Forester says...

On Feb 5, 10:34*pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 2/5/2011 3:52 PM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote:



On Feb 5, 8:51 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" *wrote:
On 2/5/2011 2:43 PM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote:

On Feb 5, 2:29 pm, T m Sherm n _""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" * *wrote:
On 2/5/2011 7:44 AM, Peter Cole wrote:

On 2/4/2011 10:20 PM, T m Sherm n _ * *wrote:
On 2/4/2011 4:23 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
[...]
There is a right to mobility. That goes back centuries, if not
millennia. The world just wouldn't function if people couldn't get
around. The public right of way is just that. To deny right of way by
vehicle type puts the burden of justification on the municipality.. I am
bordered by a road that is a "private way". It is not owned by the city
or state but I can not bar traffic on it. I must allow free passage.

In the US, there is only the right to travel where there is a public
right-of-way.

Right. That's the relevant point. Hence the name.

In the UK, travel over private lands has to be allowed by the owners in
many cases. *Not so in the US.

Flaming idiot. *Many more hypothetical journies are not accomplished
in the UK because travel over private land requires owners permission
and cannot "be allowed". *Trespass is considered a very serious crime
by some landowners. *Lack of co-operation by the authourities means
that punishment can be swift. *Ever heard of lime pits?

Is there not right-of-way over the traditional paths on private lands?

There are ancient footpaths of which many were registered and give the
user the right of legal passage on foot only. *You may not wander from
the path, if maintained. *You may not grab a cabbage, nor a leek. *You
must travel directly to the other side and must not pause on the land
itself, to make a cuppa. *Basically, if you are not actually walking
on the given route, you are trespassing. *Many landowners go out of
their way and remove styles and fingerpoint signage to the paths. *It
is hardly surprising then that walkers then become trespassers because
the way is not marked.

And certainly in the past, open access was allowed for certain
activities, e.g. hunting.

No such thing. *Permission to hunt an area of land may come with a
tenancy, or may even be granted to the local parishoners, but freedom
for all and sundry there has not been. *The ancient rights to the
forest will vary, but usually amount to no more than collecting (not
felling) firewood nuts and berries. *Plums, quinces, pears etc will
have ownership andd you'd better be careful if raiding these.

The hunt had the right to go wherever the fox led it, with the only
restriction being that areas in the territory of other hunts should not
be drawn.

That's the law of the country gent with his shotgun in hand, not the
law of the land. The hunt (fox's) is a specific 'sport' (arguable)
which is carried out over land usually owned by the lord of the manor
who leads the hunt. Over his own land including that occupied by
tennants. Obviously adjacent landowners who partake in the event
would give their permission for the hunt to run over their land. Any
damage caused by trespass on other land, the cost of repairs, damage
tec can legally be recovered from the hunt.

Only a swarm of bees may be recovered off another's land, should you
own the bees, with the protection of the law.

Stop being so fanciful in your ideas what happens here.



--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...1t:429,r:1,s:0

On 2/5/2011 5:22 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Feb 5, 12:51 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 2/5/2011 2:43 PM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote:





On Feb 5, 2:29 pm, T m Sherm n _""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 2/5/2011 7:44 AM, Peter Cole wrote:

On 2/4/2011 10:20 PM, T m Sherm n _ wrote:
On 2/4/2011 4:23 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
[...]
There is a right to mobility. That goes back centuries, if not
millennia. The world just wouldn't function if people couldn't get
around. The public right of way is just that. To deny right of way by
vehicle type puts the burden of justification on the municipality. I am
bordered by a road that is a "private way". It is not owned by the city
or state but I can not bar traffic on it. I must allow free passage.

In the US, there is only the right to travel where there is a public
right-of-way.

Right. That's the relevant point. Hence the name.

In the UK, travel over private lands has to be allowed by the owners in
many cases. Not so in the US.

Flaming idiot. Many more hypothetical journies are not accomplished
in the UK because travel over private land requires owners permission
and cannot "be allowed". Trespass is considered a very serious crime
by some landowners. Lack of co-operation by the authourities means
that punishment can be swift. Ever heard of lime pits?

Is there not right-of-way over the traditional paths on private lands?

And certainly in the past, open access was allowed for certain
activities, e.g. hunting.

Not in the US, although there are plenty of easements over private
lands -- generally given to utilites. Governments can condemn a right
of way if necessary, but in general, one never had the right to cross
on to another's property without permission. There are some
exceptions. In Oregon, for example, the state passed an easment law
that basically gave the beaches to everyone -- which, I'm sure was a
****er for a lot of beach front property owners. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Coast

By the way, an easement or right of way is an interest in property.
If you are talking about a right to cross property or temporarily use
property, that is called a license. You have an implied license to go
in to Muzi's shop 365 days of the year and cannot be arrested for
trespass until the license is revoked, e.g., Muzi tells you to get
out. The old open range laws gave animals a license to wander on to
the highway or graze on your property. Those laws have been trimmed
way back in most range states. I am not aware of any statute or
common law principle giving you an implied license to go on to private
property to hunt game in the US or GB. Private property has always
been the cornerstone of Anglo-American law. The earliest common law
actions were for trespass.-- Jay Beattie.

Please note that in the UK, hunting refers to chasing after foxes, not
shooting or otherwise obtaining game.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 2/5/2011 5:35 PM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote:
On Feb 5, 10:34 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 2/5/2011 3:52 PM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote:



On Feb 5, 8:51 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 2/5/2011 2:43 PM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote:

On Feb 5, 2:29 pm, T m Sherm n _""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 2/5/2011 7:44 AM, Peter Cole wrote:

On 2/4/2011 10:20 PM, T m Sherm n _ wrote:
On 2/4/2011 4:23 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
[...]
There is a right to mobility. That goes back centuries, if not
millennia. The world just wouldn't function if people couldn't get
around. The public right of way is just that. To deny right of way by
vehicle type puts the burden of justification on the municipality. I am
bordered by a road that is a "private way". It is not owned by the city
or state but I can not bar traffic on it. I must allow free passage.

In the US, there is only the right to travel where there is a public
right-of-way.

Right. That's the relevant point. Hence the name.

In the UK, travel over private lands has to be allowed by the owners in
many cases. Not so in the US.

Flaming idiot. Many more hypothetical journies are not accomplished
in the UK because travel over private land requires owners permission
and cannot "be allowed". Trespass is considered a very serious crime
by some landowners. Lack of co-operation by the authourities means
that punishment can be swift. Ever heard of lime pits?

Is there not right-of-way over the traditional paths on private lands?

There are ancient footpaths of which many were registered and give the
user the right of legal passage on foot only. You may not wander from
the path, if maintained. You may not grab a cabbage, nor a leek. You
must travel directly to the other side and must not pause on the land
itself, to make a cuppa. Basically, if you are not actually walking
on the given route, you are trespassing. Many landowners go out of
their way and remove styles and fingerpoint signage to the paths. It
is hardly surprising then that walkers then become trespassers because
the way is not marked.

And certainly in the past, open access was allowed for certain
activities, e.g. hunting.

No such thing. Permission to hunt an area of land may come with a
tenancy, or may even be granted to the local parishoners, but freedom
for all and sundry there has not been. The ancient rights to the
forest will vary, but usually amount to no more than collecting (not
felling) firewood nuts and berries. Plums, quinces, pears etc will
have ownership andd you'd better be careful if raiding these.

The hunt had the right to go wherever the fox led it, with the only
restriction being that areas in the territory of other hunts should not
be drawn.

That's the law of the country gent with his shotgun in hand, not the
law of the land. The hunt (fox's) is a specific 'sport' (arguable)
which is carried out over land usually owned by the lord of the manor
who leads the hunt. Over his own land including that occupied by
tennants. Obviously adjacent landowners who partake in the event
would give their permission for the hunt to run over their land. Any
damage caused by trespass on other land, the cost of repairs, damage
tec can legally be recovered from the hunt.

Only a swarm of bees may be recovered off another's land, should you
own the bees, with the protection of the law.

Stop being so fanciful in your ideas what happens here.

The reality in the past was that the magistrates would *not* have
enforced trespassing claims against those hunting, and would have
limited any penalties to financial compensation for property damage.

