Surely the law is concerned primarily with intent, and it should be possible to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused believed the decoy to be a real Flock camera?
post
replies:
3 comments in c/Independent_Media@lemmy.today view that post
This is a local story, and every time they cover it on local TV, I loudly take the defendant's side, so everybody in the room knows who the good guy is.
The mayor of the city was pissed about this because the city was already debating getting rid of the cameras, and the mayor was against them. When this arrest was announced, she publicly asked who was responsible for this operation, and who authorized the purchase of the false camera. Turns out it was 3-D printed by one of the cops, which turned out to be an important aspect of the case since it didn't have the value to support their predatory case.
Then the state banned all Flock cameras anyway, so what is this guy really being charged for anyway? All he did was remove a camera that the state was about to make illegal anyway.
replies:
all 6 comments