More Urbex Criminal and Dangerous Behavior

Al Patterson said:
I do think that property rights are absolute, up to the point in various state and federal laws regarding takings. There are also responsibilities that go with rights.
Click to expand...

No, no you do not. You don't think that people have the right to present attractive nuisances. You just said so. That's got nothing to do with a taking. The state does not declare eminent domain and turn your unfenced swimming pool into a park.

I did say before, fairly clearly, that I probably wouldn't prosecute a trespasser solely for a trespass, but it is still a crime. I'd draw the line at property destruction and theft, so if you just wander around and cause no harm, one can be forgiven one's trespass so to speak.
Click to expand...

Hey, fair enough. We're not that far apart after all.

The basis of trespass laws is, essentially, the right to feel safe and secure in your place. It's expressly a psychic right--this is why it's something separate from activities during a trespass that cause actual damage, and why societies much older than ours legally recognize squatting and other related matters. I'd argue (and I'm sure there are reasonable counterarguments) that if you don't care enough about a property to repair the fence and broken windows, then you don't care enough to take any offense at someone walking through said window. And if you don't care, the law shouldn't (except maybe to MAKE you care, heh).
 
bmattock said:
Feel free to pity me as you feel necessary. I feel the same for anyone who doesn't know the difference between an explorer and a trespasser.
Click to expand...

Of course, one can be both at the same time but only one comes with righteousness undoubtedly bestowed by authority.

I was walking my dog this morning. I knew he would **** on someone's lawn quite simply because he prefers that over squatting on the sidewalk. I always clean up after my dog but this requires me to venture, uninvited, onto someone's property. I undoubtedly trample some blades of grass and am usually unable to get ALL the **** off the ground. I am a trespasser and a vandal. Of course there are bylaws that maintain I must clean up after my dog on public property but my poor habits as a dog owner inevitably lead my dog astray...

Letter and spirit and all that...
 
and now benlees because you and your dog trespassed, you are gonna turn that house into a crack house. right??? what kind of logic is that???
 
bmattock said:
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you were actually a barrister at some point? Could you point me to the section, in UK law or US, where 'stupid laws' can be disregarded whilst still on the books at the whim of those who find them stupid?
Click to expand...

There isn't a law. There doesn't need to be. In the UK, it's illegal to eat mince pies at Christmas. Most people are smart enough to tell the difference between an irrelevant law and a relevant one. Rather as most people are smart enough to tell the difference between taking a photo of a derelict building - and in effect preserving it - and mindless vandalism, two distinct behaviours you spend much time trying to conflate.

I should add that i have sympathy for the plight of your living conditions, if not for your reaction to them.
 
Roger Hicks said:
To quote the sometime Chief Constable of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Robert Mark (on certain drugs laws, as I recall, and quoting from memory), "Some laws are passed to satisfy public opinion, not to be enforced".
Click to expand...

Since laws on trespass are not a recent public hot-button topic, but actually date back to common law in general terms, I'm going to go with the notion that trespass is not one of the laws not intended to be enforced.

The complaints of certain urbex types over being ticketed for trespass on private property would appear to vidicate that statement, at least in this locality.

Others have argued that the police in Detroit are simply overwhelmed, which I'd agree with. Again, not really an argument in favor of the conclusion that trespass doesn't matter, as much as that the police actually just can't do much about it.

In fact, Detroit has recognized the problem themselves, and have gone on at length in law about the issue, both from the standpoint of the trespasser and the property owner who abandons property; even providing specific remedy to those who find themselves surrounded by such property, or those who wish to improve neighborhoods by acquiring such property and remediating the problems with it.

I only found it due to this thread, it was interesting:

http://library1.municode.com/default-test/home.htm?infobase=10649&doc_action=whatsnew and search for 'Sec. 37-2-2'

Most half-sane policemen and lawyers -- a majority, despite the opinions of outsiders -- ubderstand that statement perfectly. Those who take Laura Norder as a mistress are sometimes less realistic.
Click to expand...

From the attention given by Detroit to the problem, I am going to go with my basic instinct here and presume they mean what they say in this regard.

Where on earth did I advance the 'she was asking for it' argument? I have long been a fairly rigorous feminist, and I can only imagine adducing that argument in the most ironical sense -- which, I admit, I may conceivably have done, if you take my words far enough out of context -- but unless you can quote chapter and verse on this one, I'd appreciate a (fairly grovelling) apology.
Click to expand...

I'll do my best to satisfy. To wit: "...maybe the vast majority of people don't care QUITE as much about Laura Norder as they pretend they do, or they'd pay for more cops."

From this, I presumed you meant that if society wished to avoid the ills of trespass, they'd be willing to do more to protect themselves from it. If they fail to do so, they must actually not mind. In other words, they get what they have coming to them.

