Talk:Trespass

message: 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)
thread_title:  Railroad info 

message: 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)
:::Scotland is different from England with regards to Trespass.176.27.15.66 (talk)Lancetyrell   — Preceding undated comment added 14:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status in English Law 

message: 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)
replies: text: The guard can take a report and refer the matter to the police. If the landowner/manager is really conscientious about following through (ie, not just going through the motions of having security onsite for appearance sake) they will press charges and file for a restraining order. knoodelhed 14:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In English law, as (some one - please sign your contributions!) said it is a tort - a civil wrong.  If the tresspasser has not no damage, you will get nominal damages (perhaps £10).  If you can prove he has done actual damage, you can make him pay the cost of putting it right.  If it is serious enough, you may be able to get an injunction against him.  The right of action lies in the person in possession of the land - the tenant if there is one, otherwise the owner.  If your concern is with what is happening on neighbouring land, you should consider the tort of nuisance.  Scottish and Irish law is probably different.  That of other common law jurisdictions may be similar to that of England (but not necessarily).  Peterkingiron 23:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Seeing the person had no right to be there in the first place, just have the person arrested and charged with a misdemeanor.  The key is does the person have a right to be there.  If the private property was fenced in with no public access then the person is trespassing.  If not, as in an apartment complex's court yard, no fence, open access from many directions and no "No Trespass" signs, then it is not trespassing. -- NYC 21:52, 22 March 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.185.151.219 (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dirt Biking on property 

message: 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)
thread_title: Prevention

message: 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)
thread_title: Additional Exceptions

message: "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)
replies: text: In England, a self-help remedy still exists, provided that the owner can enter peacefully.  With some exceptions such as railways and airports, the police will only take action to prevent a breach of the peace.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this true?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Links 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Origin 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Forgive us our trespasses 

message: 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)
thread_title: Necessity of Revision

message: 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)
replies: text: It indeed seems the interwiki links point to articles on a different topic, about the integrity of one's home and its surroundings: :de:Hausfriedensbruch ("hause"), :it:Violazione di domicilio ("domicilio"), :nl:Huisvredebreuk ("huis") and also :es:Allanamiento de morada (which talks about "domicilio"). My knowledge of ko, id, ms and pl does not allow me to check title or content. --LPfi (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Trespass and other laws

message: 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)
thread_title:  The philosophy of trespass 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress