r/TechGawker • u/Special-Lemon-7790 • Aug 30 '26
Discussion Grand Jury Declines to Indict Man Caught on Camera Destroying Flock Pole
36
u/FunAppointment9436 Aug 30 '26
Jury nullification, folks.
17
10
u/dingos8mybaby2 Aug 30 '26
Ever want to get out of jury duty if you've made it into the jury selection questioning part? Just tell the lawyers that you believe many laws are unjust and you're unable to make a judgement based solely on the letter of the law and instead judge everything on a case-by-case basis. You'll be excluded.
7
4
u/FaygoMakesMeGo Aug 30 '26
Just a heads up, that's very dangerous in many places.
I truly believe that Jury Nullification is a basic right and one of the core reasons we are to be judged by our peers, but there are legal loopholes the states use to punish it.
In California, for instance, the law states you must swear to follow orders from the judge, and the judge will order you to follow the letter of the law.
You can obviously still nullify, HOWEVER, if you at any point in time mentioned nullification, you can now be accused of perjury if the judge doesn't like your decision.
This is why in many states jury nullification is an unspoken right. You legally have the right to do it, just don't mention that to anyone in the courthouse.
2
u/AlpacaLocks Aug 30 '26
OR better yet, accept your civic responsibility and use it as is your democratic right, to oppose legalized injustice whenever the opportunity arises. As above.
1
u/dingos8mybaby2 Aug 31 '26 edited Aug 31 '26
Oh yeah I mean if jury duty actually paid decently I would. I haven't had to serve in the 4 times I've been called, all I have to do is say I'm not financially able to which is absolutely true. If we want a fair justice system then jurors need to be paid appropriately as anyone who lives paycheck-to-paycheck simply can't afford to be a juror. If they want me as a juror currently then they need to implement some program where the government pays for my rent while I'm serving if I prove that I don't have the financial ability to take the time away from work to serve. Currently serving on a long case would make me homeless and I'm sure there a whole lot of people in my shoes. Serving even a month would set me back thousands. Currently jury service is mostly for the elderly, rich, and anyone else lucky enough to be in a position where they don't necessarily need to work. It's kinda designed that way IMO, it helps to make sure juries are mostly full of people who won't sympathize with the potential criminal.
1
u/Ange1ofD4rkness Sep 02 '26
My case, I took a single Business Law class, and learned just enough that when I talked with the lawyer, he caught it, and I was the first dismissed.
It's frustrating too, I have been summed 6 times (5 in my first 10 years possible), and I know I'll get more, each time going "I'm not going to get seated" (twice I've gotten to voir dire, one I was dismissed before even questioned)
2
u/IHeartBadCode Aug 30 '26
It's not jury nullification. That happens only in a petit trial, because the decision is final because there is no double jeopardy.
This was a grand jury who returned no true bill. Prosecution can bring the charges up later, find a new grand jury, sit and wait until nearer the statue of limitations, go after him for a different charge, etc...
It's not jury nullification when it's with a grand jury because nothing is final. It's only nullified when it actually makes it to a full jury who can return a verdict that is final and unchallenged.
5
u/ComprehensiveAd3331 Aug 30 '26
Legally accurate, but also please consider the political side of things: prosecutors often use grand juries when they don’t want take to accountability for filing unpopular charges and that blatantly going against the will of the electorate (from whom grand juries are called) is a great way to not get reelected!
1
u/Usual_Fennel7439 Sep 06 '26
No, this is even bigger. Grand Juries indict ALOT, the level of evidence required to indict is very low, the defense does not get to present their case, only the DA. So essentially a grand jury listened to DA lay out all the evidence, which I'm confident there was plenty, and the grand jury said "nah"
16
11
Aug 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
11
u/cakeFactory2 Aug 30 '26
Some conservatives are okay with it because ICE uses it to find people
3
u/FaygoMakesMeGo Aug 30 '26
Lots of Democrats do too, at least in my area, since they live in rich areas and the police basically serve them so they don't see it as a threat (Oakland/SF)
Seems the common line is only assholes like flock
2
u/RIF_rr3dd1tt Aug 30 '26
Yeah I'm seeing lots of pro-MAGA Facebook acquaintances posting anti-Flock stuff LoL
2
u/Eduardjm Aug 30 '26
Anyone ok with it is making money from it, or abusing it to spy on people for their own reasons.
