posted in Technology
Flock CEO Garrett Langley targeted as address shared online
www.newsweek.com/flock-ceo-garrett-langley-targeted-as-address-shared-online-12375766
Replying to @return2ozma@lemmy.world
He should just point a flock camera at his house. Then he’ll be 80% safer based on a study I just made up like the ones on their sales pitch.
Replying to @notannpc@lemmy.world
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.
a group should cut down several dozen of them
No vandalism
😐
E: LOL downvotes for facts, I guess
Replying to @artyom@piefed.social
Technically not theft. Technically not vandalism.
“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.
It is 100% vandalism, in every sense. I support it, but there’s no rationalizing it as anything else.
Replying to @artyom@piefed.social
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…?
Replying to @artyom@piefed.social
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.
Replying to @atrielienz@lemmy.world
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.
Replying to @prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
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.