More Urbex Criminal and Dangerous Behavior

bmattock said:
I do not think other people should trespass on my property. If I expect my property rights to be respected, then I feel strongly that I should support the property rights of others.

As to what evil property-owners do, that is not my right to take the law into my own hands to 'fix' their ills. The example someone gave of breaking into a theater to take photos and shame an owner into fixing it up strikes me as just that. They're not performing a public service.
Click to expand...

I think your position (setting aside the moral/ethical calculus, which I also have issues with) is untenable in the practical sense. In a city, property owners cannot have free reign. Period. The "contract" of the city for four thousand years has been: "Your neighbors will have to see and smell everything you do, so you better be a good neighbor. If you don't like that, feel free to move to Idaho/Schwarzwald/the north shore of the Dead Sea."

Property ownership is nearly always a responsibility as well as a right, and this is especially true of real estate in developed areas. If you do not fulfill your responsibilities, it is untenable to argue that you retain absolute rights. To assert such is to argue for the destruction of human civilization as we know it. Quite literally.
 
climbing_vine said:
I think your position (setting aside the moral/ethical calculus, which I also have issues with) is untenable in the practical sense. In a city, property owners cannot have free reign. Period. The "contract" of the city for four thousand years has been: "Your neighbors will have to see and smell everything you do, so you better be a good neighbor. If you don't like that, feel free to move to Idaho/Schwarzwald/the north shore of the Dead Sea."

Property ownership is nearly always a responsibility as well as a right, and this is especially true of real estate in developed areas. If you do not fulfill your responsibilities, it is untenable to argue that you retain absolute rights. To assert such is to argue for the destruction of human civilization as we know it. Quite literally.
Click to expand...

If I fail to mow my lawn promptly, the city may mow it and charge me for that service, as well as issue me a citation and take me to court. They may even have methods of seizing the property if I refuse to maintain it in any fashion.

You, my neighbor, may not mow my lawn and charge me for it, you may not issue me a citation, and you most certainly may not kick in my door to take photos of my interesting decayed wallpaper.

What rights a legal authority may assert over property owners is dependent upon circumstances and locales. I am not aware of any laws that deputize random strangers to act as agents of the court.
 
Did you ever drive 26 mph in a 25 mph zone? I f you did you have no moral compass and should be locked up!
Dude seriously did you get picked on a lot in school?
 
bmattock said:
Perhaps that would be an issue for the courts and not for urbex types?



Again, that would seem to be a legal issue that can and should be addressed by courts. In any case, I do not see urbex types doing what they do in order to highlight issues, but rather for the apparent joy of it.
Click to expand...

Do you call someone of a different race a "type"?
 
Perhaps Bill's problem here is the title of the thread, in which he might be accused of overstating his case.

Bill? Overstatement? "Surely not!" I hear you cry.

Cheers,

R.
 
bmattock said:
If I fail to mow my lawn promptly, the city may mow it and charge me for that service, as well as issue me a citation and take me to court. They may even have methods of seizing the property if I refuse to maintain it in any fashion.

You, my neighbor, may not mow my lawn and charge me for it, you may not issue me a citation, and you most certainly may not kick in my door to take photos of my interesting decayed wallpaper.

What rights a legal authority may assert over property owners is dependent upon circumstances and locales. I am not aware of any laws that deputize random strangers to act as agents of the court.
Click to expand...

You're not addressing the question I'm raising.

It's also not entirely apropros to compare houses to huge industrial/commercial properties, as there are distinct issues. But to run with your example for a second, I'll turn it around on you with a more analogous situation: If your neighbor hadn't been in his house in ten years and the yard was overrun with flora that were harboring rodents that were infesting your house and feral dogs that were biting your children, you'd sure as hell do something about it, "ownership" be damned.
 
"As I was walkin' - I saw a sign there
And that sign said - no tress passin'
But on the other side .... it didn't say nothin!
Now that side was made for you and me!

This land is your land, this land is my land
From California, to the New York Island
From the redwood forest, to the gulf stream waters
This land was made for you and me."

From one of my favorite non law abiding citizens of these great United States. I've been singing it since kindergarten so I guess its just ingrained in me and countless others here in the U.S.A.
 
excellent said:
Do you call someone of a different race a "type"?
Click to expand...

I was searching for a good adjective for 'a person who does urbex' as 'urbex' is a noun and a verb, and yet saying an 'urbex explorer' is to say an 'urban explorer explorer'. So I substituted the word 'type'. What would you prefer I use?
 
scan063.jpg
 
I would prefer you not group large amounts of "individuals" together.
As much as they all are into similar stuff they are all their own person.
 
climbing_vine said:
...you'd sure as hell do something about it, "ownership" be damned.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'd take the owner to court or pursue whatever other legal remedy I could.

Even then, we're a bit far afield of what an urbex type does. They're hardly affected neighbors, dismayed and determined to take matters into their own hands by cleaning up problems. Unless you're asserting they break in, take photos, and then paint the place and do some repairs before they go.
 
Lets compare crimes.
Factory shuts down. Leaves thousands jobless. Parents struggling to feed their children. Leaves massive factory in ruins in YOUR city to rot.

Someone explores the ruins and throws their garbage around.

If the factory was still in operation or the company had torn it down there would be no possible crime to commit. Packard left with no respect to the city.
 
bmattock said:
Since his side won, he avoided prosecution. When trespassers take over the US government and are able to establish their own system of justice, let me know...oh wait...they did. OK, point taken. The vandals are running the country too. Glorious.
Click to expand...


aaahahahahahahahahahaha. hahahahahahahahahaha. ahahahahahaha.


wait....



hahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahaha




ok


im done.


wait...


aaaahahahahahahaha.
 
Last edited:
bmattock said:
Yes, I'd take the owner to court or pursue whatever other legal remedy I could.
Click to expand...

And when the clerk rolled their eyes and said "don't call us, we'll call you, it'll be at least five but probably fifteen years" you wouldn't just go over and whack those weeds yourself?

Really?

Really?

Even then, we're a bit far afield of what an urbex type does. They're hardly affected neighbors, dismayed and determined to take matters into their own hands by cleaning up problems. Unless you're asserting they break in, take photos, and then paint the place and do some repairs before they go.
Click to expand...

Yep. I'm not making an argument that they're doing any big public service. They (we, to be frank) rarely if ever are. The point I'm making is just that (to my mind) the issue of a moral "trespass" isn't so black and white as you're saying, because the degree to which the owner is fulfilling their responsibility in ownership directly corresponds to how much "right" and protection they may expect.
 
bmattock said:
I was searching for a good adjective for 'a person who does urbex' as 'urbex' is a noun and a verb, and yet saying an 'urbex explorer' is to say an 'urban explorer explorer'. So I substituted the word 'type'. What would you prefer I use?
Click to expand...

You still never answered my question. Do you use the word "types" for people of a different race?
 
climbing_vine said:
And when the clerk rolled their eyes and said "don't call us, we'll call you, it'll be at least five but probably fifteen years" you wouldn't just go over and whack those weeds yourself?
Click to expand...

Let's say I did. I'd understand I'd be breaking the law, and if I got popped for trespassing, I'd certainly know why.

Yep. I'm not making an argument that they're doing any big public service. They (we, to be frank) rarely if ever are. The point I'm making is just that (to my mind) the issue of a moral "trespass" isn't so black and white as you're saying, because the degree to which the owner is fulfilling their responsibility in ownership directly corresponds to how much "right" and protection they may expect.
Click to expand...

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