Even better, a group should cut down several dozen of them and mount them all on poles outside his house during the night, so that he wakes up to them in the morning. No vandalism, no violence, no threats, just a blunt statement that the media couldn’t possibly ignore.
Heck, no need to even risk collecting that many real ones. I hear there’s some fairly decent 3D printed fakes available.
They claim that the purpose of the cameras is to prevent crime, and that the people who oppose them are violent extremists. They’ve even tried to label deflock.meas a terrorist organization.
To be realistic, they don’t need ammunition. They just make it up anyways. It’s not about being civil and cordial anymore. Points have to be made.
“Not giving them ammunition” means getting ignored. We can’t afford to be ignored anymore. Shit is urgent. The Epstein class needs to be afraid or we wait until they build the technology and infrastructure that allows them to completely ignore our needs/demands forever.
Especially when the right is also mad about the tech. Strike while the iron is hot. Now is the time to act, not just have discussions. And I don’t mean violence, but let them know that card is on the table otherwise we the people will continue being ignored.
“Vandalism refers to the intentional destruction or defacement of property”
They relocated the item to its owners house. At best the cutting might be vandalism but you don’t have to cut them down. That just happens to be quicker.
No. I did not. Relocation of the asset to the owners property means there’s no intent to deprive the owner of said property which means that it’s not theft.
The property has not been defaced, damaged, or destroyed so that means there’s no intent of vandalism. Therefore vandalism did not take place.
What you’re describing is criminal mischief, which I would agree this is.
I made a singular allowance in the case that the pole was cut (which counts as damage), rather than being dug up (which wouldn’t), which you appear to have ignored.
If you don’t like facts, that is a you problem.
You are welcome to kagi or whatever this yourself to see what I’m talking about instead of doubling down.
If you are incapable of that, don’t bother to respond to me.
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.
For one, the CEO of flock doesn’t personally own all of the infrastructure used by the company that they run. That’s not how it works. It doesn’t matter if you damaged the thing or not.
It’s like saying you could move a Verizon cell tower to the front yard of the CEO of Verizon. That’s stupid.
No lawyer would ever attempt such a stupid and ridiculous defense.
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.
Even better, a group should cut down several dozen of them and mount them all on poles outside his house during the night, so that he wakes up to them in the morning. No vandalism, no violence, no threats, just a blunt statement that the media couldn’t possibly ignore.
Heck, no need to even risk collecting that many real ones. I hear there’s some fairly decent 3D printed fakes available.
heads on spikes you say? i hope those models don’t look like billionaires…just kidding
You are onto something. What if we just 3d print a bunch of fake cameras, wear a reflective vest, and install them in your nearby rich neighborhoods?
“Little brother is watching you!”
But what if we had a little violence and vandalism as a treat?
Then you provide the enemy with ammunition.
They claim that the purpose of the cameras is to prevent crime, and that the people who oppose them are violent extremists. They’ve even tried to label deflock.me as a terrorist organization.
Don’t provide the enemy with ammunition.
To be realistic, they don’t need ammunition. They just make it up anyways. It’s not about being civil and cordial anymore. Points have to be made.
“Not giving them ammunition” means getting ignored. We can’t afford to be ignored anymore. Shit is urgent. The Epstein class needs to be afraid or we wait until they build the technology and infrastructure that allows them to completely ignore our needs/demands forever.
Especially when the right is also mad about the tech. Strike while the iron is hot. Now is the time to act, not just have discussions. And I don’t mean violence, but let them know that card is on the table otherwise we the people will continue being ignored.
Always bothers me when people act like there is zero political violence. They are shooting us in the fucking street on film. Shits over.
Also your username is fuckin wild lol
You made me look at their username. I hate you.
I love this. They are solar powered so everything would work. All you need is a post hole digger to build a little flock forest.
I betcha if they set them up in his rich people neighborhood they wouldn‘t last for 2 days because someone with more money than him made a phone call.
He would be making that call. This rat roach fuck knows exactly what he is doing, do not give him an out.
😐
E: LOL downvotes for facts, I guess
The vandalism was putting them up in the first place.
Vandalism as a public service
Technically not theft. Technically not vandalism.
They relocated the item to its owners house. At best the cutting might be vandalism but you don’t have to cut them down. That just happens to be quicker.
It is 100% vandalism, in every sense. I support it, civil disobedience and all that, but there’s no rationalizing it as anything else.
Nice downvote.
You didn’t look up the legal definition of anything before you posted this nonsense. Have a good day.
Nonsense? You just posted a definition that describes this activity exactly…? So if anyone is posting nonsense, its you.
No. I did not. Relocation of the asset to the owners property means there’s no intent to deprive the owner of said property which means that it’s not theft.
The property has not been defaced, damaged, or destroyed so that means there’s no intent of vandalism. Therefore vandalism did not take place.
What you’re describing is criminal mischief, which I would agree this is.
I made a singular allowance in the case that the pole was cut (which counts as damage), rather than being dug up (which wouldn’t), which you appear to have ignored.
If you don’t like facts, that is a you problem.
You are welcome to kagi or whatever this yourself to see what I’m talking about instead of doubling down.
If you are incapable of that, don’t bother to respond to me.
The property has been damaged, as you need to cut them down. If you manage to move the whole thing without cutting the pole you’d have a point.
(i did read your whole comment, we were literally talking about cutting down a pole)
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.
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.
Yeah that’s not how that works.
For one, the CEO of flock doesn’t personally own all of the infrastructure used by the company that they run. That’s not how it works. It doesn’t matter if you damaged the thing or not.
It’s like saying you could move a Verizon cell tower to the front yard of the CEO of Verizon. That’s stupid.
No lawyer would ever attempt such a stupid and ridiculous defense.
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.