More Urbex Criminal and Dangerous Behavior

Al Patterson said:
So if I own a derelict building it isn't actually property? And if you seriously hurt yourself therein, you won't sue me?

Yeah, right. Nonsense argument, on your part.
Click to expand...

If you owned it, why is it derelict? You don't care about your property? And no, if I hurt myself while in the property I wouldn't sue you. Nor would I sue you if I fell down inside your house, for that matter.
 
Ezzie said:
Well yes, if it looked like it had been vacated for over 50 years and you long gone.
Click to expand...

In Michigan: 750.552 Trespass upon lands or premises of another. In Detroit specifically: Sec. 38-4-1. Trespassing in vacant buildings.
It shall be unlawful for any person; except an officer, employee or contractual agent of a governmental agency in the performance of a public duty; to enter a vacant building or the property it is on without the express written authorization of the property owner, lessee, agent or trustee thereof.
Click to expand...

Apparently not OK. IANAL, but it looks pretty clear to me.
 
Al Patterson said:
For anyone who grew up being taught moral relativism, you may be right. Those of us taught the difference between right and wrong understand where I'm coming from.

Of course different crimes have different punishments. If I urinate on the side of your house should I receive the same punishment as if I stole your car, or killed someone who I thought needed it?

QED, not!
Click to expand...

If you think that different crimes merit different punishments, then you are engaged in moral relativism.

People who claim to be against moral relativism are more interested in a soapbox than a productive discussion, because they are either lying or haven't thought about what the words mean.
 
climbing_vine said:
If you think that different crimes merit different punishments, then you are engaged in moral relativism.

People who claim to be against moral relativism are more interested in a soapbox than a productive discussion, because they are either lying or haven't thought about what the words mean.
Click to expand...



The punishment should fit the level of the crime. This is common sense, not moral relativism.

If you can't tell the difference, then I want you on the jury when I commit some major crime....
 
bmattock said:
In Michigan: 750.552 Trespass upon lands or premises of another. In Detroit specifically: Sec. 38-4-1. Trespassing in vacant buildings.

Apparently not OK. IANAL, but it looks pretty clear to me.
Click to expand...

Do you really think the courts of Detroit have time for this dumb s**t? They have their hands full with real crimes. You can quote all the laws you want and pass moral judgement on all of us sinners but I would be the guy with my camera in hand a smile on my face waving to you from the third floor of an abandoned building while you were fumbling for your cell phone to report this awful crime againt society.
 
Bill- I can see some of your points insofar as to say that people into this type of thing should not complain if they are harassed- run off- arrested- injured- etc. (Not destroying things such as seen in the video should go without saying.) As with anything a little nefarious- one should understand and consider the possible consequences first- obviously. But gotta say- bro- you live in the wrong city to be soooo pissed off at people taking pictures of urban decay. I grew up around Detroit and I’m sure it’s even worse now- and well– yeah- you may be less angry living someplace else.
 
climbing_vine said:
Al will just call that an another example of the moral relativism that's destroying our nation. After all, denying the reality of human behavior is the best way to correct wrongdoing.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. If we don't teach teenagers about contraception -- better still, if we pretend that sex doesn't exist outside marriage -- they won't have sex or get pregnant.

Cheers,

R.
 
photographers dont turn houses into crack houses. this tread should be closed has nothing to do with photography. this guy has a personal issue because of something that happened on his street.
 
Wow!
Is this a record? 28 people all currently viewing this thread!!!

I think what I'm gaining from this is a sense that Bill is fairly right wing and a champion of "law and order". And if any of you are silly enough to visit any property he owned, I bet he's got a gun and would shoot you without a second thought.

But I also wonder about his position on all the military people whom he so admires and what he thinks of the atrocities many of them have been involved in in the different theatres they've been sent to - Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan? Are the participants also not criminals and should face the consequences of their crimes against humanity?
How about it, Bill? You can't have it both ways.
 
jack palmer said:
Do you really think the courts of Detroit have time for this dumb s**t?
Click to expand...

Ask the guy who got a trespassing ticket at the train station in Detroit. Apparently, yes.

They have their hands full with real crimes. You can quote all the laws you want and pass moral judgement on all of us sinners but I would be the guy with my camera in hand a smile on my face waving to you from the third floor of an abandoned building while you were fumbling for your cell phone to report this awful crime againt society.
Click to expand...

So if a city is overwhelmed with crime, it's OK to commit crimes that they are too busy to respond to. I see. Interesting perspective.

The city of Detroit is also notoriously unable to keep up with 911 calls. So by your logic, it's OK to knock over a liquor store, because the police clearly have more important things to worry about.
 
Al Patterson said:
Nope. Fred points out another reasonable law that anyone with common sense can understand.

And a quite necessary law BTW.
Click to expand...

OK , if you agree that attractive nuisance laws are good and necessary, then you do agree that property rights are not an absolute.

So, you were up on a soapbox before, not saying what you *really* believe. It's ok. Happens to all of us.

Have any interest in talking about where you think the lines can reasonably be drawn?
 
ffenc1 said:
photographers dont turn houses into crack houses.
Click to expand...

How do you know that? I've seen plenty of photographs taken by urbex types who feel free to tag the building they've broken into with spray paint and then take a photo of it - they're both vandals and photographers. And once the building has been busted into, what keeps the crack heads out? Or do the photographers wait patiently for the crack heads to break in first, so that they can stroll in later and claim not to have done anything wrong?
 
dfoo said:
There you go again. Comparing trespassing in a derelict with a hold up. Nice.
Click to expand...

It was your logic that enabled me to do so. You said it was OK for you to trespass because the police were too busy to deal with you. If that's true, then anything the police are too busy to deal with must also be OK. Not my logic, bubba, yours.
 
Everything is relative, folks. Just because a building is derelict, it does not mean that "nobody cares". I know. I own part of a building that, despite my best efforts, has been derelict for over 10 years. I dearly hope to recover it someday, and would hardly appreciate someone doing more damage yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom