More Urbex Criminal and Dangerous Behavior

[bmattock]

Urbex ticks me off. Talk to them, they claim they're not the ones who do this sort of thing. To hear them tell it, they're innocent wide-eyed explorers of scenes of beautiful urban decay, providing a public service by sharing what they find with the world. From my point of view, they're trespassers and criminals, and ought to be locked up.

http://www.freep.com/article/200911...20/Video-Truck-falls-from-Packard-Plant-ledge

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Bill,

Perhaps it WASN'T Urbex photographers who did this, but common vandals. They are not necessarily the same people.

Try subdividing things a bit more: not just YOU'RE FOR US OR AGAINST US.

Cheers,

R.

 

[bmattock]

Dear Bill,

Perhaps it WASN'T Urbex photographers who did this, but common vandals. They are not necessarily the same people.

Try subdividing things a bit more: not just YOU'RE FOR US OR AGAINST US.

Cheers,

R.

They may not be the same people, but there's in the same place doing *similar* things. One groups claims to be providing a service, the others are just vandals. I'm looking for a difference here, other than the fact that one group carries cameras.

 

[Paul T.]

I love Detroit, but I wasn't aware that most of the destruction of its historic factories, theatres and libraries was done by photographers.

I was recently told about a group of volunteers who regularly check and photograph the interior of one old movie theater to record its state, so they can apply pressure on the owners to maintain the building. Should punishment be visited on them, too?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Bill,

You are conflating ALL trespassers without bothering to differentiate. Why? What is your justification?

Intellectually, this is the same as conflating the habitual jewel thief, with the jet-set lifestyle, and the man who steals a single loaf of bread to feed his starving children.

Cheers,

R.

 

[angeloks]

They may not be the same people, but there's in the same place doing *similar* things. One groups claims to be providing a service, the others are just vandals. I'm looking for a difference here, other than the fact that one group carries cameras.

I think that you definitely don't understand something here. What is similar in taking pictures and vandalism ? One group leaves the place as it was and the other destroys it. Take pictures, leave footsteps.

 

[bmattock]

Dear Bill,

You are conflating ALL trespassers without bothering to differentiate. Why? What is your justification?

The word 'trespassers' comes to mind.

Intellectually, this is the same as conflating the habitual jewel thief, with the jet-set lifestyle, and the man who steals a single loaf of bread to feed his starving children.

Is anyone starving due to lack of ability to trespass in an abandoned building? To the best of my knowledge, we're talking about people doing things because it gives them pleasure.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Cher Julien,

Super!

Amitiés,

R.

 

[bmattock]

I think that you definitely don't understand something here. What is similar in taking pictures and vandalism ? One group leaves the place as it was and the other destroys it. Take pictures, leave footsteps.

Both break in, damage fences and doors and windows to gain entry, ignore trespassing laws, ignore private property.

One takes a dump on the floor or spray-paints the walls, or pushes a truck out a window, the other takes a photo of it. I'm not seeing a major difference here.

 

[angeloks]

Is anyone starving due to lack of ability to trespass in an abandoned building? To the best of my knowledge, we're talking about people doing things because it gives them pleasure.

Go see in Packard to see what is really happening. What destroys the place are metal scrappers and they definitely don't do it for fun. I saw a few guys on drugs stealing some steel with an old pickup with no tire. God bless America.

 

[bmattock]

I love Detroit, but I wasn't aware that most of the destruction of its historic factories, theatres and libraries was done by photographers.

I'm sorry you're unaware of it.

I was recently told about a group of volunteers who regularly check and photograph the interior of one old movie theater to record its state, so they can apply pressure on the owners to maintain the building. Should punishment be visited on them, too?

If they're breaking in without the owner's permission, yes.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Both break in, damage fences and doors and windows to gain entry, ignore trespassing laws, ignore private property.

One takes a dump on the floor or spray-paints the walls, or pushes a truck out a window, the other takes a photo of it. I'm not seeing a major difference here.

Dear Bill,

I think there are those among us who DO see a major difference.

Cheers,

R.

 

[bmattock]

Go see in Packard to see what is really happening. What destroys the place are metal scrappers and they definitely don't do it for fun. I saw a few guys on drugs stealing some steel with an old pickup with no tire. God bless America.

And it's different when photographers break in as opposed to thieves breaking in because, uh, they're not both breaking in. Oh wait, they are. Hmmm. OK, I'm stumped. How is one criminal a criminal and another criminal not a criminal?

 

[bmattock]

I think there are those among us who DO see a major difference.

Yeah, I get that part.

 

[angeloks]

And it's different when photographers break in as opposed to thieves breaking in because, uh, they're not both breaking in. Oh wait, they are. Hmmm. OK, I'm stumped. How is one criminal a criminal and another criminal not a criminal?

I got arrested in Detroit and police officers DO make the difference between crackheads and photographers. I guess that you could do it as well.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Bill,

Let's try five different degrees of opposition to your absolutism.

All five perceive your absolutism as something different from their own viewpoint.

The first (me) suggests that perhaps you need to be a little more nuanced in your analysis.

The second calls you a redneck cretin.

The third spits in your face.

The fourth knocks you down and gives you a kicking.

The fifth shoots you in the stomach.

We all disagree with you. The difference lies in how we execute (as it were) that disagreement. The first and second are admittedly not batteries, though they could be assaults if you genuinely believe you are about to be attacked. Even at that, are all the batteries equivalent?

Cheers,

R.

 

[wgerrard]

Breaking in is breaking in. What you do after you commit trespass is another matter. People who break laws must be prepared to accept the consequences regardless of their motivation. Photography following trespass obviously differs from vandalism following trespass. Yet, to expect the law or the property owner to ignore trespass because that crime was followed by something innocuous or even socially beneficial is naive.

 

[angeloks]

Breaking in is breaking in. What you do after you commit trespass is another matter. People who break laws must be prepared to accept the consequences regardless of their motivation. Photography following trespass obviously differs from vandalism following trespass. Yet, to expect the law or the property owner to ignore trespass because that crime was followed by something innocuous or even socially beneficial is naive.

Oh, that is well said. I guess that sums it up.

 

[johnny9fingers]

Did they have permission to go onto private property? If yes all is well, if no, thats a crime.
If they wanted to go into your home at night and photograph you while asleep, would that be ok as long as they didn't rip out the carpeting????

 

[bmattock]

Let's try five different degrees of opposition to your absolutism.

Let's try another. A person strolls into a store and buys nothing, another buys items in that store, a third shoplifts, and the fourth commits armed robbery. Is there a difference between the third and the fourth? Sure, I can see the difference in degree between shoplifting and armed robbery. Are both different from the first two? Yes, both are breaking the law.

Trespassers who call themselves 'urbex' explorers sometimes carry cameras, but they both begin by trespassing on private property, sometimes breaking in by force. They're different from those who do not break in by dint of the fact that they took the same illegal action to start with. I concede there is a difference in degree, but just as shoplifting is not OK since it isn't armed robbery, trespassing to take a photo isn't OK since it isn't vandalism.

And frankly, I'm really not convinced that the two are that separated. I'm sure there are photographers who only trespass and take photos, but I've seen plenty of photos taken by those who wished to show off their destructive handiwork. Like pushing trucks out of windows and videoing it, eh?