Nobody disagrees that it is vandalism. The darkerside's comment was clearly referring to the characterization of these incidents as:

> act of random vandalism or hooliganism

darkerside correctly corrects that:

> These are targeted acts

That should be obvious to anybody that read the article, which contained several statements form the people involved explaining why they vandalized the cars. Calling it "random" acts of vandalism is an extreme misrepresentation of what happened. The vandalism was done for clearly stated reasons.

I am not a lawyer but I would think that if the cars are moving in traffic during the criminal act I suspect that the criminals would get a higher charge (criminal endangerment?)