> Despite the decoy camera being worth, at most, several dollars worth of plastic filament, Evan Meyer was charged with three felonies: attempted larceny/grand theft, criminal mischief of property damage worth more than $1,000, and property crimes against computer equipment supplies, according to an arrest report obtained by 404 Media.
It sounds like the police and district attorney [0] are playing fast and loose with the charges, blending issues of intent (to harm an expensive camera) versus fact (not actually causing much damage.)
[0] AFAICT this is Oviedo, Florida, part of Seminole County, so part of the 18th judicial circuit and therefore the prosecutor who approved these charges is William Scheiner.
donavanm 9 hours ago [-]
The damage estimate they use will be hypothetical total replacement cost, including multiple employees time, truck use, permits etc. its very trivial for any sort of repair to have a nominal cost in the thousands.
Terr_ 9 hours ago [-]
Hypothetical damages only make sense if he was charged with a lesser crime of "attempted" X... however I don't see that modifier in the news reporting. My concern is that the prosecution is trying to mix-and-match the severity of factual crimes with theoretical outcomes in a way which is illogical and unjust.
IANAL, but for example the article says they're charging him with real (not attempted) criminal mischief over $1,000. Looking it up [0] that reads as requiring a threshold of actual damage in dollars.
It's as if someone was charged with real (not attempted) first-degree murder despite the "murdered" person walking around totally unharmed. That'd be nonsense, right? We'd at least be asking what kind of brain-damage caused the prosecutor to do that instead of lowering it to "attempted murder".
There's different section [1] about attempts in a very general sense, but even then it's not clear how the math works when it was a setup and real assets were never in danger.
This is the same kind of case as someone arrested for cocaine possession when the drug is made of powder milk and caffeine with zero controlled substances. Prosecution has to prove the suspect was going to sell it as real drugs, it can't be illegal to have something on you just because it's possible to confuse for something else.
In this case they might need to prove that the man did not know the camera was a decoy, otherwise it's just misdemeanor vandalism or less. Proving a negative in a criminal case is hard and when it's about a person's mental state it might be literally impossible. We'll see.
monksy 16 hours ago [-]
Weird that the police are so motivated to resolve this. It's almost like they don't serve the community.
toomuchtodo 16 hours ago [-]
They are motivated to have control. They are also lazy and would prefer an easy job with less privacy than a harder job with more privacy. Therefore, police want ALPRs, and Flock wants contracts paid for by taxpayers for their enterprise value. “Show me the incentives, and I'll show you the outcome.”
Next step would be for citizens to build profiles on their local police departments and law enforcement in general if the adversarial relationship continues, as law enforcement officers appear to be disproportionally predisposed to committing crimes. I have a thesis on why those attracted to these jobs are more likely to be criminals, but will save that for another thread. “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime." Put them under the microscope, like they wish to do to the public. The panopticon works both ways. Fundamentally, you have to build systems to make law enforcement allergic to treating their local citizens like this. They have forgotten who they are supposed to protect and serve. Remind them, while remaining firmly within the legal framework. Or, just take the ALPRs down. That is a choice. Eventually, supporters of ALPRs will be voted out, but it might take a while (election cycles).
(and lets not forget our forum favorite on the topic of police misconduct, the Marion County Record, with damages exceeding $4M for the police misconduct that occurred)
I'm curious about the memespace HN people inhabit. I've been hearing about Halloween is National DeFlock Day for a while -- anyone else come across this rapidly-spreading meme?
x______________ 15 hours ago [-]
I came across a single version of it. My first thought was that if this goes ahead, it will likely start the process for ruining Halloween..
bko 14 hours ago [-]
This is an incredibly effective way to catch criminals. I wish police used more of these sting operations. I've seen videos where YouTubers set up a decoy to tempt all sorts of criminals, from package thieves to people stealing cars.If a YouTuber can lure someone that easily, no reason police can't do the same and arrest the handful of individuals that are terrorizing neighborhoods.
monksy 13 hours ago [-]
Are these criminals?
This is a device that tracks, stalks, and investigates individuals without their consent. Additionally, these are contracts that were entered into and that are forced upon people. People's resistance to these have been punished aggressively. (From the video of the public council meetings I've seen).
In addition these devices are setup to enforce state laws outside of where the law is relivant at. (I.e. a woman has been tracked outside of the state to evaluate compliance with abortion law in texas).
To me this shows it's a breakdown of the agreement of law between the citizens and the government.
bko 13 hours ago [-]
Yes, destroying property is criminal. You can't go around destroying property because they're used in policies you don't agree with. If I think abortion is murder, can I go bomb abortion clinics?
Resistance to legal police work should be punished severely.
zem 11 hours ago [-]
think of them as standing their ground
bigtex88 13 hours ago [-]
Mmmm I love fascist surveillance states!
jazzyjackson 13 hours ago [-]
No empathy for people feeling “terrorized” by hundreds of cameras going up around their city without being asked to vote about it?
monksy 12 hours ago [-]
Not to mention the people who speak out about them are being threatened as well.
