Bike thief grabbed by UK Police

Harrybelafonte

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTkS2gcBF0A

Video also shows how easy it easy to simply rip a bike off its lock.

edanto

If only our Garda were as proactive as that. I've never heard of them running such a scheme.

How easy it would be - just leave a few tempting bikes around town.

Even splash out on a bait bike with concealed GPS and follow them to see where the sell/stash it.

http://www.baitbike.com/The_Bait_Bike.html

Kintarō Hattori

Brilliant- I'd love for it to happen here but it probably won't.

si_guru

edanto wrote: »

If only our Garda were as proactive as that. I've never heard of them running ...

Too true.

Even splash out on a bait bike with concealed GPS and follow them to see where the sell/stash it.

I have seen this in the UK too - on estates where thefts from sheds was becoming a problem. All the bikes were traced to a local "shop" (knacker type working from home) who swore he bought them in good faith from local kids who he suddenly couldn't remember or identify.

Dermot Illogical

edanto wrote: »

If only our Garda were as proactive as that. I've never heard of them running such a scheme.

How easy it would be - just leave a few tempting bikes around town.

Even splash out on a bait bike with concealed GPS and follow them to see where the sell/stash it.

http://www.baitbike.com/The_Bait_Bike.html

Gardai do that sort of stuff all the time. Because you never get to hear about it doesn't mean it doesn't go on. However, I would like to see more of it.

The bait bike would probably be a step too far though. Our courts have issues with entrapment.

Lumen

RT66 wrote: »

The bait bike would probably be a step too far though. Our courts have issues with entrapment.

Leaving a bait bike isn't entrapment.

Wikipedia wrote:

...there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime.

Entrapment holds if all three conditions are fulfilled:

- The idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.

- Government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving someone the opportunity to commit a crime is not the same as persuading them to commit that crime.

- The person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before interaction with the government agents.

Entrapment would be approaching a scummer and asking him to steal a bike.

tomasrojo

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

Video also shows how easy it easy to simply rip a bike off its lock cable lock.

I assume it's a cable lock anyway. I've seen other clips of a simple jerk (deliberate ambiguity there) freeing a bike that is only secured by a cable lock.

Dermot Illogical

Lumen wrote: »

Leaving a bait bike isn't entrapment.



Entrapment would be approaching a scummer and asking him to steal a bike.

No approach to a "scummer" required.
Entrapment is encouraging someone to commit a crime they wouldn't commit otherwise. Watching someone else's poorly secured bike to see if it gets nicked isn't entrapment, but leaving your own and watching it is.
They were probably going to commit one crime or another, but you've encouraged them to go for a particular one. Any solicitor worth his salt etc...

edanto

RT66 wrote: »

Gardai do that sort of stuff all the time. Because you never get to hear about it doesn't mean it doesn't go on. However, I would like to see more of it.

The bait bike would probably be a step too far though. Our courts have issues with entrapment.

It's great that they do that type of thing. But surely, the reason for doing it would be to discourage theives. And in that case, they should want to get that story into the news. They should do it in such a way that it's newsworthy - batch 20/30 summons into one dayin court and provide video/photos of the nabbings to the press.

I am stunned that the courts might consider the bait bike entrapment. It's not actually entrapement by any definition - the bike is not smeared in a substance that people find hard to resist - the bike is not purposefully parked outside a suspects house and painted in his favourite colour. The gardai are not whispering in the ear of the sc_m suggesting they steal a bike.

Web definition: Entrapment is a defense to criminal charges when it is established that the agent or official originated the idea of the crime and induced the accused to engage in it.

It's just police work, allowing the police to follow a thief to the place that other stolen bikes may be stashed or sold. It's just detective work - meaning that Gardai don't have to watch bikes 24/7 'til they are stolen. I would be very disappointed with our courts if they considered that to be entrapment.

I would be more disappointed with our Gardai if the fear of that unlikely judgement discouraged them from pro-actively attacking bike crime.

edanto

RT66 wrote: »

Watching someone else's poorly secured bike to see if it gets nicked isn't entrapment, but leaving your own and watching it is.

No way. If watching your secured property could in any way be considered encouraging someone to steal it, then the entire CCTV industry would struggle for prosecutions.

Do you have any court cases you can refer to where something like the bait bike has been considered entrapment and the solicitor has gotten the scobe off the charge?

mcmoustache

Seamus, your legal opinions are required in the Cycling Forum.

