James D
-
If my respect and politeness offends you, then please forgive me but I had it from my parents.
I stated my opinion.
If you others want to force doors and climb over/under fences, "knock yourselves out". old American proverb.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear James,
Your respect and politeness do not offend me for an instant, but I am mightily depressed by an attitude which assumes, in effect, that 'They' (unspecified authority figures) always know best and should be obeyed unquestioningly. I am as implacable in my opposition to craven acceptance of all laws, right or wrong, as Bill is in his beliefs about private property.
I am much happier with what the late Lord Denning, former Master of the Rolls, descrbed as 'the sturdy answer' so beloved of a certain type of Englishman, namely "'Oo says I can't?"
Cheers,
Roger
david.elliott
Well-known
I don't know that it is necessarily that. After all, laws do change and they move with society's views (or most usually, behind / after them).
But when you trespass here, you run the risk of
-criminal liability
-civil liability
-getting shot or suffering serious bodily harm (unfortunately, I am quite certain that Bill's attitude is none too uncommon)
-injury from rotted floorboards, dealers in the abandoned bulidings, etc
Even assuming that the photos make the trespass worth it from an artistic point of view. In no way would it, to me, be worth the risk to my personal safety that I would incur. Further, it wouldn't be worth the risk that I might serve jail time, have to pay a fine, or have the commission of a criminal act noted on my permanent record. Further, even if there was no actual damage to the property, there are plenty of landowners here who will sue you and make you go through the EXPENSIVE litigation process knowing full well that they will at most recover nominal damages - just so that you have to pay your own litigation fees.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear David,
I fully take your points, including the one about vindictive landowners with nothing better to do than to waste their money on law-suits, but first, the original question does not deal with the United States (from which the most strident opposition has for the most part come) and second, I remain less than convinced that the first of your list of risks (criminal liability) is real, even in the United States.
This may simply be because I come from a liberal European tradition, and cannot believe that there is normally a significant risk of criminal prosecution for the kind of trespass described, but it is also to some extent because I have a law degree and know that in the UK, many people (perhaps most) have a totally false idea about criminal trespass and imagine that one can be prosecuted for acts which would give rise only to civil liability. I therefore suspect it may be the same in the United States (I lived in California for a few years and took a modest interest in both the state and federal the legal systems).
Are you a practising lawyer? I say this not to be combative -- after all, I'm not a practising lawyer myself -- but are you confident as a lawyer that criminal prosecution is likely? I should be extremely grateful if there are any practising or recently retired lawyers in any of the several jurisdictions of the States who could give an authoritative answer on this.
It is also worth adding that I come from a tradition in which costs, in a court case, are commonly awarded against those who bring frivolous or vexatious suit, i.e they may get nominal damages but they will also pay both sides' legal costs. This has always struck me as an excellent idea.
Finally, I'll go back to something I said earlier. Take what you want, and pay for it, saieth the Lord. The OP was asking for accounts of others' opinions and experiences. He's had quite a lot of both. It does look as though most Europeans are a lot more relaxed about this than most Americans, and that in Europe, the risks are widely agreed to be fairly minor. He's a big boy and can make up his own mind; and if this thread has revealed to some who have advised him against his proposed course of action that there are alternatives to criminal trespass and shooting people, well, that's probably to the good too.
Cheers,
R.
I fully take your points, including the one about vindictive landowners with nothing better to do than to waste their money on law-suits, but first, the original question does not deal with the United States (from which the most strident opposition has for the most part come) and second, I remain less than convinced that the first of your list of risks (criminal liability) is real, even in the United States.
This may simply be because I come from a liberal European tradition, and cannot believe that there is normally a significant risk of criminal prosecution for the kind of trespass described, but it is also to some extent because I have a law degree and know that in the UK, many people (perhaps most) have a totally false idea about criminal trespass and imagine that one can be prosecuted for acts which would give rise only to civil liability. I therefore suspect it may be the same in the United States (I lived in California for a few years and took a modest interest in both the state and federal the legal systems).
Are you a practising lawyer? I say this not to be combative -- after all, I'm not a practising lawyer myself -- but are you confident as a lawyer that criminal prosecution is likely? I should be extremely grateful if there are any practising or recently retired lawyers in any of the several jurisdictions of the States who could give an authoritative answer on this.
