have to assume that he doesn't just want my stuff, he | wants to harm me or my family. It's unreasonable to | require me to trust the intruder's good faith. These | things aren't exactly negotiated in advance. | maxerickson wrote: | As used there, the word 'invasion' assumes property | rights exist. | CamperBob2 wrote: | How so? I don't follow. It's true that the original | question posits a robbery or other home-invasion scenario | with the goal of stealing property, but how am I supposed | to know that the intruder is only interested in my stuff? | maxerickson wrote: | There's no threat created when someone simply moves into | a shared space. | | The word "burglar" assumes that property rights exist. | | Note that I mostly think the inconsistency is silly and | should be pointed at, I don't have a problem admitting | that property rights exist in most societies. | [deleted] | [deleted] | dougSF70 wrote: | The problem with this approach are those cases where it is | not clear cut. | | The consequences of being wrong outweigh the benefits of | being right. | | And have you ever taken someone's life before? It is not to | be taken lightly and will no doubt haunt the shooter for | many years. And for what, because someone stole $1000, | $100, $10 or $1? If you are comfortable putting a value on | someone's life and ending it with a bullet without remorse, | that would make you a sociopath or a psychopath. | foxrider wrote: | Yeah, if it's not clear cut - don't shoot anyone. I'm | talking about people who are in the process of the crime | when you caught them as it happened, not about some kind | of vigilante track-them-down. As for shooting someone - I | haven't, and I hope I'll never have to, but I can't | imagine feeling remorseful for stopping a crime against | myself. Yeah 10$ is pushing it, but as I've said - it's | more about the violation than the actual value here. I | have no idea what someone is trying to steal from the | car, but just breaking into it is enough. | Tronno wrote: | > Yeah, if it's not clear cut - don't shoot anyone. I'm | talking about people who are in the process of the crime | when you caught them as it happened | | Can we trust you to accurately determine which situations | are "clear cut" (and therefore justify summary | execution)? Can we trust any random with a gun to make | that determination? And can we trust them when they're | the only surviving witness? | | Is it a crime worthy of death when someone wanders onto | your property due to some kind of mental illness? Is it a | crime to accidentally open the wrong door? What about | when _you_ accidentally open the wrong door (see Amber | Guyger)? Is it a crime to be in a store 1 minute after | closing time? Or to walk on someone 's property to | deliver a package? | | Is it a crime to upset someone at the bar and then turn | up dead on their property, "in the process of committing | a robbery"? | | You are advocating for giving everyone the power of | judge, jury, and executioner, regardless of whether they | are qualified or honest. And you are encouraging those | people to engage in gun battles where the "victim" is | also at risk of death. | | Spend more time thinking about your opinions. | ketzo wrote: | To be clear: the idea of someone breaking into your car | is enough to justify ending a human life? | foxrider wrote: | Not the idea, but the act, if I'm going to be pedantic. | If the law would've been on my side and I would've seen | my car broken into with someone in there, I would not | hesitate to use lethal force at that point. | ketzo wrote: | Wow, okay, I guess we are just on fundamentally different | pages. That is, quite frankly, sickening to me. I cannot | imagine valuing human life - _any_ human life - so lowly. | CamperBob2 wrote: | _That is, quite frankly, sickening to me. I cannot | imagine valuing human life - any human life - so lowly_ | | Don't tell me, tell the perp. He's the one who determined | what his life was worth. | gretch wrote: | It's not quite enough for me, but I would not judge | others if they drew the line there certainly. | | Also keep in mind that while it's happening, you have no | idea how far this individual intends to go. Were they | just intending minor theft? Or maybe they broke into your | car because they were trying to get to you? If they | announce their intentions, do you even believe them? | | Of course it's easy to make the decision in the middle of | the day with perfect information. Now picture waking up | at 2am to sounds in your drive way and there's 2 or 3 | guys out there fucking with your car. | cmac2992 wrote: | One way to have better information about the situation is | to not shoot them. | pcwalton wrote: | It's not that simple. Otherwise it would be legal to shoot | someone for walking on your lawn (also a violation of | property rights). | userbinator wrote: | I've seen signs saying "trespassers will be shot", and | never felt the need to test them. The fact that the | shooter was doing something illegal doesn't change the | possibility that you may no longer be alive. | coryrc wrote: | This is the problem with our police not investigating | property crime. If you could trust society will stop these | people in short order, then there will be less crime and | the chance of this happening will be low, and you'll just | feel especially unlucky. | | But I live in an area with high property crime and the | police do nothing about it, as desired by the local | government representatives. That's a recipe for | vigilantism. | mod wrote: | > How does the moral calculous work for Americans? Genuinely | curious. Is it "something bad is being done to me, I am | therefore justified to use any means necessary" kind of | thing, or there is something else/more? | | Generally speaking, it works just like it works everywhere | else--we don't execute people on the street. We sometimes | have the legal grounds to use lethal force in defense of our | safety or that of our property (rarely, but apparently in | Texas), and we very rarely choose to actually use it. | | Intrinsic morals don't have a whole lot to do with laws. | scotty79 wrote: | > We sometimes have the legal grounds to use lethal force | in defense of our safety or that of our property (rarely, | but apparently in Texas), and we very rarely choose to | actually use it. | | That's not how it works in most first world places. You | can't murder a person to protect property. | Nasrudith wrote: | It is still defense of life in robbery cases. Robbery is | potentially lethal violence or the threat of violence to | get what they want. That is what justifies self-defense. | NoImmatureAdHom wrote: | The parent made this exact point. | go_blue_13 wrote: | By definition, it isn't murder | sequel_database wrote: | Chase them down and suck their dick and give them $100 | DuskStar wrote: | The pithy response is that it's not me deciding that your | life is worth less than my stuff, it's you deciding that and | me agreeing. | batrat wrote: | This. It's not like "i have nothing to eat, I'm gonna steal | some catalytic converters". | Spooky23 wrote: | Most people don't think like this in America or anywhere. | It's a vocal minority of fanatics and marginal personalities | that has disproportionate influence due to political | dysfunction. | | After the civil rights era, southern democrats were | politically isolated and ended up in a coalition with western | resource people (oil, big agriculture, etc). This coalition | ended up as this thing that focuses on a few key, hardened | issues like "low taxes", abortion and guns. | | Nobody likes taxes, but the farmers and the resource people | _hate_ taxes as it is just an overhead. So you end up with | these weird scenarios where small farmers passionately | support a platform that puts them out of business. | | Guns are another similar issue. Gun companies made a FUD | business model in the 90s about the "government is taking | your guns" that was very impactful on rural folk and | eventually became a mainstream thing. | | When you architect a political movement around fear and | grievance, you create a culture of aggrieved people who thing | "they" are coming to get them. | barbacoa wrote: | >How does the moral calculous work for Americans? Genuinely | curious. Is it "something bad is being done to me, I am | therefore justified to use any means necessary" kind of | thing, or there is something else/more? | | In the USA there is what in known as the castle doctrine. If | someone tries to break into your home you may defend your | home no different than a lord defending a castle. Pouring | boiling oil on their soldiers scaling your walls ... Or more | appropriately the modern equivalent action with your AR-15. | | Texas goes one step further, they allow you to use force to | protect your property from nightime theft or criminal | mischief. It's not about retaliation, it's a matter of | protecting what is your property. | NoImmatureAdHom wrote: | Generalizing about "America" usually doesn't work. It's a | huge country, both in terms of land area (about the size of | Europe) and population (about half of Europe). Politically, | it's much closer to Europe in terms of heterogeneity than | most people assume. | | It's like a spectrum: on the one hand we have countries like | Singapore, where all the laws and the people they apply to | are the same pretty much anywhere you go, and on the other | hand we have loose multi-national confederations like the | E.U. where laws change significantly, but there are some | generalities. | | A U.S. state is much more like a country in the E.U. than the | U.S. is like a country in the E.U. Further, there are huge | differences in the makeup of populations in different parts | of the United States, in terms of economic stratification, | ethnicity, race, education, and most importantly local | culture. | R0b0t1 wrote: | How will you prevent people who want to steal from stealing? | Closure rates on theft cases is low to nonexistent. | teamonkey wrote: | Does it prevent stealing? Are there fewer catalytic | converter thefts in the US than elsewhere, per capita? | NoImmatureAdHom wrote: | I think the relevant comparison is Texas, not the U.S. | 0x737368 wrote: | I swear, HN is so goddamned soft. It's not that Americans | don't value the lives of thieves - it's that thieves don't | value their lives over catalytic converters. | | To reach the final stage of your soyboy beta cuck | transformation, please also make sure to try and "understand | the feelings" of the thief as they steal your property in | front of you and praise them for their bravery of standing up | to the hardships of life. Then post on Twitter how you're a | big supporter of the downtrodden and this is your way to add | fairness and balance to the universe. | yholio wrote: | You are drastically underestimating the level of danger a | criminal presents. | | First of all, they are ready to damage your property to the | point where it puts your life in imminent danger. A car | without the converter might still drive, maybe with a light | on the dashboard and a loud noise, while ejecting hot exhaust | gases under the passenger section and straight towards the | fuel tank. Some diesel cars periodically inject unburned fuel | to clean the filter at temperature over 900K. A fire in the | passenger section is a distinct possibility, but imagine even | just the panic response of someone who thinks they are on | fire while running on the freeway. | | So whoever is interfering with the safety of your car already | has little regard for your life. | | Secondly, they are risking a long prison sentence for | something that's worth a few days of unskilled labor. So they | have decided they won't even spare a few days of their life | for the value they can steal in 10 minutes - let alone years | in prison. If caught in the act, they will most certainly not | put their tools down and say "Oh, you got me, darn, I guess | we need to call the police now". They are by definition ready | for violence, and they WILL use force against whomever | attempts to retain them. | | So a law abiding individual has a choice between confronting | a violent criminal, by all accounts ready to kill them, and | not protecting their property. It's a violent blackmail, and | one solution, unless we want everybody's catalitic converter | to be stolen, is to balance the violence disequilibrium and | make it much more riskier for the thieves. | MarkMarine wrote: | A lot of men who've never been to combat like to imagine | themselves as John Wick, and look for opportunities to | execute what they've been practicing. There is such a | reverence for the military here, and these men have the | subconscious hope that they can spring into action with their | gun, prove they are "men" and save the day. That overweighs | the thought about someone else's value. To answer your | question, these people don't think about what the other | person would think or feel, or what their life is worth. They | only think of themselves and their experience. | tacon wrote: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sv0iN5J-9mk | sillysaurusx wrote: | A lot of us also know how to diffuse a situation using the | threat of lethal force without actually using lethal force. | (I don't, which is why I'm not a concealed carry holder.) | | Don't go to Texas and steal stuff, and you won't get shot. | I don't really have sympathy for crime rings being executed | by vigilantes for stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars | worth of property. | throwaway5752 wrote: | What inevitably happens when this is legalized is an | individual without law enforcement background or training | but with a gun ends styling themselves as a neighborhood | watch and killing an innocent person (usually non-white, | who in this case might be working on their own car). This | prominently happened with Arbery and