> 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
Counterpoint: Grand Jury Declines to Indict Man Caught on Camera Destroying Flock Pole
Basically jury nullification
https://futurism.com/future-society/grand-jury-ohio-flock-al...
Not jury nullification, that's how grand juries work: do we move forward (go to trial) with this or not? And the grand jury said "not".
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
> 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.
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.
Weird that the police are so motivated to resolve this. It's almost like they don't serve the community.
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).
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
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?
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..
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.
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.
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.
think of them as standing their ground
Mmmm I love fascist surveillance states!
No empathy for people feeling “terrorized” by hundreds of cameras going up around their city without being asked to vote about it?
Not to mention the people who speak out about them are being threatened as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es5kDpyJkBU&t=12s
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/n7PgNlT8GP8
> This is an incredibly effective way
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.
The amount of highly upvoted incorrect statements here is hilarious
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.
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.
You must not know much about the history of policing.
Attractive nuisance laws only apply to things likely to attract children, not grown adults.
good to know, good to know