Posted by Rinzler Fences and verbal communication are just as good as no trespassing signs. But yes, the rest of the information is mostly spot on. It could work in some cases but it really depends what kind of property you’re trespassing on. |
Posted by blackhawk If a bank owns the property they certainly can enforce no trespassing as they are the owner. An excutor of an estate can too... even if the deeded owner is dead. |
Posted by tx3000 What you said about a Fence is a myth and what people have been lead to believe. A fence is mainly used as a deterrent. Legally, a no trespassing sign is still required to be posted. Without a posted reason saying what a fence is there for is hearsay. I can argue that the fence could be used so animals couldn't wander in or out. Without a sign, the court would have to sort that out. It might not work out in your favor, but no sign gives you an arguable defense. Argue correctly and convince the judge, there is nothing more to say. Agreed I never said they couldn't, but that is a matter for the courts to sort out, not the police. |
Posted by tx3000 What you said about a Fence is a myth and what people have been lead to believe. A fence is mainly used as a deterrent. Legally, a no trespassing sign is still required to be posted. Without a posted reason saying what a fence is there for is hearsay. I can argue that the fence could be used so animals couldn't wander in or out. Without a sign, the court would have to sort that out. It might not work out in your favor, but no sign gives you an arguable defense. Argue correctly and convince the judge, there is nothing more to say. Agreed I never said they couldn't, but that is a matter for the courts to sort out, not the police. |
Posted by Rinzler The trespassing statute says differently but I guess they’re wrong. I’ll give them a call so they can edit it. |
Posted by tx3000 Regardless of what either one of us says, the fact is, without an actual sign saying stay out, it's a matter for court to decided. |
Posted by blackhawk Depends on the state; in many no sign is required. Agricultural lands like in NJ require nothing; felony state trespassing if they want to. Same with facilities that house students or patients. It's your right to a trial but this is no cake walk and you will find it can get expensive quickly. Car impounds, all kinds and manner of fun become possible when you piss off cops. |
Posted by tx3000 Agreed I never said they couldn't, but that is a matter for the courts to sort out, not the police. |
Posted by Rinzler You can say that about any charge that it’s up to the court to decide. But I’m pretty sure if you tell the judge you climbed a 10 foot wall with a grappling hook onto somebody’s property to break in and take pictures and didn’t know you were trespassing, he’d probably laugh at you. |
Posted by AdventureDan You keep saying this as if they are just gonna let you hitch a ride in the ol' squad car to go drop by the judges house so you can make your argument and THEN you get into legal trouble. |
Posted by tx3000 Maybe so, but the fact remains the no trespassing sign is a federal ruling and it's really not relevant what a state says it's why used the no filming Trying to argue filming and trespassing aren't the same things means you completely ignored the point which is context of the issue not the actual act itself. he context of what a state says compared to what the federal law states are not in line with each other and what gets argued. And BTW...why anyone would ever explain they used a grappling hook to get into a place, is mind numbing. |
Posted by Rinzler Because if you’re caught with it or caught using it, it would be in the police report? You’re talking about the first amendment...that’s part of the US Constitution. So while we are on the whole filming thing, since it’s a protected right, can you legally film into somebody’s window from a public sidewalk? No, you can not. Im done here, I just wanted to let people here know fences count just like no trespassing signs do, to help not get people into trouble. |
Posted by Rinzler Because if you’re caught with it or caught using it, it would be in the police report? You’re talking about the first amendment...that’s part of the US Constitution. So while we are on the whole filming thing, since it’s a protected right, can you legally film into somebody’s window from a public sidewalk? No, you can not. |
Posted by tx3000 You are official an idiot, because first of all the information I posted applies to the US which I clearly stated right at the beginning. Secondly I very specifically explained which you chose to ignore) that filming in public and a no trespassing sign have federal angles they follow and even though both are unrelated in the act, the context of what federal law and state laws state IS the point..again something you totally ignored and started babbling about nonsense that is unrelated ll. So yes, you're done here alright, you were done the moment you posted misinformation about US federal laws and the difference |
Posted by tx3000 You are official an idiot, because first of all the information I posted applies to the US which I clearly stated right at the beginning. Secondly I very specifically explained that filming in public and a no trespassing sign not being posted are unrelated acts the context of both having federal law governs both and state laws have to abide by what the federal law dictates..And here you are again ignoring context and using the individual act as a way to argue. So yes, you're done here alright, you were done the moment you posted misinformation ignoring context that applies to both individual acts as if the state is all that matters. |
Posted by Rinzler I never said you were wrong with anything? Just added the fact whether it’s federal or state, a fence means you’re trespassing. You need to chill out man. Clearly you can’t take any kind of information and immediately attack the person. Also I guess you’ve never heard of the peeping Tom statute if you’re saying it’s legal to take pictures of someone changing inside their house. |
Posted by tx3000 I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm simply saying that people such as yourself think this is a state to state issue and it's not. |
This thread is in a public category, and can't be made private. |