Yea a LEO misrepresenting him/her/person self to entrap someone wouldn't go over well with a judge. Silly for them to even attempt anything like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmoose
Your right BM, right from the horses mouth...the CO's have become complaint driven. They will respond and take a boo if someone calls them.
COs here or on FB would be more likely to just read & take notes than to go to the trouble of impersonating a newbie, I would think.
Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
They've been "using the technology" for years. No doubt they check this site occasionally for bragging lawbreakers, or dumb ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by alfoldivandor
I've sent PM's to a couple people who posted ads on this site to re-sell additional doe tags or to sell last year's venison.
How would that be any different from , when a cop/leo uses the internet and poses as a young girl to entrap child molesters.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
The cops do this all the time and that's how these perverts get caught, thankfully.
Up at the hunt camp we communicate via two way radio. One of the guys mentioned that he had passed a ministry truck on the way down to his watch. One of the other guys asked if he had the dyke with him, an OPP officer. The next thing we heard " I'm not a dyke" They do monitor 2 way radios...
Moose hunters are always surprised when CO's just happen to be around after they shoot one...duh... :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Bo D
LEO "misrepresent" themselves all the time, it is called "undercover" work. No entrapment .Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
Still quite a long shot trying to get your hooks into someone that way.... unless..mmmmmm... maybe they are targeting a certain individual, say like on this forum maybe ???
Interesting...........
It's not as easy as that....and why we have judges.Quote:
Originally Posted by smokin'stoegie
Quote:
The law of entrapment in Canada is intended to prevent the police from attracting someone who is not already involved in criminal activity into committing a crime by offering an opportunity to commit a criminal act. This is known as random virtue-testing. When determining whether the police engaged in random virtue-testing, the police conduct must be assessed for its reasonableness.
Reasonable suspicion is a low standard to meet and requires proof that the individual targeted is possibly engaged in criminal activity. It is something more than a mere suspicion and something less than a belief based on reasonable and probably grounds. The facts must support the suspicion and allow for an independent judicial assessment. It is important to consider the totality of circumstances when assessing the existence of reasonable suspicion. The inquiry must consider the constellation of objectively discernable facts that are said to give the investigating officer reasonable cause to suspect that an individual is involved in the type of criminal activity under investigation. This inquiry must be fact-based, flexible, and grounded in common sense and practical, everyday experience. A police officer’s grounds for reasonable suspicion can’t be assessed in isolation.
The court has the power to stay proceedings if entrapment is established.*
That's easy Hunter orange however camo by choice most of the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowwalker
Like wolves. I am not worried about Wolves or COs. Not doing anything wrong, and I have a couple seals.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal