XLE@piefed.social to Privacy@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish · 3 days agoPolice Are Putting Up Fake 3D-Printed Flock Cameras and Swooping In to Arrest People Who Vandalize Themfuturism.comexternal-linkmessage-square20linkfedilinkarrow-up1137arrow-down14file-textcross-posted to: usa@midwest.socialusa@lemmy.ml
arrow-up1133arrow-down1external-linkPolice Are Putting Up Fake 3D-Printed Flock Cameras and Swooping In to Arrest People Who Vandalize Themfuturism.comXLE@piefed.social to Privacy@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish · 3 days agomessage-square20linkfedilinkfile-textcross-posted to: usa@midwest.socialusa@lemmy.ml
a man was charged with three felonies after he cut down a 3D-printed “decoy” Flock camera, which was set up by police.
minus-squareGumus@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up8·2 days agoIt’s a trap, they’re watching them.
minus-squareAmberskin@europe.publinkfedilinkarrow-up4·2 days agoSo they can charge them with vandalising a fake piece made of plastic?
minus-squareBradleyUffner@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·2 days agoIt’s still a real physical object being intentionally broken by someone that doesn’t own it. Keep on mind, I’m absolutely NOT defending it, I’m just explaining the logic.
minus-squareAmberskin@europe.publinkfedilinkarrow-up4·2 days agoI understand, but the value of the destroyed ‘object’ is ridiculous so the penalty has to be minimal. Edit: Oh, and what if the ‘culprit’ just covers the fake camera?
minus-squareBradleyUffner@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·2 days agoI’m guessing they are trying to work the “intent” angle. The person believed it was a real camera and intended to damage it. It’s the same way they can charge people over fake drugs.
It’s a trap, they’re watching them.
So they can charge them with vandalising a fake piece made of plastic?
It’s still a real physical object being intentionally broken by someone that doesn’t own it.
Keep on mind, I’m absolutely NOT defending it, I’m just explaining the logic.
I understand, but the value of the destroyed ‘object’ is ridiculous so the penalty has to be minimal.
Edit:
Oh, and what if the ‘culprit’ just covers the fake camera?
I’m guessing they are trying to work the “intent” angle. The person believed it was a real camera and intended to damage it. It’s the same way they can charge people over fake drugs.