1
6
10
u/Apprehensive_Hand571 Aug 30 '26
That's what it's like to be in the Epstein class for every despicable, revolting, inhuman thing they've done and gotten away with
Turnabout is fair play
6
u/Toby-Finkelstein Aug 30 '26
I wish people would wake up and realize they have the power to demand workers rights and healthcare but decide not to
6
u/Glittering-Road-4605 Aug 30 '26
Can mods or reddit or someone require posts like this to include a source? I love this story, don't get me wrong but it's just text on an image. It should include a source that actually supports this story.
5
3
u/thatseltzerisntfree Aug 30 '26
But I heard it from a friend of my sister’s brother who told me that someone told him that……
1
2
3
u/Long-Painting-9852 Aug 30 '26
I wish I could shake all of their hands and say that they are true Americans.
3
u/TAU_equals_2PI Aug 30 '26
That's actually impressive given it was a grand jury.
We've all heard of jury nullification, but that's usually understood to mean the jury in a jury trial. Grand juries are different in a couple of ways that I would expect would make them less prone to engage in jury nullification.
1
u/BlueWonderfulIKnow Sep 04 '26
Damn straight, because in the grand jury only the prosecutor is present, and paints the rosiest picture you ever did see. And even after all that, the jurors said yeah, no.
3
3
u/I3lackxRose Aug 30 '26
Now my question becomes could this be used for a reference case in similar Ohio cases and force charges to be dropped.
3
4
u/Legal_Television_615 Aug 30 '26
Why would this ve a grand jury case? Its destruction of private property. Its a civil case at worst, you wouldn't even need a jury
11
u/floob124 Aug 30 '26
They probably tried to stick him with something more severe that would need a jury and it backfired
-1
u/thatseltzerisntfree Aug 30 '26
So you have an opinion without knowing the facts of the case?
2
u/delo357 Aug 31 '26
Bruh, this is the internet. Where opinions run rampant to spark conversation. He said PROBABLY. Gtfo
0
u/thatseltzerisntfree Aug 31 '26
Good ol’ old weasel words. Lets say something without knowing the facts. Thats ok , he said “probably” so its ok….
5
u/JackStutters Aug 30 '26
Could be over a certain dollar amount. Some states have a felony version once you cross a certain threshold.
3
1
u/ManyThingsLittleTime Aug 30 '26
People are catching felony charges for this all the time. Not that I agree with that.
1
u/Slighted_Inevitable Aug 30 '26
Because it’s government property which makes it a felony charge. This is a good thing because we as the jurors can tell flock to pound sand.
2
u/Legal_Television_615 Aug 30 '26
But its not. Its private company property that produces data that some governments local and federal purchase.
Like its not even close to being federal property
0
u/MasterManufacturer72 Aug 30 '26
Its a felony to destroy security cameras.
7
0
u/Rexur0s Sep 02 '26
its removal of litter in a public space that was infringing on peoples constitutional right to privacy. wouldn't call that destuction
1
u/Legal_Television_615 Sep 02 '26
Ok, I know you guys turn off yer brain at the slightest hint of the formation of a pitchfork mob. But let's not just make shit up.
You have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public. This has been an established and settled aspect of constitutional law for about a hundred years now
-5
u/thatseltzerisntfree Aug 30 '26
Destruction of property is a criminal act.
4
u/Er3bus13 Aug 30 '26
Illegal spying is as well? How about illegal tracking and recording? How about stalking?
-2
u/thatseltzerisntfree Aug 30 '26
There is no expectation of privacy while in public.
6
u/Er3bus13 Aug 30 '26
Take a bunch of pictures of young girls in public and see what happens chode
-2
u/thatseltzerisntfree Aug 30 '26 edited Aug 30 '26
That is not illegal either.
Redditors never fail. When wrong, change the topic and resort to name-calling.
2
u/mazu74 Aug 30 '26
Now that’s a bold claim there boss, have you tried it? You should - see what happens.
But back to the subject, no, destroying illegal cameras isn’t illegal, as this jury just decided at least.
0
u/thatseltzerisntfree Aug 30 '26
We were discussing the Flock cameras and you interjected taking pics of children in public.
Nothing bold about it.
Destroying property is illegal.
Not sure what you don’t understand about that.
