My trail Cams were stolen!

Entrapment is essentially the government or its agents trying to get someone to commit a crime they wouldn't otherwise commit. Not applicable in anyway, shape, or form in this situation.

The use of some tirerippers to deal with trespassers is not illegal, and does not constitute a mantrap as it is directed against vehicles, not people. You'll see tirerippers used in many, many places, and it is legit. Also, holding someone's property that has been abandoned on your property is perfectly acceptable and lawful. In fact, it is how many companies make money (put up your hand if you've paid for parking, or recieved a parking invoice "ticket" for parking on private property without permission) and if you did it right, you could also put a lien on items left on your property if they refuse to pay.

Nail 'em buddy!
 
shawn said:
Care to post up the section that says this?

I suppose that all the ATM cameras, radar cameras and speed traps are illegal too then right?

You also should learn a little about what entrapment actually is in Canada:



http://www.irwinlaw.com/cold/term/281

http://www.thecourt.ca/2010/09/29/e...disrepute-aliu-imoro-v-her-majesty-the-queen/

The way I read it is only police or their agents can entrap someone under Canadain law.

Shawn
Click to expand...


I don't think he meant "entrapment" the way you are reading it I think he meant the laying of traps.

Criminal Code - R.S.C., 1985,c. C-46 (section 247)

Traps likely to cause bodily harm

247. (1) Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, who with intent to cause death or bodily harm to a person, whether ascertained or not,

(a) sets or places a trap, device or other thing that is likely to cause death or bodily harm to a person; or

(b) being in occupation or possession of a place, knowingly permits such a trap, device or other thing to remain in that place.

(2) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1) and thereby causes bodily harm to any other person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

(3) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1), in a place kept or used for the purpose of committing another indictable offence, is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding ten years.

(4) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1), in a place kept or used for the purpose of committing another indictable offence, and thereby causes bodily harm to a person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding fourteen years.

(5) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1) and thereby causes the death of any other person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.

If a fellow steps on that board and the screws go in his foot they could likely cause "bodily harm". Thereby meeting the criteria of 247(1), 247 (1a). I'm no lawyer but it seems like a lot of risk for a little reward to me.
 
Agreed, but the statute doesn't talk about intent, just that it is "likely to cause death or bodily harm to a person" ..
I'm not sure the charges would stick, but personally, I'd just rather avoid the chances of going to court all together.
 
Like the cops would do anything about it. They are not there to protect you or your stuff. They are there to protect the wealthy and government folks along with their own asses.

Our house was broken into 3 times. Each time the police were called. Never once did we ever hear any thing now did they even respond that they knew of or had record of the thefts. Even after I brought evidence to them of my stuff being sold at the local pawn shop that is know to everybody as a place to fence stolen goods.

If they ever start to prove their worth and being worthy of my trust then I will view them differently.
 
Bulldog said:
Agreed, but the statute doesn't talk about intent, just that it is "likely to cause death or bodily harm to a person" ..
I'm not sure the charges would stick, but personally, I'd just rather avoid the chances of going to court all together.
Click to expand...

Actually it does.

Bulldog said:
Criminal Code - R.S.C., 1985,c. C-46 (section 247)

Traps likely to cause bodily harm

247. (1) Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, who with intent to cause death or bodily harm to a person, whether ascertained or not,
Click to expand...

That is why I didn't mention this above as it does not apply, so I assumed he meant entrapment as he wrote it not as is laying traps.

Shawn
 
Bulldog said:
Agreed, but the statute doesn't talk about intent, just that it is "likely to cause death or bodily harm to a person" ..
I'm not sure the charges would stick, but personally, I'd just rather avoid the chances of going to court all together.
Click to expand...

That's my point. Why turn one problem into another where you go from being aggrieved to being prosecuted.
 
According to my lawyer, as long as the party can leave unharmed there is no problem, even if he steps on the 2x4 and hurts his foot, I'm fine. The only way I could get charged is if he dies or does not make it out on his own strength. Also, using the cameras as a security device is fine, it's no different than the cameras at Walmart. The 2x4's are an aid to deter trespassers.

If the ATV stays behind, I may confiscate it and decide if I give ot back or call the Police and settle it that way.

Personally, I don't care, I just want the prick to learn his lesson and I want my stuff back or he can buy me a new one. I live in a small community, word of ths theiving bastard will not take long to get around, something should happen or I should hear something soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom