276
Florida police used a fake Flock camera in a sting, then charged a man with three felonies for destroying it (www.techspot.com)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world
40 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 2 months ago (12 children)

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 33 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [+] -8 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    So if I think a TV is worth 300 and its actually 2k, I'm only on the hook for 300?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent