They stole it last time
I woulda been insured if the stuff was worth more. I just realized today that they took the remote for my cd player...dirty ****z!!
Im actually in cambridge now, yes very ghetto here.
50 Watt CAFz'r
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 63
Better than alarm
Dude, here is an old Russian receipe 
F****g bear trap. Put in the trunk. Make sure your chain tight. No legal complications. This is YOUR property and having armed bear trap in the trunk is not a Traffic Act violation.
Bastards.
F****g bear trap. Put in the trunk. Make sure your chain tight. No legal complications. This is YOUR property and having armed bear trap in the trunk is not a Traffic Act violation.
Bastards.
50 Watt CAFz'r
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 63
Well, that would work in Russia. In Canada an attorney/police would challenge the owner of the vehicle as of what was his intent to leave the armed bear trap in the trunk. As long as there is no intent to harm - the owner would be safe. As soon as you mention your car has been vandalized twice before - any law student would make a case proving your intent to cause bodily injury, even if you wanted just to scare them.
However by running the analogy here, if you would leave an armed bear trap in your basement while vacationing in Europe and would come back to find a dsfgsdfg dude who broke into your house and ended up in the trap - than what would happen?
The laws - are flexible and you can twist them anyway you wish as long as you have finances to keep up with billable hours your lawyer would be sending to you.
However by running the analogy here, if you would leave an armed bear trap in your basement while vacationing in Europe and would come back to find a dsfgsdfg dude who broke into your house and ended up in the trap - than what would happen?
The laws - are flexible and you can twist them anyway you wish as long as you have finances to keep up with billable hours your lawyer would be sending to you.
50 Watt CAFz'r
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 63
50 Watt CAFz'r
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 63
Case studies: Analogy with the house.
Towards the trespasser the owner has no duty to take reasonable care for his protection or even to protect him from concealed danger. The trespasser comes on to the premises at his own risk. An owner is in such a case liable only where the injury is due to some wilful act involving something more than the absence of reasonable care. There must be some act done with the deliberate intention of doing harm to the trespasser, or at least some act done with reckless disregard of the presence of the trespasser.
Towards the trespasser the owner has no duty to take reasonable care for his protection or even to protect him from concealed danger. The trespasser comes on to the premises at his own risk. An owner is in such a case liable only where the injury is due to some wilful act involving something more than the absence of reasonable care. There must be some act done with the deliberate intention of doing harm to the trespasser, or at least some act done with reckless disregard of the presence of the trespasser.
