Continue with onX Maps
Sign in with Facebook
Thoughts on tresspassing
A Non wrote: Loll Mobes, I never thought you’d ask! AJ and the Infowars platform is arguably one of the most credible news sources in existence today. Its not just AM radio - you can stream it live online! https://www.infowars.com/watch-alex-jones-show/https://banned.video/watch?id=5eb56ace086bd2007913612f Go ahead and talk as much shit as you want, but this is America and he has as much of a right to free speech as you or I. Even CNN has begrudgingly admitted that he was right about poisoning the groundwater with fluoride: https://culttture.com/2019/cnn-admits-alex-jones-was-right-about-fluoride/ |
|
Do you think that the National Parks and other types of Gov owned land for outdoor recreation would be as prevalent in the US without our private property laws? |
Dales DeadBug wrote: Arguably is correct! |
A Non wrote: I think Dales is confused what “credible” means Like saying.....“The Kardashians are some of the most credible celebrities” ...“he’s one of the most credible Bigfoot researchers”....“There’s credible evidence that sticking a UV light up your ass will cure covid-19” There’s nothing credible about Alex Jones |
Kristine S wrote: Never had to deal with an HOA I suppose... |
Mark Pilate wrote: Well,to be fair, he was right once! |
|
It's amazing to me how similar the extremist liberals and conservatives are. If I can't get what I want through the nominally socially accepted means (i.e. legal) then I'll just take it through whatever means gets me what I want. |
Mark Pilate wrote: Have you ever actually listened to one of his broadcasts? Or did you pull this out of your ass based on.... some other information peddler? We can check your source’s actual track record and compare side by side against AJ’s. Credibility can be evaluated objectively - a lot more than just one of his panicky warnings have been conclusively proven to be true. Look it up for yourself - assuming that you actually want to stay connected to reality. I’m not going to stop you from hiding in a confirmation-bias echo chamber - keep chugging that fluoride! |
Bill Czajkowski wrote: It's amazing to me how similar the extremist liberals and conservatives are. If I can't get what I want through the nominally socially accepted means (i.e. legal) then I'll just take it through whatever means gets me what I want.A “by any means necessary” attitude is reckless, dangerous and lacks empathy for your fellow human beings who just happen to have life experiences and opinions that differ from your own. You should join Antifa and beat up some old women at a prayer rally - you'd fit right in. |
tom donnelly wrote: I don't think that's correct. The 1973 date is tied only to coastal access because 1973 is when the California Coastal Act came into being. But as far as I know there's no such limit on prescriptive easement cases in other areas of CA. The major criteria I know are that in California, a public use of private land may establish a prescriptive easement by proving that his or her use of another’s land was: (1) continuous and uninterrupted for five years; (2) open and notorious; and (3) hostile (which means against the wishes of the landowner). |
A Non wrote: You’re right. We should acknowledge that he’s advanced halfway to broken clock status! |
Dales DeadBug wrote: A “by any means necessary” attitude is reckless, dangerous and lacks empathy for your fellow human beings who just happen to have life experiences and opinions that differ from your own. You should join Antifa and beat up some old women at a prayer rally - you'd fit right in. Um, maybe reread what Bill wrote? |
Kristine S wrote: If you cant see the difference between someone hanging out in your backyard right next to your bedroom window where your kids are sleeping, and someone passing through land you happen to "own" miles from your home, then I dont know what to tell you. |
Troll in the Dungeon ! wrote: I'm sympathetic to public access causes for sure, especially when it's simply a trail easement to reach publicly owned land. But I also lived for a while on a ranch that did not back ANY public land and was at the end of a very long dirt road and you would not believe how many shady and shifty characters would show up looking to "hunt" (really poaching out of season) or "explore" (meaning try to grow illegal pot in hidden spots). Nobody needs that shit in their backyard, even if their backyard is 10,000 acres. |
|
I think I know exactly where this guy lives... I have a friend who used to live in a place that sounds exactly like this and we had a lovely run in with a guy who sounds just like Danny. Four of us were riding our MTBs from buddy's house to a trail about a mile away and dude came ripping down the road toward us and screeched to a sideways halt in his OHV (SUPER fucking dramatic entrance) and laid into us for being "on a private road" (we were NOT on a private road but other than trail access, there were only a couple houses at the top...so unless we were visiting one of those houses we apparently had no business being there). The whole time he was badgering us with a hand resting a shotgun sitting in his lap. I'd never seen anything more crotchety white guy than that and feel pretty safe in saying that if we were POC, it would have been a MUCH worse experience. |
abandon moderation wrote: Or if you're in Texas, just put up some purple painted posts. FWIW, in Texas (I dunno other places) you can get arrested if you see (or fail to see) a no trespassing sign. I don't think that's ethical or right, but I'm already aware that I don't agree with a lot of folks and don't expect them to agree with me :D |
|
Some countries are sane on this issue: The freedom to roam, or "everyman's right", is the general public's right to access certain public or privately owned land, lakes, and rivers for recreation and exercise. The right is sometimes called the right of public access to the wilderness or the "right to roam". |
|
I think that if you know you are trespassing and do it anyway there should be charges if caught. It goes against rights of land owners and the right to own land of no one feels like they have to obey private property rights. I have sent some “warning shots” at some people that didn’t think private property applied to them and I hope when the bullet came wizzing past them and they had to of pooped there pants when there face turned white and ran away. |
Zack Ostendorf wrote: I have sent some “warning shots” at some people that didn’t think private property applied to them seems like a rational take. |
PWZ wrote: Well, the probelm is that the people you're shooting at know where you live, but you don't have any idea who they are. |
