![]() | Trespass was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
2 questions about the paragraphs on railroad trespassing. 1) Does it make sense that "police ... prosecute"? That's not a normal function of "police" (per my "extensive legal training" via the Law and Order intro).
2) Isn't it misleading (at best) to compare trespass fines with drunk driving fines? The latter often include loss of driving privileges and jail time. But this article only talks about "fines".
- 75.189.196.120 ( talk) 04:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
It is my understanding that in the UK, trespass is NOT an offence. However causing any kind of damage whilst trespassing is an offence. -- SGBailey 08:51 May 4, 2003 (UTC)
Trespass is a civil wrong and will not attract criminal liability unless it is aggravated in some way. It is possible, in a civil claim, to sue a trespasser either to enforce your proprietary integrity or to prevent further instances of trespass. This will not be a criminal offence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.111.135.238 ( talk • contribs) 18:18, 27 February 2005 (UTC)
If a person is caught on the property/or has been seen by security once finally caught.... what can security do to stop them from coming back??...even if the trespasser knows that he/she shouldn't be there.-- 69.192.168.97 14:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I added a new subheading of prevention, with some basic topical sentences and supported by some of my own photography. If people wish to expand it, please do so. Likewise, if it's seen as not wanted in the article, delete it appropriately. Reverieuk 22:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to be adding a few more minor exceptions to trespassing laws. Feel free to revert if you think it's out of line.-- Legomancer 03:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
From the article:
This is not correct; Texas law allows use of deadly force when necessary to prevent theft or criminal mischief (crime of intentionally causing property damage) after dark, but not in case of simple trespass. Texas penal code ( main page). - Mike Rosoft 08:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Whatever the position in Texas, please remember the scope of this article is potentially worldwide. In dealing with a legal concept, such as this, it is inevitable that not every aspect of local or national legislation can be covered. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
You misinterpret your source. Paragraph 9.41 states: "use force"; not deadly force. Call a lawyer before you post. No where in the US, on private property, is it OK to shoot trespassers outside your front door unless they pose an immediate threat to Life,; not property. Even when breaking into your home, only states with the Castle Doctrine allow you to shoot first without being charged for assault or attempted murder /murder.(Of course, these charges usually fall right apart if the intruder was armed.) And, Peterkingiron, if you look up "Trespasser" on Wikipedia, it Does say:"shooting ok in US" (wrong!)--so this point is justified here if it is mentioned there. 68.231.189.108 ( talk) 15:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC) 68.231.189.108 ( talk) 15:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Or, rather, lack thereof. The article as it stands is very poor.
Dricherby ( talk) 01:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the article lacks a good structure. Headers should include: Legal concepts, Origin, Application in different jurisdictions (covering the main legal systems (English Common Law, European Codified law, muslim law, socialist law, chinese law, Germanic law, US law, hindu law), and then examples in different national jurisdictions). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarantus ( talk • contribs) 17:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
"Most jurisdictions do not allow "self-help" to remove trespassers. The usual procedure is to ask the trespassing person to leave, then to call law enforcement officials if they do not. As long as the trespasser is not posing an immediate threat, they cannot be removed by force. It is usually illegal to arrest a trespasser and hold them on the property until law enforcement arrives as this defeats the purpose of allowing them to cure the trespass by leaving. A large exception to this rule are railroads in the United States and Canada, who employ their own police forces to enforce state or provincial trespassing laws. Railroad police have the ability to independently arrest and prosecute trespassers without the approval or assistance of local law enforcement. Further, in many jurisdictions, trespassing on railroad tracks is considered a very severe offense comparable to drunk driving, with severe fines imposed on the tresspassers."
If this were really the case then bodygaurds, private security agencies, etc . . . would be illegal, as would people removing by necessary (though not deadly) force someone that is on their property. I have never heard this before, and would like a citation, our source as this does not even sound remotely right. 216.201.12.177 ( talk) 00:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure I understand you. A self-help remedy still exists provided that the owenr can enter peacefully?
What I am asking is is it true that "As long as the trespasser is not posing an immediate threat, they cannot be removed by force. It is usually illegal to arrest a trespasser and hold them on the property until law enforcement arrives as this defeats the purpose of allowing them to cure the trespass by leaving." This sounds like bull to me, because I know that rich people have private security, bodygaurds, and that if somebody comes into my home I can legally throw them out by force.
Just to clarify you may not be able to hold somebody there till law enforcement arrives, but you can certainly use force to throw them out.
At least I thought so. 216.201.12.177 ( talk) 05:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
In many states in the US like CA, a citizen's arrest -holding until PD arrive--is legal. 68.231.189.108 ( talk) 15:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Right of public access to the wilderness and Freedom to roam in the end of this article lead to the same page. -- Juufkk ( talk) 17:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
This reference may require clarification. Since "invitee" has just been defined, stating that they are not invitees seems redundant. Nor am I sure that the conclusion that since they are not invitees they must be trespassers is valid. It certainly creates the misleading impression that they do not have a right to come up your walk in order to reach your front door. I believe this issue was addressed in the USA in the 1940's. The precedent-setting decision referred to a "beaten path" to one's front door and established that it is generally not trespassing to traverse this "beaten path" in order to knock on someone's front door. Few people care to remove the "beaten path" by putting up "No Trespassing" signs in front of their houses. Does anyone have the reference for this descision?