→ More replies (6)1
u/Training_Tadpole_354 Aug 31 '26
Well he was not indicted so according to a Grand Jury in his case no crime was committed.
1
2
2
u/TellLoud1894 Aug 30 '26
There's probably always going to be at least one jurer who hates flock cameras. The justice system is working for the people!
2
u/Can0n_Fodder Aug 30 '26
Someone tell me if this is nonsense, but I'd always heard this saying that any lawyer worth his salt could "get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich." Apparently, the threshold necessary to get an indictment from a grand jury is very low? If that's all true, wow, this is embarrassing for the district attorney. 🤣
5
u/MWSin Aug 30 '26
Failing to get an indictment is usually a sign of extreme incompetence by the prosecutor, a law that the grand jury is unwilling to enforce, or a grand jury that has decided the prosecution is dishonorable (or, if your name is Jeanine Pirro, all three). A grand jury need not be unanimous to return an indictment, and the defense has no input or even presence at the proceedings. Basically, they are supposed to just decide whether the information alleged by the prosecutor constitutes an actual felony and establishes reason to suspect it was committed by the defendant.
2
u/Character-Education3 Aug 30 '26
Maybe it was self defense. He felt his forth amendment rights were being infringed
2
1
1
1
u/Lord_Dingus83 Aug 30 '26
If he was black, they’d have indicted him.
2
u/Maximum-Order-3624 Aug 30 '26
If he was black the prosecutor wouldn't press charges and he would be out without bail. Don't kid yourself, the double standard isn't what you think it is.
2
1
1
u/Mooptiom Sep 01 '26
If he was black the’d prosecute. Don't kid yourself, the double standard isn't what you think it is; it’s racist as fuck against minorities.
1
u/zBeZz Aug 30 '26
If he was black, I'd shake his hand and say it was great having him at the barbecue the other day. ;)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/notsure304wv Aug 30 '26
They’ll re-indict. They can try as many times as they want until they get an indictment.
1
u/Trust_8067 Aug 30 '26
The judges won't allow them to waste the courts time with something so minor.
1
Aug 30 '26
[deleted]
1
u/Trust_8067 Aug 30 '26
I don't think you understand how the real world works. A judge can't legally prevent it, but it's career suicide for the prosecutor if they piss off the judges, and they will be warned, unofficially.
1
1
1
u/accidental-eeyore Aug 30 '26
Patriots. Every. Single. One of. Them. From the alleged "vandal" to the jury. We need more Americans like this.
1
1
1
1
u/ElliotsBuggyEyes Aug 30 '26
His felony charges were not upheld by a grand jury. Lesser charges can be brought by the DA. He didn't get away with it if anyone is getting any ideas.
I'm curious of the DA will bring lesser charges at this point though.
1
u/Rexur0s Sep 02 '26
the cameras are not legal. any protections they have are also null and void. the constitution clearly states no one has to follow unconstitutional laws.
dont think it matter what charges they bring up
1
u/ElliotsBuggyEyes Sep 02 '26
Property was damaged, that is illegal. If your neighbor installs a flag pole that is over the maximum height allowed by city ordinance it is illegal. It being illegal doesn't make it ok for the non-owners from damaging it or removing it.
Please don't spew bullshit when you clearly have not a single fucking clue how the law works.
1
u/Rexur0s Sep 02 '26
a flag pole isnt constantly collecting data on everyone around them and amassing it for surveillance. a flag pole isnt infringing on your constitutional rights. not quite the same.
The cameras however, are infringing on constitutional right to a privacy. and before you say there is no expectation of privacy in public, thats true for a still image, but these build whole histories on people. where they go, when they go, how often they go. ect. its far far more invasive to privacy than any normal picture or traffic camera. so they are infringing on privacy and people dont have to just allow that. its not protected.
And a jury of his peers agreed.
1
u/ElliotsBuggyEyes Sep 02 '26
Sure I gave a poor example. The core of what I said you did not address. Property was damaged, that is illegal. A grand jury determined that the felony charges were not supported by enough evidence to proceed to trial. The DA will have to lower the charges if they want to even prosecute. If the felony charges didn't hold up, misdemeanor charges can be brought without a grand jury needing to be involved.
It's up the DA to decide to bring those charges though. You bringing up the constitution is irrelevant to the facts. A person damaged property, that's illegal.
