The Incinerator

[Archangel7]

Looks like someone is rough on equipment and doesn't know the equipment's operational limitations.........

The skidsteer looks if stuck all winter and the trackhoe's engine is blown.

 

[Archangel7]

And if it were the same neighbour who took these photos in March, and then the photo of the incinerator in May, it stands to reason that he must have had permission to be there JMO

However, IMO this brings up the question as to why is this neighbour so interested in the equipment on the farm to be taking pics of it all?

Most men would find those two pictures laughably stupid. IMO
Someone is really ignorant/inexperienced to get in either situation.
So people who know better take pictures and go "hey wanted see something really stupid?. Get a load of this."

JMO

 

[SnooperDuper]

RE: the neighbours trespassing, I think trespassing is a charge like jaywalking in the sense that it is really hard to be charged with it. You have to be a real twit and basically threaten or insult the landowner/LE, steal something at the same time, etc., in order to get this charge.

Re: the picture, I think LE just wanted to keep it out of the media but were too late, and they are allowed to control evidence related to the case so they seized it

 

[Snoofo]

Most men would find those two pictures laughably stupid. IMO
Someone is really ignorant/inexperienced to get in either situation.
So people who know better take pictures and go "hey wanted see something really stupid?. Get a load of this."

JMO

You'd think they would have photographed the weird incinerator at the same time? Maybe it wasn't there yet. Or was it in the barn?

 

[Eldee]

The way I read the "story" is that the incinerator had been noticed before BUT it had been moved from original location and scorch marks were on the ground..... that's why pics were taken. Same with the pics taken in March of the heavy machinery working in the swampy area. Maybe pics were to show other farming neighbours- "look what the city folk are doing at the farm now" type of thing????

What were they doing in March in the swampy area? Which begs me to ask, did LE search the swamp area of the farm?

 

[Blomquist]

What I meant was if the owners of the phone that took the photo were illegally trespassing, are photos they took illegally admissible?

yes IMO I do believe they would be inadmissible having been gotten illegally.

 

[bessie]

You'd think they would have photographed the weird incinerator at the same time? Maybe it wasn't there yet. Or was it in the barn?

He purchased it last July, so it was there somewhere. Maybe in the barn.

Inside the Bosma murder suspect's farm: neighbour claims these photos were taken on Millard property in March

https://twitter.com/trevorjdunn/status/334420715669434368

 

[Blomquist]

LE could have asked for the phone, we don't really know what the situation surrounding this event is.

As for the trespassing idea, we don't really know either if anyone was on the property or took photos from a distance, or if they had permission to be on the property.
All that being said, would it not have to be the owner of the property to make a complaint about trespassers for anything to be done by LE in regard to that MOO

Actually no... I know personally of a case where police tried to lay charges because they saw someone banging on a door and then go to rear of house. LE actually followed onto the property and put someone under arrest and was about to charge with trespassing as they 'believed' that the person did not know the owner. Fortunately for this person the owners came home at that point and said they knew who it was and that they were expecting them..

Had the owner not returned when they did the charge would have been laid.
LE these days do some very strange things.........JMO

 

[SnooperDuper]

yes IMO I do believe they would be inadmissible having been gotten illegally.

I don't think trespassing would stick.

There is no fence around the fields and the land is not under cultivation and without No Trespassing signs all over, you're pretty well free to wander onto DM's property.

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90t21_e.htm

Don't assume the neighbours went to spy on DM...perhaps knowing DM was rarely there, and having heard noise the night before, the neighbour just went out to check on what was going on, really, for the benefit of DM.

They'd want to make sure a bunch of teens aren't partying in the woods and damaging things. Kids are always looking for a good spot for a field party in the country.

 

[Blomquist]

Exactly. It's even possible that the men fibbed when they said the phone was seized to avoid being hounded by the press. What's interesting are these other two photos taken by a neighbor in March. It's unclear whether it was the same man who photographed the incinerator, though it would seem to be.

https://twitter.com/trevorjdunn/status/334421765222715393

https://twitter.com/trevorjdunn/status/334422275145224192

The neighbour(s) have been busy for some time then, monitoring the farm belonging to another. IMO . What would possess someone to be continually taking pictures of machinery on a neighbours property ? I find it quite interesting too JMO

 

[Blomquist]

I don't think trespassing would stick.

There is no fence around the fields and the land is not under cultivation and without No Trespassing signs all over, you're pretty well free to wander onto DM's property.

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90t21_e.htm

Don't assume the neighbours went to spy on DM...perhaps knowing DM was rarely there, and having heard noise the night before, the neighbour just went out to check on what was going on, really, for the benefit of DM.

They'd want to make sure a bunch of teens aren't partying in the woods and damaging things. Kids are always looking for a good spot for a field party in the country.

I am not assuming anything. I think if neighbours are regularly going onto someones property and taking pictures that alone speaks volumes. Most homes that I know of don't have 'No Trespassing' signs, so does that mean that all are open to neighbours coming in to take pics? I also just posted a post explaining what happened to someone I know insofar as trespassing being alleged wrongly by police. Trespassing is trespassing....IMO

"Trespass an offence

2. (1) Every person who is not acting under a right or authority conferred by law and who,

(a) without the express permission of the occupier, the proof of which rests on the defendant,

(i) enters on premises when entry is prohibited under this Act, or

(ii) engages in an activity on premises when the activity is prohibited under this Act; or

(b) does not leave the premises immediately after he or she is directed to do so by the occupier of the premises or a person authorized by the occupier,

is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $2,000. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 2 (1)."

''Arrest without warrant on premises

9. (1) A police officer, or the occupier of premises, or a person authorized by the occupier may arrest without warrant any person he or she believes on reasonable and probable grounds to be on the premises in contravention of section 2. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 9 (1).''

Any part of Section 2 being violated is grounds for arrest according to the ''Act''

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90t21_e.htm

 

[Snoofo]

It would crack me up to ever learn the photographer/neighbour in Ayr was really just a big guy with an accent from you-know-where.

I couldn't resist.

 

[bessie]

The neighbour(s) have been busy for some time then, monitoring the farm belonging to another. IMO . What would possess someone to be continually taking pictures of machinery on a neighbours property ? I find it quite interesting too JMO

I wouldn't say they've been "continually" taking pictures. A series in March, and then the incinerator in May. I do have to say it's piqued my curiosity. What occurred to arouse their suspicions?

 

[SnooperDuper]

I am not assuming anything. I think if neighbours are regularly going onto someones property and taking pictures that alone speaks volumes. Most homes that I know of don't have 'No Trespassing' signs, so does that mean that all are open to neighbours coming in to take pics? I also just posted a post explaining what happened to someone I know insofar as trespassing being alleged wrongly by police. Trespassing is trespassing....IMO

"Trespass an offence

2. (1) Every person who is not acting under a right or authority conferred by law and who,

(a) without the express permission of the occupier, the proof of which rests on the defendant,

(i) enters on premises when entry is prohibited under this Act, or

(ii) engages in an activity on premises when the activity is prohibited under this Act; or

(b) does not leave the premises immediately after he or she is directed to do so by the occupier of the premises or a person authorized by the occupier,

is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $2,000. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 2 (1)."

''Arrest without warrant on premises

9. (1) A police officer, or the occupier of premises, or a person authorized by the occupier may arrest without warrant any person he or she believes on reasonable and probable grounds to be on the premises in contravention of section 2. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 9 (1).''

Any part of Section 2 being violated is grounds for arrest according to the ''Act''

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90t21_e.htm

Well we are not talking about buildings with walls and doors, but lands, so this would be the relevant section:

Prohibition of entry

3. (1) Entry on premises may be prohibited by notice to that effect and entry is prohibited without any notice on premises,

(a) that is a garden, field or other land that is under cultivation, including a lawn, orchard, vineyard and premises on which trees have been planted and have not attained an average height of more than two metres and woodlots on land used primarily for agricultural purposes; or

(b) that is enclosed in a manner that indicates the occupier’s intention to keep persons off the premises or to keep animals on the premises. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 3 (1).

(a) The land was no longer rented out and cultivated or used for agricultural purposes, and (b) there are no fences except in the immediate area of the barn. In fact it seems you have to declare No Trespassing in rural areas:

Method of giving notice

5. (1) A notice under this Act may be given,

(a) orally or in writing;

(b) by means of signs posted so that a sign is clearly visible in daylight under normal conditions from the approach to each ordinary point of access to the premises to which it applies; or

(c) by means of the marking system set out in section 7. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 5 (1).

...just as you have walls around your house, you have to post notice around land. IMO

 

[Blomquist]

Well we are not talking about buildings with walls and doors, but lands, so this would be the relevant section:

Prohibition of entry

3. (1) Entry on premises may be prohibited by notice to that effect and entry is prohibited without any notice on premises,

(a) that is a garden, field or other land that is under cultivation, including a lawn, orchard, vineyard and premises on which trees have been planted and have not attained an average height of more than two metres and woodlots on land used primarily for agricultural purposes; or

(b) that is enclosed in a manner that indicates the occupier’s intention to keep persons off the premises or to keep animals on the premises. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 3 (1).

(a) The land was no longer rented out and cultivated or used for agricultural purposes, and (b) there are no fences except in the immediate area of the barn. In fact it seems you have to declare No Trespassing in rural areas:

Method of giving notice

5. (1) A notice under this Act may be given,

(a) orally or in writing;

(b) by means of signs posted so that a sign is clearly visible in daylight under normal conditions from the approach to each ordinary point of access to the premises to which it applies; or

(c) by means of the marking system set out in section 7. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 5 (1).