Also, the Stratton, Ohio case, while important, does not belong in this article because trespassing was not an issue in it. I suspect it was included because it would not have been worth arguing if the law of trespass already prevented unsolicited visits from Jehovah's Witnesses.
-- User:Chappell 31 July 2008
I have not reverted what has been added by an (unlogged in) editor (probably a French-speaker), though I am not happy with what he has done. This is because the origin is in Law French - Medieval Norman French as spoken in England - not modern French. Can some one tidy this up? Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
My understanding was that the phrase was formerly "forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors", and that this formulation was changed when the bankers' power grew, and as an accommodation to them; that is, once lending at interest became popular.
The meaning would be "forgive us for those commitments we made, arguably well meant at the start, but now seen to have gone hopelessly bad, and possibly we should have known better if we were not such nitwits."
( Martin | talk • contribs 20:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC))
A large tree at least 100 years old whose branches overhang the neightbours property. The neighbour has asked solicitors and they have written demanding that I remove this nuisance. Am I liable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.76.94 ( talk) 03:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I found it necessary to completely rewrite the page. The previous page was filled with errors and lacked fluidity and cohesiveness. The new version resembles the Trespass in English law page, but expands its scope to other jurisdictions, particularly the United States, but also Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Andy85719 ( talk) 23:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
As is often the case, the word "trespass" is not easily conveyed in other languages. While it is reasonable to expect an international perspective on the topic, there are few analogues outside the common law community. Perhaps we ought to refer criminal trespass statutes to which this page now links to a page on unlawful entry, as nearly all of those pages lack mention of the tort (delict). Andy85719 ( talk) 23:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer: Ironholds ( talk) 12:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm quite tempted to quickfail this, quickfast. It completely fails to give a worldwide view of the topic, most of the references are to cases and not to the third-party sources we prefer, and said case references don't take into account the lay status of the average reader. Ironholds ( talk) 12:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Should we split to Trespass and Trespass (US)? I agree that the body of this reads as US Law and not as the international philosophical concept of trespass. Endercase ( talk) 13:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Is there a philosophy of trespass? I am curious to learn if the concept of trespass can be derived from first principles, and if some theory of trespass informs, precedes, or transcends trespass laws. Thanks! -- Lbeaumont ( talk) 15:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Unlawful Entry (film) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 15:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() | Trespass was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
2 questions about the paragraphs on railroad trespassing. 1) Does it make sense that "police ... prosecute"? That's not a normal function of "police" (per my "extensive legal training" via the Law and Order intro).
2) Isn't it misleading (at best) to compare trespass fines with drunk driving fines? The latter often include loss of driving privileges and jail time. But this article only talks about "fines".
- 75.189.196.120 ( talk) 04:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
It is my understanding that in the UK, trespass is NOT an offence. However causing any kind of damage whilst trespassing is an offence. -- SGBailey 08:51 May 4, 2003 (UTC)
Trespass is a civil wrong and will not attract criminal liability unless it is aggravated in some way. It is possible, in a civil claim, to sue a trespasser either to enforce your proprietary integrity or to prevent further instances of trespass. This will not be a criminal offence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.111.135.238 ( talk • contribs) 18:18, 27 February 2005 (UTC)
If a person is caught on the property/or has been seen by security once finally caught.... what can security do to stop them from coming back??...even if the trespasser knows that he/she shouldn't be there.-- 69.192.168.97 14:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I added a new subheading of prevention, with some basic topical sentences and supported by some of my own photography. If people wish to expand it, please do so. Likewise, if it's seen as not wanted in the article, delete it appropriately. Reverieuk 22:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to be adding a few more minor exceptions to trespassing laws. Feel free to revert if you think it's out of line.-- Legomancer 03:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
From the article:
This is not correct; Texas law allows use of deadly force when necessary to prevent theft or criminal mischief (crime of intentionally causing property damage) after dark, but not in case of simple trespass. Texas penal code ( main page). - Mike Rosoft 08:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Whatever the position in Texas, please remember the scope of this article is potentially worldwide. In dealing with a legal concept, such as this, it is inevitable that not every aspect of local or national legislation can be covered. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
You misinterpret your source. Paragraph 9.41 states: "use force"; not deadly force. Call a lawyer before you post. No where in the US, on private property, is it OK to shoot trespassers outside your front door unless they pose an immediate threat to Life,; not property. Even when breaking into your home, only states with the Castle Doctrine allow you to shoot first without being charged for assault or attempted murder /murder.(Of course, these charges usually fall right apart if the intruder was armed.) And, Peterkingiron, if you look up "Trespasser" on Wikipedia, it Does say:"shooting ok in US" (wrong!)--so this point is justified here if it is mentioned there. 68.231.189.108 ( talk) 15:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC) 68.231.189.108 ( talk) 15:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Or, rather, lack thereof. The article as it stands is very poor.