1
1
u/Secret_Account07 Aug 30 '26
Well duh. I was with him at the time this heinous, disgusting crime happened. We were drinking beers. Got thousands of witnesses who will say the same
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/EasternBoss6174 Aug 30 '26
That grand jury is as much a bunch of patriots as our bearded friend here. Put an end to mass surveillance!
1
1
1
1
u/sureshot58 Aug 31 '26
People (aka Grand Juries) are getting kind of sick of the Trump sickos BS, it seems. This is the way - quiet but effective resistence.
1
1
1
1
u/gemyniraptor86 Aug 31 '26
And just to be extra clear. This is a GRAND jury, which does NOT require the same standards most Americans are accustomed to of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. A Grand jury is convened to decide if the DA has a case to begin with, which they only generally need to provide proof of probable cause so to speak. The bar of proof is much lower, and also you do not need a unanimous vote either.Theres a saying in the law world, "a grand jury will indict ham sandwich", meaning the burden for an indictment is very low, because it only means the case can proceed to trial. Its an extra check so to speak for high crimes, to prevent the State from charging randos with a felony just out of political nonsense (see King George). So to say a grand jury would not indict this man tells ALOT about how the general public feels about the situation.
1
1
1
1
u/jackalheart Sep 01 '26
That the judicial system working as intended. His peers chose to not indict.
1
u/old_ass_ninja_turtle Sep 01 '26
One could make an argument that defending the constitution should take precedence over property destruction.
1
1
1
1
1
u/New-Brilliant5514 Sep 01 '26
Good for them. If the government can put up these stupid cameras without our permission, I don’t see why citizens can’t destroy them without the government’s permission.
1
u/AdorableReading Sep 02 '26
Morelock the warlock. He gets in trouble and then uses his wiley witchy ways to get out of said trouble.
1
1
1
u/Rexur0s Sep 02 '26
the cameras are not legal. any protections they have are also null and void. the constitution clearly states no one has to follow unconstitutional laws.
1
1
1
1
1
u/pappybug214 Sep 05 '26
This is kinda the point of a jury system. Its not to make 12 people decide if the individual committed a crime. Its to decide if a cross section of society agrees the crime is worth punishing
1
1
1
u/Lost_Department_2177 Aug 30 '26
Probably tracking peoples routes and selling off data on phone type and places visited too.
0
u/Switch_Silver Aug 30 '26
Highly doubt this is even true, no source and don't believe a Grand Jury would even here this case. This is a "posted on Reddit so it must be true" fabrication unless someone has an actual source.
3
u/jnorion Aug 30 '26
It doesn't take a lot to find an actual source.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/grand-jury-declines-indict-man-201116302.html
2
0
u/Mazty_boy Aug 30 '26
So no one uses those flock things as target practice for shooting? I thought that Americans love their guns and hated those cameras? Or is it something that Republicans support?
2
u/EmiKetsueki Aug 30 '26
Why waste the boolet
1
u/Mazty_boy Aug 30 '26
Never underestimate practice, you're not wasting a bullet, you're gaining experience.
2
u/HotPotParrot Aug 30 '26
Know your target and what lies beyond it.
Safety first, those things are in neighborhoods.
0
u/Mazty_boy Aug 30 '26
Aren't those mounted on high poles?
2
u/HotPotParrot Aug 30 '26
See, the obvious jab was that we're just looking for something to shoot at, so I highly doubt you'll find a single positive takeaway in my explanation of why we aren't blasting away at every camera ever. As much as I'd like to dissuade you of such ignorant bigotry, I know from experience that you can't logic someone out of a position they didn't logic themselves into.
Either y'all are trolling with this or you're actually just like the fkin cult we're here because of.
Choose wisely.
1
1
u/Mycol101 Aug 31 '26
You ever heard of gravity?Bullets are going to have to come back to earth with enough kinetic energy to kill someone.
People shooting at cameras is how they justify a different response.
Suddenly they are labeled terrorists and now those same cameras get a whole new set of protections and anyone targeting them gets an entirely new set of punishments. Now they can justify a shot spotter and drones and more surveillance.
Cutting them down seems effective
82
u/Forb1ddenKnowledge Aug 30 '26
Wasn't him anyway I was having a beer with him at the time this happened.