> 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 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.
> 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.
> 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 3 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.
slashdev 2 hours ago [-]
It also mentions:
> theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime.
Seems like that qualifies
thaumasiotes 2 hours ago [-]
If you sleep in the car it will qualify no matter where you're parked. This also appears to be true of an RV or any vehicle that clearly accommodates sleeping.
For reference:
"Burglary" under the Texas penal code is defined by entering a habitation or any portion of a building that is not open to the public, either with the intent to commit a crime, or when followed by the actual commission of, or the attempt to commit, a crime.
"Robbery" is theft in which the thief causes an injury to someone else. (Or intentionally threatens to do so.)
"Theft" is what it sounds like.
Most notably burglary need not include any element of theft. I feel like it's a mistake for the legal code to distinguish between what are fully interchangeable terms in the language the code is supposedly written in.
On topic for this particular comment, "habitation" is specifically defined to include vehicles "adapted for the overnight accommodation of persons".
timcobb 50 minutes ago [-]
What's the point of Texas, then? Maybe Florida?
nonethewiser 2 hours ago [-]
Parked in your driveway
thaumasiotes 2 hours ago [-]
No, the driveway wouldn't count. Texas doesn't define burglary by property boundaries; you have to enter a "building" or a "habitation", and a habitation must be a "structure" or a "vehicle".
chadgpt3 2 hours ago [-]
You can legally murder people to prevent "mischief", as long as it's at night? Wow.
bryanlarsen 1 hours ago [-]
IANAL.
Mischief is typically a serious crime; the legal and common uses of the word are different and confusing.
But I don't think Texas is restricting this to the more serious felony mischief here.
budman1 1 hours ago [-]
It ain't murder.
(other words apply)
thaumasiotes 2 hours ago [-]
The alternative would be completely incoherent. If it's OK to prevent theft, the appropriation of property, it must also be OK to prevent criminal mischief, which is the destruction of property.
Note that the harm to the victim is identical in both cases, except that in the case of theft, recovery may be possible.
nonethewiser 2 hours ago [-]
“Legal” murder makes absolutely no sense. If its legal its not murder. You mean “legally kill”
aidenn0 1 hours ago [-]
It can also mean unjustified/immoral killing, which can be a useful definition (otherwise e.g. a true dictator can never murder anyone).
nekusar 2 hours ago [-]
Yeah.
You expect pigs to defend you?
hopelessluca 1 hours 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 25 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 29 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."
budman1 15 minutes ago [-]
If I kill you over a $2K catalytic converter, my sanity is gone.
I could never sleep at night without thinking about what I have done.'
A life is worth a lot more than $2k for my sanity.
bryanlarsen 59 minutes ago [-]
That's not cliché; Texas is the only state that applies stand-your-ground to crimes against property alone.
rayiner 21 minutes ago [-]
You’re removing context by referring to a generic “human life” as if we don’t have more information than that.
20 minutes ago [-]
AlexandrB 16 minutes ago [-]
This sounds great in theory, and I used to agree, but:
a. There's no guarantee against escalation, a property crime turns into a violent crime very easily.
b. Property crime can have a deep psychological impact on the victim - something the perpetrator demonstrably gives zero fucks about.
c. The police and justice system in 2026 don't care about prosecuting property crime. Having no recourse at all if you're being robbed (a common situation when defending your own property is effectively illegal because of the risk to the perpetrator) is grossly unfair.
Geonode 1 hours ago [-]
The thief shouldn't value something more than his life then.
exabrial 1 hours ago [-]
I would love to live in a world where thieves feared for their lives.
cosmicgadget 55 minutes ago [-]
Sounds like Texas is the place for you.
3eb7988a1663 16 minutes ago [-]
Yet I believe crime still happens in Texas.
jrflowers 15 minutes ago [-]
You want thieves to be armed?
AlexandrB 10 minutes ago [-]
They frequently already are. Even here in Canada[1] where any kind of "carry" is generally not allowed. Shockingly, thieves often don't care about gun laws though.
You can use force in Texas to stop property crime.
Fire away, I guess.
tehwebguy 37 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.
DarmokTanagra 9 minutes ago [-]
For a country that staged a revolution over a tea tax modern Americans sure seem to love having their rights trampled.
bpodgursky 4 minutes ago [-]
Over a tea tax without representation. Very common to forget that part!
rayiner 23 minutes ago [-]
Why are we made at these cameras? Are the cameras beaming out rays causing people to engage in anti-social conduct?
fluidcruft 13 minutes ago [-]
Because the users of the cameras have proven themselves untrustworthy.
qwerpy 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 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 2 hours ago [-]
Been here 8 years, always wondered how comments died. I assumed it was algorithmic. TIL
throwup238 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.
defrost 2 hours ago [-]
There's been an "AI comment detect" algo trialed and running for a month or so now.
