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.
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.
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.
Comments
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.
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.
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.
[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...