It is also worth adding that I come from a tradition in which costs, in a court case, are commonly awarded against those who bring frivolous or vexatious suit, i.e they may get nominal damages but they will also pay both sides' legal costs. This has always struck me as an excellent idea.
Finally, I'll go back to something I said earlier. Take what you want, and pay for it, saieth the Lord. The OP was asking for accounts of others' opinions and experiences. He's had quite a lot of both. It does look as though most Europeans are a lot more relaxed about this than most Americans, and that in Europe, the risks are widely agreed to be fairly minor. He's a big boy and can make up his own mind; and if this thread has revealed to some who have advised him against his proposed course of action that there are alternatives to criminal trespass and shooting people, well, that's probably to the good too.
Cheers,
R.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
I have the legal right where I live (Florida, USA) to put a bullet through your head if I find you uninvited in my house, making me feel that my life was in danger. I've also read that it's best to make sure the bullet kills you. If I merely wound you then you can complicate my life with your side of the story.
In all the confusion, the house aswarm with police and paramedics, I could probably keep that bag full of aspheric lenses and your two M8 bodies as well.
hmmmm! When are you coming over? The window next to the rear porch is never locked...
In all the confusion, the house aswarm with police and paramedics, I could probably keep that bag full of aspheric lenses and your two M8 bodies as well.
hmmmm! When are you coming over? The window next to the rear porch is never locked...
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Al,
Yes, this is the doctrine of 'reasonable force'. One the leading cases on it in the UK was about 200-300 years ago. Someone heard a noise in the kitchen; went down, poking about with his sword under tables and behind curtains; and ran through (and killed) his kitchen maid's boyfriend (as I recall). He was held to have used reasonable force, though as I said earlier, this doctrine has been somewhat vitiated in the ensuing centuries.
But -- and this is important -- we are not talking here about inhabited houses, with householders in fear of their lives, so your example is, in fact, completely irrelevant. In the OP's example, we'd need an armed security guard in fear of his life: not outstandingly likely in a disused psychiatric hospital.
The point made about Double Negative about landowners' fears of being sued by trespassers is, in my view, very important; but unfortunately, it is another symptom of a grievously defective legal system.
You might also care to Google 'attractive nuisance' for another aspect of torts and liability. The law often displays far more common sense than most people realize.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Criminal trespass, Texas Penal Code, Section 30.05: A person commits an offense if he enters or remains on or in property, including an aircraft or other vehicle, of another without effective consent or he enters or remains in a building of another without effective consent and he:
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.
Texas because it's the first I came across: http://en.allexperts.com/q/Careers-Police-1531/terminology-1.htm
Or for Arizona:
13-1502 Criminal trespass in the third degree; classification
A. A person commits criminal trespass in the third degree by:
1. Knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully on any real property after a
reasonable request to leave by the owner or any other person having lawful control over
such property, or reasonable notice prohibiting entry.
2. Knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully on the right-of-way for tracks, or
the storage or switching yards or rolling stock of a railroad company.
B. Criminal trespass in the third degree is a class 3 misdemeanor.
http://www.helplinelaw.com/usa-statutes/arizona/Criminal Code/CRIMINAL%
All right, it looks as though criminal trespass is indeed more popular (as it were) in the USA than elsewhere, but even so, how many people are REALLY going to be prosecuted for this sort of misdemeanour, unless the cop is seriously pissed off at them?
Note too that the higher degrees of criminal trespass normally specify dwelling houses or occupied buildings and (in some cases) the carrying of weapons.
Cheers,
R.
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.
Texas because it's the first I came across: http://en.allexperts.com/q/Careers-Police-1531/terminology-1.htm
Or for Arizona:
13-1502 Criminal trespass in the third degree; classification
A. A person commits criminal trespass in the third degree by:
1. Knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully on any real property after a
reasonable request to leave by the owner or any other person having lawful control over
such property, or reasonable notice prohibiting entry.
2. Knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully on the right-of-way for tracks, or
the storage or switching yards or rolling stock of a railroad company.
B. Criminal trespass in the third degree is a class 3 misdemeanor.
http://www.helplinelaw.com/usa-statutes/arizona/Criminal Code/CRIMINAL%
All right, it looks as though criminal trespass is indeed more popular (as it were) in the USA than elsewhere, but even so, how many people are REALLY going to be prosecuted for this sort of misdemeanour, unless the cop is seriously pissed off at them?
