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

If everything is a felony then what’s the point

The high score, silly

Means they can no longer afford the surprisingly cheap price of $800 per camera and have started to use fakes

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.

Exactly, just burn it all down and go extreme if the punishment for anything is going to be equally extreme

Entrapment sounds like typical Florida pig style.

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.

That's what I was thinking. Isn't this a classic case of entrapment? I guess it doesn't matter since it's Florida.

This does not remotely fit the legal definition of entrapment

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.

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 entrapment baiting, but i can't think of any other reason. Also the article specifically states the intent of the cops.

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.

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

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.

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.

Thanks for the answer

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

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.

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.

Inb4 states and municipalities begging to pay $1000+ each to justify increased charges

I wasn't implying that is how it should work, i was saying what a judge might say because of the current political climate.

Thanks for clarifying, didn't know the difference.

Indiana is $750.

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.

everything won't be felonies as long as rich people never go to jail for abusing kids with prolific paedophiles.

Good stuff, thanks

They must have finally graduated to the coyote/roadrunner cartoons.

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

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.

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.

That isn't what he is being charged with. It says right in the article what the charges are. And they are all bullshit.

Guys, please use drones to disable these things

Inflation go up. Felony limit go down.

Still seems like the same thing..

I wouldn't normally beat up a guy, but if a police officer was in plainclothes beating the shit out of a woman on the street, I might do the right thing and beat him up.

This person might not normally cut down invasive surveillance technology, but if the police put up a fake flock camera in his neighborhood, he might do the right thing and cut it down.

I wouldn't normally beat up a guy, but if a police officer was in plainclothes beating the shit out of a woman on the street, I might do the right thing and beat him up.

And that wouldn't be entrapment

That's been on my mind a bit. It's not a foolproof way to do this though, as you'd likely need to:

1. Do a ukrainian style one way mission. The materials used in it could be led back to you through purchases, fingerprints, or DNA.
2. Be nearby the drone and control it as it flies in. You could be seen nearby though, and your controller's signals could be located.
3. Use an FPV drone to see from the drone's perspective. Though this also has the risk of your controller's signals being located.
4. Use a fully autonomous drone that is configured to meet you at a safe location after the mission. This is by far the hardest version to do, and you'd need to do a lot of research + trial and error to ensure edge cases don't get you caught. What if the drone fails to complete the mission? What if it physically gets captured? What if it is followed?

I think it would definitely be possible to do something like this in theory, but in practice it would be incredibly difficult to do more the once or at scale, and not get caught.

There were some conservation groups doing research on fully autonomous drones that could fly around the Amazon in remote regions to study the wildlife.

I imagine they learned how to nest in trees during high sun to recharge.

I imagine this research is mostly already done. The only thing we need to do is teach it to identify camera lenses.

And occasionally refill its tank with black paint (or, better, cache a hotswappable tank somewhere in a forest and then send an encrypted signal with the coordinates)

https://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0800-0899%2F0806%2FSections%2F0806.13.html

Here's the criminal mischief statue for Florida so you can stop talking out of your ass.

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.

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.

LOL. By the logic of the armchair lawyers here, yes!

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.

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.