Surely the law is concerned primarily with intent, and it should be possible to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused believed the decoy to be a real Flock camera?
That’s not how destruction of property works. The charge is based on the value of the property lol.
I’m more interested to know what’s bubbling in the background here. The police department is likely in hot water for wasting so much time and money to do something that likely could be called entrapment in court.
ACAB, but putting out a decoy camera isn’t entrapment. The authoritarian fuckwads who wrote the law defined it a lot more narrowly than that.
If the cops egged him on to do it and gave him a saw then that would be entrapment. You can’t encourage a crime that wouldn’t have otherwise occured.
No matter how much we dislike the idea of mass surveillance, ain’t no way anyone in the justice system is going to call destroying a decoy camera entrapment.
Also fuck cops and flock and axos and anyone else making mass spy gear.
It might be if they watched him do it to the point that it constituted a felony property damage charge rather than halting him immediately. It’s one of those tricky areas that explains why you don’t see nuisance stings very frequently.
No, crime is not prosecuted with imaginary value
deleted by creator
