If I have left a door unlocked, I have not done my job as a home owner to keep my property safe.... Have I?

Your trying to compare scenarios that aren't equal. When you leave anything outside and don't have your property posted with No Trespassing signs, the ease and legality of someone coming onto your property becomes a grey area.
If something is stolen off your property in such conditions, yes it is theft, but your insurance carrier may not cover you, because you failed to secure your property and made the theft possible.

Laws become very specific and change once someone enters into a dwelling uninvited. But yet you still can get tied up in legalities especially with insurance carriers, if there is no sign of forced entry.

I will not deny that what Codeman, found on his camera's is alarming, and I too would be more then ticked off, especially if I had audio (which may or may not be legal in some states, servailence equipment can't have audio) and heard what her heard.

The question becomes how would I handle the situation... My re-action would have been different.... with no real damage done, I just don't see the point other then maybe deciding to make the place look less inviting..... Putting up no tresspassing signs and property under servailance signs would generally do the trick...

LI,

Just an FYI... In NH, you have to post visible signage if you are recording audio. If you sue a Ring doorbell or security cameras that record video and audio, you need post signage as such so that whomever is on the property is put on notice that they are being recorded. This is why most doorbell/security cams come with notice stickers.

Woodsy

Missing the Point
 

Just because someone has the legal right to do one thing or another, that does not make it right. I have the legal right in San Francisco to go into a store and steal less than $900 worth of goods without fear of prosecution. However, this does not make it right, and I hope none of us would be tempted to exercise our legal right.

As I stated earlier, I don't think anyone would object in the couple discretely relieving themselves. The issue is their behavior and words caught on camera -- treating someone else's property as their own. This was WRONG, whether they had the legal right to do whatever. It is apparent that they had no respect for the homeowner and that is what people like me find so offensive.

Actually, in San Francisco you do not have a legal right to steal under $900 worth of goods. It is still illegal. It is just that the local D.A's will not prosecute theft under that amount. The law is not changed based on lack of prosecution. The law remains intact.

Hi Gary, I know that, but the net result is the same. I can go into a store in San Francisco and steal under $900 worth of goods with no repercussions. Not enforcing a law is the same as not having the law in the first place. Look at our border!

Not quite.

One is a direct violation of the law on the book... the other is a choice not to pursue action.

I'm confused, how is the net result different? I realize how we got there is different, but the result is the same.

Because if the trespass was a breaking of a law in NH, and Codeman chose to press charges... there is no ''prosecutor's discretion'' (other than Codeman himself).

I hate to put this in print (haha), but I agree with Major. The Bear Island posts have nothing to do with the law, the legalistic responses are silly quibbling. They have everything to do with right and wrong.

And these DAs who do not prosecute shoplifting and then brag about it--morons who are asking for big trouble, both for themselves politically and more importantly for society in general.

We need to enforce both general civility, as Codeman has done, and the law.

"Those DAs" know exactly what they're doing, they want big trouble, but are not the ones who will pay the price. They need to be booted.

I think Codeman handled this like a gentleman, I hope I have the same grace in similar circumstances.

You can't enforce civility. A law can be enforced, but civility is more an amorphous concept. The law attempts to codify it, but even then it has limits.

The behavior of people that feel what they did was unwarranted can be modified... but not always with lasting results. But for people that feel what they did was acceptable... that will never be modified.

I work everyday with the public, and I see/hear it everyday.

I am responsible for keeping some of this bickering going here. I can accept that. But in general I think it has been fair conversation, and has most of us thinking....

Rather than thinking about this as civility, and or the law.... What is really in my mind is Morals.

For a majority of society, it goes against our better morals to go onto someones property and use their belongings... Because it is against our morals we tend to take it very personally when it happens. This is what drove the laws we have today into place, to be able to punish those that go against the common Morals of society.

The key then becomes how off kilter from the Moral code does an act have to be to warrant punishment. For some it might be simply having a trespasser on their property, for others it may be once they felt mocked on their surveillance camera, and other are fine as long as their is no real damage. This is why the law had to be further broken down into misdemeanor and criminal offense categories....

To a degree I see no issue with Codeman's actions, and can appreciate how he felt. At the same time I sensed and maybe wrongly, that he was contemplating prosecution if possible.

To me what was done showed lack of a Moral compasses no doubt about it. However if property wasn't damaged, the chances of any type of prosecution becomes slim, and that is where I say it isn't worth it. Others may differ in that opinion and that is fine....

What I have learned over the years, is if someones Moral compasses is off, it is because of Drugs, Alcohol, or because their compass is just off.... In either case actions are in no way justifiable..... but we already have to many issues tying up our legal and law enforcement communities....

These guys wouldn't have done what the did if someone was home..... probably if neighbors where around as well.... But they saw an opportunity to be jerks so they took it... Anybody that has lived life worth living has made a questionable judgement call or two..... unfortunately society doesn't seem to want to take that into account anymore, and every infraction against the moral compass is blown out of proportion, in my mind.....

