4 ms·

This is not a jury nullification (which is an emergent property of US Constitutional double-jeopardy protections), but a failure to indict, that is to bring cri

This is not a jury nullification (which is an emergent property of US Constitutional double-jeopardy protections), but a failure to indict, that is to bring criminal charges (a "bill of indictment") for potential criminal conduct. In this instance, the case has been dismissed, but might conceivably be brought again. Why grand juries make the decisions they do is hard to determine, as their operations are (usually) secret. This may have simply been a case of insufficient evidence of a crime, or identity of the suspect ("probable cause"), as appealing as a broader backlash theory might be. Much of this article appears to be either speculation or unsourced information if there was in fact resistance to bringing a Flock case by this grand jury. The latter might indicate a violation of secrecy oaths by jury members or other court officers. Specific practices vary by state, not all of which use grand juries. All federal criminal cases rely on a grand jury. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_juries_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_juries_in_the_United_Sta...>

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2mo ago
> Police in Union Township, a Cincinnati suburb, accused Cody Morelock of disassembling the camera, its support pole and solar panel on June 13. To add to this, it stood out to me that the headline uses "destroy" but the article uses "disassemble" to describe what happened. Not that the act of calmly dissasembling something couldn't be indicted as potentially criminal (if a ham sandwich can be), but it stands out regardless. Maybe he literally just walked up and started unscrewing things. That would be the most civil form of "vandalism" I can imagine; force them to (pay someone to) come set it up again until they give up or try something else.
- coldpie 2mo ago
  The actual source article[1] mentions the equipment was destroyed. The SAN.com republication linked here dropped that detail. [1] "Investigators alleged Morelock removed bolts securing the camera system, bringing down the camera, solar panel and support pole before destroying the equipment." https://local12.com/news/local/felony-charges-dismissed-against-clermont-county-man-destruction-flock-camera-cincinnati-union-township-cody-morelock-damage https://local12.com/news/local/felony-charges-dismissed-agai...
- KPGv2 2mo ago
  > Not that the act of calmly dissasembling something couldn't be indicted as potentially criminal (if a ham sandwich can be) Why do you doubt this? If I calmly disassemble your car in the middle of the night, haven't I committed a crime? Where I live, calmly disassembling property that is't yours is, at minimum, vandalism: https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-28-03/ https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-28-03/ > A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner . . . he intentionally or knowingly tampers with the tangible property of the owner and causes . . . substantial inconvenience to the owner or a third person . . . . My guess is the cost to remedy this disassembly is over $2,500, making this a felony. Even if not, if a government Flock camera is considered a "public service" then it's a felony no matter the cost to remedy because it falls under "causes wholly or partly impairment or interruption of property used for . . . public communications, public transportation, [] or other public service . . ."
  - bee_rider 2mo ago
    Putting aside this specific case, I wonder how that $2,500 cost is calculated? Flock owns the devices and leases them out I think. Hypothetically somebody could take the device down and put it in a nice tidy little box for them. Then the cost to remedy is… how much they charge the town to send a person out to put it back up? Or how much it costs them internally to send somebody out to put it back up? If it is the latter, I guess it must just be somebody’s travel costs and wages (could be figured out like any contractor). If it is the former, does that have to be the same cost they always charge to send out maintenance people? (Since a disassembled, not destroyed camera should be one of the cheapest issues to deal with, right?). Otherwise it seems like they could exploit the law by specifically “charging” enough to make it a felony whenever they suspect tampering.
    - KPGv2 2mo ago
      Municipal sign installation is a decent floor approximation. Can run into the thousands if it's electrified (think: blinking lights on a warning sign). Depends on availability of electricity, engineering, weather at that time, etc. In some places, a stop sign can be close to $2,000 based on some quick googling, and that has no power supply to worry about. It's always more expensive than residential bc it's publicly reachable by a million morons, and is meant to stand much longer than residential work.
- arjie 2mo ago
  Considering that the enterprising people suffering from unhousedness in tents are frequently described as being involved in the repair of bicycles the frames of which can be more than a month of rent, I am somewhat underwhelmed by the amount of signal in phrasal choices implying civility.
  - tedmiston 2mo ago
    Is this an AI generated comment? What do any of these words have to do with a person disassembling a camera in a surveillance dragnet?
- dylan604 2mo ago
  Sounds like SpaceX with unscheduled rapid disassembly
Lendal 2mo ago
True, it does not say the reason for the decline to indict. It could have as much to do with the overall decline in quality of the DoJ and its cases as a whole over the past year. Many nonsalient crimes will also go unprosecuted under this DoJ, but they will not generate headlines like this one.
- dredmorbius 2mo ago
  The US DoJ does not prosecute in county courts. From TFA: "A Clermont County grand jury, however, opted not to indict..."
- slapshot 2mo ago
  It appears this prosecution was brought by local Ohio police; the federal Department of Justice would not have been involved in any way.
harimau777 2mo ago
Since Ohio is a fairly red state, I wonder if this could be a "You can food some of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." As much as I am angry at MAGA for not prioritizing my civil liberties, it does seem like conservatives are starting to notice that those in power don't actually care about conservative principles like privacy, small government, and individual liberty.
- stouset 2mo ago
  Conservative voters themselves have been quite clear that they don’t actually care about any of those principles either. I remain skeptical.
  - lokar 2mo ago
    Or, they are convinced the other side is much worse
  - hansvm 2mo ago
    The term "voter" seems relevant -- in my conversations with conservatives, they care quite a bit. In the way they conduct themselves (ignoring voting), they care quite a bit. It's only the voting in which there's an obvious disconnect. Ignoring that risks applying the wrong fixes to the wrong places.
    - Octoth0rpe 2mo ago
      Voting is where the rubber meets the road. If they don't vote like they care, then they don't care for all intents and purposes.
      - voakbasda 2mo ago
        Voting is choose between two terrible candidates, neither of which represent the majority of any group’s interests. No one ever elected has delivered 100% satisfaction to the majority of their constituents.
superxpro12 2mo ago
This sure feels exactly like jury nullification
- mindslight 2mo ago
  As you don't have any of the details, you cannot judge whether this decision is congruent or incongruent with the law (ie would most impartial judges have made the same decision). There could have simply not been enough evidence to indict in the first place. Or there could have been key evidence that was excluded due to violations of civil rights, improper procedures, etc. I very recently sat on a jury for a criminal trial in which we found not guilty. After my service ended, I looked up the case docket and found several details that pushed my personal analysis to the defendant likely having committed the alleged offense in my personal balance-of-probabilities reasoning framework. But the evidence and arguments presented at the case were so lacking (due to those details having been excluded in limine, as well as needing to meet the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt) that we jurors deliberated for all of five minutes because we had started off in unanimous agreement of not guilty. (and just in case it's not clear, I have no regrets about that! Even knowing what I know now, I would have chosen not guilty - the government simply didn't meet the burden of proof, and our civil liberties are important) Getting back to this case. If we take it as a given that grand juries readily indict as the bar is low and prosecutors generally make sure to have their ducks in a row, we are still left with multiple possibilities of how politics might be involved here. Which is more likely - that the prosecution presented a well-substantiated argument that the jury then completely disregarded (ie "nullification"), or that prosecutors were politically encouraged to press this despite glaring holes in their case?
  - senordevnyc 2mo ago
    Even knowing what I know now, I would have chosen not guilty - the government simply didn't meet the burden of proof, and our civil liberties are important I admire the principled stance, genuinely, but I’m curious if your stance would be the same if someone was on trial for murdering a child, or something else horrific, and probably has a high likelihood of being a repeat offender. Would you still vote not guilty to protect their civil liberties, if you had information not shared with the jury that removed your reasonable doubt? FWIW, I’m genuinely not sure what I’d do in that situation…
kirubakaran 2mo ago
Let's call it Grand Jury Nullification

