Hyundai Aftermarket

Hyundai Aftermarket (https://www.hyundaiaftermarket.org/forum/)
-   General Performance & Hyundai Chat (https://www.hyundaiaftermarket.org/forum/general-performance-hyundai-chat-10/)
-   -   Vehicle Tracking (https://www.hyundaiaftermarket.org/forum/general-performance-hyundai-chat-10/vehicle-tracking-77277/)

JonGTR 06-29-2014 08:45 PM

Vehicle Tracking
 
Thieves are everywhere. Had my modified truck stolen in 2010 and the police STILL haven't found it. This time around, I plan to throw a tracker on the Tib so I can take the law into my own hands. I've done a bit of research on GPS and cellular tracking systems. They seem pretty legit and come with hard wiring and backup batteries. So far, I'm looking at Spot and Pocketfinder. It seems the biggest thing to look out for is the monthly monitoring, coverage map, and availability of the monitoring service years from now. Anyone else have experience on this?



http://www.pocketfinder.com/gps-loca...hicle-tracker/

Stocker 06-29-2014 10:31 PM

You should take that law (read: location of the car) in your hands and go in person to the police station and tell them 'if you don't go get this car right * now I will and I'm taking my shotgun"



just showing up by yourself to get a stolen car is a spectacularly bad idea.

Visionz 06-30-2014 06:27 AM

Great idea! And $13 a month really isnt that bad at all for the piece of mind knowing that if anything happens, you'll get the car back. You'll probably get that much in a discount from your Insurance company after installing it, so you wont even notice the $13.

JonGTR 06-30-2014 09:05 AM


Originally Posted by Stocker (Post 698212)
You should take that law (read: location of the car) in your hands and go in person to the police station and tell them 'if you don't go get this car right * now I will and I'm taking my shotgun"



just showing up by yourself to get a stolen car is a spectacularly bad idea.

I forgot, you always know best.



I sat alone in a parking lot for 1hr 15min. waiting for the officer to show up when my truck was stolen. It takes less than two hours to get to Eagle Pass. You do the math genius.



It had a huge sticker on the back, loud as hell, and 38's which aren't exactly an average tire. They could have easily put out a BOLO, but didn't. They could have easily notified border patrol, but didn't.



I have a CCL. I don't need to open carry a shotgun, just my 9mm in my pocket, and claim castle law on my vehicle. I can shoot him twice in the face and once in the nuts for fun and drive back home with my car, a coke, and a smile.



'Merica b*tch!






Originally Posted by Visionz (Post 698214)
Great idea! And $13 a month really isnt that bad at all for the piece of mind knowing that if anything happens, you'll get the car back. You'll probably get that much in a discount from your Insurance company after installing it, so you wont even notice the $13.

That's what I was thinking. I'm not sure if the insurance would go down however since I'll be the one installing it and keeping up with the monitoring. But, yea $13/mo. is very cheap insurance.

Stocker 06-30-2014 08:35 PM

So how is it faster to wait >1hr than to drive to a police station with your tracking device? Silly me!

i8acobra 06-30-2014 11:08 PM


Originally Posted by JonGTR (Post 698216)
I have a CCL. I don't need to open carry a shotgun, just my 9mm in my pocket, and claim castle law on my vehicle. I can shoot him twice in the face and once in the nuts for fun and drive back home with my car, a coke, and a smile.



'Merica b*tch!



You need to actually read the Texas Castle Law. You can't "claim" Castle Law "on my vehicle". The Castle Law allows you to use reasonable force to prevent someone from forcibly removing you from your house or vehicle. If someone steals your car and you track them down, you can't shoot them to get your car back. YOU put yourself in the situation of conflict by tracking the thief. There are NO states that allow you to track down and use deadly force on someone who has wronged you in any way.

JonGTR 07-01-2014 06:03 AM


Originally Posted by i8acobra (Post 698242)
You need to actually read the Texas Castle Law. You can't "claim" Castle Law "on my vehicle". The Castle Law allows you to use reasonable force to prevent someone from forcibly removing you from your house or vehicle. If someone steals your car and you track them down, you can't shoot them to get your car back. YOU put yourself in the situation of conflict by tracking the thief. There are NO states that allow you to track down and use deadly force on someone who has wronged you in any way.

I have read it. Now you need to read it. It does NOT only apply to an assailant forcefully removing you from your dwelling. It applies to many types of activities, all of which are criminal. Now, I'm not stupid. I would of course wait for him to make any kind of threatening gesture and stand between him and my vehicle before using deadly force. I would at that point be protecting my property. I would also exercise my right to stand my ground.






BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:



SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:



(4) “Habitation” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.



(5) “Vehicle” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.



SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as follows:



(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:



(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:



(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;



(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or



(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;



(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and



(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.



(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.



(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.



SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:



Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:



(1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and



(2) [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated;
and



[(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:



(A) to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or



(B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.



(b) The actor’s belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:



(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:



(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;



(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or



(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);



(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and



(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used [requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor].



(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.



(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.



SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows:



Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using] deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant’s [against a person who at the time of the] use of force or deadly force, as applicable [was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant].



SECTION 5. (a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurs before the effective date.



(b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as amended by this Act, applies only to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.



SECTION 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.


Stocker 07-01-2014 07:39 PM

Yeah, except the parts you highlighted would land your ass in prison if you GO TO somebody who stole your car. While they are stealing your (or someone else's) car sure. Take away the imminent danger and substitute 'already got jack'd' and you have crossed the line into things we only allow the Police to do.

XGODZX 07-02-2014 02:59 AM

I've got a genuine XEXUN TK102 GPS Tracker fitted to my car and found it quite good, i got caught with a clone which was crap.



http://gps-tracker-review.toptenrevi...er-review.html


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:36 AM.


© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands