Only thing that will help is serious prison sentences and the right to defend property with deadly force.
Many areas of the country there is no consequences.
Many areas of the country there is no consequences.
And catalytic converter theft is still very common. We are the #2 state on the list of catalytic converter thefts per 100k automobiles[3].
---
[1] https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm
[2] https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/gun-ownership-rates-by-stat...
[3] https://www.beenverified.com/data-analysis/catalytic-convert...
No emissions, low state taxes, low fuel price, and abysmally little to no self awareness about climate change is a better explanation.
FL is still the best way to get around smog stuff in the US because of inherit corruption, you an register anything if you have the money: see Motorex sandal And tis is despite Hawaii being closer to Japan and also not having emissions and regular departures to Long Beach.
Growing up, we used to take the car for a run up/down the highway for a bit to "burn things off" before getting an inspection. There were also places you could go "outside of town" that did not do emissions testings. That was 30 years ago though. I thought all inspections required emissions testing now. Is it still not enforced outside of town? Of course, finding the guy to pay off is always going to be available for skirting the reqs.
I sold a truck that I couldn't get inspected in Travis county (because of a sensor code that indicated misfires on start) to a buddy up in Lubbock, and it inspected just fine up there.
As in most of the US that have them barring California, which is Universal and why the BAR and OEMS has a 49 +1 system specifically for California, hence why the Prius was made for the California market yet suffering the most from this is ironic.
This what I found on emission on TX by county [0], and it looks a lot like Organ in that most don't do it except major metro areas.
0: https://www.emissions.org/loc/texas-emissions-testing/#count...
Besides, there’s way too much margin for error in vigilante justice. That’s why we have trials, imperfect as even they may be. They’re certainly better than empowering everyone to be judge, jury, and executioner because they thought you might be committing a property crime.
Have you seen the film "Bicycle Thieves"? If someone's property is his livelihood one can have sympathies for those defending it with extreme measures.
Generally speaking, no, of course not. But, if someone's breaking into your home in the middle of the night, you don't know what their intentions are to just steal some stuff or to rape and murder your family. There's a reason so many states have castle doctrine and such, and it's because there really are bad people out there.
I have medication I need to live. If I don’t take it regularly daily, a clock starts ticking. When the time is up, I die.
When I travel I treat my bags like my life. I recent had nasty run in with an airline that wanted me to check my bags. I refused to get on the plane.
When I took the next flight, my checked baggage didn’t make the connection.
I might have survived if I got to the ER fast enough. But those bags are my life.
In developing countries, petrol means access to medicine, food, etc.
“Property is more important than life” is a luxury belief for the wealthy and healthy.
If you don't mind my asking, what medication do you take?
"If it's not worth your life, then don't commit vehicle registration fraud."
When you infringe on the rights of another human being, you put yourself at their mercy. Some people are not very reasonable. Legal or illegal, you just might find yourself attacked by that person, possibly killed. Even if you make laws against it, there's always that danger. Every time you violate the rights of another person you're risking your life, and it doesn't matter what the law says.
If I catch someone stealing my car from my driveway at night, can I shoot them as they try to start the ignition?
If I see someone swiping my cell phone off my restaurant table while I'm turned around... shoot them?
What about my umbrella?
For instance, if I own a vehicle and it is my primary method of escape, and someone starts fucking with critical systems like say the exhaust with a sawzall, I woud definitely start fearing for my life and the life of my family. Particularly when automobile is absolutely critical for survival, access to grocery/medical care etc, escape from say criminals in your yard operating sawzalls in commission of felonies, in much of America. If someone is in my yard fucking with my way to get away in danger, and they're physically tearing it apart with a sawzall, then I think it would be reasonable to allow defense of my family.
If someone is just stealing a hood ornament with their hands, then no maybe it's unreasonable to fear for your life.
