News 6 Orlando reports that police in Oviedo, Florida, have charged a man with three felonies for destroying a Flock surveillance camera, even though the camera was...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Okay but how can you prove he intended to destroy a camara worth over 750 dollars?
This entire situation is so goddamn stupid.
Any good lawyer should be able to get this thrown out. Good lawyers cost money, though, and the police know that. That’s the real rub here. They are just trying to fuck over poor people who are angry about being spied on.
Right, a good attorney could do that. A shitty public defender is going to advise him to plea out.
To be clear, the American Justice system does not operate in the best interests of it’s victims. It’s a machine, in most states, designed to lock up every single person it can.
You don’t have to prove that he intended to destroy a flock camera with absolute certainty. You only need to convince a jury of 12 random assholes that he did. Beyond a reasonable doubt, generally means, a doubt with some reason. Not beyond all shadow of a doubt.
Wrote this earlier to another reply to my comment, but i did not mean to say how a judge would rule if he did what was right; i meant to say what a judge might say in the current political climate.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That isn’t what he is being charged with. It says right in the article what the charges are. And they are all bullshit.
https://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0800-0899%2F0806%2FSections%2F0806.13.html
Here’s the criminal mischief statue for Florida so you can stop talking out of your ass.
Okay but how can you prove he intended to destroy a camara worth over 750 dollars?
This entire situation is so goddamn stupid.
Any good lawyer should be able to get this thrown out. Good lawyers cost money, though, and the police know that. That’s the real rub here. They are just trying to fuck over poor people who are angry about being spied on.
Fuck them all.
Right, a good attorney could do that. A shitty public defender is going to advise him to plea out.
To be clear, the American Justice system does not operate in the best interests of it’s victims. It’s a machine, in most states, designed to lock up every single person it can.
You don’t have to prove that he intended to destroy a flock camera with absolute certainty. You only need to convince a jury of 12 random assholes that he did. Beyond a reasonable doubt, generally means, a doubt with some reason. Not beyond all shadow of a doubt.
So if I think a TV is worth 300 and its actually 2k, I’m only on the hook for 300?
LOL. By the logic of the armchair lawyers here, yes!
I wasn’t implying that is how it should work, i was saying what a judge might say because of the current political climate.
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.
Wrote this earlier to another reply to my comment, but i did not mean to say how a judge would rule if he did what was right; i meant to say what a judge might say in the current political climate.