The license plate says Live free or die.... for so many reasons that saying is just simply not even close to true anymore.... It should read now Live Free as long as you don't offend anyone, just like anywhere else.

New Hampshire's Growing a Surveillance Society?
 

I think there is a "prosecutor's discretion".

About 20 years ago, my next door neighbor arrived in Spring to a broken windowpane next to his front door lock. His home had been violated, but nothing appeared touched or missing. His place, built in the 1940s, is only 30-feet from Lake Winnipesaukee's edge, so its location would've been inviting--given an emergency.

Was it a Ski-Doo "felon" in desperate need of a telephone to call 911? A "felonious" fisherman from a bobhouse who, despite his own efforts to avoid frostbite, desperately needed shelter and a space heater for himself and a child?

There are countless reasons not to proceed with prosecution, and I'd suspect countless cases never saw a courtroom. I'd expect Codeman could be strongly dissuaded from continuing under the desperate "felonious" circumstances listed above.

The above causes "desperate urination" to fall to a much lower level of prosecution. (Especially if such desperation is irritated by a medical condition).

We've lived next door peacefully for 66 years without surveilling one another. Is the posting of "ADT" surveillance and "no trespassing" signage a response of surveilling in one's home state? (Like the "killer" trespassing laws expected of New Jersey?)

Two "protected by ADT" signs have popped up nearby recently. One summer resident is from a New York City suburb--another from Washington, DC. (Two hotbeds of criminality).

Britain, with 4 million surveillance cameras, has described itself as a "Hellish Surveillance Society".

With the possible exception of a future NH trail camera, I choose not to be part of any "Surveillance Society". :cool:

We're not talking about offending people or questionable judgment. We're talking about people who felt entitled enough to not only trespass and violate others' private property but literally piss on, and brag about, it.

While I don't believe public shame is always the answer, there are absolutely cases where people need to be put in their place and others reminded of lines that should not be crossed.

I think Codeman's approach was swift and effective and, ultimately, won't hurt the offenders beyond their local reputations.

Sent from my SM-G990U1 using Tapatalk

I believe the whole idea of this thread as well as the actions from the offenders who were caught with their pants down can be summed up with just a few words:


Life is full of idiots and a-holes, dare to be different.

For a violation, which this would fall under because of the lack of posting or entering a structure by the offenders, once it was determined that the statute was broken, completely up to the property owner to press charges.

It is different when it enters into the misdemeanor and felony range.

That's cured by voting in new leaders. No new legislation is needed. The tide here is turning. New DA seems to be more aggressive in this regard.

To be clear, my intent was never to prosecute. Getting the police involved doesn’t necessarily mean charges. Many times bad behavior can be fixed with a stern talking to by a few boys in blue.

Public shaming was definitely intended. Had they not come forward and I was able to figure out who they were it would have become public knowledge. The courts of Facebook and perception in the public eye would have been harsh enough.

I think you handled it perfectly Codeman! Those trespassers are definitely well known to the locals and it didn’t take long for them to get the message. It wouldn’t surprise me one bit if one or all of them were members of this forum.

Dan

Not anymore.
Police may only act in an official capacity.
If they make it appear that they are, when they are not.
They have committed a crime.

As a federal court has ruled that homeless people have a RIGHT to sleep in public if the city has no designated area for them to sleep otherwise, might the same court not conclude that a kayaker on a public lake has a fundamental right to urinate at the next available locale when the need arises, if there is no public bathroom nearby?

If not, why not?

"The times, they are a-changing..."

This is what happens when the summer people go away and we run out of things to discuss in this forum.

Had they simply pulled up along the shore sat in the water and urinated... they would still be in the public lake.

It was accessing the private property, and the manner that they did so that created the stir.

The court could read the statute broadly and determine that the activity should be construed as a violation. But that requires the landowner to press charges, and testify.

For the small fine they would get, or even less should the court decide to place on file without finding, it really isn't worth the property owner's time regardless of the temptation.

Even signing is pain; but, at least it puts some teeth into the possible penalty outcome.

This time was lucky that those involved valued their reputation enough to at least have the civility to apologize after failing to use good judgement... unfortunately, that is not always the case. And to be honest, after enough incidents the apologies get a bit old.

I'm sure there will be plenty of things in short order to discuss.

"Summer People" Are Still under Surveillance...
 

Does your neighbor's surveillance camera monitor your activities? Shouldn't permission be asked?

My Central Florida neighbor installed a six-foot fence, then installed a surveillance camera above it. It's ostensibly there to monitor his waterfront possessions; however, it is in plain view each time I open my door.

(We're good friends, his having moved here unaware of my move here thirty years earlier. We knew each other from the same building in a distant city! )

Should I be grateful for such surveillance, or has our society followed Britain into some form of Orwellian dystopia?

:confused:

Neighbor's camera pointed at your house is boorish and uncouth. People should know better.

IMO you should be grateful that technology exists to monitor your premises if you want to. How you use that technology is up to you, it's no one else's business, unless they infringe on you.

