14 yr old pilot

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 08:28:30 -0700, unicate wrote
in ::

or that if
you enter someone else's yard or home without their knowledge, YOU are
the one in the wrong for trespassing, regardless of whether the gate was
locked or not?!

I think the law to which I referred was written to prevent kids from
drowning in swimming pools in unfenced, unlocked yards. It seems to
establish some culpability for the homeowner who constructs an
attractive nuisance without protecting the public from the danger it
may cause.

In this case, it is unclear to me that the 14 year old is guilty of
trespassing. The airport and aircraft were unlocked, and I have heard
no mention of signs being posted.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 08:28:30 -0700, unicate wrote
in ::

or that if
you enter someone else's yard or home without their knowledge, YOU are
the one in the wrong for trespassing, regardless of whether the gate was
locked or not?!

I think the law to which I referred was written to prevent kids from
drowning in swimming pools in unfenced, unlocked yards. It seems to
establish some culpability for the homeowner who constructs an
attractive nuisance without protecting the public from the danger it
may cause.

In this case, it is unclear to me that the 14 year old is guilty of
trespassing. The airport and aircraft were unlocked, and I have heard
no mention of signs being posted.

He may not be guilty of trespassing, but he's certainly guilty of
unauthorized use of the airplane.

--Gary

Larry Dighera wrote:
I think the law to which I referred was written to prevent kids from
drowning in swimming pools in unfenced, unlocked yards. It seems to
establish some culpability for the homeowner who constructs an
attractive nuisance without protecting the public from the danger it
may cause.

Understood and agreed.
However, suppose you have a gate that is locked, but an 8 yr-old gets a
boost and scales your 6-ft fence. Is the homeowner partially culpable
because his fence wasn't climb-proof? Where do you draw the line?

In this case, it is unclear to me that the 14 year old is guilty of
trespassing. The airport and aircraft were unlocked, and I have heard
no mention of signs being posted.

Right, I wasn't suggesting he was trespassing ... but can you say a 14
yr-old doesn't know or understand that he is NOT authorized to get into
an airplane that doesn't belong to him, start it up and fly away with it
just because the ignition key happens to be in it? True, it was careless
to leave the key in it, but at the same time, does there have to be a
sign on the ramp saying "unauthorized use of aircraft constitutes theft"
for it to BE theft?

Again, just getting back to absolute basics ... who over the age of 4
*doesn't* realize that taking a car or airplane or motorcycle that
*doesn't belong to you* *without the owner's knowledge* IS stealing even
if the key happens to be accessible to you, regardless of whether or not
you intended to keep it, give it away, sell it, or return it at some
unspecified later time/date?

We are arguing two different aspects of culpability, I that of the
aircraft owner, and you that of the 14 year old. I accept your
argument; he committed a chargeable offence. But will the aircraft
owner be charged also for his contribution?

Larry Dighera wrote:

In this case, it is unclear to me that the 14 year old is guilty of
trespassing. The airport and aircraft were unlocked, and I have heard
no mention of signs being posted.

In many (possibly most) States, charges of simple trespass can only be pressed
if the individual was told (orally or in writing) not to trespass on the
property. If, however, the individual commits a crime on the property and the
perpetrator was not invited onto the property, that is "criminal trespass." This
is usually a misdemeanor with relatively trivial fines and/or sentences.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.