Martin. | | People have looked beyond fearmongering at these | policies, and unbiased research (which is why it is | banned from being federally funded) always shows castle | doctrine / other stand-your-ground laws are not a net | benefit to reducing crime and lead to avoidable deaths of | innocent people (https://www.rand.org/research/gun- | policy/analysis/stand-your...) | gretch wrote: | Yeah those people who do that are bad and shouldn't do | that. Just like the thieves are bad and shouldn't do | that. | | It's not one extreme or the other. I have no idea why | it's "inevitable". I own a gun and I haven't mentally | devolved into the Punisher yet. | | Imagine you live in a rural area where things are far | apart. Someone breaks your car, and now you can't get to | work. And if you don't show up for work, now you're | fired. And now you don't have income, so now you might | lose your house or miss meals. Asking that person to have | sympathy for the thief is asking for a lot. | xwdv wrote: | A great American once said an injustice anywhere is a threat | to justice everywhere. The justification is that the person | committing the crime has little to no value in civilized | society and should be killed off, because the chances of the | thief being caught are very low, so one only has a moment to | carry out justice and create a deterrent to future thieves. | In a country like America where people are very sensitive to | property rights, theft is far more heinous than in other | countries. If you've ever had anything stolen here and | reported it to police, you'll be frustrated when all you get | is a shrug and a promise that they will "investigate", which | basically means do nothing. People get tired of that and take | matters into their own hands. | yeetaccount2 wrote: | Well if you walk to your car and someone is stealing the CC | they often have an armed accomplice. Should you not have the | right to get in your car because someone else is implying | violence? And if you want to get in your car, and they're | going to potentially kill you for it, don't you also have the | right to defend yourself? Would someone (say, a lone woman in | a dark parking lot) be unreasonable for assuming violence was | imminent if she walked to her car and found people stealing | the CC from her car? I'd have a hard time blaming her if she | shot them both on sight, even if they were unarmed. | MadeThisToReply wrote: | For starters, here's the relevant part of Texas penal code | which GP mentioned. You can read the whole thing, it's very | short: | | https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._penal_code_section_9.. | .. | | IANAL, but it seems you can shoot someone in Texas for | stealing your catalytic convertor if you "reasonably believe | the deadly force is immediately necessary" and the catalytic | convertor "cannot be protected or recovered by any other | means." | NoImmatureAdHom wrote: | It also requires that "the use of force other than deadly | force to protect or recover the land or property would | expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death | or serious bodily injury." | | So not only must deadly force be the only option to keep | the property, but you've got to believe that if you tried | something other than deadly force you'd be seriously | injured or killed. | throwawaysea wrote: | Great! This is exactly the kind of action we need up and down | the West Coast, in LA, SF, Portland, and Seattle. In all these | cities "restorative justice" policies have essentially | legalized crime, while still subjecting law abiding taxpayers | to every statute. As an example: if a vagrant using up public | parking spaces as a home dumps sewage from their RV into the | street, they'll face no penalties. If a homeowner drops a | thimble of anything into a drain, they'll face significant | fines. Without real consequences and deterrents, criminals and | low lives will victimize others with impunity. The catch-and- | release policies used by activist DAs like Chesa Boudin have | massively backfired and turned livable, attractive cities into | dangerous slums. It needs to be fixed now. | Someone1234 wrote: | 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 wrote: | >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. | mgraczyk wrote: | 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. | tessierashpool wrote: | 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 wrote: | We also are all given horses and a Stetson by the state | government at birth! | | /s | HelixEndeavor wrote: | 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. | 8note wrote: | My the law prescribes what punishments are correct for | property damage. Its not something that will give them a | firing squad when convicted, so you shouldn't be acting as | a firing squad yourself | cseleborg wrote: | So you come out of Walmart somewhere in Texas, having | bought a black sports bag. As you pass by a car, you notice | your shoelace is untied, so you get down and tie it. Coming | up, you lose your balance a little and put your hand on the | car. At that moment, the owner of that car comes, sees you | coming up a little clumsily from underneath their car with | a big black bag, thinks "damn, he's stealing my catalytic | converter" and shoots you dead. | | See the problem? You weren't stealing anything. They just | thought you did. In most other places on earth, if you were | really unlucky, you'd get arrested and put on trial, until | it became clear that you really didn't do anything wrong. | In Texas, apparently, instant game over is an acceptable | outcome. Sure, the shooter would also get in trouble, but | that's not going to help your spouse and children, is it? | | Edit: typo | johnisgood wrote: | Where do we draw the line, really? Probably not at | catalytic converters. | capableweb wrote: | 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? | sodality2 wrote: | That can happen anyway. Place them in your house and say | they broke in | [deleted] | capableweb wrote: | You're not joking, apparently it's legal to shot people | to death if they've entered your home. Learned something | new today. I don't understand it all, but certainly puts | the new law into perspective and apparently what I was | thinking about wouldn't be a problem. | johnisgood wrote: | Invite them over to your house without anyone knowing | about this, then shoot them. Would it work? | defen wrote: | People keep coming up with these fanciful scenarios | because they don't like the idea of being able to shoot | intruders, but think about that for a second. You're | positing that a person wants to kill a random person they | don't know, but also wants to do it in the loudest, | messiest way that absolutely guarantees a police | investigation. And the outcome, if their brilliant little | scheme fails, is the death penalty. | 8note wrote: | A similar scheme has worked for Rittenhouse | defen wrote: | Texas also has the death