|
Authored by: jesse on Wednesday, March 13 2013 @ 09:31 PM EDT |
My dad had to have the land posted to keep the hunters out, or it was
unenforceable (he tried to have some arrested for trespass, but couldn't because
they had not been warned).
Also a part of "computer trespass" - the trespasser had to be informed
of the rules before the login... And that is still a requirement at the DoD,
where they must have a notice up before/during the login presentation.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 09:23 AM EDT |
If that is the case, then I'm very happy to live in a country where laws are
different. Unless told otherwise, it is safe to assume that I can walk through
the forest or other land.
If the road goes there and there is no "closed" or "private
property sign", I can use that road.
You can walk around without being afraid of traps and unexpected fines. It is a
good feeling.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ukjaybrat on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 10:21 AM EDT |
I'm not really familiar with all of the trespassing laws, but
i would imagine there is a big difference between a wooded
area at the back of someone's property and someone's front
lawn in a clearly defined residential neighborhood. A hunter
or wanderer can reasonably wander into someone's woods rather
easily without noticing any signs or posts. but if you are
picnicking on my front lawn in a clearly defined residential
community, that would be completely different, and i believe
that is the point of the comparison.
---
IANAL[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 12:41 PM EDT |
I can't speak for other jurisdictions, but in Vermont access is allowed
"unless notice against trespass is given". [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 01:21 PM EDT |
Quoting what I think is the relevant piece:
(ii) in paragraph
(b), clause (9), means the placement of a sign at least 8-1/2 inches by 11
inches in a conspicuous place on the exterior of the building that is under
construction, alteration, or repair, or in a conspicuous place within the area
being protected. If the area being protected is less than three acres, one
additional sign must be conspicuously placed within that area. If the area being
protected is three acres but less than ten acres, two additional signs must be
conspicuously placed within that area. For each additional full ten acres of
area being protected beyond the first ten acres of area, two additional signs
must be conspicuously placed within the area being protected. The sign must
carry a general notice warning against trespass; and
(iii) in paragraph (b),
clause (10), means the placement of signs that:
(A) carry a general notice
warning against trespass;
(B) display letters at least two inches
high;
(C) state that Minnesota law prohibits trespassing on the property;
and
(D) are posted in a conspicuous place and at intervals of 500 feet or
less.
Whole statute here. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Wol on Saturday, March 16 2013 @ 12:41 PM EDT |
I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but in the UK aiui trespass isn't
even an offence as such!
Refusing to leave when lawfully requested is an offense (and putting signs up is
a lawful request (mostly)), or causing wilful damage or hindering the owner in
his rightful enjoyment of his property is the offence. Known, I believe, as
"aggravated trespass".
That was the point of the "right to roam" legislation. It restricted
the ability of a landowner to "lawfully request" someone to leave. But
"hindering the owner in the lawful enjoyment of his property" remains
just as much an offense as ever, which is why you can't wander across crops
etc.
And that woods comment? Well, if the owner is holding a shooting party then you
getting in the way could be fatal... but the law is strict about WHEN such
events can be carried out, so sometimes trespass is perfectly okay, other times
it isn't.
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|