• octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    It’s not intent to break the law, it’s intent to do what you did. If I walk out of a store with a can of tuna I didn’t pay for, that’s shoplifting, right? Well, not necessarily.

    But they did mean to take pictures of minors in the privacy of their bedrooms in the name of stopping petty theft which I’m doubtful would have occurred on any meaningful scale in the first place. Whether they meant it “criminally” seems immaterial here. I think they got off exceptionally light, and it’s a travesty of justice. You won’t convince me otherwise.

    • spongebue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      If I won’t convince you otherwise there’s not much point in discussing anything. I’ll throw out one point I mentioned in another comment nonetheless…

      From what I remember of this school district’s case, the laptops were assigned the laptops for free to use at school. If they wanted to take the laptops home, they needed to pay an additional fee for extra insurance costs. This student did not. There is a reasonable argument that the school was tracking down its missing property. Maybe you won’t be convinced otherwise, but a jury (really, a single jury member) very well could.