 |
Re: Foaming adventures can get a whole lot more expensive
Author: OldPoleBurner
Date: 07-29-2012 - 22:24
I once worked as private dick, for a company (not a railroad) mostly enforcing private property rights (my regular job was on strike/lockout at the time). California law regarding trespass was routinely drilled into our heads, regarding how and when to arrest somebody for trespass, or when to even threaten it. Any arrests were of course citizens arrests, legitimized by a call to the Sherriff or local police, who usually cited and released them; but not if they were repeaters - they went to jail.
Unless California law has changed dramatically within the last year or so, and our useless media kept it quiet; this story smells to high heaven. Either it is as phony as a three dollar bill through and through; or some seriously major facts have been left out. Either way - beware of BS-Filter overload!
For example: California law requires that anyone caught trespassing in an area not fenced or well posted, must first be asked to leave by the owner or a properly appointed agent. Then, if the trespasser refuses to leave or later returns, he or she can be cited or arrested.
The lack of any fencing and/or signage (posting) is definitely a valid defense. That is, up until you have been properly (in person) asked to leave. Once that specific thing has happened. there are then no excuses whatever. But the article mentions none of these things happening, just a sudden, out of the blue citation; followed by a judge levying a very steep fine. That is just a bunch of BS!
More likely, she had been warned repeatedly and then cited several times, before the judge finally "threw the book at her" with a big time fine. If so, she should count herself lucky that the UP dick merely cited her (again); rather than to haul her in. She could've spent up to 72 hours in jail, before she even got to see the judge.
-----------------------------------------------------------
But having said all that, I do believe that in many cases, the UP is being patently ridiculous. A case of mindless UP lawyers painting with way too broad a brush - as usual! Almost all so-called trespasser fatalities have been those walking between the rails (or too close), not those quickly crossing the tracks. And most of those killed crossing the tracks, were killed at legal signaled crossings. They died anyway - not heeding the warning, nor even looking.
Someone crossing the tracks, as long as they stop, look, and listen first, and have sufficient sight distance at the location to assure safety (no curves or view obstructions within at least 700ft), should be left alone. The UP should focus where the real problem is, instead of wasting the court's time.
Unless California law has changed dramatically within the last year or so, and our useless media kept it quiet; this story smells to high heaven. Either it is as phony as a three dollar bill through and through; or some seriously major facts have been left out. Either way - beware of BS-Filter overload!
For example: California law requires that anyone caught trespassing in an area not fenced or well posted, must first be asked to leave by the owner or a properly appointed agent. Then, if the trespasser refuses to leave or later returns, he or she can be cited or arrested.
The lack of any fencing and/or signage (posting) is definitely a valid defense. That is, up until you have been properly (in person) asked to leave. Once that specific thing has happened. there are then no excuses whatever. But the article mentions none of these things happening, just a sudden, out of the blue citation; followed by a judge levying a very steep fine. That is just a bunch of BS!
More likely, she had been warned repeatedly and then cited several times, before the judge finally "threw the book at her" with a big time fine. If so, she should count herself lucky that the UP dick merely cited her (again); rather than to haul her in. She could've spent up to 72 hours in jail, before she even got to see the judge.
-----------------------------------------------------------
But having said all that, I do believe that in many cases, the UP is being patently ridiculous. A case of mindless UP lawyers painting with way too broad a brush - as usual! Almost all so-called trespasser fatalities have been those walking between the rails (or too close), not those quickly crossing the tracks. And most of those killed crossing the tracks, were killed at legal signaled crossings. They died anyway - not heeding the warning, nor even looking.
Someone crossing the tracks, as long as they stop, look, and listen first, and have sufficient sight distance at the location to assure safety (no curves or view obstructions within at least 700ft), should be left alone. The UP should focus where the real problem is, instead of wasting the court's time.
