Trespassing, justified or not?

[gm13]

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. wgerrard

This is unfortunately true. I was under the impression that the experiment called America attempted to be different, something about all men being created equal...which I think is true if you don't leave out a couple of adjectives in front of the word "men" eg wealthy, white.
It's a swell notion though (sans adjectifs)

The law has little interest in your beliefs. wgerrard

No doubt, but the property owner may.

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? ibid

This is also true, but given this thread is running through a forum with the word "Philosophy" in it, I was philosophizing around the conditioning/ programming element of the law. And yes, in a manner of speaking I was fined for practicing a bit of situational awareness, for thinking and acting upon my findings. If we mortals could do this all the time we'd require far fewer laws. Obviously I'm not implying we should leave the decision to adolescents where most of us adults aren't up to the task either.

 

[bebrifla]

I think is true if you don't leave out a couple of adjectives in front of the word "men" eg wealthy, white.

 

[wgerrard]

This is unfortunately true. I was under the impression that the experiment called America attempted to be different...

Even if I accepted that premise for the sake of argument, how does that translate into pacifism? Human nature remains what it has always been. How do those principles -- now adopted by most of the planet -- alter the behavior of people or nations?

No doubt, but the property owner may.

Why?

 

[Ezzie]

I think this thread started on the wrong foot. Is trespassing justified or not? The question should really be, was the action to be considered trespassing at all? In Norway at least, with its liberal take on every man´s right to be more or less where they want to be, it is very difficult to get caught and convicted of trespassing, you´d have to have jumped a fence of a sensitive military installation, or broken into the vault of bank or something similar, and I suspect that in both cases trespassing would not be on the list of charges against you.

 

[gm13]

Even if I accepted that premise for the sake of argument, how does that translate into pacifism? Human nature remains what it has always been. How do those principles -- now adopted by most of the planet -- alter the behavior of people or nations?

I wasn't attempting to translate it into pacifism. I was attempting to point out something I viewed as hypocritical: steal land, murder inhabitants then zealously protect it from trespassers. Projection? Maybe.
Just seems strange, this American notion of a divine right to the property we stole....
Because it's the norm don't make it right.

Why?

Because perhaps the owner has a remnant of sensibility where it seems the law might not. If he knows, even after the fact, that I meant no harm, wouldn't sue if injured and my only motive was to photograph he might be understanding.
If not, bring on the cuffs...if you can catch me😀

But this whole topic is quite silly and a bit off track as is, imo, the whole notion of photo-trespass as heinous crime. There will be those who follow the letter of the law and there will be those who lightly interpret according to their sensibilities and ethical compass. kinda like fundamentalists and progressives, rarely the twain shall meet.

 

[wgerrard]

I was attempting to point out something I viewed as hypocritical: steal land, murder inhabitants then zealously protect it from trespassers.
Just seems strange, this American notion of a divine right to the property we stole....

Are the people in Canada the original occupants? Or in England? France? How about South Africa, where Europeans, Zulus and others migrated in and conquered the locals at about the same time? How did the empires that the Spanish conquered in the Americas get to be empires? It wasn't by extending pleasant invitations. What about northern and west Africa?

If you wish to attack the alleged American theft of land, then you at least need to acknowledge the many historical precedents for that behavior, on all continents.

Whether it was "right" or not is immaterial. Humans are a technological species. Those with weak technology will always be replaced by those with strong technology.

Because perhaps the owner has a remnant of sensibility where it seems the law might not. If he knows, even after the fact, that I meant no harm, wouldn't sue if injured and my only motive was to photograph he might be understanding.

Civil and criminal law are two different things. One compelling reason for a property owner to bring suit against a trespasser, or to pursue a criminal case, is to discourage other trespassers who might be injured and attempt to sue him. Sometimes, you know, there's a good reason to post a No Trespassing sign.

But this whole topic is quite silly and a bit off track as is, imo, the whole notion of photo-trespass as heinous crime. There will be those who follow the letter of the law and there will be those who lightly interpret according to their sensibilities and ethical compass. kinda like fundamentalists and progressives, rarely the twain shall meet.

