Trespassing, justified or not?

Hehe - but I bet CIA was veeeery keen on getting to know how you could pass through solid walls? :)

Perhaps that is my best chance then? But if I turn insubstantial and invisible, how can any photographs be recorded?
 
Since the thread has been revived -- sort of -- I thought I'd pass on something that has been puzzling me since it more or less died.

More than one person has said, in effect, "I am prepared to kill another human being, but not to trespass in a disused building."

Interesting priorities.

Cheers,

R.
 
Yes... Keeping that in mind, I will always feel absolutely safe in those abandoned places!

No people around at all but myself, far safer than any populated area!
 
Since the thread has been revived -- sort of -- I thought I'd pass on something that has been puzzling me since it more or less died.

More than one person has said, in effect, "I am prepared to kill another human being, but not to trespass in a disused building."

Interesting priorities.

Cheers,

R.

We're just Europeans Roger, we wouldn't understand.

You need to go to places like Michigan (and believe me, I've spent a lot of time there) to see how much happier the populace are.
 
More than one person has said, in effect, "I am prepared to kill another human being, but not to trespass in a disused building."

Not when you think about it in context.

In the context of defending oneself or one's property, one is engaging in (in some countries like mine) lawful self-defense. This is a situation in which one finds oneself.

In the context of trespassing, one is engaging in being the lawbreaker instead of defending oneself against a lawbreaker. This is a situation in which one places oneself.
 
Hmmm... Reminds me of something I used to do with one of my best friends years ago... When we got drunk (and sometimes more of course), we used to go climbing - anywhere really...

Is this trespassing too? Just climbing a building and not entering? I guess the french spiderman applies, although we rarely made it more than 2-3 floors up ;)

Here in Europe this was far more dangerous than almost any trespassing - or even breaking in I guess... Has been a long while since the last drunken climb, but still it comes in handy in different situations :)
 
Last edited:
Here it is - the evidence from trespassing!

Here it is - the evidence from trespassing!

Early in the week I had a walk around the area, but without getting in. Today I teamed up with a photographer I know, and we explored one of the buildings.

As I want to return with my 4X5 and spend a good amount of time alone, I did not really get into shooting too many rooms. Perhaps it is even better in the night, or with moonlight...

Uploaded a few on flickr:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/27084814@N08/sets/72157622577006385/

It is really something special with all the paint flaking off, I have never seen anything quite like it...
 
Last edited:
PhotoXplorers on Bravo tonight. They made a TV show about photographers going to abandoned and ''hidden'' locales. Cracks me up. I wll watch it, of course. Soon it will parkour as photography!
 
After reading the preceding posts what came to mind first was our notion , here in the states, of property rights. I find them a wee bit hypocritical. I mean this country is FOUNDED on the theft of property and the slaughter of it's indigenous inhabitants, now we export the same. A little trespass, gee that's kinda like imperialism ultra-light.

As for exploring these abandoned structures, what I think is needed IS an anarchistic approach ie responsible self rule. if I go in and fall through a floor, break a leg or impale myself well, that's my problem and I'd better be prepared to deal. I sure as hell don't believe in holding a property owner at fault for my actions regardless of the presence of signs or no. I imagine the reason most of these abandoned places are “no trespass zones” is twofold: vandalism and the ubiquitous lawsuit, if I don't partake of either, well that's all I'd ask.

Regarding abiding by the letter of the law, well I'm not guilty there. my first traffic ticket was for running a red light at 2 a.m., 6 lane road through a commercial stretch, not a soul in sight, red light, I stop, I look around, I go. A mile down the road, johnny law pulls me over, ( He'd been tucked in behind a low embankment in the shopping center parking lot) “been drinking?” me: “no officer”
“why didn't you see that red light?” me: “ I did.” Officer was a bit incredulous. Driving home, 16 yr. old me thought “I was fined for THINKING.” Ahhh the freedom of sheep, tough on us goats.

aniMal, nice shot's. let's see more. Glad you did what you needed to do.

