No. I did not. Relocation of the asset to the owners property means there’s no intent to deprive the owner of said property which means that it’s not theft.
The property has not been defaced, damaged, or destroyed so that means there’s no intent of vandalism. Therefore vandalism did not take place.
What you’re describing is criminal mischief, which I would agree this is.
I made a singular allowance in the case that the pole was cut (which counts as damage), rather than being dug up (which wouldn’t), which you appear to have ignored.
If you don’t like facts, that is a you problem.
You are welcome to kagi or whatever this yourself to see what I’m talking about instead of doubling down.
If you are incapable of that, don’t bother to respond to me.
You absolutely can move the thing without cutting it down. It just happens to be quicker to cut them down and most of the people doing this don’t care about the charge.
But I do take your meaning and to some extent even agree with it.
For one, the CEO of flock doesn’t personally own all of the infrastructure used by the company that they run. That’s not how it works. It doesn’t matter if you damaged the thing or not.
It’s like saying you could move a Verizon cell tower to the front yard of the CEO of Verizon. That’s stupid.
No lawyer would ever attempt such a stupid and ridiculous defense.
Reading comprehension doesn’t seem to be your strong suit.
A lawyer worth their salt should absolutely defend you against a vandalism charge if by the lawful definition no vandalism took place.
Not only that, but a lawyer’s job is to make sure the law is followed during legal proceedings. Meaning they are supposed to defend your right to a lawfully handled trial which would include dismissing charges that didn’t fit the crime committed.
This is criminal mischief. That’s a misdemeanor (just like vandalism).
Theft involves legally speaking an “intent to deprive the owner of their property”.
Flock owns the cameras. It’s a subscription model where the municipality actually leases the camera and “retains ownership” of the footage/data the collect.
So by rights the CEO having them dropped off on his property could be considered the same as them being returned to the owner.
You can take that however you want. But vandalism has a specific legal definition.
Nonsense? You just posted a definition that describes this activity exactly…? So if anyone is posting nonsense, its you.
When the law doesn’t follow the law, laws are irrelevant.
You would make a terrible lawyer.
You probably think Hillary Clinton, John Yoo, Ty Cobbs, Dick Harpootlian are great lawyers.
No. I did not. Relocation of the asset to the owners property means there’s no intent to deprive the owner of said property which means that it’s not theft.
The property has not been defaced, damaged, or destroyed so that means there’s no intent of vandalism. Therefore vandalism did not take place.
What you’re describing is criminal mischief, which I would agree this is.
I made a singular allowance in the case that the pole was cut (which counts as damage), rather than being dug up (which wouldn’t), which you appear to have ignored.
If you don’t like facts, that is a you problem.
You are welcome to kagi or whatever this yourself to see what I’m talking about instead of doubling down.
If you are incapable of that, don’t bother to respond to me.
I didn’t ignore it, it just makes absolutely no sense. What is an “allowance”? The property is damaged, thus vandalism.
If you don’t like facts, that is a you problem.
The property has been damaged, as you need to cut them down. If you manage to move the whole thing without cutting the pole you’d have a point.
(i did read your whole comment, we were literally talking about cutting down a pole)
You absolutely can move the thing without cutting it down. It just happens to be quicker to cut them down and most of the people doing this don’t care about the charge.
But I do take your meaning and to some extent even agree with it.
I still don’t think they actually would. I don’t know who upvotes that shit, it’s just wishful thinking.
For one, the CEO of a company doesn’t personally own the property of their company. That’s not how that works.
This is like saying you’d get away with moving a Verizon cell tower to the front yard of the CEO of Verizon. It’s nonsense.
They’re not saying you would get away with it, just that it isn’t technically vandalism but a different crime.
Good luck finding a lawyer who agrees
Yeah that’s not how that works.
For one, the CEO of flock doesn’t personally own all of the infrastructure used by the company that they run. That’s not how it works. It doesn’t matter if you damaged the thing or not.
It’s like saying you could move a Verizon cell tower to the front yard of the CEO of Verizon. That’s stupid.
No lawyer would ever attempt such a stupid and ridiculous defense.
Reading comprehension doesn’t seem to be your strong suit.
A lawyer worth their salt should absolutely defend you against a vandalism charge if by the lawful definition no vandalism took place.
Not only that, but a lawyer’s job is to make sure the law is followed during legal proceedings. Meaning they are supposed to defend your right to a lawfully handled trial which would include dismissing charges that didn’t fit the crime committed.
This is criminal mischief. That’s a misdemeanor (just like vandalism).
Theft involves legally speaking an “intent to deprive the owner of their property”.
Flock owns the cameras. It’s a subscription model where the municipality actually leases the camera and “retains ownership” of the footage/data the collect.
So by rights the CEO having them dropped off on his property could be considered the same as them being returned to the owner.
You can take that however you want. But vandalism has a specific legal definition.