> The operation is reminiscent of Amazon “package sting” operations that several police departments attempted several years ago, in which empty Amazon boxes were placed on people’s porches while police officers watched. Those sting operations resulted in zero known arrests.
15 hours ago [-]
amazingamazing 14 hours ago [-]
The amount of highly upvoted incorrect statements here is hilarious
1970-01-01 14 hours ago [-]
3 felonies? Here's what that changes for vandals: Why should I bother with the saw at this point? I'll just use my gun.
metalman 16 hours ago [-]
there is a legal concept of what is called an "atractive nuisance" ie: something privatly owned but placed unatended in a public or highly visible place, which has long been known to contribute to bad behavior that otherwise would not occur, and also a much more serious crime of entrapment, which seems to be applicable in this case.
That the police would engage in these activities would normaly be inconcievable.
voxic11 15 hours ago [-]
Attractive nuisance laws only apply to things likely to attract children, not grown adults.
15 hours ago [-]
metalman 14 hours ago [-]
good to know, good to know
20after4 11 hours ago [-]
You must not know much about the history of policing.
Basically jury nullification
https://futurism.com/future-society/grand-jury-ohio-flock-al...
Whereas what you're thinking of is "we the jury think the defendant did, indeed, break the law. But we think the law sucks, so 'not guilty'."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
It sounds like the police and district attorney [0] are playing fast and loose with the charges, blending issues of intent (to harm an expensive camera) versus fact (not actually causing much damage.)
[0] AFAICT this is Oviedo, Florida, part of Seminole County, so part of the 18th judicial circuit and therefore the prosecutor who approved these charges is William Scheiner.
IANAL, but for example the article says they're charging him with real (not attempted) criminal mischief over $1,000. Looking it up [0] that reads as requiring a threshold of actual damage in dollars.
It's as if someone was charged with real (not attempted) first-degree murder despite the "murdered" person walking around totally unharmed. That'd be nonsense, right? We'd at least be asking what kind of brain-damage caused the prosecutor to do that instead of lowering it to "attempted murder".
There's different section [1] about attempts in a very general sense, but even then it's not clear how the math works when it was a setup and real assets were never in danger.
[0] https://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Disp...
[1] https://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Disp...
In this case they might need to prove that the man did not know the camera was a decoy, otherwise it's just misdemeanor vandalism or less. Proving a negative in a criminal case is hard and when it's about a person's mental state it might be literally impossible. We'll see.
Next step would be for citizens to build profiles on their local police departments and law enforcement in general if the adversarial relationship continues, as law enforcement officers appear to be disproportionally predisposed to committing crimes. I have a thesis on why those attracted to these jobs are more likely to be criminals, but will save that for another thread. “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime." Put them under the microscope, like they wish to do to the public. The panopticon works both ways. Fundamentally, you have to build systems to make law enforcement allergic to treating their local citizens like this. They have forgotten who they are supposed to protect and serve. Remind them, while remaining firmly within the legal framework. Or, just take the ALPRs down. That is a choice. Eventually, supporters of ALPRs will be voted out, but it might take a while (election cycles).
The IJ Database of ALPR Abuse - https://ij.org/the-ij-database-of-alpr-abuse/ (173 incidents documented, as of this comment)
Resource spotlight: Data projects tracking police misconduct, use of force, and employment histories - https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2026/01/26/police_miscondu... - January 26th, 2026
Study finds police officers arrested 1,100 times per year, or 3 per day, nationwide - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2016/06/22... | https://archive.today/uS3yR - June 23rd, 2016
Police Integrity Lost: A Study of Law Enforcement Officers Arrested - https://web.archive.org/web/20260610154033/https://www.ojp.g...
(and lets not forget our forum favorite on the topic of police misconduct, the Marion County Record, with damages exceeding $4M for the police misconduct that occurred)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49281087
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45915211
This is a device that tracks, stalks, and investigates individuals without their consent. Additionally, these are contracts that were entered into and that are forced upon people. People's resistance to these have been punished aggressively. (From the video of the public council meetings I've seen).
In addition these devices are setup to enforce state laws outside of where the law is relivant at. (I.e. a woman has been tracked outside of the state to evaluate compliance with abortion law in texas).
To me this shows it's a breakdown of the agreement of law between the citizens and the government.
Resistance to legal police work should be punished severely.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es5kDpyJkBU&t=12s
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/n7PgNlT8GP8
That seems at-odds with the article's aside that:
> The operation is reminiscent of Amazon “package sting” operations that several police departments attempted several years ago, in which empty Amazon boxes were placed on people’s porches while police officers watched. Those sting operations resulted in zero known arrests.