More Urbex Criminal and Dangerous Behavior

dfoo said:
If you can't see the difference between a vandal, and an explorer I feel sorry for you.
Click to expand...

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.
 
bmattock said:
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?
Click to expand...

Dear Bill,

Quite honestly, the distinction between shoplifting and armed robbery is, indeed, not hard for me to make. Your point is well made, but I think it supports my argument more than yours.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Quite honestly, the distinction between shoplifting and armed robbery is, indeed, not hard for me to make. Your point is well made, but I think it supports my argument more than yours.
Click to expand...

I believe your point was that there are degrees of gradation between criminal activity. To this I readily agree. I also submit that if one is to draw a line, the most obvious place to put it is between criminal and non-criminal behavior. Everything past that line is generally described as "Yes, Y is illegal, but at least is isn't X." I get that Y isn't X. But the first part "yes it is illegal" is actually the part where I stop when considering behavior 'acceptable' and 'not acceptable'.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Bill,

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



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.

.
Click to expand...
Can we make this another celebrated RFF poll?
 
bmattock said:
I believe your point was that there are degrees of gradation between criminal activity. To this I readily agree. I also submit that if one is to draw a line, the most obvious place to put it is between criminal and non-criminal behavior. Everything past that line is generally described as "Yes, Y is illegal, but at least is isn't X." I get that Y isn't X. But the first part "yes it is illegal" is actually the part where I stop when considering behavior 'acceptable' and 'not acceptable'.
Click to expand...

Dear Bill,

Remember that George Washington was a terrorist, trying to overthrow a legal (if not necessarily legitimate) government.

Cheers,

R.
 
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...

Trespassing on what? Buildings that no-one gives a damn about? That have been allowed to fall derelict? I don't call that trespassing!
 
bmattock said:
... But the first part "yes it is illegal" is actually the part where I stop when considering behavior 'acceptable' and 'not acceptable'.
Click to expand...

There is lots of "illegal activity" which should not be. I bet there are thousands of laws on the books in your county which are completely nonsensical in this day and age. The world is not so black and white.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Remember that George Washington was a terrorist, trying to overthrow a legal (if not necessarily legitimate) government.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Trespass is not a criminal act in the UK, which is why there is a law against 'criminal trespass' ie trespassing with the intention to commit a criminal act. You are not breaking and entering a property if the door is left open and if you do not intend to do anything illegal (although some people do seem to think photography is against the law here in the UK) where is the problem?
 
I ending my unauthorized urban exploring after a buddy and I were wandering around an industrial site that appeared to be abandoned. It was posted "No Trespassing" but the fences were mostly down and the gate to the driveway was off. About 15 minutes into our trip a rather intimadating individual emerged from the building cursing at us at the top of his lungs. A few moments later another guy on a motorcyle pulled up and went off as well. Both appeared to be bikers and our presence on site was not welcome.

I do not know if either of these guys were the owner or what they were doing on the property. I suspect we stumbled onto a meth lab. My buddy and I just left knowing that any converstaion with these guys would only increase the tension. I make this point only to provide something else to think about before entering a site that is remote and appears to be abandonded....Trespass laws may be the least of your worries.

Best regards and happy snaps,

Bob
 
angeloks said:
Wow, that's pretty rude. I'd say that you are short-minded. You can say trespassing another time if it makes you feel better.
Click to expand...

I always find it amusing when the criminals pretend as if non-criminal behavior is actually 'bad' and their behavior 'good'. Interesting redefinition. Suppose it helps them to justify their actions.
 
archive59 said:
Trespass is not a criminal act in the UK, which is why there is a law against 'criminal trespass' ie trespassing with the intention to commit a criminal act. You are not breaking and entering a property if the door is left open and if you do not intend to do anything illegal (although some people do seem to think photography is against the law here in the UK) where is the problem?
Click to expand...

Detroit, amazingly, is not in the UK. Perhaps also surprisingly, the laws are different here.
 
bmattock said:
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.
Click to expand...

"similar things"

"photographing" vs. "vandalizing"


...

If you think that is similar, I'm glad you're not a supreme justice, to put it that way. I have to admit that I'm only on my 4th year in law school, but something tells me that your statement is.. beyond ridicilous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom