In the fine article people were at the home of their representative.
Across the street was the house of Rep. Carol Miller, R-W.Va. The imposing brick home was darkened, the curtains were drawn. No car was visible in the driveway. But for the assembled, it was a last ditch effort to get some kind of attention from the Congresswoman.
Depends on how exactly the person approaches the house. If they go up and just start screaming in their face, they could probably be trespassed, but there’s this legal principle known as “implied license,” which essentially just means that if you have a way to enter your property, you’ve sort of implied that you’re allowing people to go there for legitimate purposes, such as getting your attention, delivering mail, soliciting (unless a sign specifies otherwise), etc.
So even if they had a sign saying “no tresspassing,” if their neighbor were to walk over and knock on their door to let them know their back gate was left open, that wouldn’t be tresspassing, because it’s implied that they still are allowing people to walk on the footpath to their door, to get their attention for any purpose deemed reasonable or legitimate.
As a public servant, someone coming up to your door and trying to tell you something, or a journalist coming up to ask you some questions, could very well be considered covered by implied license, and thus not tresspassing, though I’m sure the courts would have to debate that a lot to actually determine if that’s the case given the situation.
Time to show up at their house?..
knock knock
Hi, your extended car warranty has expired, would you care to talk to your constituents about it? Pst… thats me.
makes awkward eye contact with them
In the fine article people were at the home of their representative.
One way ticket to criminal trespass I’m sure
Depends on how exactly the person approaches the house. If they go up and just start screaming in their face, they could probably be trespassed, but there’s this legal principle known as “implied license,” which essentially just means that if you have a way to enter your property, you’ve sort of implied that you’re allowing people to go there for legitimate purposes, such as getting your attention, delivering mail, soliciting (unless a sign specifies otherwise), etc.
So even if they had a sign saying “no tresspassing,” if their neighbor were to walk over and knock on their door to let them know their back gate was left open, that wouldn’t be tresspassing, because it’s implied that they still are allowing people to walk on the footpath to their door, to get their attention for any purpose deemed reasonable or legitimate.
As a public servant, someone coming up to your door and trying to tell you something, or a journalist coming up to ask you some questions, could very well be considered covered by implied license, and thus not tresspassing, though I’m sure the courts would have to debate that a lot to actually determine if that’s the case given the situation.
Counterpoint - Castle Doctrine. Hard to defend yourself with Implied License when you’re full of buckshot.
Countercounterpoint - Siege Doctrine. Kinda hard to be a cowardly cunt and fill folks with buckshot when grapeshot is being unloaded into your house.
If these gormless cowards keep hiding they’ve quite frankly have willingly given up their privileges to life.
K, but the laws don’t matter anymore to anybody in government. So, why would I care about a little trespassing?
Because you’re poor, and laws still apply to you.
Nah, if they don’t care, I don’t either.