When is "snitching" not "stealing"?

Nel is NOT teaching her children that stealing is okay. They are discussing the situation as part of a class project. When discussing something in a learning format, don't you discuss both sides of the issue? Then again, our schools and colleges are leaning in one direction these days with our children, why not homeschoolers too.

Ruth

deleted..

Well, if they "get" that it's a study project, they certainly have an interesting way of pointing it out. Good to know they're all perfect and have just cause to slam someone else for simply bringing the issue up.

Ruth

Opinions were sought. Opinions were given. Case closed.

So a Home schooling parent sends mixed message to child about trespassing/stealing.
Curious child wanders next door during naked hot tubbing romp, is mistaken for a pervert and or rapist and is shot dead.

Who is to blame?

__________________
Hut on the Hill Farm
http://www.hutonthehill.org

Curious thing: I have never met a lawyer who gets information about the law in this manner.

Lawyers would simply look up the law and read it for themselves. If they were home schoolers, they would teach their children the same.

The smelly rat resurfaces.

__________________
Hut on the Hill Farm
http://www.hutonthehill.org

For an attorney you sure do have a funny way of doing legal research. An attorney doesn't go to the sheriffs department or the state forestry department or the tiny local police department to ask what the law is.

Any lawyer worth their salt that I know would check the revised statutes to determine what the law is. And guess what we find for NC revised statues:

§ 14‑159.13. Second degree trespass.

(a) Offense. – A person commits the offense of second degree trespass if, without authorization, he enters or remains on premises of another:

(1) After he has been notified not to enter or remain there by the owner, by a person in charge of the premises, by a lawful occupant, or by another authorized person; or

(2) That are posted, in a manner reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, with notice not to enter the premises.

(b) Classification. – Second degree trespass is a Class 3 misdemeanor. (1987, c. 700, s. 1; 1993, c. 539, s. 102; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)

Please pay close attention to section 2 - You might try to argue yourself out of being called a "trespasser" on the technicality that they posted the sign on your property (Because the access road appears to run through your place to theirs) but you clearly have shown that you understand they posted the sign(s) and that signifies their intent..... unless of course the signs say "No Tresspassing except for Nel and her family".

Will you save it again? If there's no danger of the fire spreading?

Now THAT is situational ethics!!!

I know I would have saved it the first time... the second, well... as my goats are want to say... Nah...Nah...Nah...

Is his turnoff before or after yours? Had an identical situation... the neighbors turnoff was beyond mine... I stopped grading... the section where I stopped grading turned into a pond . Totally impassable. New neighbor who cut logs and hauled em across my road one summer while I was in AK (and didn't ask permission) fixed the mudhole I'd cultivated for a year and a half...

__________________
Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity. Seneca
Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival. W. Edwards Deming

Hey Texican, it was soooo scary, the flames were way up in the pine trees, about 25 ft high. We had to drag our 3 long hoses over, called the fire dept. The fire dept went right past our road way down there. Was a shed with gas cans, chainsaws, all kinds of stuff. I shook for a week I think. It was soooo hot and WINDY. It would have jumped tree tops all the way down the valley.

His turnoff is same as ours, one goes right and one goes left, at end of road. Only these 2 places at top of hill, no other houses down there. Would I do it again? yeah I guess I would try. Don't want any feuds or hard feelings, going to be here a long time. But I do wish there were some old Blueberry bushes over there!! I got a couple at Walmart for $2.00 each, and they are little tiny sticks. Hope they grow.....

And for everyone quoting the 'letter of the law'. They are doing a homeschool project, and it's perfectly natural for them to call and ask questions reguarding what the local laws about hunting, fishing and wild-crafting are in their area. They like to hike and enjoy the out of doors like most of us do. Some posts are a wee bit too serious and too silly.

Update on the "Snitching / Stealing Class Discussion" -

When our local "old timers" came over to chat with students yesterday, they confirmed the local customs of "hiking thru" / "hunting thru" and the like. They pointed out that we know who does not want people on their land and we stay off it. Their position on the blue berry plants was that the plants are "abandoned" and anyone "local" should be able to go harvest and save the baby plants but no one should take any adult plants.
They also said that it makes a difference to them "who" it is that hikes or hunts through and if it was "strangers" then they would not want it but that people who move here are not "strangers" -- there was a lengthy explanation about who can hold the "right" to "trespass" and it not be "trespassing".