...just as you have walls around your house, you have to post notice around land. IMO

I think this line is quite self explanatory :

''Prohibition of entry

3. (1) Entry on premises may be prohibited by notice to that effect and entry is prohibited without any notice on premises,''

JMO

 

[SnooperDuper]

I think this line is quite self explanatory :

''Prohibition of entry

3. (1) Entry on premises may be prohibited by notice to that effect and entry is prohibited without any notice on premises,''

JMO

Well you stopped at the comma, there is more to that sentence, specifically

3. (1) Entry on premises may be prohibited by notice to that effect and entry is prohibited without any notice on premises, (a) or (b).

And a and b are:

(a) that is a garden, field or other land that is under cultivation, including a lawn, orchard, vineyard and premises on which trees have been planted and have not attained an average height of more than two metres and woodlots on land used primarily for agricultural purposes; or

(b) that is enclosed in a manner that indicates the occupier’s intention to keep persons off the premises or to keep animals on the premises. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 3 (1).

So if DM were farming the land you can't go on it. If DM had No Trespassing signs, a fence or red markers up, you can't go on the land. Heck even if DM had a lawn you could not go on the land.

DM's not farming or renting to a farmer. There is no fence or marker poles or trees at the boundary between DM's farm and the neighbour's. Pretty well the neighbour is allowed to come on over.

 

[Snoofo]

Well you stopped at the comma, there is more to that sentence, specifically

3. (1) Entry on premises may be prohibited by notice to that effect and entry is prohibited without any notice on premises, (a) or (b).

And a and b are:

(a) that is a garden, field or other land that is under cultivation, including a lawn, orchard, vineyard and premises on which trees have been planted and have not attained an average height of more than two metres and woodlots on land used primarily for agricultural purposes; or

(b) that is enclosed in a manner that indicates the occupier’s intention to keep persons off the premises or to keep animals on the premises. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 3 (1).

So if DM were farming the land you can't go on it. If DM had No Trespassing signs, a fence or red markers up, you can't go on the land. Heck even if DM had a lawn you could not go on the land.

DM's not farming or renting to a farmer. There is no fence or marker poles or trees at the boundary between DM's farm and the neighbour's. Pretty well the neighbour is allowed to come on over.

Yup that's what I got out of it. This would explain why you might pass a wooded lot or other vacant land that has a "private property, no trespassing" sign, for without it I guess anyone can go for a stroll on it if it meets the criteria. Of course the enclosed barn cannot be trespassed.

 

[lanman]

Well you stopped at the comma, there is more to that sentence, specifically

3. (1) Entry on premises may be prohibited by notice to that effect and entry is prohibited without any notice on premises, (a) or (b).

And a and b are:

(a) that is a garden, field or other land that is under cultivation, including a lawn, orchard, vineyard and premises on which trees have been planted and have not attained an average height of more than two metres and woodlots on land used primarily for agricultural purposes; or

(b) that is enclosed in a manner that indicates the occupier’s intention to keep persons off the premises or to keep animals on the premises. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 3 (1).

So if DM were farming the land you can't go on it. If DM had No Trespassing signs, a fence or red markers up, you can't go on the land. Heck even if DM had a lawn you could not go on the land.

DM's not farming or renting to a farmer. There is no fence or marker poles or trees at the boundary between DM's farm and the neighbour's. Pretty well the neighbour is allowed to come on over.

I agree 100%.

 

[Blomquist]

Well you stopped at the comma, there is more to that sentence, specifically

3. (1) Entry on premises may be prohibited by notice to that effect and entry is prohibited without any notice on premises, (a) or (b).

And a and b are:

(a) that is a garden, field or other land that is under cultivation, including a lawn, orchard, vineyard and premises on which trees have been planted and have not attained an average height of more than two metres and woodlots on land used primarily for agricultural purposes; or

(b) that is enclosed in a manner that indicates the occupier’s intention to keep persons off the premises or to keep animals on the premises. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 3 (1).

So if DM were farming the land you can't go on it. If DM had No Trespassing signs, a fence or red markers up, you can't go on the land. Heck even if DM had a lawn you could not go on the land.

DM's not farming or renting to a farmer. There is no fence or marker poles or trees at the boundary between DM's farm and the neighbour's. Pretty well the neighbour is allowed to come on over.

I saw land that was not overgrown and had smaller trees..... do you mean that you think that said neighbours consulted the Trespass Act before venturing on over ? I do not think so JMO

These neighbours IMO decided they would do it regardless IMO......

Also what makes you sure that a No Trespassing Sign was not there?

Or a Private Property sign ?

 

[SnooperDuper]

I saw land that was not overgrown and had smaller trees..... do you mean that you think that said neighbours consulted the Trespass Act before venturing on over ? I do not think so JMO

These neighbours IMO decided they would do it regardless IMO......

Also what makes you sure that a No Trespassing Sign was not there?

Or a Private Property sign ?

Just, having grown up in the country, if land is undeveloped you can generally hike through it without any fear of prosecution. It's commonly understood that this is ok.

People live in the city all their lives without ever getting a jaywalking ticket and people roam the country all their lives without ever once being charged with trespassing. It's just not a big deal.

I think the neighbours were acting altruistically and checking things out for DM, to see if there was any problem. Instead they discovered
DM was the problem.