I don't recall calling trespass a "heinous crime". I've said people who break the law need to be prepared to pay the consequences, and not expect to be given a pass just because they argue that they believe the law is unjust. If society had faith in individual ethical compasses, law libraries would be much, much smaller. I.e., a society that permitted each individual to act according to his personal ethical compass, without constraint, would soon fall into violent chaos.

 

[gm13]

Are the people in Canada the original occupants? Or in England? France? How about South Africa, where Europeans, Zulus and others migrated in and conquered the locals at about the same time? How did the empires that the Spanish conquered in the Americas get to be empires? It wasn't by extending pleasant invitations. What about northern and west Africa?

If you wish to attack the alleged American theft of land, then you at least need to acknowledge the many historical precedents for that behavior, on all continents.

Whether it was "right" or not is immaterial. Humans are a technological species. Those with weak technology will always be replaced by those with strong technology.

None of this is news but I am an American, hence the critique

I don't recall calling trespass a "heinous crime"

You didn't, it was implied in today's thread on the same topic.

If society had faith in individual ethical compasses,

I'll rent mine out, it's really accurate 😀

But seriously, I'm all for taking responsibility. and if that ain't enough we can perhaps agree to disagree, be merry and go about our way...as long as one of us isn't trespassing. :angel:

 

[Al Patterson]

Wow! Bill, (wgerrard), your long post (#138), is one of the best, if not the best in the thread.

If I could actually compose a coherent sentence, let alone a few paragraphs, I might have come close to your post.

And thanks for saving me from the painful effort that would require. 😉

 

[wgerrard]

None of this is news but I am an American, hence the critique

So am I, but it has always seemed unfair, and perhaps hypocritical, to single out the U.S. for criticism that can be justly applied to almost every other society throughout history. Neither are notions of American exceptionalism -- however unjustified -- that much different from claims made by most cultures. Pretty much everyone thinks they're special.

One isn't required to ignore American history, only to acknowledge all of human history and our culpability as members of the species.

 

[gm13]

Civil and criminal law are two different things. One compelling reason for a property owner to bring suit against a trespasser, or to pursue a criminal case, is to discourage other trespassers who might be injured and attempt to sue him. Sometimes, you know, there's a good reason to post a No Trespassing sign.

Sure, I don't doubt there are good reasons.

can be justly applied to almost every other society throughout history. Neither are notions of American exceptionalism -- however unjustified -- that much different from claims made by most cultures. Pretty much everyone thinks they're special.

One isn't required to ignore American history, only to acknowledge all of human history and our culpability as members of the species. __________________

I agree.
This is all I was getting at regarding historical context:
America was born of criminal trespass, continues to be actively engaged in criminal trespass and yet private property rights against trespass amongst it's citizens are so vehemently defended, this is the hypocrisy to which I'm speaking. I've noticed, after reading posts from other parts of the globe that this isn't necessarily the case everywhere though we share similar, violent histories. Is it our youth?
Don't know, just what I see through my lens at the moment.

 

[wgerrard]

To call the European colonization of North America "criminal trespass" requires applying the trespass label to every migration of people into populated territory. Except for the initial migration out of Africa, all human migration has involved the absorption or conquest of territory already occupied by others. Sometimes that happens without violence, sometimes with violence.

Now, not having lived in each country mentioned in this thread, I don't know their laws. But, I find it difficult to believe that the act of breaking in to locked and secured private property is entirely without consequence. For example, suppose someone in Britain goes away for two weeks and, on returning, finds someone has been squatting in his living room for the duration. Surely, he would have some recourse to the law.

 

[Ezzie]

What did the say in Hair. "The draft is white people sending black people to fight yellow people to protect the country they stole from red people. ...", or something like that.

 

[Ezzie]

And that's just a handful of the current day situations. You could add a couple of middle eastern illegal occupencies to the list. The French also still have a couple of smaller colonies left. The Welsh are coming to the same conclusion the Scots have been mulling over for some time. The list goes on...

If you really want to open the pandora's box, look back through time.

EDIT: And of course: Those who get to write history, are in the right.

 

[gm13]

To call the European colonization of North America "criminal trespass" requires applying the trespass label to every migration of people into populated territory.