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2mo ago

> Police in Union Township, a Cincinnati suburb, accused Cody Morelock of disassembling the camera, its support pole and solar panel on June 13. To add to this, it stood out to me that the headline uses "destroy" but the article uses "disassemble" to describe what happened. Not that the act of calmly dissasembling something couldn't be indicted as potentially criminal (if a ham sandwich can be), but it stands out regardless. Maybe he literally just walked up and started unscrewing things. That would be the most civil form of "vandalism" I can imagine; force them to (pay someone to) come set it up again until they give up or try something else.

coldpie 2mo ago
The actual source article[1] mentions the equipment was destroyed. The SAN.com republication linked here dropped that detail. [1] "Investigators alleged Morelock removed bolts securing the camera system, bringing down the camera, solar panel and support pole before destroying the equipment." https://local12.com/news/local/felony-charges-dismissed-against-clermont-county-man-destruction-flock-camera-cincinnati-union-township-cody-morelock-damage https://local12.com/news/local/felony-charges-dismissed-agai...
KPGv2 2mo ago
> Not that the act of calmly dissasembling something couldn't be indicted as potentially criminal (if a ham sandwich can be) Why do you doubt this? If I calmly disassemble your car in the middle of the night, haven't I committed a crime? Where I live, calmly disassembling property that is't yours is, at minimum, vandalism: https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-28-03/ https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-28-03/ > A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner . . . he intentionally or knowingly tampers with the tangible property of the owner and causes . . . substantial inconvenience to the owner or a third person . . . . My guess is the cost to remedy this disassembly is over $2,500, making this a felony. Even if not, if a government Flock camera is considered a "public service" then it's a felony no matter the cost to remedy because it falls under "causes wholly or partly impairment or interruption of property used for . . . public communications, public transportation, [] or other public service . . ."
- bee_rider 2mo ago
  Putting aside this specific case, I wonder how that $2,500 cost is calculated? Flock owns the devices and leases them out I think. Hypothetically somebody could take the device down and put it in a nice tidy little box for them. Then the cost to remedy is… how much they charge the town to send a person out to put it back up? Or how much it costs them internally to send somebody out to put it back up? If it is the latter, I guess it must just be somebody’s travel costs and wages (could be figured out like any contractor). If it is the former, does that have to be the same cost they always charge to send out maintenance people? (Since a disassembled, not destroyed camera should be one of the cheapest issues to deal with, right?). Otherwise it seems like they could exploit the law by specifically “charging” enough to make it a felony whenever they suspect tampering.
  - KPGv2 2mo ago
    Municipal sign installation is a decent floor approximation. Can run into the thousands if it's electrified (think: blinking lights on a warning sign). Depends on availability of electricity, engineering, weather at that time, etc. In some places, a stop sign can be close to $2,000 based on some quick googling, and that has no power supply to worry about. It's always more expensive than residential bc it's publicly reachable by a million morons, and is meant to stand much longer than residential work.
arjie 2mo ago
Considering that the enterprising people suffering from unhousedness in tents are frequently described as being involved in the repair of bicycles the frames of which can be more than a month of rent, I am somewhat underwhelmed by the amount of signal in phrasal choices implying civility.
- tedmiston 2mo ago
  Is this an AI generated comment? What do any of these words have to do with a person disassembling a camera in a surveillance dragnet?
dylan604 2mo ago
Sounds like SpaceX with unscheduled rapid disassembly

