14 yr old pilot

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 16:43:02 +0200, Stefan
wrote in ::

George Patterson wrote:

Sorta hard to steal a swimming pool.

http://www.berlinien.de/immobilien/bericht1748.html

http://www.babblefish.com/babblefish/

Strange theft! In Norway a Swimming pool was stolen... OSLO (ROOFRIDGE
NEWS) "in Norway was stolen a Swimming pool. According to
Norwegian press reports, the Eigentümer in the garden of its weekend
house found in place of the basin only still another großes hole
before more Über the winter months must someone twenty years old
pools with a diameter of fünf meters have excavated. The owner Brit
Nicolaysen in addition: "it must have been a giant work. The basin was
from steel." Außerdem disappeared also the filter system, several
Schläuche and pipe.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
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.

Even if there were some legal culpability on the part of the owner, that
would not diminish the culpability of the person who took the plane.

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.

Perhaps. But even if there is some legal responsibility on the part of the
owner, it has no bearing on the question of whether the taking of the plane
constituted theft. (Yet that was the question in response to which you
posted your speculation about the attractive-nuisance culpability.)

--Gary

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?

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
Well, many states finding figured out that downplaying car theft to
"joyriding" had averse effect

Evidence please?

Well, in the early 90's, Colorado boosted their law on auto theft for
that
reason. And I understand Arizona did likewise in the mid 90's. I suspect
there's more than just the two I'm familiar with.

But what evidence (if any) was there that the previous laws were less
effective than more severe ones? The mere fact that a legislature decided
to
boost the penalties doesn't mean there was any good reason to think that
the
previous statutes were less effective. The legislators could just have
been
pandering to ideologues whose policy preferences are not based on sound
evidence.

Since that was neither the issue, nor the question (you seem to have a
strong propensity to add conditions and qualifiers to your responses) , I
fell no obligation to respond. I suggest you spend your own time researching
how auto thefts have changed on the past 20 or so years from "joyriding" to
profession car theft rings/chop shops, some even run but police officers.

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:JyVte.121$Z.40@trndny05...
Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 16:40:24 GMT, George Patterson
wrote in YjCte.3$Z.1@trndny05::

How the hell can anyone say with a straight face that stealing isn't
theft?

I'm not going to look up the statute, but if I recall correctly, in
California a homeowner with a swimming pool in his/her backyard must
have it fenced and keep all gates *locked* or face prosecution for
creating an attractive nuisance.

Sorta hard to steal a swimming pool.


Nah!! Just go buy 350,000 water balloons....

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 message
...
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?



The airport won't for not keeping the gate locked.

Alabama Code...
Section 4-4-4
Municipal, etc., immunity from liability for negligence.
The construction, maintenance and operation of municipal airports is hereby
declared a public governmental function, and no action or suit shall be
brought or maintained against any municipality for or on account of the
negligence of such municipality or of its officers, agents, servants or
employees, in or about the construction, maintenance, operation,
superintendence or management of any municipal airport.

(Acts 1931, No. 136, p. 197; Code 1940, T. 4, §24.)

Why buy them, if the store does not have them bolted to the floor it must
mean it is ok to take them!!!!!!!

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech
"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:JyVte.121$Z.40@trndny05...
Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 16:40:24 GMT, George Patterson
wrote in YjCte.3$Z.1@trndny05::

How the hell can anyone say with a straight face that stealing isn't
theft?

I'm not going to look up the statute, but if I recall correctly, in
California a homeowner with a swimming pool in his/her backyard must
have it fenced and keep all gates *locked* or face prosecution for
creating an attractive nuisance.

Sorta hard to steal a swimming pool.


Nah!! Just go buy 350,000 water balloons....