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...
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.
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.
So if I think a TV is worth 300 and its actually 2k, I’m only on the hook for 300?
I wasn’t implying that is how it should work, i was saying what a judge might say because of the current political climate.