On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 10:31:22 -0400, "Gary Drescher"
wrote in
::


Even if that's true, it has nothing to do with whether or not the act
constitutes theft.

I think it relates to establishing culpability for the flight.

If a person drowns in a pool with an unlocked gate, I believe the
homeowner can be held responsible even if the person was an intruder.

I'm not attempting to assert that this statute is directly applicable
in this case, but it seems to establish some responsibility on the
part of attractive nuisance owners to prevent unauthorized use.