I ended up committing a bit of unintentional trespass today during a “Rurex” photo outing in the Rover, popped up in someone's back dooryaahd (that's where the only two-track led) as the lady of the domicile was putting the garden to rest. She was not too happy. "This is PRIVATE property" My mistake, I apologized but it wasn't posted, now I know, won't happen again.
Serendipitous given I read this post yesterday.
(evil dslr proof below)


I always gathered that the “Thou” in Crowley's “Do what Thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law” implied something other than our egos . Maybe this here topic was more about Rabelais's version, though he was quite a deep fellow for all his Foolishness.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_9263 copy.jpg
    IMG_9263 copy.jpg
    167 KB · Views: 0
  • IMG_9261 copy.jpg
    IMG_9261 copy.jpg
    158.3 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
QUOTE
After reading the preceding posts what came to mind first was our notion , here in the states, of property rights. I find them a wee bit hypocritical. I mean this country is FOUNDED on the theft of property and the slaughter of it's indigenous inhabitants, now we export the same. A little trespass, gee that's kinda like imperialism ultra-light.

No psuedo intelligentsia here, just the facts black and white, what a bresh of fresh air, and kinda funny too:rolleyes:
 
I would argue the US is better seen as founded on pragmatism - not democracy, property rights, civil rights or anything else.

That gels nicely with the oft repeated photo advice, "The only way to get the shot... is get the shot."
 
After reading the preceding posts what came to mind first was our notion , here in the states, of property rights. I find them a wee bit hypocritical. I mean this country is FOUNDED on the theft of property and the slaughter of it's indigenous inhabitants

Something we share with every other nation throughout history, going as far back as the Cro-Magnons walking out of east Africa into a Europe occupied by Neanderthals.

... if I go in and fall through a floor, break a leg or impale myself well, that's my problem and I'd better be prepared to deal. I sure as hell don't believe in holding a property owner at fault for my actions regardless of the presence of signs or no.

The law has little interest in your beliefs. Whether or not you hold the owner of property on which you are trespassing responsible for injuries that result from your trespass doesn't count for much. You should also consider that protecting people from dangerous conditions is a perfectly valid reason to put up a No Trespass sign.

Driving home, 16 yr. old me thought “I was fined for THINKING.”

You were fined for running a red light. The law does not say drivers must stop at red lights unless drivers think it is safe to run the light. Are you suggesting that every adolescent on the road be allowed to decide which red lights to obey and which to ignore?
 
LIkely one reason NYC drivers pay much more for auto insurance than I do.

Around here it's common to see drivers accelerate to rush through a yellow light. Woe to you if you're in front and decide to brake. We also like to immediately pull to the left and pass a car whose brake lights come on. We have a select cadre of drivers who delight in passing stopped school buses unloading kids.
 
LIkely one reason NYC drivers pay much more for auto insurance than I do.

Around here it's common to see drivers accelerate to rush through a yellow light. Woe to you if you're in front and decide to brake. We also like to immediately pull to the left and pass a car whose brake lights come on. We have a select cadre of drivers who delight in passing stopped school buses unloading kids.[/QUOTE]
Dear Bill,

Which can't really be all that dangerous. Consider that this appears to be a uniquely American law, and that in the rest of the world you do not see drifts of dead and dying children at bus stops, and perhaps the law is unnecessary.

Likewise, the English terror of parking motorcycles on the sidewalk, in case blind people fall over them, does not seem to result in large numbers of blind Frenchmen lying on the ground and waving their arms and legs like beetles on their backs after falling over motorcycles, which can of course legally be parked on the sidewalk here in France.

Similar examples could be evoked for drinking age, age of consent, drugs and other things. It's always worth looking at another country where the laws are more lenient/lax, and seeing if they make the slightest difference, let alone a difference justifying the cost, expense and ill-will of enforcing them.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger, I don't doubt that death-by-schoolbus-accident is not a major cause of death among children in the U.S. but the chances of the states repealing their laws about this are less than nil.

Traffic conditions in the U.S. are also different than in much of Europe, as you know. Many city streets in my area are four-lanes wide, some with and some without a median strip. The speed limit is usually 45 mph, which means most drive in the 45-60 range. If there is no median, a school bus will offload kids on one side of the road, meaning some of those kids must cross four lanes of traffic. Most adults would not cross those same four lanes. If, and it is a big if, a traffic light is available, it's often several hundred yards away at a major intersection. This is not a situation likely to calm the fears of parents of six-year-olds.

I agree with Fred re: traffic in cities. Large cities like London and New York might well be better served by a congestion charge as long as realistic mass transit is available. Other smaller cities would be served by no-vehicle zones in their core downtowns, as in a number of UK cities. This does assume that a town actually has a central core area that attracts people and that people can get there in something other than a car. That's very often not the case in the U.S. (Any attempt to use local or regional tax dollars to fund urban transit systems inevitably runs up against lobbies who want to build more and wider roads, and against the biases of people who see using mass transit as beneath them, i.e. something for poor people only.)
 
Back
Top Bottom