More Urbex Criminal and Dangerous Behavior

I found out last week that there is a law in a nearby town that prohibits the "eating ice cream on Sundays" and for women o walk in public without petticoats..
there are alot of funny laws still in place..
 
If trespassing is against the law in the States then that is a fact. I don`t know what the penality is or whether or not the courts take into account any mitigating factors. If they do then that is a function of the courts. It is not a matter for the individual as a way of justifying what is clearly deemed to be an illegal activity.
If everyone started interpreting the law to fit in with what they considered to be acceptable behaviour you would have anarchy and probably end up not being able to have conversations such as we are having now.
 
finguanzo said:
I found out last week that there is a law in a nearby town that prohibits the "eating ice cream on Sundays" and for women o walk in public without petticoats..
there are alot of funny laws still in place..
Click to expand...

Not to mention segregation, anti-gay laws, anti-sodomy, anti-oral sex, no crossing the road with your sheep laws, etc. Its a game. The state makes everything illegal, so everyone commits a crime. The end result is, of course, predictable.
 
dfoo said:
So you are the arbiter of right and wrong? No thanks.
Click to expand...

No (forgive me Bill) he is suggesting that the law is the arbiter of right and wrong. That is the point being made.Whether we like it or not is a sep issue and if we don`t like the laws then there are legitimate avenues which are afforded us to get those laws changed.
 
Michael Markey said:
No (forgive me Bill) he is suggesting that the law is the arbiter of right and wrong. That is the point being made.Whether we like it or not is a sep issue and if we don`t like the laws then there are legitimate avenues which are afforded us to get those laws changed.
Click to expand...

But until then, we should just be quiet and take what we're served by the corrupt ruling class.

Gotcha. No wonder we threw you guys out of our country. 😉
 
Roger Hicks said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm with Bill here. A crime is a crime. If Bill and I break into your house, take pictures, and take a dump on your kitchen floor we've committed a number of crimes. And, if you entertain options 3 through 5, you are also a criminal.

Now maybe if a photgrapher just enters via an already vandalized gate, door or window, he's only guilty of trespassing, but not vandalism.

This tolerance of crime is why our civlization is in the ****ter, plain and simple.
 
Michael Markey said:
...
If everyone started interpreting the law to fit in with what they considered to be acceptable behaviour you would have anarchy and probably end up not being able to have conversations such as we are having now.
Click to expand...

Yes, no civil disobedience. Do what you are told, whether its right or not... I guess I don't have to tell you where that leads!
 
Michael Markey said:
No (forgive me Bill) he is suggesting that the law is the arbiter of right and wrong. That is the point being made.Whether we like it or not is a sep issue and if we don`t like the laws then there are legitimate avenues which are afforded us to get those laws changed.
Click to expand...

But that is crap! There are millions of laws on the books that are complete nonsense.

It wasn't that long ago that there were segregation laws on the books. Are you telling me that was right?! How about the anti-jewish laws in nazi-german times. That is, and always will be, nothing more than the call of the weak.
 
Al Patterson said:
Now maybe if a photgrapher just enters via an already vandalized gate, door or window, he's only guilty of trespassing, but not vandalism.
Click to expand...

I think that's exactly the point. The person who is only guilty of trespassing, with no aggravating factors, is totally inconsequential in terms of societal impact compared to the revered "property owner" whose claim to rights with no responsibilities contributes to the harm of tens of thousands of people, or more.

To worry about the former, which wouldn't exist without the latter, seems misplaced at best.
 
dfoo said:
Yes, no civil disobedience. Do what you are told, whether its right or not... I guess I don't have to tell you where that leads!
Click to expand...

People who engage in civil disobedience have a distinguishing characteristic. They break the law and intend to be arrested so that they can demonstrate the unfairness of that law as well as fight to have the law overturned.

Let me know when urbex types begin chaining themselves to the buildings they break into and are willingly arrested and we can agree to call what they do 'civil disobedience'.
 
Al Patterson said:
I'm with Bill here. A crime is a crime. If Bill and I break into your house, take pictures, and take a dump on your kitchen floor we've committed a number of crimes. And, if you entertain options 3 through 5, you are also a criminal.

Now maybe if a photgrapher just enters via an already vandalized gate, door or window, he's only guilty of trespassing, but not vandalism.

This tolerance of crime is why our civlization is in the ****ter, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

Also... A crime is self-evidently not a crime. Exhibit #1: Different crimes have different punishments.

QED.

Your argument needs to be refined.
 
climbing_vine said:
Also... A crime is self-evidently not a crime. Exhibit #1: Different crimes have different punishments.

QED.

Your argument needs to be refined.
Click to expand...

Behavior can be divided into two types. Criminal and non-criminal. There are gradations of criminal behavior, that is true. However, under no circumstances is criminal behavior non-criminal.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say 'crime is crime', but "a crime is a crime" is well understood and few would suggest that it means all crimes are the same in degree or punishment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom