Hmmm. The article indicates a broken window, and further ‘medical and forensic evidence’. If the broken window was the point of access, it might indicate that a lot of the cuts sustained by the alleged intruder could be traced to the broken glass. That fact would change the entire scenario. It then becomes ‘much ado about nothing’.
You seem ti be living in some fantasy world of your own design, certainly not the reality in Canada. Why are you making all of these things up? Do you expect Canadians to believe you?
This is in Canada. You tell me. A cop finds someone in your car going through it. What are they going to do?
By the law, they need to have some very good reason to question them, How do they determine if it is an intruder, or the person has permission to be in the car? They can not arbitrarily stop and detain. However, if the owner of the car is present, or has reported the intruder, they can act. It does not matter how many officers there are on the force, they are constrained in what they can do by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If they act in contravention of this, then they are subject to complaints from the public about their rights being violated. But if an intruder gas been reported, and the officer catches them in the act, and has probable grounds, the officer will charge them. Unless they are under age. That is a completely different scenario and a different court system.
Have you ever had to can the police to report something like this?
I have never had to can a police officer. But I have called the police after the fact, the next morning, just to establish a case number for the insurance claim. There is absolutely no evidence they can collect that is meaningful, it is a waste of their time to show up. The ones that break in always wear gloves, and there is no useful evidence they can use to track down the culprit. They need to catch them in the act, or shortly after if they still have anything they stole that can be identified.