[Shipping up to Boston]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Air space has different rules than roads and construction sites. Pretty sure being over 50 feet up in the air OVER a construction site or unpaved road, is not going to be treated the same as placing yourself atop your bicycle upon that road through the construction site. Drones don't have to stop at stop signs. Bicycles do. Bicycles that roll on through stop signs, and don't slow down for "no trespassing" signs that they ride next to, are not going to be treated the same as a drone that flies 50 feet or more over the ground.

Agree.

The ‘bicycles that roll thru stop signs’ though, that is a normal Monday here!

[Shipping up to Boston]

Originally Posted by ElDiabloJoe

I do not know enough about the nut in question's activities to defend him, however my understanding of trespassing is that there are two elements to that crime.

The first element that must be met is that a person must be in a place which they have no legal authority to be. The second element is that they must be asked to leave by someone with control or authority over that place and refuse to leave. Both elements must be present in order for a crime to occur.

For example (this actually happened to someone I know in California):

If someone breaks into your home, steals nothing, and leaves when confronted and demanded to get out, you have no crime. Burglary requires entering a four-sided structure with the intent to commit petty theft or any felony. Without the intent you got no crime. Same with the trespassing.

If the nut is standing somewhere he is allowed to be (or somewhere he is not but no one in authority has demanded he leave), and flying in airspace that is not restricted by the FAA, then he is not committing any crime. Unless his truck is illegally parked, but that's not in question here I believe.

Even simple things can be much more complex than the cop shows on TV depict.

Btw your CA version of entering a dwelling is the anti FL version of Castle Doctrine/Stand your Ground laws.

In CA, under your scenario, the perp probably gets a Swiss cheese sandwich from the State..... In FL, under same scenario, the perp becomes a Swiss cheese sandwich ...

[ElDiabloJoe]

Originally Posted by Shipping up to Boston

Btw your CA version of entering a dwelling is the anti FL version of Castle Doctrine/Stand your Ground laws.

In CA, under your scenario, the perp probably gets a Swiss cheese sandwich from the State..... In FL, under same scenario, the perp becomes a Swiss cheese sandwich ...

Castle Doctrine / Stand Your Ground laws still require the lawful occupant to be in fear for their lives to the degree that the hypothetical "reasonable man" (i.e. - judge or jury) would agree a lawful occupant's life was in imminent (immediate) peril, great bodily harm, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony (i.e. rape) and that deadly force was the only option remaining. If the suspect is just refusing to leave (or unlawfully flying his drone), Castle Doctrine will not justify deadly force.

By the way, good luck getting 12 rocks in a box (jurors) to agree on what is reasonable or not. You willing to put your freedom at risk having no idea what they or a Soros-approved jurist would consider "reasonable?"

I know a very well educated (Chicago law school) and very bright woman who believes that due to the punishments and added stress to life that being caught committing a crime would bring, a person would be crazy to commit a serious crime. And, of course, being crazy enough to do that would mean they could not be found guilty due to their insanity. No lie, I've argued with this person enough to know they truly believe that.

Look, I'm not arguing for a suspect's rights by any means - in fact I believe they should have very few, I'm just showing how black/white statements are actually very very gray in the criminal justice world and blanket statements rarely apply.

[Shipping up to Boston]

Originally Posted by ElDiabloJoe

Castle Doctrine / Stand Your Ground laws still require the lawful occupant to be in fear for their lives to the degree that the hypothetical "reasonable man" (i.e. - judge or jury) would agree a lawful occupant's life was in imminent (immediate) peril, great bodily harm, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony (i.e. rape) and that deadly force was the only option remaining. If the suspect is just refusing to leave (or unlawfully flying his drone), Castle Doctrine will not justify deadly force.

By the way, good luck getting 12 rocks in a box (jurors) to agree on what is reasonable or not. You willing to put your freedom at risk having no idea what they or a Soros-approved jurist would consider "reasonable?"

I know a very well educated (Chicago law school) and very bright woman who believes that due to the punishments and added stress to life that being caught committing a crime would bring, a person would be crazy to commit a serious crime. And, of course, being crazy enough to do that would mean they could not be found guilty due to their insanity. No lie, I've argued with this person enough to know they truly believe that.

Look, I'm not arguing for a suspect's rights by any means - in fact I believe they should have very few, I'm just showing how black/white statements are actually very very gray in the criminal justice world and blanket statements rarely apply.

There are some decent threads on this in ToTV archives. Not saying your premise is wrong....just saying I like my chances with my ‘box of rocks’ in FL vs yours (anybody’s) in CA

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by ElDiabloJoe

I do not know enough about the nut in question's activities to defend him, however my understanding of trespassing is that there are two elements to that crime.

The first element that must be met is that a person must be in a place which they have no legal authority to be. The second element is that they must be asked to leave by someone with control or authority over that place and refuse to leave. Both elements must be present in order for a crime to occur.

For example (this actually happened to someone I know in California):

If someone breaks into your home, steals nothing, and leaves when confronted and demanded to get out, you have no crime. Burglary requires entering a four-sided structure with the intent to commit petty theft or any felony. Without the intent you got no crime. Same with the trespassing.

If the nut is standing somewhere he is allowed to be (or somewhere he is not but no one in authority has demanded he leave), and flying in airspace that is not restricted by the FAA, then he is not committing any crime. Unless his truck is illegally parked, but that's not in question here I believe.

Even simple things can be much more complex than the cop shows on TV depict.

That would be incorrect. "Breaking and entering" is a crime in and of itself.

[ElDiabloJoe]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

That would be incorrect. "Breaking and entering" is a crime in and of itself.

Depends on the jurisdiction. California has no such law. The applicable penal code is 459 - Burglary. In fact, using the magic search engine on "Breaking and Entering Florida" brings up this tidbit synopsis from the Roelke Law Firm in Jacksonville, FL:

"Breaking and entering is not a separate offense in Florida, but a commonplace term for acts of burglary that don't result in the commission of another offense. Technically, when you are facing a breaking and entering charge in Duval County or elsewhere in Florida, you are facing a burglary charge as defined in Fla."

According to Goldman Wetzel law firm in the Tampa area, burglary in Florida has similar elements to California's law:

"In Florida, the elements of burglary include entering a property and the intention to commit a crime there. In other words, a burglary offense occurs as soon as the offender enters a home, building or conveyance without permission and with the intent to commit a crime."

So again, just being in the house without any intent (which you would have to prove and/or demonstrate) is not burglary. If they suspect was inside and took a bottle of water from the fridge - yes, you have a burglary because you can prove the intent by the actual theft of the water. If the suspect breaks inside and falls asleep on the couch, you do not have a burglary, or trespassing, or any felony.

Breaking and entering is often not an actual crime, but is conflated or shorthand for "Burglary."

Robbery is also often conflated with burglary. People will say the store got robbed, or the bank was robbed, or my house got robbed. In fact, a place cannot get robbed. Robbery requires an actual person victim. The definition is usually something along the lines of: Robbery - the taking of property from on or about a person by the means of force or fear. You gotta have both, the taking from a person and the force/fear. A house cannot be in fear, and a house is not a person therefore houses are burglarized and people are robbed.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by ElDiabloJoe

Depends on the jurisdiction. California has no such law. The applicable penal code is 459 - Burglary. In fact, using the magic search engine on "Breaking and Entering Florida" brings up this tidbit synopsis from the Roelke Law Firm in Jacksonville, FL:

"Breaking and entering is not a separate offense in Florida, but a commonplace term for acts of burglary that don't result in the commission of another offense. Technically, when you are facing a breaking and entering charge in Duval County or elsewhere in Florida, you are facing a burglary charge as defined in Fla."

According to Goldman Wetzel law firm in the Tampa area, burglary in Florida has similar elements to California's law:

"In Florida, the elements of burglary include entering a property and the intention to commit a crime there. In other words, a burglary offense occurs as soon as the offender enters a home, building or conveyance without permission and with the intent to commit a crime."

So again, just being in the house without any intent (which you would have to prove and/or demonstrate) is not burglary. If they suspect was inside and took a bottle of water from the fridge - yes, you have a burglary because you can prove the intent by the actual theft of the water. If the suspect breaks inside and falls asleep on the couch, you do not have a burglary, or trespassing, or any felony.

Breaking and entering is often not an actual crime, but is conflated or shorthand for "Burglary."

Robbery is also often conflated with burglary. People will say the store got robbed, or the bank was robbed, or my house got robbed. In fact, a place cannot get robbed. Robbery requires an actual person victim. The definition is usually something along the lines of: Robbery - the taking of property from on or about a person by the means of force or fear. You gotta have both, the taking from a person and the force/fear. A house cannot be in fear, and a house is not a person therefore houses are burglarized and people are robbed.

And none of this has anything to do with riding a bicycle down a path in a construction zone that has a sign saying NO TRESPASSING, or drones flying OVER construction zones, without actually being ON/IN them.

None of it has anything to do with riding past stop signs without even slowing down.

[Mookie55]

I'm confused. Am I criminal because I don't follow the letter of the law? Do you stop at every stop sign you come to?What if you have clear sight in every direction and there's no one in sight?Do you stop, count to 3 and then proceed? You say I'm not even slowing down. Not sure how you can say that? I was out at a time where hardly anyone was out on the roads. Believe me I know that I lose if in a collision with a vehicle and I don't have a death wish