How do you conquer "no trespassing" signs?

[texkam]

A ski hill can be a much more dangerous location for a rescue than some abandoned field with interesting tree's the bank repo'd from some broke farmer and slapped a no trespassing sign on.

Agreed, but the sign is still there for a reason. For one to make a decision to ignore it based on whether one thinks it's there for good reason or not is silly as well. It's tough enough that emergency folks have to put themselves out there for legit accidents in legal circumstances, but to possibly put someone at risk because you're making a choice to ignore a law? Sorry, uncool.

 

[Buckster]

A ski hill can be a much more dangerous location for a rescue than some abandoned field with interesting tree's the bank repo'd from some broke farmer and slapped a no trespassing sign on.

Agreed, but the sign is still there for a reason. For one to make a decision to ignore it based on whether one thinks it's there for good reason or not is silly as well. It's tough enough that emergency folks have to put themselves out there for legit accidents in legal circumstances, but to possibly put someone at risk because you're making a choice to ignore a law? Sorry, uncool.

While I've already clearly stated that I'm not one to violate "No Trespassing" signs, I have to ask at this point...

Any statistics on how often this happens; That someone violating a "No Trespassing" sign gets injured to the point of needing emergency personnel assistance, AND those emergency personnel have to respond INTO an actually DANGEROUS situation because of it? An abandoned building is not necessarily a dangerous situation, especially to trained emergency personnel. It's not like abandoned buildings are usually on fire or wired with explosives or caving in and collapsing - they're just abandoned and have a lot of paint peeling and dust everywhere.

I ask because, frankly, your argument sounds like nothing more than purely hypothetical, overblown hyperbole, slippery-slope fallacy bullspit - no offence.

It also occurs to me that emergency personnel have signed up for a fairly risky job in the first place and therefore train for dangerous situations, so it should be no surprise that they sometimes find themselves IN such situations.

Reality is a fun place. Give it a try.

 

[thetrue]

I believe that's the point that unpopular was trying to stress. I'm agreeing with that point, Buckster.

What about signs that say something to the tune of "Closed sunset - sunrise"? They're clearly not abandoned and stepping on the property is not trespassing, how do you (plural) feel about this?

 

[Buckster]

I believe that's the point that unpopular was trying to stress. I'm agreeing with that point, Buckster.

What about signs that say something to the tune of "Closed sunset - sunrise"? They're clearly not abandoned and stepping on the property is not trespassing, how do you (plural) feel about this?

I actually dealt with that situation once, back in 1988.

My reaction to the sign was to flag down a passing cop car and ask permission to go in strictly to shoot photos. They questioned me, examined my gear, asked if it was for amateur or professional use to which I answered "amateur" whereupon they explained that had I said "professional" they'd have referred me to city hall for a permit to get it done.

They then said I had 15 minutes to get in, shoot, and get back out, where they'd be waiting to make sure I did. I thanked them, complied, and got this shot (among others) of the GW Bridge between Jersey and Harlem:

 

[thetrue]

1988 was a much different time when it was still (almost) safe to hitchhike. These days, and with the cocky cops that are around these parts, I might get cavity searched for asking.

 

[texkam]

An abandoned building is not necessarily a dangerous situation

Perhaps, but just as easily, an abandoned building can also be a very unpredictable and dangerous situation due to structural or wiring issues, for example. It's a crapshoot. Sure, call it hypothetical, overblown hyperbole, slippery-slope fallacy bullspit. Fair enough, and yes it is true emergency personnel have signed up for a fairly risky job in the first place, but I just think it's incredibly selfish and disrespectful to make a decision that could put someone else at risk, even if it is remote, in order for you to get a shot. Is it really worth it? Me thinks not. Not the way I roll, but YMMV.

 

[Tony S]

.. and why does it take a no trespassing sign to keep someone off of private property? If it ain't yours and the owner didn't give expressed permission then stay the hell out. I have a real problem with 78 acres up in the hills where people are constantly coming into the property "to see what was there" or "I dind't know it was private property". If you don't know, don't go. And yes, there are signs and even Forest Service boundary markers, but they go around them giving the excuse that they didn't see them. Lately the sheriffs department has been doing a wonderful job of giving out tickets and hauled two guys off for outstanding warrants.

I wouldn't give a rats ass why someone has crossed my boundaries, taking pictures or not, you are trespassing. If you want to use the property, buy it or get permission. In this day and age of GPS and GIS mapping there is no reason not to know who owns property.

Stay off private property without permission. Posted or not.

 

[unpopular]

An abandoned building is not necessarily a dangerous situation

Perhaps, but just as easily, an abandoned building can also be a very unpredictable and dangerous situation due to structural or wiring issues, for example. It's a crapshoot. Sure, call it hypothetical, overblown hyperbole, slippery-slope fallacy bullspit. Fair enough, and yes it is true emergency personnel have signed up for a fairly risky job in the first place, but I just think it's incredibly selfish and disrespectful to make a decision that could put someone else at risk, even if it is remote, in order for you to get a shot. Is it really worth it? Me thinks not. Not the way I roll, but YMMV.

It can, but more often it's a liability thing. The property owner does not have control over the property. If a bunch of kids smoke some weed and decide it'd be fun to burn the place down, taking with it neighboring property, the landowner can be held responsible. Ultimately the property owner is responsible for the site, including what happens inside it - including people falling through floors, setting fires, raping school girls - whatever - legally it's the landowner's responsibility. Just as if you allowed people into your house and didn't keep an eye on them, it being abandoned doesn't really matter.