penalty for premeditated murder, | which would probably be the case if you're prepared | enough to frame the victim for catalytic converter theft. | | So if you're going to use an affirmative defense ("Yes I | did it, but it was justified") then that seems like a | pretty big risk, especially if there's no real evidence | the victim was a cat thief. | prepend wrote: | This seems super unlikely as the framer would need to | have specialized saws to plant on the victim. | | If someone wants to abuse a castle doctrine law there are | already easier ways to do that. | | I'm also not aware of any stories where the existing laws | have been abused to kill people legally (eg, shooting | someone, planting them in your house or as a carjacker). | Although maybe they are just so successful they aren't | caught. | 8note wrote: | Is a battery sawsall very specialized? | avalys wrote: | In most states, you can claim under almost any | circumstances that a person came at you with a weapon (a | rock?) and you shot them in self-defense. | | It is up to the criminal justice system to investigate | and determine if you are lying. | | This situation is no different. | capableweb wrote: | > In most states, you can claim under almost any | circumstances that a person came at you with a weapon (a | rock?) and you shot them in self-defense. | | Yeah, I realize I'm with water over my head as I don't | understand US laws at all, and how it can legal to kill | other people like that. | qweqwweqwe-90i wrote: | I'm pretty sure any country would be fine with you | killing someone in self-defense... | Viliam1234 wrote: | For example, Soviet Union made self-defense illegal. This | was part of a larger strategy to encourage crime against | citizens, because the more the citizens are worrying | about criminals, the less they think about the regime | they are living in. They will even welcome more police | oversight, because it is the only protection against | crime they have. (Crimes against the state, on the other | hand, were punished extremely.) | cto_of_antifa wrote: | That's your ethical call to make, at the end of the day - | but I think putting property above human life shows a | distinct lack of empathy. | arcticbull wrote: | 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 wrote: | Oy vey go away. Move to Europe if you don't like it. Your | anarchy is my justice | xenocyon wrote: | 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. | Jiro wrote: | 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. | wiml wrote: | If drivers are allowed to use deadly force (in the form | of their car) when inconvenienced by pedestrians, | shouldn't we allow pedestrians to shoot drivers when | they, e.g., don't stop at crosswalks or run a red light? | Seems only fair! | tdfx wrote: | I don't think being pulled from your car and beaten by an | angry mob is the typical definition of inconvenience. | omgwtfbyobbq wrote: | Had they been pulled from their vehicle, sure. | | In this instance they appear to be the ones doing the | pushing (of protestors) and pulling (of horses). | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5CnkBVEJ0Y | | Neither the driver or the protesters should have been | acting like a-holes, but the driver has a higher standard | of care given that they're operating a 3+ ton hunk of | metal and plastic. | tessierashpool wrote: | > Pedestrian protestors have developed the tactic of | gathering on high speed highways | | true | | > surrounding cars, trying to assault the drivers | | false | TeeMassive wrote: | It happened in Chaz | dmoy wrote: | That was not on a high speed roadway | Vecr wrote: | What do you mean by "false"? Did you forget the LA riots? | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots#Atta | ck_... | | Do not stop the car. Do not get out. Do not surrender. | Kill as many as you need to save yourself. | dctoedt wrote: | 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 wrote: | 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. | solarhoma wrote: | There are plenty of videos from the summer of 2020 | showing BLM rioters attacking vehicles and their | occupants. | fredophile wrote: | I searched for "BLM rioters attacking vehicle". The first | result was an article about a driver being attacked and | pulled from their vehicle. The protestors accused the | driver of assaulting them before entering the vehicle. | The second article was about protestors attacking a | driver who attempted to drive through the crowd. All of | the rest of the links in the rest of the page were about | drivers running over protestors. Perhaps you could | provide a link or two to back up your assertion. | superflit2 wrote: | Use duckduckgo and different results will appear. | | As people asked for some duckduckgo results -> | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60cqUPxYThY | | https://www.bizpacreview.com/2021/05/09/cop-in-texas- | looks-o... | | https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12158537/protesters- | attacked-c... | | https://news.yahoo.com/youtube-removes-anti-blm- | livestream-2... | pessimizer wrote: | This is the internet, if you found one you can just share | it. | fredophile wrote: | Here's a TL;DR of the links: [0] Guy gets into an | argument with protestors, then crashes his truck. | Protestors fight guy. [1] Guy exits vehicle and argues | with protestors. Cop breaks it up before things get out | of hand. [2] Guy (accidentally) runs over a cyclist at a | protest. Protestors get angry and trash car. [3] Youtube | takes down a video, puts it back up with age | restrictions. | | In the two cases where protestors attacked a vehicle or | its occupants either the driver already had an | altercation with protestors or the vehicle struck a | protestor. The original comment I was replying to implied | that there was lots of footage of protestors attacking | people in cars. This doesn't show any evidence of that. I | still haven't seen any evidence that there is a problem | of protestors attacking random cars and their occupants. | throwawaysea wrote: | Please stop gaslighting. Look at what happened after | George Floyd. For example, DC had tons of violence, | arson, burglaries, assaults, and so on | (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/31/fires- | light-...). In Portland, antifa-affiliated and BLM- | affiliated rioters set buildings on fire, without caring | about any occupants | (https://nypost.com/2021/04/11/portland-ice-building- | burns-am...). In Seattle, BLM rioters put posters around | town encouraging people to commit crimes to tie up police | resources (https://komonews.com/news/local/protesters- | aim-to-tie-up-sea...), and held twice daily blockades of | infrastructure, including one incident where they trapped | drivers in a tunnel. BLM activist even broke into homes | in "white neighborhoods" and set fires in their kitchens | _with families sleeping in those homes_ | (https://thepostmillennial.com/seattle-blm-activist- | arrested-...). | | The