“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.
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.
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)
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.
They’re not saying you would get away with it, just that it isn’t technically vandalism but a different crime.
Good luck finding a lawyer who agrees
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.