Seamus to the Cycling forum, please.

DirkVoodoo

Yes, I would have thought it is like Lumen said, i.e. it has to be direct enticement and suggestion.

Otherwise, surely forgetting to lock your front door or leaving your car window slightly rolled down could be considered entrapment?

"Oh, I wasn't going to rob the house your honor, but when I saw the door was unlocked I decided that it was the owner encouraging me to do it. Case dismissed, surely?"

goldencleric

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Yes, I would have thought it is like Lumen said, i.e. it has to be direct enticement and suggestion.

Otherwise, surely forgetting to lock your front door or leaving your car window slightly rolled down could be considered entrapment?

"Oh, I wasn't going to rob the house your honor, but when I saw the door was unlocked I decided that it was the owner encouraging me to do it. Case dismissed, surely?"

Surely entrapment only applies to law enforcement agencies.

Perhaps the Gardaí could move the operation to a third party agency ... for example boards.ie cycling forum

Lusk Doyle

Anyone have a number for Sean connery or Catherine zeta Jones Douglas?

Dermot Illogical

edanto wrote: »

No way. If watching your secured property could in any way be considered encouraging someone to steal it, then the entire CCTV industry would struggle for prosecutions.

Do you have any court cases you can refer to where something like the bait bike has been considered entrapment and the solicitor has gotten the scobe off the charge?

I'm talking from the Garda point of view. Gardai can't go around leaving bait to catch criminals. For example, you (as a garda) can't leave a bag of hash lying around and then charge the person who picks it up with possession.

With the bait bike the temptation would be to leave it less secure than the bikes around it to ensure that it would be stolen. The file would never get past the DPP in all probability. In fact, it probably wouldn't get that far. Garda management would probably kill it.

A householder or business setting up cctv is entirely different. As is a householder accidentally leaving their home insecure and finding it gets burgled.
Leaving it insecure, and setting up a camera, in an attempt to induce the spotty kid with a habit who lives next door probably won't result in a conviction though.

As for court cases? I don't know of any, and can't imagine one like it ever making it as far as a courtroom here.

The preferred method is the one in the video. Find out where the problem is and go watch it. A bit more time-consuming, but it works.
There's enough crime out there without encouraging more tbh.

edanto

I don't feel like your examples are suitable. Hash is illegal, bikes aren't.

In the video - the officers had a weakly secured bike (since it was so easy to pull away), they were watching it. I'm glad we agree that's not entrapment.

I'm just suggesting that instead of having 2 officers watching one bike until someone steals it (which could take weeks of 24h cover), that the investigative unit buys some bikes with GPS trackers (let's stop calling them bait bikes).

They leave out the 4/5 bikes, wait until one starts moving and then follow and observe. That monitoring can be semi-automated, with an operator alerted by SMS/email and then the following/observing done by whoever happens to be on duty.

Much more cost-effective, and in no way like entrapment. If having officers watch a bike waiting for it to be stolen isn't entrapment (as we've agreed), then having a piece of software do the very same thing isn't either.

Dermot Illogical

edanto wrote: »

I don't feel like your examples are suitable. Hash is illegal, bikes aren't.

In the video - the officers had a weakly secured bike (since it was so easy to pull away), they were watching it. I'm glad we agree that's not entrapment.

I'm just suggesting that instead of having 2 officers watching one bike until someone steals it (which could take weeks of 24h cover), that the investigative unit buys some bikes with GPS trackers (let's stop calling them bait bikes).

They leave out the 4/5 bikes, wait until one starts moving and then follow and observe. That monitoring can be semi-automated, with an operator alerted by SMS/email and then the following/observing done by whoever happens to be on duty.

Much more cost-effective, and in no way like entrapment. If having officers watch a bike waiting for it to be stolen isn't entrapment (as we've agreed), then having a piece of software do the very same thing isn't either.

Don't like hash as an example? OK, try cash instead. Leave bags of it around and charge anyone who takes it with larceny?

In the video example I don't see a problem, unless the owner of the bike appears in court and happens to be one of the officers. Then there's a fight on in court if it gets that far. Why? Because they can be accused of leaving a high-value item weakly secured in the hope of enticing some weak-willed down-on-his-luck citizen to steal it, thereby creating a crime that wouldn't otherwise have existed. On the other hand, if they saw an insecure high-value item (left by someone else) and watched to see what happened? Only doing their jobs.

