Lawmakers added $1 to car insurance policies. That money paid for Flock cameras

142

DDeepLogin about 4 hours ago 46 commentsRead Article on texastribune.org

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

100% Positive

Analyzed from 985 words in the discussion.

Discussion (46 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

k310•about 3 hours ago

Texas

> In 2023, the Texas Legislature unanimously passed a law raising auto insurance costs for Texans by $1 to combat rampant catalytic converter theft.

> The Motor Vehicle Crime Prevention Authority, led by a board mostly appointed by Gov. Greg Abbott, has turned the $1 fee hike into at least 3,200 Flock cameras.

More coming. Meanwhile, secure your EV!!! Batteries will be next!!!

SoftTalker•about 3 hours ago

In Texas I'm surprised it's not legal to shoot a catalytic converter thief if caught in the act. That's what they used to do for cattle rustlers.

ceejayoz•about 3 hours ago

https://guides.sll.texas.gov/gun-laws/stand-your-ground

links to https://www.uslawshield.com/defend-property-texas/

> Texas law allows you to use deadly force to protect property if you would be justified in using force, and you reasonably believe it is immediately necessary to prevent the imminent commission of specific enumerated property crimes. These are arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime.

I'd think that'd qualify.

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/?tab=1&code=PE&chapter=PE...

> Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

> (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

> (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

> (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

> (3) he reasonably believes that:

> (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

sokoloff•about 2 hours ago

I can’t see a catalytic converter theft on a car parked on the street as burglary. Parked in a (private) garage? Yes, burglary. Parked on the street? No.

So, daytime theft of a converter from a car parked outside wouldn’t qualify I don’t think.

chadgpt3•about 2 hours ago

You can legally murder people to prevent "mischief", as long as it's at night? Wow.

hopelessluca•about 1 hour ago

My comment may sound cliché, but I genuinely believe this, no material possession is worth more than a human life. A catalytic converter can be replaced, a life cannot.

huimang•11 minutes ago

> A catalytic converter can be replaced, a life cannot.

So don't go around stealing catalytic converters. Same deal with states with "stand your ground laws". It's astonishingly easy to not get shot: don't invade someone's home.

And on the "replacing" part- on whose dime? What if someone's only means of transportation is affected, and they lose wages or outright lose their job? Are you going to pay for it? Of course not.

No, a better reason to not allow shooting of common thieves is that you don't want ordinary people shooting randomly at each other. The government / police should be able to handle this, but they either don't care or are incompetent.

Which leaves the ordinary upstanding citizen stuck between a rock and a hard place. The Man extracts taxes from their earnings, and thieves who ruin lives get a slap on the wrist because "lives are oh precious".

GaryBluto•14 minutes ago

Nobody is forcing people to risk their lives to infringe on other people's rights. Whenever I see a news article about a criminal killed in the act, I never think "I wish they were alive.", I think "I wish they never went down that path in the first place that lead to that scenario."

rayiner•7 minutes ago

[delayed]

bryanlarsen•about 1 hour ago

That's not cliché; Texas is the only state that applies stand-your-ground to crimes against property alone.

Geonode•about 1 hour ago

The thief shouldn't value something more than his life then.

exabrial•about 1 hour ago

I would love to live in a world where thieves feared for their lives.

cosmicgadget•41 minutes ago

Sounds like Texas is the place for you.

dghlsakjg•about 2 hours ago

You can use force in Texas to stop property crime.

Fire away, I guess.

tehwebguy•22 minutes ago

What an insane trade off. Seems like a few bait cars and a couple of trackers would be plenty to figure out where the converters are getting fenced. Obviously there is a small number of buyers driving the entire catalytic theft economy.

rayiner•9 minutes ago

Why are we made at these cameras? Are the cameras beaming out rays causing people to engage in anti-social conduct?

qwerpy•about 2 hours ago

Strange that someone else’s question “Did it reduce catalytic converter theft?”, directly relevant to the article, got downvoted to death. Not sure if we’re meant to have discussions here or just dutifully complain about topics that are fashionable to complain about.

CamelCaseName•about 2 hours ago

I agree. I "revived" the comment by clicking on the timestamp ("33 minutes ago") and then clicking "vouch". I believe only users with a score of 200+ (points? karma?) can do so.

kryogen1c•about 2 hours ago

Been here 8 years, always wondered how comments died. I assumed it was algorithmic. TIL

throwup238•about 2 hours ago

“[dead]” usually means algorithmic (could be as simple as an account registered via Tor that hasn’t been vouched for enough times). “[flagged][dead]” usually means it was flag-killed by users, except I’ve been noticing some AI written comments that are flagged instead of just dead, but they’re minutes old so unlikely to be user flagged.

lostlogin•about 2 hours ago

I wondered that too. It doesn't say, but does state: "Data from the license plate readers, known in law enforcement as LPRs, was searched 62,000 times in 2025, leading to about 1,660 cleared catalytic converter theft cases, a report from the authority said."

Also, how many missing people are there? finding 10k seems quite a lot. “one of the most effective ways Flock has been able to help find, just last year, over 10,000 missing persons”.

Zak•about 1 hour ago

The term "missing person" calls to mind someone who is in serious danger, but a majority are something minor, like someone quitting a job without notice or taking an unannounced trip. The vast majority are resolved by finding the person alive.

Flock helping close 10K cases doesn't surprise me at all, but it doesn't meant those people wouldn't have been found without it. It may mean less work for the police, but the police don't usually put a lot of effort into a missing person without evidence they're in danger.

cosmicgadget•28 minutes ago

Based on the cited document, "leading to" seems entirely made up.

ihsw•about 3 hours ago

Did it reduce catalytic converter theft?

floralhangnail•about 1 hour ago

I doubt it helped much directly. The nationwide ring that was dismantled recently was busted partially due to surveillance from a pole mounted camera though. The article title initially baited my rage, but I can plausibly see how LPRC's could be used to track catalytic converter thieves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932022_catalytic_co...

CoffeeOnWrite•about 1 hour ago

(a pole mounted camera for which a warrant had been obtained...)

baldeagle•about 2 hours ago

It’s hard to say. As the economic got better, trade policies stabilized and the price of commodities and therefore the metals in a converter dropped in value. As the price of the metals went down, the thefts dropped nationally. Texas thefts seemed to have dropped inline with the national trend. Since the supply side issues are picking up again, the thefts are going up likewise.

p_j_w•38 minutes ago

If what you say is true it doesn’t sound hard to say at all, it seems clear that the cameras didn’t reduce the thefts at all.

cosmicgadget•35 minutes ago

Doesn't seem especially likely, does it? People report the thefts in unmonitored neighborhoods. The police... check the nearby intersection cameras for any vehicles passing between 11pm and 4am?

DivingForGold•about 3 hours ago

Snooping Bastards !