> the crime you are committing is not simply that you're surprising someone by tampering with their property, but you might be doing it with a specific intent t

> the crime you are committing is not simply that you're surprising someone by tampering with their property, but you might be doing it with a specific intent to cause an accident. this is nice rhetoric and all but doesn't apply at all in this situation nothing has been tampered with: the cone can be removed and having done so the vehicle will be indistinguishable from before it was placed (no property damage) the "attack" keeps the vehicle in its safest possible state (that in which it can't move) so there is no intent to cause an accident and you still have yet to point out which law is being broken (I suspect because there isn't one), so it is a crime? however the company may be able to go after you in a civil court for lost revenue/reputation