The mayor of the town was not happy about this sting operation. There had already been debates in City Council about removing them, and the mayor doesn’t seem to be a supporter.
cool. guess instead of cutting them down, we’ll just start strapping explosives on them instead.
That’s surprisingly clever for a group of donut eaters.
They must have finally graduated to the coyote/roadrunner cartoons.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Means they can no longer afford the surprisingly cheap price of $800 per camera and have started to use fakes
If everything is a felony then what’s the point
everything won’t be felonies as long as rich people never go to jail for abusing kids with prolific paedophiles.
Felony depends on state.
Most are $1k, so is Florida.
And from this story I’ve learned that it only costs $800 for a Flock camera.
So in the vast amount of states, if you only break/take the camera, it shouldn’t be a felony:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/felony-theft-amount-by-state
Destroying property is usually about the same limits state by state.
Obviously you want to research specific state/local laws, you know, because knowing is the half the battle.
Indiana is $750.
Inb4 states and municipalities begging to pay $1000+ each to justify increased charges
Exactly, just burn it all down and go extreme if the punishment for anything is going to be equally extreme
The high score, silly
Entrapment sounds like typical Florida pig style.
Isn’t entrapment when the cops are persuading you to do it. This seems more like they set bait and someone comes and does the deed
This does not remotely fit the legal definition of entrapment
There are two possible reasons for putting up a fake, to scare people to behave themselves and to catch someone destroying it. The latter has been happening a lot and is widely covered by the news. If it is the first then maybe it wasn’t
entrapmentbaiting, but i can’t think of any other reason. Also the article specifically states the intent of the cops.Bait isn’t entrapment. Entrapment is when the government persuades someone to do something they normally wouldn’t and charging them for it. So, an undercover officer can’t pressure you to rob a bank and then charge you for it. This is more akin to a bait car, prostitution sting, or surveillance.
Thanks for clarifying, didn’t know the difference.
That’s what I was thinking. Isn’t this a classic case of entrapment? I guess it doesn’t matter since it’s Florida.
Legally no, it’s not entrapment. Still if the cops hadn’t placed the bait, there would be no crime. They know where the line is, and ride it.
Thanks for the answer
I should add that given the details it’s not entrapment. At the same time though, there are thousands of flock cameras, and somehow the cops knew this particular spot for a fake one would lure someone in? There’s no telling if they instigated it in some way not mentioned. And the charges they filed are very likely to fall apart anyway, because it wasn’t a flock camera, it was a cheap decoy, and felonies are based on actual value, not imaginary. It also may not have been authorized to be installed. So the defendant could legally have been removing vandalism from a pole.
This is why you can’t really adjudicate from a news story, there’s a million unknowns, and often weird technical details to laws that aren’t well known to the public. Top that off with most news information coming from defense lawyers giving an intentionally biased account of events, because the police don’t just call the press most of the time. And when they do, it’s usually to give their own damning version of events.
Good stuff, thanks
