> Second thought: why arrest a guy for simple property damage? A hundred dollars damage or so. Isn't that a civil case?
First, intentional damage to or destruction of property is different from "simple property damage" and is usually criminal for the same reason other intentional acts depriving an owner of their property (e.g., theft) are.
Second, in many places discharging a firearm is generally prohibited except in specifically enumerated circumstances where it allowed. (Its a very common prohibition in urban/suburban areas.)
The article says they arrested him on some charges related to the gun and criminal mischief. It also says In addition the criminal charges, the owner may choose to pursue financial compensation for the destroyed drone.
So I wonder how you decided they arrested him for simple property damage? Do you mean to obliquely dismiss the other charges?
JoeAltmaier|11 years ago
Second thought: why arrest a guy for simple property damage? A hundred dollars damage or so. Isn't that a civil case?
dragonwriter|11 years ago
First, intentional damage to or destruction of property is different from "simple property damage" and is usually criminal for the same reason other intentional acts depriving an owner of their property (e.g., theft) are.
Second, in many places discharging a firearm is generally prohibited except in specifically enumerated circumstances where it allowed. (Its a very common prohibition in urban/suburban areas.)
maxerickson|11 years ago
So I wonder how you decided they arrested him for simple property damage? Do you mean to obliquely dismiss the other charges?
megaman22|11 years ago