[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)