Man Charged with 3 Felonies for Breaking 3D-Printed 'Decoy' Flock Camera

monksy

Weird that the police are so motivated to resolve this. It's almost like they don't serve the community.

metalman

there is a legal concept of what is called an "atractive nuisance" ie: something privatly owned but placed unatended in a public or highly visible place, which has long been known to contribute to bad behavior that otherwise would not occur, and also a much more serious crime of entrapment, which seems to be applicable in this case. That the police would engage in these activities would normaly be inconcievable.

yboris

Counterpoint: Grand Jury Declines to Indict Man Caught on Camera Destroying Flock Pole Basically jury nullification https://futurism.com/future-society/grand-jury-ohio-flock-al...

yboris

I'm curious about the memespace HN people inhabit. I've been hearing about Halloween is National DeFlock Day for a while -- anyone else come across this rapidly-spreading meme?

1970-01-01

3 felonies? Here's what that changes for vandals: Why should I bother with the saw at this point? I'll just use my gun.

bko

This is an incredibly effective way to catch criminals. I wish police used more of these sting operations. I've seen videos where YouTubers set up a decoy to tempt all sorts of criminals, from package thieves to people stealing cars.If a YouTuber can lure someone that easily, no reason police can't do the same and arrest the handful of individuals that are terrorizing neighborhoods.

amazingamazing

The amount of highly upvoted incorrect statements here is hilarious

Terr_

> Despite the decoy camera being worth, at most, several dollars worth of plastic filament, Evan Meyer was charged with three felonies: attempted larceny/grand theft, criminal mischief of property damage worth more than $1,000, and property crimes against computer equipment supplies, according to an arrest report obtained by 404 Media. It sounds like the police and district attorney [0] are playing fast and loose with the charges, blending issues of intent (to harm an expensive camera) versus fact (not actually causing much damage.) [0] AFAICT this is Oviedo, Florida, part of Seminole County, so part of the 18th judicial circuit and therefore the prosecutor who approved these charges is William Scheiner.

tancop

This is the same kind of case as someone arrested for cocaine possession when the drug is made of powder milk and caffeine with zero controlled substances. Prosecution has to prove the suspect was going to sell it as real drugs, it can't be illegal to have something on you just because it's possible to confuse for something else. In this case they might need to prove that the man did not know the camera was a decoy, otherwise it's just misdemeanor vandalism or less. Proving a negative in a criminal case is hard and when it's about a person's mental state it might be literally impossible. We'll see.