George Floyd protests were not peaceful, and they | were certainly far more violent than the Capitol riot | since they very literally included orders of magnitude | more violence, destruction, and death. A peaceful protest | does not break the law. It does not try to subvert the | political process we all follow via acts of violence to | achieve a political end. These acts are technically | terrorism, which is defined | (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/terrorism) as follows: | | > the unlawful use of violence or threats to intimidate | or coerce a civilian population or government, with the | goal of furthering political, social, or ideological | objectives. | pasabagi wrote: | >they were certainly far more violent than the Capitol | riot since they very literally included orders of | magnitude more violence, destruction, and death. | | ... And orders of magnitude more people. Per-capita, the | capitol riot is obviously more violent, and that's the | only way it makes sense to measure violence. Otherwise I | could say that ISIS members are less violent than | catholics. | arcticbull wrote: | Read that back to yourself and ask which country you live | in. | 0x0nyandesu wrote: | The one where I can defend myself obviously | arcticbull wrote: | One where you need to kill people for stealing car parts | my dude, holy moly, that's not just terrifying it's | embarrassing. | 123pie123 wrote: | 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 wrote: | You can't stand your ground going something illegal -> a | criminal doesn't have the "right" to shoot at police . | djanogo wrote: | 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. | mint2 wrote: | Out of curiosity were all the 60's civil rights marches | permitted or would this law have, if passed earlier, | allowed segregationists to run the marchers down if an | all white jury (keeping with the times) was "convinced" | the driver was "exercising due care" | [deleted] | HelixEndeavor wrote: | They would have been protected under this legislation | because if the road has been appropriately blocked off by | the police then the law doesn't apply. | 8note wrote: | Black people likely would not be allowed to request the | police to block the road in this hypothetical. | markdown wrote: | So in order to stop protesters, all the police would have | to do is not provide a venue (not block off the road). | "Go ahead and march without police support if you want, | while people will legally slaughter the lot of you with | their cars." | rsj_hn wrote: | > So in order to stop protesters, | | No, in order to stop protesters _from blocking traffic_ , | then that is all the police need to do. The protestors | can always protest in a park or literally anywhere other | than in the middle of roads. | | In a just society, some group's right to protest does not | take priority over everyone else's right to travel and | use roads. Roads do not belong to activists, and no | activist group has a right to shut down public roads | without arranging this with police ahead of time so that | appropriate detours can be made for normal traffic. | prosody wrote: | A society in which civil rights protesters unlawfully | marched over the Edmund Pettus Bridge, interrupting | traffic, and withstood the violent attempts at | suppression by Alabama state troopers, forcing the nation | to confront its fundamental injustice and pass the Voting | Rights Act of 1965, is _in every single way_ a more just | society in which the 'right' of travelers to pass over | that bridge on March 7, 1965 is kept sacrosanct. | rsj_hn wrote: | It is precisely this type of self-righteous posturing | that causes people to pass laws to block radical groups | from blocking traffic and as well as driving the public | into opposing whatever legislation you are advocating. | | Sorry, but no civil rights gains were made as a result of | people harassing pedestrians and motorists. They were | made _despite_ these selfish tactics, not _because_ of | them. These types of tactics significantly set back the | civil rights movement in the U.S. just as the watts riots | set back African American rights. | | Always be suspicious when an angry mob tries to justify | antisocial behavior with claims of "the greater good". It | is _never_ about the "greater good", but is always about | theft, domination, and harassment, and it always ends up | hurting your cause. | pessimizer wrote: | > In a just society, some group's right to protest does | not take priority over everyone else's right to travel | and use roads. | | I wasn't aware this was true, but since you've declared | it here - let the killing begin I guess? | dylan604 wrote: | https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/851/billtext/html/HB002 | 50I... | | 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 wrote: | >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 wrote: | 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 wrote: | 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 wrote: | Because the person doing the claiming is only going to | provide links that support their claim. Only a bad | debater would make the other person's argument for them. | Do your own searching would allow exposure to both sides | of an argument. | benchaney wrote: | That is backwards, because the second person has their | own biases, so that person is going to give evidence that | is biased against the original claim. The only way to get | strong evidence on both sides of the argument is for both | participants to supply evidence that supports their own | arguments. | decebalus1 wrote: | Here's one: http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bi | ll=HB1674&Sessi... | | > It was introduced in response to a widely publicized | incident in Tulsa last May when a pickup truck drove | through a crowd that had gathered on an interstate to | protest the police killing of George Floyd. | | > The truck, which was pulling a horse trailer, hit and | injured three people, including a 33-year-old man who was | left paralyzed from the waist down after falling from an | overpass. | | > The Tulsa County District Attorney's Office announced | in July it would not press charges against the driver, | writing in a memo that he, his wife and two children were | all "in a state of immediate fear for their safety" and | had been the victims of a "violent and unprovoked attack | by multiple individuals who unnecessarily escalated an | already dangerous circumstance by obstructing an | interstate highway." | HelixEndeavor wrote: | The DA made the right call. | decebalus1 wrote: | Sure, whatever, thanks for the valuable and really well | argumented input. | | I, however, don't know much about the specifics of the | case in order to have an opinion about what the DA did. | My only opinion is that the new laws are risky, as anyone | can claim they were scared for their lives, especially in | places where black people are considered 'scary'. I'm not | a law expert but I'd be willing to bet that if a black | dude ran over a pack of armed proud boys would have | resulted in a completely different law. And for anyone | asking why I say that, look up the Mulford Act. | Sebguer wrote: | You realize that most protests that block roads are on | roads that they're not permitted to be on, right? | MadeThisToReply wrote: | What does "due care" mean here? Does it have a specific | legal meaning? How is it possible to kill someone with | your car while exercising "due care"? | 8note wrote: | I imagine due care means choosing the correct people to | run down. Some people's lives are less valuable to | society than others | userbinator wrote: | Ironically, Texas would probably also have one of the highest | percentage of vehicle owners who have removed and replaced | their catalytic converters with a straight pipe. It's called a | "cat delete" and common in the performance community, probably | because there is no emissions testing. | markdown wrote: | > let owners use deadly force against anybody who is under your | car or running away with your converter during night time. | | WTF? Why don't you think that should result in a murder charge? | jccooper wrote: | That section makes no mention of classification of the crime. | It would be the same scenario felony or misdemeanor. | [deleted] | mint2 wrote: | By that somebody do you mean someone that random vigilantes | assume stole a cat in the past with little proof? And then grab | shotguns and pick up trucks to chase the somebody if they ever | see that somebody again and proceed to execute the person? | tasty_freeze wrote: | In Texas, one is allowed to use deadly force against the | perpetrator of theft, even if one is not threatened (say the | perp is running away) with the proviso, for some reason, that | this crime happens at night. | | In 2013, a man hired an escort off of craigslist. She took $150 | payment, then refused to have sex with him and left. She made | it to her car, but he grabbed a gun, ran to her car, and shot | her in the neck. A jury acquitted him. | | https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2013/06/ezekiel-gilbert-... | alliao wrote: | and no one's made a mod yet for GTA:Texas Edition talk about | missed opportunities.. | consp wrote: | Apparently I'm not sane enough to see how committing a murder | is being law abiding. Texas is definitely now on my do-never- | go list. | go_blue_13 wrote: | And you're clearly not sane enough to understand what | 'murder' means either | arcticbull wrote: | I cannot even begin to understand the rationale for executing | someone stealing your private property. That's some failed | state shit. | Gigachad wrote: | The rational is that you wouldn't have to do this normally. | No sane criminal would value their life less than some | catalytic converter. | 8note wrote: | Doesn't this ensure catalytic converter theives will be | prepared to shoot back? | throwawaysea wrote: | I personally view it as the exact opposite. I feel that | defense of- and autonomy over- my person and property are the | most fundamental tiers of liberty. A society that does not | uphold defense of property is effectively arguing for a lack | of private property (a certain ideology starting with 'C' | also has this trait). If we had enough surveillance, police | officers, and so forth to catch criminals, hold them to | consequences, and deter others, I would support avoiding a | stricter law like this. But the reality is cities simply | cannot afford the amount of staffing needed to stop these | crimes from happening, and I don't think hardworking | taxpayers should have to shoulder that burden. | | These criminals are also not helpless victims - they are most | typically lazy bandits who are breaking down society when | they could very easily go get one of the millions of jobs | available today and make an honest living through hard work - | like the rest of us. If these people want to operate outside | what a just society requires, then we need real, harsh | consequences so that we have an effective deterrent that will | put an end to this. Citizens being able to defend their | property without expensive or time-consuming legal | complications seems like a great way to have a distributed | policing force at no cost, to uphold the very laws that our | society has already put on the books. | plantain wrote: | >If we had enough surveillance, police officers, and so | forth to catch criminals, hold them to consequences, and | deter others, I would support avoiding a stricter law like | this. | | The fact that you don't, and that you think street | executions are a substitute, is what makes it a failed | state. | plantain wrote: | https://twitter.com/JodiHernandezTV/status/14622847574341 | 754... | | Honestly, what is going on in the US? | thatfrenchguy wrote: | Yes, because, the right answer to someone stealing your | catalytic converter is to shoot them and get the lifelong | trauma from it. Such a great idea. | dylan604 wrote: | Some people are not affected by the taking of someone else's | life. Not everyone will be affected the way you might be, and | hell, you might not be affected the way you think you might. | It could be worse, it could be less. Hopefully, you never | have to know, but to assume everyone does is not realistic | tessierashpool wrote: | What you said is true of psychopaths and sociopaths, but | rarer in the general population. | | Generally speaking, PTSD is an extremely well-documented | consequence of killing. | | "killing or seriously injuring someone in the line of duty | was significantly associated with PTSD symptoms (p< .01) | and marginally associated with depression symptoms (p < | .06). These results highlight the potential mental health | impact of killing or seriously injuring someone in the line | of duty." | | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3974970/ | | "Killing in War Leaves Veterans with Lasting Psychological | Scars, Study Finds" | | https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2016/12/405231/killing-war- | leaves-... | | lots more evidence out there. | mint2 wrote: | If it caused 10% of individuals to have symptoms then | they'd detect a p value like those, the other 90% could | be pleased as pudding for all the p value would care. I | doubt it's that high, my comment is just that the quoted | p value and association does not actually provide any | support for the statement | | And the first of your sources does say that 7-19% of | officers get ptsd but also that 25% kill or seriously | injured someone, which is a larger number than get ptsd. | so that suggests 6-18% officers kill or seriously injure | someone and don't get ptsd. Assuming the ones that get | ptsd are the same as the ones doing bodily harm, | unrealistic but conservative, that means half of officers | who do that could easily be just dandy. | mint2 wrote: | Ahmaud Arbery's case is a reminder that a significant | number of people dream of carrying out vigilante | retribution/enforcements without cause and shoot people. | 0x0nyandesu wrote: | I'd have no problem putting someone down for it. I'll sleep | like a baby knowing they aren't ruining more people's lives. | bserge wrote: | As someone familiar with the "business", I'll just say batteries | are the next big thing. | | They might not be able to tow your Tesla's pack, but you better | watch your scooter, e-bike, e-motorcycle or anything with a | battery pack under 20 or so kilos. | | This applies especially to street scooter rental companies. You | idiots think user swappable batteries were a great idea? | | Think again after your shit is dumped at the bottom of a river | without its $300 battery, which will go on eBay as individual | cells that you can't trace. | | Your little GPS tracker in the pack does not help, btw, and the | police probably hate you more than they hate the thieves. | iramiller wrote: | This would be easily solved if car manufacturers cared at all... | simply cover the bottom of the car with panels. A side benefit | would be the increased fuel economy from the cleaner airflow and | reduction in drag (this is an inherit benefit of electric | vehicles---especially trucks). It's not done because no one looks | under their cars and it's easier/cheaper to manufacture and | design for cooling. | | I should add that installing a simple piece of metal cut to fit | over the bottom of your vehicle isn't a great idea if it doesn't | properly account for the changes in ventilation and cooling that | it causes. | [deleted] | connor4312 wrote: | I recently bought a new Prius. Toyota even has bolt holes to | allow easy installation of a "cat shield", and could install a | nice steel plate there with minimal additional cost, but | instead it was on me to buy and install an aftermarket product. | Maybe it's a question of liability? | renewiltord wrote: | My hypothesis is that when you're selling a product to a | price-sensitive customer you have to strip down things. | avalys wrote: | This isn't a problem for about 90% of the population in the | US. At best, Toyota would offer it as an option. | bradlys wrote: | People buy at a price point. Adding those panels adds cost. | You'd have to give something up to get those panels. | | Luxury cars have had these panels for a long time because | they're built to a higher price point. | RNCTX wrote: | Yep. Just keeping dirt and water out goes a long way for | parts longevity, too. | greedo wrote: | And helps dramatically with soundproofing. | dotancohen wrote: | Then where would the catalytic converter dump the heat? Those | things are dangerously hot and need cooling. | kube-system wrote: | Manufacturers have been slowly adding plastic panels for | aerodynamics under cars over the past couple of decades. Many | new cars have just about everything covered other than areas | that get too hot, like the exhaust. | Someone1234 wrote: | We're starting to see changes in vehicle design to address this | but typically it is only during a major model redesign rather | than between model years. | | The popular solution, that is almost free, is simply moving the | catalytic converter from mid-tailpipe to directly connected to | the engine block. Essentially the CC is surrounded by the | engine block itself on all sides, and you have to disassemble | the entire engine from above to get to it. | | But you're talking about 4~ years between redesigns and that | doesn't address any of the vehicles already sold/tens of years | of old designs. | hbwo40 wrote: | > The popular solution, that is almost free, is simply moving | the catalytic converter from mid-tailpipe to directly | connected to the engine block. Essentially the CC is | surrounded by the engine block itself on all sides, and you | have to disassemble the entire engine from above to get to | it. | | You are aware a catalytic converter is a wear part that is a | component of the exhaust system, right? You want a block | disassembly to replace a part so understood to be a wear part | it's covered by US _federal_ warranty to 80,000 miles? You | just added at least eight hours of labor -- which in major | metros can reach $300 /hr -- and risk to a one hour job. | There are absolutely zero reasons to open a block unless the | engine itself is imperiled or under inspection. Blocks are | notoriously difficult to reassemble to spec and the idea is | to avoid opening them as long as possible. | | I'm aware manufacturers are burying cats closer _to_ the | block but that's universally thought to be a bad idea for | owners and a great idea for mechanics. Now you want to put it | _inside_ the block? Please, please, please don't design cars, | and let me know which manufacturer came up with that genius | solution so I can avoid driving one of their vehicles for the | rest of my life. The rest of you should as well because all | that "fix" does is _octuple your repair bill for fixing a bad | cat_ and risk your engine for doing the same. | | No disrespect, truly, but after over a decade of being a | tech, that might be the stupidest idea I've ever heard in | vehicle design. And all of that for what, to avoid theft? | What makes you think they won't just steal the car instead if | the cat is buried in some Fort Knox inside? | | We all know where the stolen cats go. Why not start with | those places rather than lobby for some John Deere type | screwing over on self repair? | hnaccount141 wrote: | > You are aware a catalytic converter is a wear part that | is a component of the exhaust system, right? | | Not op but I didn't realize it was a wear part, and I would | imagine that most people don't either given how long they | last on modern vehicles. | | Your explanation is helpful, but the tone of this comment | is needlessly aggressive. The goal here should be to help | each other learn, not shoot each other down. | 01100011 wrote: | Civil discourse is getting harder and harder to find | online. HN generally isn't too bad, but the weekends seem | to be the worst. I think the comments and moderation gets | dominated by people with nothing better to do on a | weekend. | | I think it would be nice if HN periodically made you read | a short click-through agreement to remind people of the | tone we expect here. | hbwo41 wrote: | I think it would be nice if HN had a guideline about | going meta, because there is some irony in having my | commentary called bad in a subthread that started with a | pointless wrist slapping about tone and devolved into | probably the most uninteresting conversation possible, | the broader trends of feels in comments as experienced by | a random user who ostensibly doesn't know how many | moderators there are on HN. | | I literally generate a new account with a random password | and throw it away when I close the tab. Please, explain | my place in this triumphant community of awesomeness