Lendal 2mo ago

True, it does not say the reason for the decline to indict. It could have as much to do with the overall decline in quality of the DoJ and its cases as a whole over the past year. Many nonsalient crimes will also go unprosecuted under this DoJ, but they will not generate headlines like this one.

dredmorbius 2mo ago
The US DoJ does not prosecute in county courts. From TFA: "A Clermont County grand jury, however, opted not to indict..."
slapshot 2mo ago
It appears this prosecution was brought by local Ohio police; the federal Department of Justice would not have been involved in any way.

harimau777 2mo ago

Since Ohio is a fairly red state, I wonder if this could be a "You can food some of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." As much as I am angry at MAGA for not prioritizing my civil liberties, it does seem like conservatives are starting to notice that those in power don't actually care about conservative principles like privacy, small government, and individual liberty.

stouset 2mo ago
Conservative voters themselves have been quite clear that they don’t actually care about any of those principles either. I remain skeptical.
- lokar 2mo ago
  Or, they are convinced the other side is much worse
- hansvm 2mo ago
  The term "voter" seems relevant -- in my conversations with conservatives, they care quite a bit. In the way they conduct themselves (ignoring voting), they care quite a bit. It's only the voting in which there's an obvious disconnect. Ignoring that risks applying the wrong fixes to the wrong places.
  - Octoth0rpe 2mo ago
    Voting is where the rubber meets the road. If they don't vote like they care, then they don't care for all intents and purposes.
    - voakbasda 2mo ago
      Voting is choose between two terrible candidates, neither of which represent the majority of any group’s interests. No one ever elected has delivered 100% satisfaction to the majority of their constituents.

superxpro12 2mo ago

This sure feels exactly like jury nullification

mindslight 2mo ago
As you don't have any of the details, you cannot judge whether this decision is congruent or incongruent with the law (ie would most impartial judges have made the same decision). There could have simply not been enough evidence to indict in the first place. Or there could have been key evidence that was excluded due to violations of civil rights, improper procedures, etc. I very recently sat on a jury for a criminal trial in which we found not guilty. After my service ended, I looked up the case docket and found several details that pushed my personal analysis to the defendant likely having committed the alleged offense in my personal balance-of-probabilities reasoning framework. But the evidence and arguments presented at the case were so lacking (due to those details having been excluded in limine, as well as needing to meet the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt) that we jurors deliberated for all of five minutes because we had started off in unanimous agreement of not guilty. (and just in case it's not clear, I have no regrets about that! Even knowing what I know now, I would have chosen not guilty - the government simply didn't meet the burden of proof, and our civil liberties are important) Getting back to this case. If we take it as a given that grand juries readily indict as the bar is low and prosecutors generally make sure to have their ducks in a row, we are still left with multiple possibilities of how politics might be involved here. Which is more likely - that the prosecution presented a well-substantiated argument that the jury then completely disregarded (ie "nullification"), or that prosecutors were politically encouraged to press this despite glaring holes in their case?
- senordevnyc 2mo ago
  Even knowing what I know now, I would have chosen not guilty - the government simply didn't meet the burden of proof, and our civil liberties are important I admire the principled stance, genuinely, but I’m curious if your stance would be the same if someone was on trial for murdering a child, or something else horrific, and probably has a high likelihood of being a repeat offender. Would you still vote not guilty to protect their civil liberties, if you had information not shared with the jury that removed your reasonable doubt? FWIW, I’m genuinely not sure what I’d do in that situation…

kirubakaran 2mo ago

Let's call it Grand Jury Nullification