Note too that the higher degrees of criminal trespass normally specify dwelling houses or occupied buildings and (in some cases) the carrying of weapons.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
There's a line in a David Bowie song from that amazing album ... 'Ziggy Stardust and The Spiders From Mars':
"The music comes up better on a stolen guitar!"
I always find that images gained from trespassing have something special ... not to mention the slight adrenalin rush you get when you are taking them and get discovered!
"The music comes up better on a stolen guitar!"
I always find that images gained from trespassing have something special ... not to mention the slight adrenalin rush you get when you are taking them and get discovered!
Last edited:
James D
-
I think that if you have to check in a law book before committing trespass, this should tell you something.
And those of you who say "go for it, but don't get caught" could be cited as accessories before the fact, no?
I'm not a lawyer, just a law abiding citizen.
And those of you who say "go for it, but don't get caught" could be cited as accessories before the fact, no?
I'm not a lawyer, just a law abiding citizen.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I think that if you have to check in a law book before committing trespass, this should tell you something.
And those of you who say "go for it, but don't get caught" could be cited as accessories before the fact, no?
I'm not a lawyer, just a law abiding citizen.
A little 'civil disobedience' doesn't go astray IMO ... if it does no real harm!
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I think that if you have to check in a law book before committing trespass, this should tell you something.
And those of you who say "go for it, but don't get caught" could be cited as accessories before the fact, no?
I'm not a lawyer, just a law abiding citizen.
Dear James,
For the first highlight: Yes. It tells you what the law is. What else is it going to tell you?
For the second: Clearly.
There is a difference between being a law-abiding citizen, and obeying every command unquestioningly. It is in the interest of anyone in authority that those who are not in authority should accept all laws without demur; it is in the interest of a free society that those laws (and the interests of those who are in authority) should be questioned and tested from time to time.
Cheers,
R.
James D
-
Well simply reaching for the book tells me that one is about to do something unlawful and want to see if the possible punishment might be worth it.
If I don't like or agree with a particular law I would try to change the law, rather than break it. I prefer democracy to anarchy.
Good day to you.
bmattock
Veteran
Abandoned buildings do not come equipped with security guards, which I believe the O/P mentioned. Who would pay the security guard, if there is no longer an owner of the property?
Perhaps not abandoned, then.
sanmich
Veteran
While meeting with a very nice RFFer for the first time I recently found myself into the old train station in Detroit (Bill may know it).
in short:
1- The sight is impressive, but I wouldn't say that I love that kind of photography.
2- I was much more concerened about being killed by the ceiling falling apart or to fall into a trench in the dark than about anything else. I'm a coward with a family, and really, no picture is worthy of being wounded or killed. I have photographed in dangerous situations but I had to be there in the first place, (and would have loved to be somewhere else).
3- The sense of "trespassing" was low. No "private" property involved, no owner living there, etc.
For those who say: "breaking the law is bad, don't do it", do you really think that you respect all the laws all the time? I am sure all of us, as willing to keep the law as we are (I am), have found ourselve is situations where a small infrigement of the law was required to do something that seemed important to us , and we did it. Should I drive 10 more miles in the middle of a desert just because I don't want to cut a line on a road? should I pass a truck only at the speed limit even if that's dangerous? etc. All these are laws aren't they?
Now about the possibility of being arrested, even if I don't believe anyone would have sued, I must say that I would not like to go through the whole arrestation experience just to take pictures of a place.
In short, putting myself in your shoes I would ask myself for each and every building I enter: Do I really think the pictures from this place are worthy, and what are the chances to find myself in real trouble (arrested for a time or seriously wounded).
Of course if all you are after is the adrenalin...
in short:
1- The sight is impressive, but I wouldn't say that I love that kind of photography.
2- I was much more concerened about being killed by the ceiling falling apart or to fall into a trench in the dark than about anything else. I'm a coward with a family, and really, no picture is worthy of being wounded or killed. I have photographed in dangerous situations but I had to be there in the first place, (and would have loved to be somewhere else).
3- The sense of "trespassing" was low. No "private" property involved, no owner living there, etc.
For those who say: "breaking the law is bad, don't do it", do you really think that you respect all the laws all the time? I am sure all of us, as willing to keep the law as we are (I am), have found ourselve is situations where a small infrigement of the law was required to do something that seemed important to us , and we did it. Should I drive 10 more miles in the middle of a desert just because I don't want to cut a line on a road? should I pass a truck only at the speed limit even if that's dangerous? etc. All these are laws aren't they?