Although my husband left two messages, we have not received a call back from the land owners.

Of the students who were in on this Discussion round, (there was a total of 10 for portions of the discussion) all ten decided that to take any blue berry plant or any portion of a blue berry plant would be in fact "stealing" since they would be taking without permission and it would deprive the owner the future use of the blue berry plant. They decided it would also be stealing if someone were just "renting" the property - it would still be stealing.

HOWEVER, of the ten students, seven felt there is sometimes, not all of the time, but sometimes a distinction between a legal wrong and a moral wrong -

BUT this does not mean they have decided they have a right to take a blue berry plant. For those of you who have been paying attention, you understand the Discussion was much broader than a few blue berry plants. The Discussion was / is about Property Rights and Moral / Legal wrongs and more.....

The students give the example of countries where there may be laws that prohibit worship of a specific religious faith and although it may be legally wrong to then worship, it may not be a moral wrong / another example are countries or cultural groups who do not believe women or girls should be educated - and so although it may be legally wrong to educated a girl child, it may not be morally wrong. And another ( mentioned also somewhere above) would be in the case of an emergency it may be legally wrong to steal or drive the car fast.....but may be morally necessary to do so.

Again - no one here, and no student is saying it is morally OK to go take those blue berry plants - the Discussion covered more than the plants.

Of interest was the response from our other two groups:
The replies from The Gambia (Africa) (two students) and South Africa (4 contacts) were that it would be OK legally and morally to take all the plants one would care to take. Their concepts of private ownership are very different from our own and they cannot understand the passion with which many here defended "private property" and the blue berry plants that (according to those in Africa Discussing this topic) one did not even have access to. They point out "private owners make people selfish and greedy and they have to defend things they do not even have so they can be sure to defend their own property" -- and that was seen as a negative impact.

Of the replies from those who live in this country, it was a mix (as described above ) but no where near the stern and passionate responses received from Homesteading today replies.

Also of interest, those who were older seemed more likely to say it was OK to go and get a plant if one did not harm the Mother plants. Middle age people were more likely to say no.

The "old timers" who came over and some from the other two groups felt we (I = Nel frattempo) had been unfair to those of you on Homesteading Today for not revealing in the first post that this is / was a Discussion group topic and that although we do and did use "real life" situations, it was never meant to be a "shall we or can we or should we do this..." type question.

I am sorry for this and apologize to anyone who felt or feels misled. If we ask for input to Class Discussion again, I will say it up front.

Thank you again for all the interesting and thought provoking replies. The students appreciate the input and participation. Learning made more interesting, is more likely to last and we thank you for helping make this topic interesting.

Hope your homeschooling is going well and that your sick child is well.
I think that maybe the reason for the passionate responses is based upon people's connection to their land, which is often an extension of themselves and their desire for privacy. Around here, it does not matter whether you own 100's of acres or just a tiny sliver of land, asking landowner permission before entering is standard. Age doesn't matter here either. I'm in my 40's, bought farm/homestead in 1992. My immediate neighbors are also farmers/homesteaders-ages 83 and 69. All land large acreage. I, as well as, the older neighbors don't take too kindly people entering our land without permission. We don't allow passer-thru. Now, the 83 year old neighbor is one of my dearest friends. He can enter on my land anytime he wants to. He don't have to ask. He can come in my house when I'm not home, go to my barn/shed and borrow anything he wants to-he don't have to ask. I can do the same on his place. We have a deep friendship. This open door policy is just between us and doesn't extend to any other locals around.
Now, if I die or he dies, that "local custom" that the two of us have will cease. Any new landowner, or other landowner will not have those same priviledges. Anybody else needs to ask permission, period, even if they are just a passin-thru. I stay on my own land. I don't venture out on other peoples property simply because I think it is an imposition on them and I don't desire to be on anyone else. Also around here, if one desires to spread their wings out, they either buy additional land, lease or rent more land. On the rare occasion, one needs to enter another person's land, we then ask permisssion. Privacy is paramount whether we are "nekid" or not, drunk or sober!!!! Have fun homeschooling and you all take care of yourselves.