As in all places and times, the law is enforced and interpreted to
benefit the privileged of society over the middle class and proletariat.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On Feb 6, 2:00*am, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 2/5/2011 5:35 PM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote:



On Feb 5, 10:34 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" *wrote:
On 2/5/2011 3:52 PM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote:

On Feb 5, 8:51 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" * *wrote:
On 2/5/2011 2:43 PM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote:

On Feb 5, 2:29 pm, T m Sherm n _""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" * * *wrote:
On 2/5/2011 7:44 AM, Peter Cole wrote:

On 2/4/2011 10:20 PM, T m Sherm n _ * * *wrote:
On 2/4/2011 4:23 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
[...]
There is a right to mobility. That goes back centuries, if not
millennia. The world just wouldn't function if people couldn't get
around. The public right of way is just that. To deny right of way by
vehicle type puts the burden of justification on the municipality. I am
bordered by a road that is a "private way". It is not owned by the city
or state but I can not bar traffic on it. I must allow free passage.

In the US, there is only the right to travel where there is a public
right-of-way.

Right. That's the relevant point. Hence the name.

In the UK, travel over private lands has to be allowed by the owners in
many cases. *Not so in the US.

Flaming idiot. *Many more hypothetical journies are not accomplished
in the UK because travel over private land requires owners permission
and cannot "be allowed". *Trespass is considered a very serious crime
by some landowners. *Lack of co-operation by the authourities means
that punishment can be swift. *Ever heard of lime pits?

Is there not right-of-way over the traditional paths on private lands?

There are ancient footpaths of which many were registered and give the
user the right of legal passage on foot only. *You may not wander from
the path, if maintained. *You may not grab a cabbage, nor a leek. *You
must travel directly to the other side and must not pause on the land
itself, to make a cuppa. *Basically, if you are not actually walking
on the given route, you are trespassing. *Many landowners go out of
their way and remove styles and fingerpoint signage to the paths. *It
is hardly surprising then that walkers then become trespassers because
the way is not marked.

And certainly in the past, open access was allowed for certain
activities, e.g. hunting.

No such thing. *Permission to hunt an area of land may come with a
tenancy, or may even be granted to the local parishoners, but freedom
for all and sundry there has not been. *The ancient rights to the
forest will vary, but usually amount to no more than collecting (not
felling) firewood nuts and berries. *Plums, quinces, pears etc will
have ownership andd you'd better be careful if raiding these.

The hunt had the right to go wherever the fox led it, with the only
restriction being that areas in the territory of other hunts should not
be drawn.

That's the law of the country gent with his shotgun in hand, not the
law of the land. *The hunt (fox's) is a specific 'sport' (arguable)
which is carried out over land usually owned by the lord of the manor
who leads the hunt. *Over his own land including that occupied by
tennants. *Obviously adjacent landowners who partake in the event
would give their permission for the hunt to run over their land. *Any
damage caused by trespass on other land, the cost of repairs, damage
tec can legally be recovered from the hunt.

Only a swarm of bees may be recovered off another's land, should you
own the bees, with the protection of the law.

Stop being so fanciful in your ideas what happens here.

The reality in the past was that the magistrates would *not* have
enforced trespassing claims against those hunting, and would have
limited any penalties to financial compensation for property damage.

Trespass has to be shown to reocver damages.


As in all places and times, the law is enforced and interpreted to
benefit the privileged of society over the middle class and proletariat.

JPs are made up, generally from what is considered the lower class
society.

There is not generally the bias assumed against the working/lazy class
in the police courts. By "the law is enforced" I can only assume you
mean criminal law, as 'enforcement' does not attatch itself to civil
action.

County court considers actions of tort, and again, it is difficult to
show bias when the majority of evidence is paper based and clear
cut. Claims are usually settled within twenty minutes.

On Feb 6, 1:57*am, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 2/5/2011 5:22 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:



On Feb 5, 12:51 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" *wrote:
On 2/5/2011 2:43 PM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote:

On Feb 5, 2:29 pm, T m Sherm n _""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" * *wrote:
On 2/5/2011 7:44 AM, Peter Cole wrote:

On 2/4/2011 10:20 PM, T m Sherm n _ * *wrote:
On 2/4/2011 4:23 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
[...]
There is a right to mobility. That goes back centuries, if not
millennia. The world just wouldn't function if people couldn't get
around. The public right of way is just that. To deny right of way by
vehicle type puts the burden of justification on the municipality.. I am
bordered by a road that is a "private way". It is not owned by the city
or state but I can not bar traffic on it. I must allow free passage.

