Quote from: empirestate on April 28, 2013, 06:51:29 PM
There are plenty of perfectly appropriate things that still make me think; for example,a "No Trespassing" sign is exactly the right choice for what it's meant to convey, but at the same time it gets me thinking about when trespassing could ever be permitted, since it's by definition a prohibited activity.
It is not, however, prohibited to enter all properties. "No Trespassing" is a legal way of saying "you're not allowed to go here without the permission of this property's owner". If there is no sign saying otherwise it may be presumed that you are welcome to traipse through those woods over there if you like and no one will chase you away.
Quote from: Duke87 on April 28, 2013, 09:20:46 PM
Quote from: empirestate on April 28, 2013, 06:51:29 PM
There are plenty of perfectly appropriate things that still make me think; for example,a "No Trespassing" sign is exactly the right choice for what it's meant to convey, but at the same time it gets me thinking about when trespassing could ever be permitted, since it's by definition a prohibited activity.
It is not, however, prohibited to enter all properties. "No Trespassing" is a legal way of saying "you're not allowed to go here without the permission of this property's owner". If there is no sign saying otherwise it may be presumed that you are welcome to traipse through those woods over there if you like and no one will chase you away.
The point is that "no trespassing" is not the correct wording. It should be "entering on this property is trespassing".
Quote from: NE2 on April 28, 2013, 09:37:20 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on April 28, 2013, 09:20:46 PM
Quote from: empirestate on April 28, 2013, 06:51:29 PM
There are plenty of perfectly appropriate things that still make me think; for example,a "No Trespassing" sign is exactly the right choice for what it's meant to convey, but at the same time it gets me thinking about when trespassing could ever be permitted, since it's by definition a prohibited activity.
It is not, however, prohibited to enter all properties. "No Trespassing" is a legal way of saying "you're not allowed to go here without the permission of this property's owner". If there is no sign saying otherwise it may be presumed that you are welcome to traipse through those woods over there if you like and no one will chase you away.
The point is that "no trespassing" is not the correct wording. It should be "entering on this property is trespassing".
"Trespassers will be prosecuted" is an actual sign that works well for this.
Quote from: Steve on April 29, 2013, 07:30:54 PM
Quote from: NE2 on April 28, 2013, 09:37:20 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on April 28, 2013, 09:20:46 PM
Quote from: empirestate on April 28, 2013, 06:51:29 PM
There are plenty of perfectly appropriate things that still make me think; for example,a "No Trespassing" sign is exactly the right choice for what it's meant to convey, but at the same time it gets me thinking about when trespassing could ever be permitted, since it's by definition a prohibited activity.
It is not, however, prohibited to enter all properties. "No Trespassing" is a legal way of saying "you're not allowed to go here without the permission of this property's owner". If there is no sign saying otherwise it may be presumed that you are welcome to traipse through those woods over there if you like and no one will chase you away.
The point is that "no trespassing" is not the correct wording. It should be "entering on this property is trespassing".
"Trespassers will be prosecuted" is an actual sign that works well for this.
How about "Trespassers will be violated?" ;-)
Quote from: Steve on April 29, 2013, 07:30:54 PM
Quote from: NE2 on April 28, 2013, 09:37:20 PM
The point is that "no trespassing" is not the correct wording. It should be "entering on this property is trespassing".
"Trespassers will be prosecuted" is an actual sign that works well for this.
Technically, no. It doesn't tell you whether entering the property is trespassing, only that, if so, and you do, you will be prosecuted (which is a lie; you only will if caught).
Quote from: NE2 on April 29, 2013, 09:46:08 PM
Quote from: Steve on April 29, 2013, 07:30:54 PM
Quote from: NE2 on April 28, 2013, 09:37:20 PM
The point is that "no trespassing" is not the correct wording. It should be "entering on this property is trespassing".
"Trespassers will be prosecuted" is an actual sign that works well for this.
Technically, no. It doesn't tell you whether entering the property is trespassing, only that, if so, and you do, you will be prosecuted (which is a lie; you only will if caught).
I've seen a sign like this before. It's pretty ambiguous. What the term "Trespasser will be prosecuted", in my approximation, means is that it could mean a whole numerous amount of offenses. You enter the property and abuse parts of it, that could be grounds for prosecution. You enter the property without specific permission, that can be grounds for prosecution. Signs like these just isn't enough. While "Trespassers will be shot" sounds extreme, "Trespassers will be prosecuted" just doesn't sound complete.
Need to add "Survivors will be prosecuted" to the "Trespassers will be shot" sign.
Private property, do not molest?
Quote from: amroad17 on April 30, 2013, 03:10:08 AM
Need to add "Survivors will be prosecuted" to the "Trespassers will be shot" sign.
In most states, deadly force is only justified when in reasonable fear of your life. Shooting trespassers is frowned upon. Most people would take it as a joke, but suppose you put those signs up, and then there was a burglar and you did feel in fear of your life and shot him. Then his survivors would have evidence to support a wrongful death civil suit against you. A civil case only needs a majority of the jury to convict, and the burden of proof is only a preponderance of evidence.