Dricherby ( talk) 01:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the article lacks a good structure. Headers should include: Legal concepts, Origin, Application in different jurisdictions (covering the main legal systems (English Common Law, European Codified law, muslim law, socialist law, chinese law, Germanic law, US law, hindu law), and then examples in different national jurisdictions). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarantus ( talk • contribs) 17:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
"Most jurisdictions do not allow "self-help" to remove trespassers. The usual procedure is to ask the trespassing person to leave, then to call law enforcement officials if they do not. As long as the trespasser is not posing an immediate threat, they cannot be removed by force. It is usually illegal to arrest a trespasser and hold them on the property until law enforcement arrives as this defeats the purpose of allowing them to cure the trespass by leaving. A large exception to this rule are railroads in the United States and Canada, who employ their own police forces to enforce state or provincial trespassing laws. Railroad police have the ability to independently arrest and prosecute trespassers without the approval or assistance of local law enforcement. Further, in many jurisdictions, trespassing on railroad tracks is considered a very severe offense comparable to drunk driving, with severe fines imposed on the tresspassers."
If this were really the case then bodygaurds, private security agencies, etc . . . would be illegal, as would people removing by necessary (though not deadly) force someone that is on their property. I have never heard this before, and would like a citation, our source as this does not even sound remotely right. 216.201.12.177 ( talk) 00:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure I understand you. A self-help remedy still exists provided that the owenr can enter peacefully?
What I am asking is is it true that "As long as the trespasser is not posing an immediate threat, they cannot be removed by force. It is usually illegal to arrest a trespasser and hold them on the property until law enforcement arrives as this defeats the purpose of allowing them to cure the trespass by leaving." This sounds like bull to me, because I know that rich people have private security, bodygaurds, and that if somebody comes into my home I can legally throw them out by force.
Just to clarify you may not be able to hold somebody there till law enforcement arrives, but you can certainly use force to throw them out.
At least I thought so. 216.201.12.177 ( talk) 05:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
In many states in the US like CA, a citizen's arrest -holding until PD arrive--is legal. 68.231.189.108 ( talk) 15:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Right of public access to the wilderness and Freedom to roam in the end of this article lead to the same page. -- Juufkk ( talk) 17:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
This reference may require clarification. Since "invitee" has just been defined, stating that they are not invitees seems redundant. Nor am I sure that the conclusion that since they are not invitees they must be trespassers is valid. It certainly creates the misleading impression that they do not have a right to come up your walk in order to reach your front door. I believe this issue was addressed in the USA in the 1940's. The precedent-setting decision referred to a "beaten path" to one's front door and established that it is generally not trespassing to traverse this "beaten path" in order to knock on someone's front door. Few people care to remove the "beaten path" by putting up "No Trespassing" signs in front of their houses. Does anyone have the reference for this descision?
Also, the Stratton, Ohio case, while important, does not belong in this article because trespassing was not an issue in it. I suspect it was included because it would not have been worth arguing if the law of trespass already prevented unsolicited visits from Jehovah's Witnesses.
-- User:Chappell 31 July 2008
I have not reverted what has been added by an (unlogged in) editor (probably a French-speaker), though I am not happy with what he has done. This is because the origin is in Law French - Medieval Norman French as spoken in England - not modern French. Can some one tidy this up? Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
My understanding was that the phrase was formerly "forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors", and that this formulation was changed when the bankers' power grew, and as an accommodation to them; that is, once lending at interest became popular.
The meaning would be "forgive us for those commitments we made, arguably well meant at the start, but now seen to have gone hopelessly bad, and possibly we should have known better if we were not such nitwits."
( Martin | talk • contribs 20:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC))
A large tree at least 100 years old whose branches overhang the neightbours property. The neighbour has asked solicitors and they have written demanding that I remove this nuisance. Am I liable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.76.94 ( talk) 03:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I found it necessary to completely rewrite the page. The previous page was filled with errors and lacked fluidity and cohesiveness. The new version resembles the Trespass in English law page, but expands its scope to other jurisdictions, particularly the United States, but also Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Andy85719 ( talk) 23:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
As is often the case, the word "trespass" is not easily conveyed in other languages. While it is reasonable to expect an international perspective on the topic, there are few analogues outside the common law community. Perhaps we ought to refer criminal trespass statutes to which this page now links to a page on unlawful entry, as nearly all of those pages lack mention of the tort (delict). Andy85719 ( talk) 23:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer: Ironholds ( talk) 12:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm quite tempted to quickfail this, quickfast. It completely fails to give a worldwide view of the topic, most of the references are to cases and not to the third-party sources we prefer, and said case references don't take into account the lay status of the average reader. Ironholds ( talk) 12:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Should we split to Trespass and Trespass (US)? I agree that the body of this reads as US Law and not as the international philosophical concept of trespass. Endercase ( talk) 13:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Is there a philosophy of trespass? I am curious to learn if the concept of trespass can be derived from first principles, and if some theory of trespass informs, precedes, or transcends trespass laws. Thanks! -- Lbeaumont ( talk) 15:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Unlawful Entry (film) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 15:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)