As far as the Orwellian dystopia, that ship has sailed. Drive through any city intersection, any toll both, or even down the highway and you will see cameras everywhere, all monitoring you, most connected to some central hub. This was all done relatively quietly, under the radar and in the name of safety. We are a surveillance state. There are police cars with cameras that run you license plate real time, pull up the owner's info on the fly with no justification. Bored police with out the cameras have terminals in their cars where they randomly type license plates fishing for a hit.

Pretty much anyone over 40 or 50 years old allowed this to happen. Not a good outcome from our generation. Do you feel safer?

Yes. I do.

People claim they are carrying handguns for personal protection, but we have very little stranger-stranger physical crime... most of it is property-related, and those cameras help protect us from the unscrupulous actions of others.

RSA 645:1-a Public Urination or Defecation. – A person is guilty of a violation if such person urinates or defecates in a public place, other than a public restroom, under circumstances where the person knew or should have known would likely cause affront or alarm to another.


New Hampshire Violations
The least serious offenses are called violations. A violation is an offense that is not a crime. The penalties for a violation include a fine and, in some cases, license suspension but no jail time will be imposed. Also, a violation conviction is not reported on your criminal record and will have no long term effects. Examples of violations are minor traffic offenses.

https://www.russmanlaw.com/new-hamps...fic%20offenses.

Apology!
Not meaning to participate in an extended thread (have unforetunately done so in the past).

Now the thread can migrate back to was the offense done in a public place or on private property.

Or maybe:
635: UNAUTHORIZED ENTRIES
Section: 635:2 Criminal Trespass.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/...C-LXII-635.htm

or maybe, luckily nobody home ...
627: 7 JUSTIFICATION

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/...C-LXII-627.htm


Just thought I'd peek in. Will probably regret this post.Leaving now. :):)

The cameras in the intersections and highways?? How so?

Those cameras aren't there for personal protection. They are there for surveillance of the population. Their contribution to your safety is a hash above zero.


"Police, they arrive in minutes, when seconds count."

Lots of insurance scams.

None of those would count in this condition.

The court ruled that homeless have this “right” on public property. Private property is another matter.

NH is open access unless signed or ''gated'' in some format.
There may be some public property in the area that is signed against such activity... but I have never seen it.

This property is neither, and the kayaks could have just sat in the water near shore... just like the boaters floating around at the sand bars are urinating with no one noticing, but everyone knowing that it is happening.

They all apply as ... law.
As in information only ... not opinion.

"Condition" is what?
"Situation" ... may be facts, if that is what is meant.

My condition is I've seen how this goes in this forum. I'm done with this thread. I can waste my time comtemplating my navel.

Bye now. Hope this thread goes on for days.

As predicted:

I have no problem if the police have the means to run license plates either manually or automatically. I am glad that the police randomly run plates. They can identify missing or wanted people and even stolen cars. Numerous people who have outstanding warrants for criminal offenses have been caught this way. The use of computers in police cars enables the police to take more criminals off the street.

It also enables a police officer to know who he is stopping and any criminal history that person may have, prior to approaching the vehicle. That information changes the way a vehicle is approached.

The cameras at intersections allow police to see traffic accidents and assess the situation a lot faster than a cruiser can get there. They may see the need for the fire department or ambulances and send them on their way before the first police officer arrives. They can even dispatch tow trucks immediately to minimize traffic delays.

If these methods keep police safe and allow and assist police to capture more criminals I am all for it. I couldn't care less if my plates get run 10 times a day. I am not doing anything wrong.

I've held off on posting, but have read the thread. Interesting discussion.

Codeman, kudos to you for the way you handled it, great method and great outcome.

We kayak, we hike, we bike, and getting older guess what? I have to pee more often than I used to. I have never, would never, could never, go on someone's yard or even a tree next to the yard to relieve myself. There are ALWAYS options. I view it as total and complete disrespect for someone to do so. Off in the woods? Ok. The lake? Sure if you need to. Or pee in a bottle or other method like Sailin said.

Like I said interesting discussion of the law and police etc., but this is about RESPECT and REGARD for people and their property.

So yesterday I was out kayaking on that beautiful day. The need for a pit stop arose. No bathroom in sight, of course. No place to land either! That happens more often than you would think. I pulled up to shore in a marshy area. Exited my kayak and sank into a good 12 inches of mud. Continued to sink, felt the mud trying to suck my mukluks off, gunk from the bottom is rising to the surface with an unholy stench. How far will I sink?! Thank God for the knee-high mukluks. Following the pit stop I use my paddle as a shovel and move bushels of mud and weeds to the side, hoping to hit firm bottom at some point. A miracle I was able to get back in the kayak without capsizing or being swallowed up by the mud.

Point of my post? None, really. Just thought I would share.

It would have been an interesting cause of death that could have been worked nicely into your obituary….

Were there any crawdads singing?

Sent from my SM-G990U1 using Tapatalk

Did you read that book? I really enjoyed it. No crawdads singing yesterday. But the loons were acting really loony, skittering across the water, whooping it up. Maybe the weather made them think it was mating season again.