In the US, there is only the right to travel where there is a public
right-of-way.

Right. That's the relevant point. Hence the name.

In the UK, travel over private lands has to be allowed by the owners in
many cases. *Not so in the US.

Flaming idiot. *Many more hypothetical journies are not accomplished
in the UK because travel over private land requires owners permission
and cannot "be allowed". *Trespass is considered a very serious crime
by some landowners. *Lack of co-operation by the authourities means
that punishment can be swift. *Ever heard of lime pits?

Is there not right-of-way over the traditional paths on private lands?

And certainly in the past, open access was allowed for certain
activities, e.g. hunting.

Not in the US, although there are plenty of easements over private
lands -- generally given to utilites. *Governments can condemn a right
of way if necessary, but in general, one never had the right to cross
on to another's property without permission. There are some
exceptions. *In Oregon, for example, the state passed an easment law
that basically gave the beaches to everyone -- which, I'm sure was a
****er for a lot of beach front property owners.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Coast

By the way, an easement or right of way is an interest in property.
If you are talking about a right to cross property or temporarily use
property, that is called a license. *You have an implied license to go
in to Muzi's shop 365 days of the year and cannot be arrested for
trespass until the license is revoked, e.g., Muzi tells you to get
out. *The old open range laws gave animals a license to wander on to
the highway or graze on your property. *Those laws have been trimmed
way back in most range states. *I am not aware of any statute or
common law principle giving you an implied license to go on to private
property to hunt game in the US or GB. Private property has always
been the cornerstone of Anglo-American law. *The earliest common law
actions were for trespass.-- Jay Beattie.

Please note that in the UK, hunting refers to chasing after foxes, not
shooting or otherwise obtaining game.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

FFS hunting is hunting, "fox hunting" with hounds is considered a
sport. Deer is wild and wildly available, should you have permission
from the landowner. We do eat the stuff along with hare, rabbit, hog,
pheasant, partridge, pigeon. It's all hunted because trapping is
mostly illegal. It's just that 98% of the poulation hun ttheir
chicken down in the supemarket. The Hunt means a fox hunt with hounds
but hunting is still widespread.

AMuzi wrote:

Wes Newell wrote:

Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:

In the UK, travel over private lands has to be allowed by the owners in
many cases. *Not so in the US.

What are you talking about? I think my state (Texas) is still part of the
US, and if you come on to my property without my permission I can shoot
you dead.

That's only because Texas is civilized.

By some measures. If you think the law of the jungle constitutes
civilization, you'd probably be right at home here.

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/...k-1186762.html

Note that this murderer got convicted because he pulled his stunt in
"liberal" Austin, but still got off with probation because Austin is
in Texas after all.

In WI, you cannot shoot an armed intruder even if he shoots
first. That's absolute insanity besides being an affront to
liberty, which begins at the individual in his person and
property.

I'd prefer to live in a place where a man's life is valued more highly
than a twelve-pack of beer. YMMV, as you are so fond of saying.

Chalo

On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 16:51:14 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

In WI, you cannot shoot an armed intruder even if he shoots first.
That's absolute insanity besides being an affront to liberty, which
begins at the individual in his person and property.

Yes, it's insanity for a good reason. It's not fact. Self defense is
allowed in every state in the US. Although some only allow enough force
to stop the attacker. IOW's, you can't put them down, then walk up to
them and keep shooting them til they're dead. Here, one can shoot a
burglar/robber in the back while they're fleeing. It doesn't matter if
they are armed or not.

On 2/5/2011 11:52 PM, Chalo Colina wrote:
AMuzi wrote:

Wes Newell wrote:

Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:

In the UK, travel over private lands has to be allowed by the owners in
many cases. Not so in the US.

What are you talking about? I think my state (Texas) is still part of the
US, and if you come on to my property without my permission I can shoot
you dead.

That's only because Texas is civilized.

By some measures. If you think the law of the jungle constitutes
civilization, you'd probably be right at home here.