With a phone I think it would depend more on context. Intentionally and without consent stealing / disabling someone's method of calling for help and emergency could make a reasonable person fear for their life if that person was also in the process of commission of felonies in your immediate proximity with a dangerous sawzall.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/florida-father-son-shoo...
Please consider applying the correct word to the context you wish to discuss.
IANAL, but I don't believe murder can only be if it's premeditated. In fact, IIUC, most murders are not premeditated.
Some examples:
Felony murder: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule
Depraved indifference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depraved-heart_murder
Murder without premeditation: https://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/crime/2019/11/20/kal...
I'm sure there are many other examples.
The fact that people keep talking about gun ownership in Texas like it's a deterrent is odd. It's not like the criminals don't have weapons too.
Getting pretty deep in the semantic weeds here though, and I feel obliged to say I have no horse in this race either way. Don't kill or murder me :)
Murder is the unlawful killing of another.
Homicide is human death by the hands of another human.
Murder is a legal term.
Please consider using the correct definitions of words when telling others to "please consider applying the correct word".
I think the proper solution to this is that car manufacturers should be required to better secure these things. Putting a thousand dollars or more in such an easy to access place, requiring people to have some of their money sitting there like that, might as well tie a bow around it and set it on the hood.
> the right to defend property with deadly force.
Which is not self-defense. You’re conflating the two and it’s a poor argument for taking a life over an exhaust pipe with some minerals in it.
I’ve spent a lot of time under a car and I can tell you I don’t think the solution is bolting the catalytic converter down tighter.
I think the problem is underlying societal collapse rather than consequences.
America is brutal on its poor. I know cause I grew up on food stamps and expired meat in Chemical Valley during the height of Dupont's C8 dumping.
People are soul crushingly desperate, but many don't even know it doesn't have to be this bad.
Also, in the absence of the war on drugs, you'd still have criminal gangs, so no, that has nothing to do with it.
Many reasons, but chief among them are that EU is oddly really relaxed on emissions (hence diesel gate not being as big of an issue in it's own Country) and don't use the same equipment on their cars also because AU/NZ are big markets for used Japanese export vehicles that have exceeded its Shakin/Km limits in Japan and there isn't the local demand for these components as the laws don't reflect such strict standards.
By contrast those cars are not legal in the US due to emissions, until they fall out of the testing period: see used the massive headache created with the post Motorex Nissan Skyline market by-laws. The UK is odd because MOT and carbon tax things play a part, but it's way easier to register a RHD car from Japan if you're outside of London, and even within it if you know where to go. But both the US and UK also have lots of poverty based crime (theft) underlying their society.
Europe, but especially Germany, has many auto-manufactures writing their laws for them; and the higher ubiquity of diesel cars on the road in those markets as opposed to benzene (gasoline) means they cannot just make them all vanish without having immense backlash. So, they greese the right wheels, and things carry on: business as usual.
I won't touch the other reasons, but if you really want the nitty-gritty of how relaxed EU standards are read: Faster, Higher, Farther.
There is a reason it was some college kids in CA with a home-brew emission tester in a rented Tdi that butsted VW, and not the EU's climate Nazis/Green party in Baden-Wuttenburg. (I lived there and was subject to their stupid vanity based green washing laws as an environmental activist, so I can say that!)
Please go right ahead though, seeing the failures of the punitive system in the US provides an exemplar of why my country should not go down that path.
Theft is heavily correlated with the economy. Arguably it's a canary in the mine - you can very usually tell what's going to happen in the macroeconomics of an area by just following crime statistics.
"Deterrence" has generally been found to be a pretty well-rooted myth. Majority of theft also happens by people who _don't actually know what the consequences are_. So just increasing them doesn't actually help.
If you can show strong evidence that prison is one of the best ways of reducing crime, then sure you've convinced me (and probably plenty others).
Humans might learn from positive punishment and deterrence, dogs are less good at it.
I'm interested in learning more. Do you have some good resources you could point me to?
I don't have links to studies handy but those are terms to search around.