This is not a SFW instance. NSFW communities will be tagged, and efforts will be made to keep SFW communities clean, but proceed at your own comfort level.
Not sure what in my comment is deserving of the hostility but anyway. Nor given the way my comment is phrased, do I think I’m trying to pass myself off as an expert. Just very doubtful of the implication that this guy is going to walk out without a charge.
The modification is usually just that the car shuts off in less than a minute
Which as I suggested, allows for the intent to be demonstrated. My point was a fake car would be pointless, so the point of “it’s still a real car” falls flat. (Edit: also joyriding is still a crime. Hardly funsies)
Tap for spoiler
Elements of Grand Theft Auto
Generally, a prosecutor charging grand theft auto will need to show that the defendant drove or otherwise took possession of a motor vehicle owned by someone else. The defendant must not have had the permission of the owner. In addition, a prosecutor must prove that the defendant intended to deprive the owner of the vehicle.
In general the value of the object determines misdemeanor/felony. Which I’m assuming you might not know, is a huge difference.
Which I agree means he’s not likely to get a full felony charge, but since he broke rule 1 of interacting with the police and admitted to thinking they had value in a statement (allegedly). He could still be facing at least attempted criminal mischief for vandalism (I think). Which isn’t as bad but still potentially a felony.
“When asked how much he believes the camera costs to replace, he stated approximately $1,000-$5,000 proving that Meyer knew it was an expensive real piece of equipment and not a fake replica,” the police report states.
Though the police wording is borderline nonsensical.
Crimes under the felony threshold should be charged as misdemeanor equivalents…
Cops never do that, for reasons you alluded to in your top comment, to deter others from doing it and hoping something sticks. My main point was claiming the had he’s unlikely to be charged is a bit of a stretch.
Not sure what in my comment is deserving of the hostility but anyway. Nor given the way my comment is phrased, do I think I’m trying to pass myself off as an expert. Just very doubtful of the implication that this guy is going to walk out without a charge.
Which as I suggested, allows for the intent to be demonstrated. My point was a fake car would be pointless, so the point of “it’s still a real car” falls flat. (Edit: also joyriding is still a crime. Hardly funsies)
Tap for spoiler
Elements of Grand Theft Auto
Generally, a prosecutor charging grand theft auto will need to show that the defendant drove or otherwise took possession of a motor vehicle owned by someone else. The defendant must not have had the permission of the owner. In addition, a prosecutor must prove that the defendant intended to deprive the owner of the vehicle.
https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/theft-crimes/auto-theft/
Which I agree means he’s not likely to get a full felony charge, but since he broke rule 1 of interacting with the police and admitted to thinking they had value in a statement (allegedly). He could still be facing at least attempted criminal mischief for vandalism (I think). Which isn’t as bad but still potentially a felony.
Though the police wording is borderline nonsensical.
Cops never do that, for reasons you alluded to in your top comment, to deter others from doing it and hoping something sticks. My main point was claiming the had he’s unlikely to be charged is a bit of a stretch.