A "No Trespassing Sign" is basically saying "No, you're not allowed to be here and no matter what you're doing here I don't condone or permit". I don't really know how effective a No Trespassing sign is on a legal standpoint, Gipson seems to think you can just ignore them and sue anyway - I have my doubts it's as easy as that - but I also wouldn't be surprised if they're not rock solid either, and probably only offer one line of defense in an Attractive Nuisance case.

There are some odd things, I've been told by an attorney that "Beware of Dogs" signs essentially say "Yeah, I know my dog is dangerous" so if it ever escapes and bites someone, the first thing the attorney will say is "See, you knew your dog is dangerous". I'd imagine the same could go for "Danger" signs - and an attorney would argue that the structure should have been demolished.

I'm a bit torn, you know. On one side I really do think landowners shouldn't be permitted to sit on delapitated buildings which attract youth, the homeless and crime - I can't hardly blame a homeless person from using an abandoned building when shelters are frequently full - but at the same time I can't logically reason liability to the landowner when people knowingly violate trespassing signs.

And what about when trespassing is common? I do frequently trespass on the irrigation ditch right of way, everyone does. The no trespassing signs are rusted and barely legible, and haven't been repaired for decades, property owners have even maintained their yards, illegally, right up to the canal. The only reason I know it's still trespassing is because I've known people (unsavory looking types) who have reported that the police have given trespassing warnings. But I've never known ANYONE to actually get in trouble, and it seems the police only enforce it if they are either bored or think you're drunk. Shouldn't property owners have to make maintain their signage, and the police equally enforce trespassing? Why is it that if you own a house that sits next to the canal you can set up a lawn chair and a garden, but if you're homeless you can't even walk along it?

 

[unpopular]

.. and why does it take a no trespassing sign to keep someone off of private property? If it ain't yours and the owner didn't give expressed permission then stay the hell out. I have a real problem with 78 acres up in the hills where people are constantly coming into the property "to see what was there" or "I dind't know it was private property".

78 acres of wilderness is a different thing from an abandoned mill. You're preserving the environment and resources, perhaps raising some cattle all the while having a piece of paradise all to yourself. A dilapidated building in a crowded urban area is a waste of resources and is damaging to the environment and surrounding property values. Nothing is being maintained, preserved or protected, except liability.

So I don't feel a photographer entering illegally is at any kind of moral question. At least not until he starts suing or behaving irresponsibly. Granted, the law might say otherwise - but trespassing laws were meant to protect people like you, not irresponsible property owners who willingly refuse to maintain an unsafe structure.

 

[thetrue]

Tony, I'm by no means talking about a large lot such as yours, but broken and run down properties that do nothing but sit there, rotting and have been untouched for years. You won't see that in your case, simply because its your land, your property that you own and actively maintain. What I do see a lot of (particularly around me) is buildings that were formerly used for thriving businesses in the 60's through the early 90's that once abandoned have only received the treatment of a "For sale or lease" sign, if even that much. For example, one of the steel mills that was in action until 1990, then closed promptly and hasn't been so much as looked at from inside the gate since. The former parking lot is now a small jungle, and despite its rough appearance, I'd love to go inside those gates, get close to the building and take some photos of what used to be the second largest employer in the county.

I personally don't have any idea who might own the property and honestly, with that much time of neglect, I wouldn't go near it unless I had EMS standing by. I wasn't implying that myself or anyone SHOULD circumvent the "system," but rather how many people actually do, and how those who enjoy the risk do so.

Didn't mean to hurt your feelings, sir.

 

[jim84]

I don't believe it is trespassing from a legal standpoint to be on someones land if no signs are posted (or barriers to entry), until the point they ask you to leave, and you refuse. I could be wrong, I'm not a lawyer.

How about the local city property across the road from my apartment, it's controlled by the parks and rec dept, but mainly it's an open public square, with a fountain, benches, lamps, library, city hall, police, fire, etc. The signs stated it is closed at dusk or something. It also says no bicycles. Am I unethical for riding my bike through there during the day? What about strolling through at night?

Why does a deer get a free pass? A crow, squirrel, snake? Is there something unethical about being human, our simple presence is unethical?

How about this for ethics(I am asking those with the apparent black and white standpoint that whatever the law says is ethical), what about photographers, videographers, or journalists who sneak in and capture footage, images, or proof of inhumane treatment of animals on factory farms? This is definitely illegal, but is it ethical?



I just don't understand this simple view that whatever the law says is what is right. I guess maybe I'm not conservative enough... Hah.

 

[Tony S]

Why would it matter whether it's a large lot, a small plot in town, or an abandoned building? It's not yours, you have not paid for the right to go there, and you don't have permission.

In many places it is not a requirement to post no trespassing signs, it's up to the individual to know that where they are going is open and available to them, otherwise stay out.

Since your house is there with no signs on it and looks interesting perhaps you won't mind people sneaking in to take pictures? After all, they aren't going to hurt anything by just coming in to take pictures.

OK, I'm over this post since we know that those who are going to void the property rights of others because they don't feel it applies to them don't give a **** and will do what they want anyways. It's almost like big brother and the government coming in and taking away the rights of property owners, but even worse since it's from your "supposed" fellow man.

 

[unpopular]

Why would it matter whether it's a large lot, a small plot in town, or an abandoned building? It's not yours, you have not paid for the right to go there, and you don't have permission.

IMO irresponsible owners loose that privilege when they neglect their property. If a land owner has no respect for the community, why should the community respect the land owner?

 

[amolitor]

Cool, so I can just take any cameras you're not using, or where you're not keeping them maintained to my standard? Sweet. I'll be right over. Some time when you're out.

 

[Derrel]

How to conquer no trespassing signs? Why...it's simple!!!!