If you manage to move the whole thing without cutting the pole you'd have a point.

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.

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.

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.

You probably think Hillary Clinton, John Yoo, Ty Cobbs, Dick Harpootlian are great lawyers.