Κracus wrote:Right bla bla bla intent...
The intent was for the bike to be stolen.
The intent in cutting the brakes.
The intent of putting it on a slope
the intent of tying a rope to it.
But hey, bla bla bla right? Durr hurr lookit da bike teif eat dirt ha! Yeah that's what you sound like to me.
Bla bla bla trap actually...
He didn't intend for someone to steal it, so the condition of the bike and the intentions involved with that have nothing to do with it. You can't determine the actions that the individual was undertaking (he could've been going to the police stations lost property box)
He intended for someone to take it, that's it, at their own risk considering its condition. But even then that is loose in the eyes of the law because you can't determine the acts of an individual, hence why baiting isn't a crime but entrapment is... Infact I don't think baiting is even a legal term in a civil case, because you can't intend for someone to take something belonging to you, as this is a decision outside of your control. The only way this would be reasonable is if there was a sign that said 'free bike'.
Beyond that we need to consider if it was a trap or not, which, as we established it is not.