to | me more. | 01100011 wrote: | I hope you feel better. It's been a tough couple of | years. Take care. | plantain wrote: | >You are aware a catalytic converter is a wear part that is | a component of the exhaust system, right? You want a block | disassembly to replace a part so understood to be a wear | part it's covered by US federal warranty to 80,000 miles? | You just added at least eight hours of labor -- which in | major metros can reach $300/hr -- and risk to a one hour | job. There are absolutely zero reasons to open a block | unless the engine itself is imperiled or under inspection. | Blocks are notoriously difficult to reassemble to spec and | the idea is to avoid opening them as long as possible. | | I agree with you that it makes perfect sense to not put it | directly on the engine block for the reasons you list, but | if you've worked on cars in the last few decades you'd also | agree planning for servicing is of approximately _zero_ | consideration in their design! | glitchc wrote: | Most cars have a powertrain warranty that exceeds the | bumper to bumper warranty, and the cat is considered to be | part of the powertrain. Typically this is 10 years for | unlimited mileage. If your car had its converter stolen and | it's less than 10 years old, it's worth talking to the | dealership. If the dealer won't honor it, raise it to the | automaker's head office. | | That's part of the reason why this crime is popular. | Between warranty and insurance claims, it's largely | victimless. | mikestew wrote: | _If your car had its converter stolen and it's less than | 10 years old, it's worth talking to the dealership._ | | Your dealership is going to laugh their asses off every | time they tell the story about the time _glitchc_ came in | and wanted their stolen catalytic converter covered under | warranty. Hell, that's the kind of story employees bring | home to their spouse and kids for supper time merriment. | Of course, no one _believes_ the story, because who would | do that? | | And as pointed out by others, "emissions system" is the | phrase you're looking for, not "power train". The reason | this is important is because of Federal U. S. law that | says emissions systems are required to be covered for X | years or Y miles, whichever comes first. Feds don't give | a shit how long your tranny lasts before it blows up. | hbwo41 wrote: | No, it isn't. The catalytic converter is part of the | emissions system, which is not covered by powertrain | warranty, full stop. The US federal emissions warranty | exists precisely because manufacturers refused to cover | it under their powertrain warranties. Any who do are an | exception. | | Here's how you know the distinction: if the catalytic | converter fails outright, your engine can't breathe and | loses performance. Your engine doesn't stop (in most | circumstances). Boom, not powertrain, and not covered | under powertrain warranty. | | If this is different elsewhere, it's different elsewhere, | but what you just said is plainly false in the United | States. You really should understand that before | escalating to an automaker because in this case, you | would not have been grounded in facts and I can't see | that call going well at all. | rsj_hn wrote: | > Most cars have a powertrain warranty that exceeds the | bumper to bumper warranty, | | First, the catalytic convertor is not a part of the | powertrain. Second, these warranties do not cover | _theft_. No manufacturer warantee covers theft, it covers | component failure. | gnopgnip wrote: | Being connected to the engine block doesn't mean it takes 8 | hours of labor to replace. Look at a water pump or | alternator or anything else | | On modern hybrids the catalytic converter lasts 200k+ | miles. | hbwo41 wrote: | I wouldn't describe getting after my alternator as | "disassemble the entire engine from above," so perhaps we | can clarify exactly what's proposed here instead of | explain basic mechanics to each other. And yeah, sure, | but you've forgotten the compendium of ways a cat can | fail on the way to 200k. It's a top ten concern in my | shop, so. | d0gsg0w00f wrote: | I believe that the increased heat level closer to the engine | would alter the CC's performance characteristics. | | [1] - https://www.open.edu/openlearn/science-maths- | technology/scie... | dotancohen wrote: | Alter: Improve. | | Catalytic converters must be hot to operate effectively. | CarVac wrote: | Improve the performance but reduce the lifespan. | giarc wrote: | Automakers resisted putting backup cameras in cars and they | provide the driver utility. A panel under the car adds no | immediate utility to the buyer and therefore the extra $200 or | whatever it would cost would detract buyers. | trollied wrote: | The problem will go away over time as we migrate to electric | cars. | powerbroker wrote: | Perhaps a new problem -- that of stealing the more valuable | batteries, might emerge? | mikestew wrote: | You know why I haven't replaced the batteries on our 11 | year old Nissan Leaf? Because I'm not quite ready to devote | what will probably be multiple weekends to the job. So | dispel any ideas you might have of someone snagging a | battery pack in the middle of the night before I manage to | release the hounds. | Gigachad wrote: | The battery packs will likely be serial number locked to | the car as well as physically locked. | jccooper wrote: | That's approximately the same sort of operation as stealing | the engine of a car. Not something you can do in a couple | minutes with a battery powered angle grinder. | leecb wrote: | Tesla has demonstrated that their batteries can be | removed and replaced in a matter of a minute or two, | given the right equipment. | | https://www.tesla.com/videos/battery-swap-event | | Since the batteries cost an order of magnitude more than | a catalytic converter, this could justify criminals | developing more sophisticated equipment to pull it off. | johnnywasagood wrote: | Four bricks and a jack I guess. | skunkworker wrote: | This used to be more true, but with their new battery | packs becoming an integral part of the frame, this is no | longer going to be possible. | | https://electrek.co/2021/01/19/tesla-structural-battery- | pack... | exhilaration wrote: | EV batteries are even more valuable than catalytic | converters. Even at 200 or 300 lbs per battery pack, I bet | we'll see EV battery thefts in the next couple of years. | mitigating wrote: | The Tesla Model 3 LR battery weighs 1060 pounds and can | only be removed from the car as a single unit. | acdha wrote: | I'm sure we'll see some thefts but these are easily removed | and small. Most EV batteries are the opposite on both | counts -- and if they were designed to be removable, they'd | fit them with locks like on e-bikes. | | It's easy to run a sting operation jailing any business | which will buy battery packs with the locks cut off. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-11-21 23:00 UTC)