I think we're only proving his point: that "No Trespassing" is perhaps the most legitimate way of wording the intention, and–similarly–N. Y. City is perhaps the most legitimate way of wording the destination.
At least on most private property in parts of Maryland that I am familiar with, law enforcement will respond to calls about trespassing, but will usually not arrest someone, at least not for a first offense on that property.
They will "trespass notify" an unwanted person, and ask them to leave the property immediately - and if the person returns within one year, then they are subject to immediate arrest.
Is the use of the word "trespassing" mandatory? Because it seems like the message could be conveyed simply and in a (mostly) semantically correct way by just saying "private property, keep out."
Quote from: Central Avenue on May 02, 2013, 04:21:40 PM
Is the use of the word "trespassing" mandatory? Because it seems like the message could be conveyed simply and in a (mostly) semantically correct way by just saying "private property, keep out."
for the TL;DR crowd: GTFO.
Quote from: Central Avenue on May 02, 2013, 04:21:40 PM
Is the use of the word "trespassing" mandatory? Because it seems like the message could be conveyed simply and in a (mostly) semantically correct way by just saying "private property, keep out."
Which actually gives more information than "no trespassing". We know without reading a sign that trespassing is, by definition, prohibited. What we don't know, without being informed, is whether entering the land before us would constitute trespassing because it is privately owned.
A similar situation would be, seeing a sign that said "Bridge freezes before roadway" that wasn't accompanied by a sign showing the current temperature. Many of us already know that bridges freeze first, but we probably wouldn't know, at near-freezing temperatures, whether freezing was physically possible just at the moment.
How about this?
No Trespassing. Violators will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
Quote from: US 41 on May 03, 2013, 12:56:45 PM
How about this?
No Trespassing. Violators will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
I personally prefer "Trespassers Will Be Eaten".
By who or what, I have no idea.
Quote from: Brandon on May 03, 2013, 01:43:11 PM
I personally prefer "Trespassers Will Be Eaten".
By who or what, I have no idea.
a grue, I would guess.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 03, 2013, 01:47:35 PM
Quote from: Brandon on May 03, 2013, 01:43:11 PM
I personally prefer "Trespassers Will Be Eaten".
By who or what, I have no idea.
a grue, I would guess.
In Alanland, it's probably a goat.
For what it's worth.... Etymologically speaking, trespass only means cross over or cross toward–so, theoretically, such an act might not be illegal. However, the word has been used to denote an illegal action since the 15th Century. Similarly–and tangentially illustrating the negative connotation of "crossing over"–the word obituary, etymologically, means go toward or cross over (in fact, we still to this day refer to dying as "crossing over").
Quote from: Brandon on May 03, 2013, 01:43:11 PM
Quote from: US 41 on May 03, 2013, 12:56:45 PM
How about this?
No Trespassing. Violators will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
I personally prefer "Trespassers Will Be Eaten".
By who or what, I have no idea.
Common sign at alligator farms.
As I understand it, trespassing is not illegal unless there is statute law making it so--it is, however, tortious, and in the absence of actual damage to property, it is "cured" by leaving at once when the property owner asks you to do so.
My understanding of the signs is this: for someone to be tresspassing, they must knowingly be on the land against the wishes of the landowner. If it isn't posted, the land owner can call the cops and the person can be issued a tresspass warning. If they then leave, no offense was committed. No tresspassing signs, if posted according to state law (every 500 feet in Florida), act as that notice so anyone there is considered duly warned and can be arrested.
I am not a lawyer but this site seems to match what I'm saying:
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fe111
Quote from: realjd on May 08, 2013, 11:04:57 PM
My understanding of the signs is this: for someone to be tresspassing, they must knowingly be on the land against the wishes of the landowner. If it isn't posted, the land owner can call the cops and the person can be issued a tresspass warning. If they then leave, no offense was committed. No tresspassing signs, if posted according to state law (every 500 feet in Florida), act as that notice so anyone the. Tresspassing can be arrested.
Maryland law enforcement effectively operates that way. My home in Silver Spring, Maryland is in a homeowners' association, and as a result all of our streets and sidewalks are private property. It's not gated, but we have a "no soliciting" and "no door-to-door advertising" policy.
Most of our local county police force will ask unwanted solicitors to leave, which they do.
Persons who appear to have no reason to be on our property are sometimes "trespass notified," which makes them subject to arrest for one year after that notification if they come back.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 09, 2013, 06:13:09 AM
My home in Silver Spring, Maryland is in a homeowners' association, and as a result all of our streets and sidewalks are private property.
A does not usually imply B.
Like most laws, statutes, policies, rules, etc, they will differ from state to state.
If you come on my property, and refuse to leave, and I call the cops, and they actually come while you are still on my property, you can be charged with trespassing. Sure, they'll give you amble opportunity to leave first. But...if you don't, you can be charged with trespassing.
No signs are needed.
Right, because you (the owner) directly told the person to leave. Hence, "knowingly be on the land against the wishes of the landowner" upthread. I think the question might be whether or not the resident told the person to leave before calling the cops or not. And I say "resident" rather than "landowner" to include those of us who rent a house. You can't just do whatever you want no matter what I say just because I don't own the deed.