.
A
S p a d e
is
a
S p a d e

I am specifically addressing the U.S. here. The logic that "everybody's done it" didn't work for me as a kid and probably shouldn't work as foreign policy.
It's this ethically deficient logic that makes laws necessary unfortunately.

For example, suppose someone in Britain goes away for two weeks and, on returning, finds someone has been squatting in his living room for the duration. Surely, he would have some recourse to the law.

I thought it was clear that this is not the type of trespass we were discussing.

 

[wgerrard]

.

It's this ethically deficient logic that makes laws necessary unfortunately.

It is naive in the extreme to imagine that laws would be unnecessary if only people weren't so "ethically deficient". First, it assumes the existence of some authority able and empowered to judge who is and who is not ethically deficient. Having done so, that authority would presumably need to coax and compel the deficient to alter their behavior. In other words, enforce laws.

Second, societies with shared ethical systems engage in war and violence. Consider the Middles Ages, in which wars were waged by both Christians and Muslims specifically in the name of religion and ethics. There's a guy on trial in Kansas for murdering a doctor who firmly believes his act was ethical, and he is supported by millions of Americans. Europeans and Africans capturing and selling slaves believed that was ethical behavior, as did the slave owners in North and South America. Americans moving west and occupying territory saw nothing unethical about that. Neither had the Indian tribes being displaced seen anything unethical about their own migrations into the territory of others. Europe is populated by people who migrated and displaced, often violently, the previous residents.

The argument that crime, violence and war are caused by ethical deficiency, that everything would be better if everyone only behaved nicely, is utopian.

I thought it was clear that this is not the type of trespass we were discussing.

I don't see the difference.

 

[Daneinbalto]

Trespassing in Norway/Sweden

Trespassing in Norway/Sweden

The OP was specifically asking about going to an abandoned mental asylum outside of Oslo (in Norway) to photograph. As someone pointed out above, the OP might be helped by the fact that Norway, like Sweden, has the "every man's right" to walk around in nature wherever he pleases, even on private property.

However, it is questionable to which extent the "every man's right" would extend to the abandoned asylum, especially if windows on the ground floor are boarded up.

In Sweden (a neighboring country with a somewhat similar legal tradition) there was a case from a few years back where some urban explorers had gone down into some underground structure. I think it was in or around Stockholm. I forget whether it was the sewer system or something else. Guess what, they got lost and had to call emergency on their cell phones to get out. Once out they were charged with criminal trespass. Although there were no signs saying not to enter the place they entered, the court held that they should have realized that they were not supposed to enter where they did. As I recall, they got prison sentences of a few months each. I don't know if the verdict was later appealed and overturned, but I was a bit surprised at the reasoning and the severity of the punishment, given the relatively lenient crime policies in Sweden.

Edit: link to the news story http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article338579.ab?service=print

 

[Daneinbalto]

If you decide to go

If you decide to go

If you do decide to go, why not bring a mate who can be on lookout and radio you if danger approaches, or help you out if go through a rotten floor.

 

[wgerrard]

The OP was specifically asking about going to an abandoned mental asylum outside of Oslo (in Norway) to photograph. As someone pointed out above, the OP might be helped by the fact that Norway, like Sweden, has the "every man's right" to walk around in nature wherever he pleases, even on private property.

So, in Norway, if someone takes a shortcut to the bus stop every day by jumping your fence and walking through your back yard, you have no legal recourse?

I still don't see a significant difference between my imaginary scenario and that outlined by the OP, other than the length of time the trespasser spends inside the property.

 

[Olsen]

So, in Norway, if someone takes a shortcut to the bus stop every day by jumping your fence and walking through your back yard, you have no legal recourse?

A bit depending on circumstances you could have no right to do anything. 'Free roaming' is legal in most of Europe - and the civilised world. It is only UK and USA that don't allow free roaming, to my knowledge. The right to walk on another man's property is as old as our laws themselves, - goes back to the Viking Age. You are even allowed to pick berries, flowers and dry firewood for your own use on another's property. While hunting and cutting timber etc. is illegal.

 

[wgerrard]

Thanks for the explanation, Fred. I'd forgotten about easements.

I hafta to say this trespass thing interests me primarily because I get annoyed when someone expects to be excused of a crime, however minor, simply because he believes the law is wrong. That's even more the case when I support the behavior.