That's surprisingly clever for a group of donut eaters.

If everything is a felony then what’s the point

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.

Entrapment sounds like typical Florida pig style.

Guys, please use drones to disable these things

cool. guess instead of cutting them down, we'll just start strapping explosives on them instead.

This feels like a good opportunity to remind folks:

If you use a matte black paint over the lens, it's far less likely to be noticed, and could go unnoticed indefinitely. If you visibly destroy, vandalize, or remove it, it gets noticed a lot sooner, making it a lot easier to connect you to the act. You also face lower penalties if caught if all you did was deface/obstruct the lens.

Also, practice your cardio, wear shoes with good traction that fit well, and always have an escape route planned

This just means that we need to keep cutting them down until the real ones are found.

I know this is the "illegalism" community and all, but maybe there could be legal ways to throw a sabot in the gears. The kind of thing that even if you did it in full sight of a cop where they'd set up a raid, the cops couldn't actually do anything about it but harass you.

(Or make up spurious reasons to arrest you, but you could livestream the process to mitigate that. Not that there aren't other ways they could make your life terrible.)

I thought maybe something like the Flock Sock. But I've seen various articles indicate that even it would likely result in a criminal mischief charge.

Maybe a mirror that's removed from the camera itself and reflects sunlight into the camera, producing glare too severe for the camera to be useful. I'm no expert, but maybe just the fact that nothing is really touching the camera or damaging the camera would make a difference to its legality. Or maybe they'd claim that the extra sunlight on the CCD would damage it and still charge you with something.

Surely at least signs like these wouldn't result in any charges that would actually stick if it went to court. Those signs seem like they're intended to put on your own property. But maybe putting them on public property (where I think probably most flock cameras are -- at intersections and such) wouldn't be illegal in all circumstances.

I dunno. I'm only brainstorming, really.

🎶 Gotta sock 'em all!

Meanwhile, no doubt the town meeting last weeks was full of people complaining about flock cameras:

https://www.wesh.com/article/oviedo-closer-look-flock-cameras-amid-privacy-concerns/73456375

People do not want mass surveillance. They do not want data centers. If you do not listen to your citizens, they will take action.

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's a 3d printed decoy, meaning it was worth like $10, tops. Good luck having those charges stick, assholes.

"Vandalizing art" because this bullshit felony charge they're trying to hit him with is nonsensical so they come up with another nonsensical charge. Dude just removed a piece of 3D printed trash that the city already acknowledged was placed unauthorized. He should send them an invoice for the removal.

Someone should install a flock cam pointing towards the arresting officers backyard

Did the cops have the right permits from the city to install their personally-produced "art" on city property? No? Charge the fuckers!

A police spokesperson told the outlet that an officer printed the decoy at home using a personal 3D printer, so it did not cost the city any money.

Okay... So what is he being charged with? Destruction of property or destruction of government property? Because those are very different charges.

Defund the slave patrol.

Felony. People have murdered and gotten less of a sentence...

Trying to set an example.

I hope Floridaman steps up.

Florida.

surely this is entrapment? creating a crime that wouldn't have existed otherwise