Trespassers on Bear today

[John Mercier]

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).

[FlyingScot]

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.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

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.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

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.

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.

[LIforrelaxin]

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.

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

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.

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

[Poor Richard]

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.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

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 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".

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by ApS

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".

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.