• just2look@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    It really isn’t clever. It was privately printed and installed without government approval. So the only reason this is being charged as a felony at all is corruption.

    Someone destroyed illegally installed private property that is worth maybe a few dollars. That is barely even a crime and certainly not a felony.

    • tyler@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      It’s the price that makes it a felony. $1000 of equipment. Has nothing to do with anything being government or not. You steal $1k from someone it’s a felony, just for the amount.

      • just2look@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 days ago

        Yes, and it being a 3d printed decoy means it is worth almost nothing. Its a broken bit of plastic that is probably worth less than $5.

        • tyler@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 day ago

          I didn’t say anything contrary. You claimed it being private and installed illegally was part of why it wasn’t a felony and that has nothing to do with it. It’s only the cost.

        • huppakee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 day ago

          While i agree, the judge might say the person destroying it did not think it had that value and still had the intend to destroy something expensive. Not a lawyer, but i have this feeling the judge won’t really be neutral.

          • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            19 hours ago

            This is not how the law works.

            Intent to destroy something expensive while not destroying anything expensive doesn’t mean you get charged for the hypothetical expenses.

          • just2look@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 day ago

            Evan Meyer, 24, faces counts of criminal mischief causing more than $1,000 in damage, grand theft involving property valued between $750 and $5,000, and damaging or taking a computer, electronic device, or related equipment.

            It wasn’t $1,000 in damage, it wasn’t property valued at $750 - $5,000, and it wasn’t a computer, electronic device, or related equipment. So if the judge does anything other than throw out the charges it is corruption. Those charges shouldn’t have even been brought.

            • SippyCup@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 day ago

              Intention to commit a crime, even if you don’t actually commit the crime but attempt to do so, as it happens, is also a crime.

              In this case, the individual attempted (and failed) to destroy Flock camera. He’ll be charged with felony attempted destruction of property and probably a handful of other bullshit charges to scare him in to pleading out of trial.

              In this case the prosecutor really doesn’t want to go to trial. If he gets a lawyer he’ll most certainly get out of any jail time and might do community service. If he takes the lawyer they give him, he’s fucked.

            • huppakee@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 day ago

              As far as i can see those “facts” are false, i don’t disagree. My point wasn’t really about what would be the right thing, but more about what is likely to happen.