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.
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.