33 words that cover what the answer SHOULD have been:

Exodus 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

No moral ambiguity at all... case closed.

__________________
Check us out out "The Modern Homestead", a small, helpful, friendly forum. Find us at "The Modern Homestead", on facebook too!

I had to back up to the first page to make sure I was on the correct thread. Seems to me some back peddling going on away from the intent of the OP. Maybe not, just seems that way to me. Either way, I'd vote it's time to lock this one down since it has been pretty much nit picked to death.

__________________
"Only the rocks [and really embarassing moments] live forever"

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands..." tick-tick-tick

You are not serious?????
Just because they enjoy having drunken naked parties does not denote drug dealers.
I have a large parcel of land that is vacation property, I drink my fair share while there and if was solely mine would not have any qualms in being naked whenever the notion hit. I am not in the drug trade in any way shape or form.
I know many that are multi millionaires that have no qualms about doing exactly what they want when they want no matter what. They are also not in the drug trade.
Please think before opening a can of worms that you can not defend.
If you want to get into the religious aspect of it, "the good lord" doesn't own any of it. The good Mother Earth owns it.

I thought there was more to this, and felt that our chains were being yanked upon.

Angie

__________________
"Live your life, and forget your age." Norman Vincent Peale

Snitching is stealing and no amount of justifying it will make it right. It's never right to go onto someone else's property and take something without the owners permission.

Maybe they don't know what the plants are. Maybe you could offer to do a little bit of trimming and cleaning up for them in exchange for the baby plants. Maybe they'll tell you where to go and you'll not get any of those plants, but at least you'll still have your dignity.

ETA: I just read some of the posts above and got more information. I'll leave my original post here because it was the answer to the OP. Now that I've read more, it really doesn't fit into the rest of the conversation. oh well. I said it and I'm not going to take it back.

Trespass and petit larceny. If the bushes are truly rare and priced accordingly, in your state it could be grand larceny, although that's not likely.

Write to them and get permission, possibly offer to prune the stock you're interested in in exchange for clippings and/or rootlings.

If it's refused, live with it and contact a nursery that has them in stock.

Yes. Plus, you could kill the mother plant if you accidently carry in some kind of blight or pest on your clothing/shoes.

Which is another point that I wonder about. Will trespass be a more serious crime as bio-security issues become more widely understood?

Who knows what germs you carry that those folks don't want on their land....

__________________
Hut on the Hill Farm
http://www.hutonthehill.org

I do not allow others on my property and I will tell you why..... in today's society, everyone is sue crazy. All I need is for someone to cut thier finger while getting snips and then I get sued for it? No thanks.... If you are my friend, yes, I will be glad to give you snips. If you ask me and I don't even know you, I will be more than happy to give you snips. If you are on my property and I have no clue who you are?.... you will be greeted with Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson. This property is mine, I paid for it, I pay the taxes on it and I say who can and can not enter or take anything. Period, end of story. That being said, I think this kind of discussion is great for homeschoolers! It is, at the very least, thought provoking, which is a good thing for kids to learn! There is controversy in every step of life and I think it is great that kids be allowed to debate and weigh information to make an informed opinion.

They've certainly got the start of an interesting next home school lesson on social interaction in electronic media, promoting tempests in teapots, etc.

Seriously - the home school children's future will likely involve a lot of electronic communication. They should objectively study which methods of communication in this thread are ones that they want to emulate and which forms are ones that they want to intentionally avoid. Would their answers be the same for communication with strangers, business communication, and with family/friends? What do they need to know about maintaining internet privacy? If their words will be archived for years to come, does that affect their choices?

I mention this because it would be unfortunate to teach "yanking of chains" behavior by accident. I've also seen in business where new business employees occasionally end up in awkward situations because they are accustomed to "spirited debate" internet style and try to use that as a form of discussion instead of using softer teamwork skills and negotiation skills.

Lynda