Now about the possibility of being arrested, even if I don't believe anyone would have sued, I must say that I would not like to go through the whole arrestation experience just to take pictures of a place.
In short, putting myself in your shoes I would ask myself for each and every building I enter: Do I really think the pictures from this place are worthy, and what are the chances to find myself in real trouble (arrested for a time or seriously wounded).
Of course if all you are after is the adrenalin...
angeloks
Well-known
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pekdeche/sets/72157603888158737/
Well, I've been doing a lot of this so called 'Urban Exploration' thing. I got arrested once in Detroit, handcuffed, etc... but they just let us go after an hour. As long as you have a camera and nothing else, there should be no real problem.
Well, I've been doing a lot of this so called 'Urban Exploration' thing. I got arrested once in Detroit, handcuffed, etc... but they just let us go after an hour. As long as you have a camera and nothing else, there should be no real problem.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear James,
No, reaching for the law book tells me that I want to know what the law actually is. Not what you or I or anyone else thinks, fears or believes it may be, but what it actually is.
I'll do a little reductio ad absurdum of my own here. I have a law degree. Whenever I reached for a law book in the course of my studies, did that mean I was about to do something unlawful? (Pause for lawyer jokes).
Your attitude displays the absolutist streak so prevalent in this thread. Do you sincerely believe that going into an abandoned building to take pictures is a short-cut to anarchy? Because there are a lot worse things than that...
Your attitude also displays, to me, given my citizenship, upbringing, travels, education, etc., an unhealthy willingness to bow before authority.
Cheers,
R.
vmlopes
Member
I have been urbexing for a few years now in the UK, recently taking my Leica along also..........dont ever break and enter, there is always a way in without force..........up, over under etc. you would be surprised.............its really all I photograph.
Like others have said before its not a crminal offence in the UK.
Have a look on my flickr for some Urbex shots with the M4 http://www.flickr.com/photos/ajj_photography/
Like others have said before its not a crminal offence in the UK.
Have a look on my flickr for some Urbex shots with the M4 http://www.flickr.com/photos/ajj_photography/
bmattock
Veteran
Only in a metaphorical sense; certainly not literal. But it is a phrase one often finds oneself using, "That movie was the worst ever!"
In the metaphorical sense, however, Urbex does represent (to me) an example of the sort of crime I abhor - casual indifference to the law, casual disrespect of the property of others, and lawbreaking as banal entertainment.
A robber, I understand. A rapist, perhaps. A murderer, depending upon the circumstances. Of course I do not condone them, but I understand their motivations, as well as their purpose. I cannot fathom what motivates a person to entertain themselves by trespassing on the property of others for the simple reason that they're curious or wish to be cheered on by others of their kind. I find it curious as well that those who urge respect for the law (not to mention respect for each other's rights) are held to ridicule by those who would jeer at property rights. Are these the same people who are shocked when a photographer takes a photograph of a person in public without that person's permission?
As you noted, laws and mores in the USA and Europe are different on the subject of property rights. And perhaps it is meet to mention once again that the USA is not Europe, and I for one am glad of it.
One might also note that as the right to take street photographs of persons in public fades in both the USA and Europe, it is Europe that is leading that particular trend. An interesting juxtaposition, eh? The US defends the right to take photographs of anyone, at anytime, who happens to be in public, sans permission; while defending the right of property-owners to forbid entry into their property and have others obey it. Europe appears to have the opposite mentality.
Without placing a value judgment on either culture, I must once again state how glad I am to have been born in the USA. I cherish my freedoms and I have respect for our laws. I will stand and challenge threats to my civil liberties - but breaking into the property of others is not one of my rights, as I see it.
bmattock
Veteran
Breaking and entering is a legal term, which need not include actual breaking of things. Going up, over, under, etc, can and often is considered 'breaking and entering' just the same (in the US). Depending on jurisdiction, it can the same as 'unlawful entry', which you certainly do in order to gain entrance.
The difference is the same as saying "I did not rob the man, I reached in his open window and took his wallet from where he had left it." The fact that you did not have to break the glass first doesn't really change what you are.
I am glad I do not live in the UK.
Sorry, no interest in such things.