If you see any probably human comments tagged as Mr Roboto either vouch (weak indication, needs a few others to boost) or email hn@<this site> for dang / tom to cast a meat based eyeball over it.
lostlogin 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 2 hours 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 43 minutes ago [-]
Based on the cited document, "leading to" seems entirely made up.
45 minutes ago [-]
ihsw 3 hours ago [-]
Did it reduce catalytic converter theft?
floralhangnail 2 hours 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.
(a pole mounted camera for which a warrant had been obtained...)
floralhangnail 16 minutes ago [-]
As it should be.
baldeagle 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 52 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 50 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?
wewro 3 hours ago [-]
[dead]
Waterluvian 2 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
cromka 2 hours ago [-]
Wish you were right, but Palantir continues to gain adoption.
chadgpt3 2 hours ago [-]
It's only taught them to keep a lower profile. Nobody's heard of Axon cameras, which are exactly like Flock, and getting installed in all the places that don't have Flock.
jrexilius 2 hours ago [-]
Also Motorola, which is the big incumbent provider for LE systems (911, traffic cams, et al). Axon and Motorola re LOVING Flock taking all the ... flak.
wahnfrieden 2 hours ago [-]
They’re in Toronto
Waterluvian 2 hours ago [-]
I’m searching for positive confirmation on this. I’ve heard rumours but non-Flock cameras keep getting flagged in the dataset.
DivingForGold 4 hours ago [-]
Snooping Bastards !
Rendered at 03:17:41 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
> In 2023, the Texas Legislature unanimously passed a law raising auto insurance costs for Texans by $1 to combat rampant catalytic converter theft.
> The Motor Vehicle Crime Prevention Authority, led by a board mostly appointed by Gov. Greg Abbott, has turned the $1 fee hike into at least 3,200 Flock cameras.
More coming. Meanwhile, secure your EV!!! Batteries will be next!!!
links to https://www.uslawshield.com/defend-property-texas/
> Texas law allows you to use deadly force to protect property if you would be justified in using force, and you reasonably believe it is immediately necessary to prevent the imminent commission of specific enumerated property crimes. These are arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime.
I'd think that'd qualify.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/?tab=1&code=PE&chapter=PE...
> Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
> (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
> (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
> (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
> (3) he reasonably believes that:
> (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
So, daytime theft of a converter from a car parked outside wouldn’t qualify I don’t think.
> theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime.
Seems like that qualifies
For reference:
"Burglary" under the Texas penal code is defined by entering a habitation or any portion of a building that is not open to the public, either with the intent to commit a crime, or when followed by the actual commission of, or the attempt to commit, a crime.
"Robbery" is theft in which the thief causes an injury to someone else. (Or intentionally threatens to do so.)
"Theft" is what it sounds like.
Most notably burglary need not include any element of theft. I feel like it's a mistake for the legal code to distinguish between what are fully interchangeable terms in the language the code is supposedly written in.
On topic for this particular comment, "habitation" is specifically defined to include vehicles "adapted for the overnight accommodation of persons".
Mischief is typically a serious crime; the legal and common uses of the word are different and confusing.
But I don't think Texas is restricting this to the more serious felony mischief here.
Note that the harm to the victim is identical in both cases, except that in the case of theft, recovery may be possible.
You expect pigs to defend you?
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".
I could never sleep at night without thinking about what I have done.'
A life is worth a lot more than $2k for my sanity.
a. There's no guarantee against escalation, a property crime turns into a violent crime very easily.
b. Property crime can have a deep psychological impact on the victim - something the perpetrator demonstrably gives zero fucks about.
c. The police and justice system in 2026 don't care about prosecuting property crime. Having no recourse at all if you're being robbed (a common situation when defending your own property is effectively illegal because of the risk to the perpetrator) is grossly unfair.
[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-police-cash-r...
Fire away, I guess.
If you see any probably human comments tagged as Mr Roboto either vouch (weak indication, needs a few others to boost) or email hn@<this site> for dang / tom to cast a meat based eyeball over it.
Also, how many missing people are there? finding 10k seems quite a lot. “one of the most effective ways Flock has been able to help find, just last year, over 10,000 missing persons”.
Flock helping close 10K cases doesn't surprise me at all, but it doesn't meant those people wouldn't have been found without it. It may mean less work for the police, but the police don't usually put a lot of effort into a missing person without evidence they're in danger.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932022_catalytic_co...