And we didn't agree anything*. Just cuz you say it doesn't mean there was any agreement. So far I can't think of anything you've posted that I'd agree with.

* "Find out where the problem is and go watch it." does not equal "having officers watch a bike waiting for it to be stolen". It might seem to you that there's little difference in meaning, but to me there's a gulf.

Lumen

RT66 wrote: »

Don't like hash as an example? OK, try cash instead. Leave bags of it around and charge anyone who takes it with larceny?

If the cash is locked to a Sheffield stand, yes.

edit: except that the crime of larceny was abolished in 2002.

edanto

@rt66

The bike in the video was a bait bike - I just presumed you knew that. So, we can assume that the UK cops don't feel this is entrapment.

In the video example I don't see a problem, unless the owner of the bike appears in court and happens to be one of the officers.

From the Youtube video:
Undercover officers from the cycle theft task team put the covert capture bike out in Bristol City Centre and catch a thief red handed after he literally pulls the bike off the rack.

I'll be speaking later with the Garda doing the paperwork on my stolen bike and I'll ask him what he thinks. Would be interesting to have the opinion of an actual Garda instead of us two just going back and forward. You initially sounded rather knowledgable (Gardai do that sort of stuff all the time.), but I don't want to ask you if you are actually a Garda and we've not been able to find any relevant court cases.

Irish Times wrote:

A Garda stolen-bike unit established in May 2005 no longer exists, and gardaí on the beat tackle the issue like any other form of street crime.

Dermot Illogical

edanto wrote: »

@rt66

The bike in the video was a bait bike - I just presumed you knew that. So, we can assume that the UK cops don't feel this is entrapment.



From the Youtube video:
Undercover officers from the cycle theft task team put the covert capture bike out in Bristol City Centre and catch a thief red handed after he literally pulls the bike off the rack.

I'll be speaking later with the Garda doing the paperwork on my stolen bike and I'll ask him what he thinks. Would be interesting to have the opinion of an actual Garda instead of us two just going back and forward. You initially sounded rather knowledgable (Gardai do that sort of stuff all the time.), but I don't want to ask you if you are actually a Garda and we've not been able to find any relevant court cases.

I hadn't looked at the video outside the embedded player, so hadn't read that - just watched the vid. Apologies for the crossed-purposes.

It doesn't change anything about my point though. Did it result in a conviction, or is it PR? As PR it's very good. But my point is that it's probably not going to wash in a court, at least not in a court here. Which means the thief walks free and everyone's time has been wasted (aside from the entertainment value of the video of course).

youcancallmeal

The guards need to do a few of these baits and video them. Regardless of whether they lead to convictions the resulting video would probably go viral and may give bike thieves cause to sit up and take notice.

Undercover Elephant

RT66 wrote: »

Entrapment is encouraging someone to commit a crime they wouldn't commit otherwise. Watching someone else's poorly secured bike to see if it gets nicked isn't entrapment, but leaving your own and watching it is.
They were probably going to commit one crime or another, but you've encouraged them to go for a particular one. Any solicitor worth his salt etc...

Nonsense.

Dermot Illogical

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

Nonsense.

That's it? Care to elaborate, or is that the limit of your contribution?
Perhaps you have a different definition or interpretation of entrapment that you'd like to share?

niceonetom

RT66 wrote: »

That's it? Care to elaborate, or is that the limit of your contribution?
Perhaps you have a different definition or interpretation of entrapment that you'd like to share?

In fairness your misinterpretation of what the word "entrapment" means has already been shown and corrected in this thread and in the link above to wikipedia.

Canis Lupus

RT66 wrote: »

That's it? Care to elaborate, or is that the limit of your contribution?
Perhaps you have a different definition or interpretation of entrapment that you'd like to share?

I think 'nonsense' was fairly accurate and required no explanation.

mcgarrett

You also need an injured party for theft.

Undercover Elephant

mcgarrett wrote: »

You also need an injured party for theft.

No you don't.

Khannie

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

No you don't.

I'm confused. Can you give an example there?

jinkypolly

There's no way that can be considered as entrapment. The coppers are not instigating a crime or encouraging someone to commit one, they have no connection whatsoever with the would be criminal, they have merely left an item and monitored it. Would Eircom PhoneWatch be considered guilty of entrapment if they catch a house burglar?

Undercover Elephant

Khannie wrote: »

I'm confused. Can you give an example there?

The definition of theft is

a person is guilty of theft if he or she dishonestly appropriates property without the consent of its owner and with the intention of depriving its owner of it

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/act/pub/0050/sec0004.html

So it's still theft even if the property has no value, or the owner didn't even know it was missing, or (as here) is deliberately using it as bait to catch habitual criminals. As long as the other elements are there, of course.

Dermot Illogical

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

The definition of theft is

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/act/pub/0050/sec0004.html

So it's still theft even if the property has no value, or the owner didn't even know it was missing, or (as here) is deliberately using it as bait to catch habitual criminals. As long as the other elements are there, of course.

Owner = Injured Party.

Undercover Elephant

RT66 wrote: »

Owner = Injured Party.

Not necessarily.

Suppose Wayne steals Kevin's bike, and then Tyler steals it again from Wayne's shed. You'd have to be a pretty enthusiastic lawyer to find any "injury" in the theft by Tyler - the bike has already gone from Kevin, and Wayne doesn't own it. But it is still theft.

See, the problem here is people making up legal concepts as they go along. It doesn't work like that. You have to read the words of the statute and then, and only then, can you start finding special reasons why it doesn't apply.

For example, there's a specific public policy reason for the entrapment defence - it is bad for public order if the people who are supposed to enforce it go around creating more criminal activity. But that's as far as it goes. There's no compelling reason for not locking up scumbags just because there's an element of staging of the situation in which those scumbags engage in criminal activity of their own volition. The similarity is purely superficial when you understand the underlying concept.

Dermot Illogical

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

Not necessarily.

Suppose Wayne steals Kevin's bike, and then Tyler steals it again from Wayne's shed. You'd have to be a pretty enthusiastic lawyer to find any "injury" in the theft by Tyler - the bike has already gone from Kevin, and Wayne doesn't own it. But it is still theft.

See, the problem here is people making up legal concepts as they go along. It doesn't work like that. You have to read the words of the statute and then, and only then, can you start finding special reasons why it doesn't apply.

For example, there's a specific public policy reason for the entrapment defence - it is bad for public order if the people who are supposed to enforce it go around creating more criminal activity. But that's as far as it goes. There's no compelling reason for not locking up scumbags just because there's an element of staging of the situation in which those scumbags engage in criminal activity of their own volition. The similarity is purely superficial when you understand the underlying concept.

The bike is Kevin's. He's the injured party no matter how many thieves fight over it, and no matter how many people make up concepts as they go along.
Wayne is a burglary victim, as well as being a thief.

Undercover Elephant

RT66 wrote: »

The bike is Kevin's. He's the injured party no matter how many thieves fight over it, and no matter how many people make up concepts as they go along.
Wayne is a burglary victim, as well as being a thief.

At the risk of repeating myself, "injured party" is meaningless in the case of a theft. And at the risk of saying something vaguely on-topic, the absence of an "injury" (see the original post I was responding to) is not a defence to a charge of theft.

youcancallmeal

Yawn, this thread started out so promising

El.duderino

Big nose dive thread

Its sad to think that you cant own and use a modest bicycle in our citys and towns.

More Garda resources are needed to curb the problem. Truth be told that is not going to happen anytime soon. Money is being stripped from budgets. Alot of cops are close to retiring. Numbers are falling etc etc. Curious to what these retiring guards will do.

I could Way off topic here but

Set-up these retires with a flask of hot black and an iron bar wrapped up in a sun newspaper. Old-school policing! TV3 will fund it.

You served your Country as a member of the Garda Sichaloanies. Now give your country the final salute by joining.

BIKE SQUAD!
Cue Cheezy soundtrack and a Topaz donut run. (Somethings never change)

Dermot Illogical

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

At the risk of repeating myself, "injured party" is meaningless in the case of a theft. And at the risk of saying something vaguely on-topic, the absence of an "injury" (see the original post I was responding to) is not a defence to a charge of theft.

Nonsense.

Owner is in the definition of theft under the 2001 act. Ownership is therefore a fundamental proof of the charge. An owner is required to prove that the property wasn't legitimately in the possession of the accused.
Before the 2001 act, it was possible to convict under the Larceny Act for receiving stolen goods. No owner was required for that conviction, just proof that the accused himself believed the property to be stolen iirc.