Theft troubles | Page 3 | Homestead Security | Forums

Among the things discussed with the Sheriff's Officer that took the report was replacing the cameras with cellular game cameras.

The thing that bugs me about that option is they are sold as one cellular sim/plan per camera, and nearly no one is going to buy just one camera. It's a stupid and expensive approach. It's like having 10 computers in 1 household and getting 10 broadband Internet accounts, one for each computer. It makes NO sense!

But I found a single system that uses Wifi and a central hub that uses only 1 cellular sim/plan and supports up to 10 cameras. I'm still in the process of evaluating it, but it's looking like my best option so far. What befuddles me, is the manufacturer STOPPED making it. I can still get it online (for now), and I've checked with the manufacturer who says they will continue to support it well into the future, but it makes me weary that it's no longer made.

I need to try to find more reviews on it, but so far the reviews for this company's product appear positive.

My current phone is on StraightTalk's BYOP AT&T network so I know that I get 4G signal from AT&T out at the property. The cellular game camera system I'm looking at would use AT&T's "HSPA+" protocol which is low-end 4G (about 10 times 3G speed), versus high-end LTE 4G (about 100 times 3G speed).

My concern about the cellular aspect is connectivity, cost, and if there are any good MVNO (Mobile Virtual Network Operator) options that would give me a good data only prepaid plan on AT&T's network with a good data-to-cost ratio.

The thing which pisses me off the most is that he violated his 6-month stay for a misdemeanor trespassing conviction to commit felony theft (and more trespassing, AND destruction of property), and the authorities are (so far) letting him get away with it.

They keep making up these "Mickey Mouse fantasy what-if stories" (is what I've begun calling them) to say it could have been anyone. But to any person with an ounce of sense, the cameras were safe and undiscovered for a long time, undisturbed by the neighbor of anyone else. I have a ton of footage and the only trespassing committed has been the neighbor, his wife, and his son-in-law (The SIL has since personally apologized and said the neighbor mislead him telling him it was okay. It's stupid and naive of the SIL who's young, but STILL an adult, and there WERE signs clearly posted, AND he knew the property had been sold... The SIL said once the cable gate went up, he realized he shouldn't have gone trespassing.), and ONE drug addict so clearly stoned I think she barely knew where she was. NO OTHER TRESPASSING ACTIVITY FROM THE LONG TIME I HAD CAMERAS. And the deer skull and torn sign are blatantly vindictive and personal.

Yet according to the police and prosecutor, "It could have been anyone."

<Begin Sarcasm> Yeah, that's right, it could have been Mickey Mouse who crawled out of the television set and decided to commit some random havoc, because that's a perfectly reasonable explanation and within the realm of the possible! <End Sarcasm>

It wouldn't have even been other hunters. While the neighbor was custodian before I bought the property, he coveted and protected it all for himself very possessively. I saw that same possessiveness when I first bought the property and gave him "neighborly" permission to hunt that first season, but also gave a friend permission to hunt as well. Plenty of room for both, but the neighbor threw a fit and when they showed up, he had parked his ATV in the spot where they had told him they'd be hunting to ruin the spot for them.

The prosecutors keep whining about "burden of proof" and "physical evidence". Well I'd say the deer skull, destroyed cameras, and torn sign are PLENTY of physical evidence, and there's a MOUNTAIN of circumstantial evidence which they keep downplaying.

But when you look up "direct evidence vs circumstantial evidence", you get:

There are two types of evidence from which you can determine what the facts are in this case – direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. When a witness, such as an eyewitness, asserts actual knowledge of a fact, that witness’ testimony is direct evidence. On the other hand, evidence of facts and circumstances from which reasonable inferences may be drawn is circumstantial evidence.

Let me give you an example. Assume a person looked out a window and saw that snow was falling. If he later testified in court about what he had seen, his testimony would be direct evidence that snow was falling at the time he saw it happen. Assume, however, that he looked out the window and saw no snow on the ground, and then went to sleep and saw snow on the ground after he woke up. His testimony about what he had seen would be circumstantial evidence that it had snowed while he was asleep.

The law says that both direct and circumstantial evidence are acceptable as a means of proving a fact. The law does not favor one form of evidence over another. It is for you to decide how much weight to give to any particular evidence, whether it is direct or circumstantial. You are permitted to give equal weight to both. Circumstantial evidence does not require a greater degree of certainty than direct evidence. In reaching a verdict on this case, you should consider all of the evidence presented, both direct and circumstantial. D.C. Criminal Jury Instruction 2.109

Source: http://koehlerlaw.ne.....ce-in-d-c/

Facts may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence or by a combination of both. Direct evidence can prove a fact by itself. For example, if a witness testifies he saw it raining outside before he came into the courthouse, that testimony is direct evidence that it was raining. Circumstantial evidence also may be called indirect evidence. Circumstantial evidence does not directly prove the fact to be decided, but is evidence of another fact or group of facts from which you may conclude the truth of the fact in question. For example, if a witness testifies that he saw someone come inside wearing a raincoat covered with drops of water, that testimony is circumstantial evidence because it may support a conclusion that it was raining outside.

Both direct and circumstantial evidence are acceptable types of evidence to prove or disprove the elements of a charge, including intent and mental state and acts necessary to a conviction, and neither is necessarily more reliable than the other. Neither is entitled to any greater weight than the other. You must decide whether a fact in issue has been proved based on all the evidence.

Source: https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/200/223.html

 Translation: My mountain of circumstantial evidence IS PLENTY ADEQUATE to arrest and convict the neighbor!

 So, yeah, THAT'S whats pissing ME off.

Now some good news. Being the tenacious researcher that I am, I've learned that within days of the Trespassing court date, he also had court for dual charges of DWI/DUI and fleeing the scene. Guilty on both counts, and $1355 in fines (that I could see so far). The actual date of his arrest was Feb 17th, 2015 and I started this thread on March 10th, 2015 after he stole the first camera as retaliation after the warrant was served on him. I'll need to get the exact date that he was served his warrant, but what do you want to bet that his DUI happened just after being served the warrant.

There are records on his wife for between May 4th, 2015 and September 22nd, 2015 relating to a creditor taking her to court. I did not see what her total debt was, but I know it's cost her a combined $2961.75 so far.

On April 15, 2015, his business filed for reorganization under Chapter 13 of the federal Bankruptcy Act. I've not yet gotten the public records from the courthouse and don't know a dollar amount, but so far they're in the hole by $4316.75 for the first two, in the hole with their business enough to file bankruptcy, and they will owe me no less than $2500 for the cameras. I may not be able to use former crimes against them, but if I can catch new crimes on photos and/or video, I can use those to add to the circumstantial from the current theft which means they'll be in direct violation of their court ordered 6 month stay for criminal (misdemeanor) trespassing and will have added more trespassing, PLUS destruction of property, PLUS harassment, PLUS felony theft.

DJ Announcer comes on: "So allow me to make this special dedication and shout-out to Earthenstead's neighbor!..."

https://youtu.be/YoDh_gHDvkk

And in case you're wondering, even if his business is a sole proprietorship, no form of bankruptcy, not Chapter 13, or any other protects someone from owing debts due to acts of malicious destruction. ...Yup, I looked that one up too.