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/...k-1186762.html

Note that this murderer got convicted because he pulled his stunt in
"liberal" Austin, but still got off with probation because Austin is
in Texas after all.

In WI, you cannot shoot an armed intruder even if he shoots
first. That's absolute insanity besides being an affront to
liberty, which begins at the individual in his person and
property.

I'd prefer to live in a place where a man's life is valued more highly
than a twelve-pack of beer. YMMV, as you are so fond of saying.

Commercial property is more valuable than human life, unless the human
is from the upper classes.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 2/5/2011 8:23 PM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote:
On Feb 6, 2:00 am, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 2/5/2011 5:35 PM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote:



On Feb 5, 10:34 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 2/5/2011 3:52 PM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote:

On Feb 5, 8:51 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 2/5/2011 2:43 PM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote:

On Feb 5, 2:29 pm, T m Sherm n _""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 2/5/2011 7:44 AM, Peter Cole wrote:

On 2/4/2011 10:20 PM, T m Sherm n _ wrote:
On 2/4/2011 4:23 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
[...]
There is a right to mobility. That goes back centuries, if not
millennia. The world just wouldn't function if people couldn't get
around. The public right of way is just that. To deny right of way by
vehicle type puts the burden of justification on the municipality. I am
bordered by a road that is a "private way". It is not owned by the city
or state but I can not bar traffic on it. I must allow free passage.

In the US, there is only the right to travel where there is a public
right-of-way.

Right. That's the relevant point. Hence the name.

In the UK, travel over private lands has to be allowed by the owners in
many cases. Not so in the US.

Flaming idiot. Many more hypothetical journies are not accomplished
in the UK because travel over private land requires owners permission
and cannot "be allowed". Trespass is considered a very serious crime
by some landowners. Lack of co-operation by the authourities means
that punishment can be swift. Ever heard of lime pits?

Is there not right-of-way over the traditional paths on private lands?

There are ancient footpaths of which many were registered and give the
user the right of legal passage on foot only. You may not wander from
the path, if maintained. You may not grab a cabbage, nor a leek. You
must travel directly to the other side and must not pause on the land
itself, to make a cuppa. Basically, if you are not actually walking
on the given route, you are trespassing. Many landowners go out of
their way and remove styles and fingerpoint signage to the paths. It
is hardly surprising then that walkers then become trespassers because
the way is not marked.

And certainly in the past, open access was allowed for certain
activities, e.g. hunting.

No such thing. Permission to hunt an area of land may come with a
tenancy, or may even be granted to the local parishoners, but freedom
for all and sundry there has not been. The ancient rights to the
forest will vary, but usually amount to no more than collecting (not
felling) firewood nuts and berries. Plums, quinces, pears etc will
have ownership andd you'd better be careful if raiding these.

The hunt had the right to go wherever the fox led it, with the only
restriction being that areas in the territory of other hunts should not
be drawn.

That's the law of the country gent with his shotgun in hand, not the
law of the land. The hunt (fox's) is a specific 'sport' (arguable)
which is carried out over land usually owned by the lord of the manor
who leads the hunt. Over his own land including that occupied by
tennants. Obviously adjacent landowners who partake in the event
would give their permission for the hunt to run over their land. Any
damage caused by trespass on other land, the cost of repairs, damage
tec can legally be recovered from the hunt.

Only a swarm of bees may be recovered off another's land, should you
own the bees, with the protection of the law.

Stop being so fanciful in your ideas what happens here.

The reality in the past was that the magistrates would *not* have
enforced trespassing claims against those hunting, and would have
limited any penalties to financial compensation for property damage.

Trespass has to be shown to reocver damages.


As in all places and times, the law is enforced and interpreted to
benefit the privileged of society over the middle class and proletariat.

JPs are made up, generally from what is considered the lower class
society.

There is not generally the bias assumed against the working/lazy class
in the police courts. By "the law is enforced" I can only assume you
mean criminal law, as 'enforcement' does not attatch itself to civil
action.

County court considers actions of tort, and again, it is difficult to
show bias when the majority of evidence is paper based and clear
cut. Claims are usually settled within twenty minutes.

Note past tense.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.