▲ 281 ▼ Florida police used a fake Flock camera in a sting, then charged a man with three felonies for destroying it (www.techspot.com) submitted 3 days ago by time2lose@lemmy.world to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world 46 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] charade_you_are@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 days ago (1 child) That's what I was thinking. Isn't this a classic case of entrapment? I guess it doesn't matter since it's Florida. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 10 points 3 days ago (1 child) Legally no, it's not entrapment. Still if the cops hadn't placed the bait, there would be no crime. They know where the line is, and ride it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] charade_you_are@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 days ago (1 child) Thanks for the answer permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago (1 child) I should add that given the details it's not entrapment. At the same time though, there are thousands of flock cameras, and somehow the cops knew this particular spot for a fake one would lure someone in? There's no telling if they instigated it in some way not mentioned. And the charges they filed are very likely to fall apart anyway, because it wasn't a flock camera, it was a cheap decoy, and felonies are based on actual value, not imaginary. It also may not have been authorized to be installed. So the defendant could legally have been removing vandalism from a pole. This is why you can't really adjudicate from a news story, there's a million unknowns, and often weird technical details to laws that aren't well known to the public. Top that off with most news information coming from defense lawyers giving an intentionally biased account of events, because the police don't just call the press most of the time. And when they do, it's usually to give their own damning version of events. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] charade_you_are@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago Good stuff, thanks permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 10 points 3 days ago (1 child) Legally no, it's not entrapment. Still if the cops hadn't placed the bait, there would be no crime. They know where the line is, and ride it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] charade_you_are@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 days ago (1 child) Thanks for the answer permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago (1 child) I should add that given the details it's not entrapment. At the same time though, there are thousands of flock cameras, and somehow the cops knew this particular spot for a fake one would lure someone in? There's no telling if they instigated it in some way not mentioned. And the charges they filed are very likely to fall apart anyway, because it wasn't a flock camera, it was a cheap decoy, and felonies are based on actual value, not imaginary. It also may not have been authorized to be installed. So the defendant could legally have been removing vandalism from a pole. This is why you can't really adjudicate from a news story, there's a million unknowns, and often weird technical details to laws that aren't well known to the public. Top that off with most news information coming from defense lawyers giving an intentionally biased account of events, because the police don't just call the press most of the time. And when they do, it's usually to give their own damning version of events. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] charade_you_are@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago Good stuff, thanks permalink fedilink source parent
[–] charade_you_are@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 days ago (1 child) Thanks for the answer permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago (1 child) I should add that given the details it's not entrapment. At the same time though, there are thousands of flock cameras, and somehow the cops knew this particular spot for a fake one would lure someone in? There's no telling if they instigated it in some way not mentioned. And the charges they filed are very likely to fall apart anyway, because it wasn't a flock camera, it was a cheap decoy, and felonies are based on actual value, not imaginary. It also may not have been authorized to be installed. So the defendant could legally have been removing vandalism from a pole. This is why you can't really adjudicate from a news story, there's a million unknowns, and often weird technical details to laws that aren't well known to the public. Top that off with most news information coming from defense lawyers giving an intentionally biased account of events, because the police don't just call the press most of the time. And when they do, it's usually to give their own damning version of events. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] charade_you_are@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago Good stuff, thanks permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago (1 child) I should add that given the details it's not entrapment. At the same time though, there are thousands of flock cameras, and somehow the cops knew this particular spot for a fake one would lure someone in? There's no telling if they instigated it in some way not mentioned. And the charges they filed are very likely to fall apart anyway, because it wasn't a flock camera, it was a cheap decoy, and felonies are based on actual value, not imaginary. It also may not have been authorized to be installed. So the defendant could legally have been removing vandalism from a pole. This is why you can't really adjudicate from a news story, there's a million unknowns, and often weird technical details to laws that aren't well known to the public. Top that off with most news information coming from defense lawyers giving an intentionally biased account of events, because the police don't just call the press most of the time. And when they do, it's usually to give their own damning version of events. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] charade_you_are@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago Good stuff, thanks permalink fedilink source parent
[–] charade_you_are@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago Good stuff, thanks permalink fedilink source parent