This is analogous to the 'she was asking for it' defense (I am told it is or was common in the UK, not so much in the US) wherein it is argued that if a women did not wish to be assaulted, she'd have done more to prevent it (like not tart herself up quite so much).
 
climbing_vine said:
No, no you do not. You don't think that people have the right to present attractive nuisances. You just said so. That's got nothing to do with a taking. The state does not declare eminent domain and turn your unfenced swimming pool into a park.



Hey, fair enough. We're not that far apart after all.


<snip>
Click to expand...

You appear to not remember I said "absolute, up to the point...", not to mention that rights come with responsibilities.

On a related note, I hear that the final outcome of the Kelo v. New London case is that Pfizer cancelled the project for which those houses were taken under state law, so instead of a neighborhood of small middle class houses, New London is the proud owner of a large field filled with weeds.
 
Paul T. said:
Rather as most people are smart enough to tell the difference between taking a photo of a derelict building - and in effect preserving it - and mindless vandalism, two distinct behaviours you spend much time trying to conflate.
Click to expand...

Not taking a photo 'of' a derelict building. Trespassing for the purpose of taking a photo 'inside' the derelict building. I make a distinction, and the line of that distinction is trespass.

Both mindless vandalism and urbex photography of the inside of private property have something in common - trespassing. This is the behavior which I abhor. I'm not fond of urban decay photography, but that's just a personal opinion.
 
bmattock said:
From this, I presumed you meant that if society wished to avoid the ills of trespass, they'd be willing to do more to protect themselves from it. If they fail to do so, they must actually not mind. In other words, they get what they have coming to them.

This is analogous to the 'she was asking for it' defense (I am told it is or was common in the UK, not so much in the US) wherein it is argued that if a women did not wish to be assaulted, she'd have done more to prevent it (like not tart herself up quite so much).
Click to expand...

This is a really poor analogy, which (though I'm sure you don't mean it this way) utterly trivializes rape. And gives far too much credit to the people who are the real problem here, the property owners who are leaving a city to rot that's full of real human beings who are trying to live.

They're not a girl making the choice to wear a dress and go out in public. They're destroying the lives of thousands of people in the hope of speculative profits, mostly to be gained by bribery.

And people who walk in, cause no damage and walk out--or even people who push a 50-year old wreck out a window at a place where such is just a grain of sand in the overall disorder--are nothing like a rapist. Equating the two is just beyond belief.
 
Originally Posted by bmattock
Feel free to pity me as you feel necessary. I feel the same for anyone who doesn't know the difference between an explorer and a trespasser.
Click to expand...
And is there one? Most renowned explorers of the past were indeed trespassers, in a truer sense of the word than what is debated here.
 
Al Patterson said:
You appear to not remember I said "absolute, up to the point...", not to mention that rights come with responsibilities.

On a related note, I hear that the final outcome of the Kelo v. New London case is that Pfizer cancelled the project for which those houses were taken under state law, so instead of a neighborhood of small middle class houses, New London is the proud owner of a large field filled with weeds.
Click to expand...

"Absolute up to a point" is the same as saying "extremely infinite" if we want words to keep meaning anything, but I get what you're saying.
 
climbing_vine said:
This is a really poor analogy, which (though I'm sure you don't mean it this way) utterly trivializes rape....Equating the two is just beyond belief.
Click to expand...

Then you'll understand my surprise at seeing urbex activities compared to the Civil Rights Movement, earlier in this thread. Urbexers not only weren't doing anything wrong, they were practically Martin Luther King.
 
bmattock said:
Then you'll understand my surprise at seeing urbex activities compared to the Civil Rights Movement, earlier in this thread. Urbexers not only weren't doing anything wrong, they were practically Martin Luther King.
Click to expand...

I've always sort of slid over into the corner and pulled out a book when my brethren start with that talk.

I think it's a true spirit in some cases, but there is already plenty of documentation of (for example) MCS. People mostly go in there now for some me-too time, or in more fortunate cases--as Roger mentioned--for the sincere awe of that sort of environment. That's why I do it, and I don't think it hurts anyone (and furthermore, I think we'd all be better off with a little more inspiration and a little less moralizing in defense of destructive absentee scam artists landlords)--but civil disobedience it ain't. Usually.
 
bmattock said:
I'll do my best to satisfy. To wit: "...maybe the vast majority of people don't care QUITE as much about Laura Norder as they pretend they do, or they'd pay for more cops."

From this, I presumed you meant that if society wished to avoid the ills of trespass, they'd be willing to do more to protect themselves from it. If they fail to do so, they must actually not mind. In other words, they get what they have coming to them.

This is analogous to the 'she was asking for it' defense (I am told it is or was common in the UK, not so much in the US) wherein it is argued that if a women did not wish to be assaulted, she'd have done more to prevent it (like not tart herself up quite so much).
Click to expand...

Sorry, Bill, nothing like good enough. I still await your grovel.

You draw a parallel between an indifference to trespass, or to the enforcement of other minor laws, and an invitation to rape: a serious and horrific crime, made more horrific by the way that women are commonly treated by men and by the law as property. This is deeply offensive to me and (I suspect) to any right-thinking person.

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom