News Buzzy’s been stolen?

[MisterPenguin]

As someone who participates in urbex every so often (although not at Disney thus far), I personally think it comes down to curiosity versus morality. Is it "right" to sneak into a place where you legally aren't supposed to be? Not especially. But, sometimes the moral regard isn't all that relevant - say, for example, whoever first discovered Buzzy sitting back there. They made an awesome discovery that made an impact on the Disney park fanbase. Doesn't mean it's good that they snuck back there, but it did give us some cool insight. Whether or not that's worth it to you comes down to personal preference.

The ends don't justify the means.

Another Ethics 101 for y'all.

 

[NormC]

This is not always the case. Stitch has already been stripped. More and more continuously gets removed from the original ImageWorks. The Food Rocks stage was completely removed and gutted despite that some of it could have been left intact. I think most people would have assumed that they would have taken out and archived the one key figure in the show.

Correct, it is not always the case. There is a plan for Stitch's location. There is a plan for the Imagination Pavillion. Part of it was turned into the DVC lounge. Food Rocks closed to make room for Soarin'. There was no plan for WoL except for the areas used for convention space.

 

[LukeS7]

Correct. There is a plan for Stitch's location. There is a plan for the Imagination Pavillion. Part of it was turned into the DVC lounge. Food Rocks closed to make room for Soarin'. There was no plan for WoL except for the areas used for convention space.

I guess if my basement is unfinished and I never go down there but occupy the rest of my house that makes it fair game then /s

 

[NormC]

I guess if my basement is unfinished and I never go down there but occupy the rest of my house that makes it fair game then /s

What? I think you missed something in the discussions. My discussion had nothing to do with trespassing or theft.

 

[MisterPenguin]

The clarification needs to be made again that there are different "levels" of urban exploration and most of them do not trespass or sneak in to active facilities but rather long, long since abandoned and forgotten locations.

Why does this distinction need to be made since we're not talking about truly abandoned locations?

If urbexers want to go through a ghost town abandoned 100 years ago. Fine.

But, is that really what they do? Are there urbexers out that there who research the properties they want to explore and only go in if the owner has officially abandoned it?

Anyway, nothing on Disney property is abandoned.

 

[Tom Morrow]

Why does this distinction need to be made since we're not talking about truly abandoned locations?

Because many in this thread are under the assumption that "urban exploration" means sneaking into or breaking into active, privately owned facilities.

If urbexers want to go through a ghost town abandoned 100 years ago. Fine.

But, is that really what they do? Are there urbexers out that there who research the properties they want to explore and only go in if the owner has officially abandoned it?

Yes, actually.

 

[flynnibus]

how about this important morality debate be taken to it's own thread? It really adds nothing to this thread here except for some people to debate their ethics.

 

[wdwfan22]

If a tree falls in a woods and no one hears it, does it make a sound?

People who refuse to delineate any differences between an urban explorer and a miscreant looking to smoke dope in or vandalize a space (typical trespassers) are simply being deliberately obtuse and dishonest.

Just because you don’t appreciate history or forgotten spaces doesn’t mean the activity isn’t justifiable. That’s why most judges tend to look at a person’s motivations behind what that individual does.

Open your dictionary and look up the term “nuance”.

Here are two guys who loved a ride that was slated for closure so much they decided to document all the details they could. It was a labor of love. Too bad you can’t appreciate the hidden details Disney’s finest imagineers put into stuff that you wouldn’t see otherwise.

Urban Exploration is still trespassing and illegal. Trying to state that these guy actions are justifiable is laughable. I don't appreciate any idiot that sneaks into and area they are not suppose to be so they can film it. I bet if they had injured themselves they would have tried to sue Disney for it. Disney really needs to start prosecuting these idiots and stop giving out warnings. Youtube should also be held responsible for letting videos like these go on to the site.

 

[Tom Morrow]

And this is why the clarification keeps needing to be made:

Urban Exploration is still trespassing and illegal. Trying to state that these guy actions are justifiable is laughable. I don't appreciate any idiot that sneaks into and area they are not suppose to be so they can film it. I bet if they had injured themselves they would have tried to sue Disney for it. Disney really needs to start prosecuting these idiots and stop giving out warnings. Youtube should also be held responsible for letting videos like these go on to the site.

 

[larryz]

Because you label a space as "abandoned" makes trespassing it OK? LOL.

These are not "abandoned" in the sense of a ghost town where all the business and owners are long gone and no longer care what happens to what used to be their property.

The owner, in this case, still exists. The spaces are clearly marked as off limits to guests. They're not abandoned, they're just currently not in use. People are allowed to have property in reserve for future use without it falling under the legal distinction of abandoned, and thus a free-for-all for anyone who wants to go see it.

Labeling unused space as "abandoned" is the height of rationalization. Especially when urbexes know quite well the owner of the property doesn't want them there. It is intellectual dishonesty at the service of selfishness. And *that* is immorality.

Let's look at the law in Florida:
810.08 Trespass in structure or conveyance.—
(1) Whoever, without being authorized, licensed, or invited, willfully enters or remains in any structure or conveyance, or, having been authorized, licensed, or invited, is warned by the owner or lessee of the premises, or by a person authorized by the owner or lessee, to depart and refuses to do so, commits the offense of trespass in a structure or conveyance.
(2)(a) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, trespass in a structure or conveyance is a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(b) If there is a human being in the structure or conveyance at the time the offender trespassed, attempted to trespass, or was in the structure or conveyance, the trespass in a structure or conveyance is a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(c) If the offender is armed with a firearm or other dangerous weapon, or arms himself or herself with such while in the structure or conveyance, the trespass in a structure or conveyance is a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. Any owner or person authorized by the owner may, for prosecution purposes, take into custody and detain, in a reasonable manner, for a reasonable length of time, any person when he or she reasonably believes that a violation of this paragraph has been or is being committed, and he or she reasonably believes that the person to be taken into custody and detained has committed or is committing such violation. In the event a person is taken into custody, a law enforcement officer shall be called as soon as is practicable after the person has been taken into custody. The taking into custody and detention by such person, if done in compliance with the requirements of this paragraph, shall not render such person criminally or civilly liable for false arrest, false imprisonment, or unlawful detention.
(3) As used in this section, the term “person authorized” means any owner or lessee, or his or her agent, or any law enforcement officer whose department has received written authorization from the owner or lessee, or his or her agent, to communicate an order to depart the property in the case of a threat to public safety or welfare.

 

[s8film40]

This is so silly. We don't need to get to the point of defining trespassing, I think we all know these things are technically crossing that line. We all set our moral compass differently. For some sneaking into an abandoned facility is okay, because there isn't an apparent victim. For some cutting a corner too short and walking across someone's lawn is a horrific illegal act. Everyone is going to view this differently and each person will say that's too far at a different point.

I actually had an opportunity to explore the upstairs Image Works at one point. My friends were going and invited me along. I'm pretty sure if on the off chance we were caught we would've simply been asked to leave. We were all CM's at the time and even in the worst case scenario could've probably fallen back on the "we took a wrong turn, got lost" excuse. This for me was too far, I knew it wasn't somewhere I was supposed to be and didn't want to take the risk, for my other friends it was worth it for them. I totally understand that they made their decision and I made mine. I kind of regret not going, but I know my moral compass just didn't allow me to make that choice. Each person has to make these choices for themselves some are going to go too far and potentially face the consequences.

 

[larryz]

This for me was too far, I knew it wasn't somewhere I was supposed to be and didn't want to take the risk, for my other friends it was worth it for them. I totally understand that they made their decision and I made mine. I kind of regret not going, but I know my moral compass just didn't allow me to make that choice. Each person has to make these choices for themselves some are going to go too far and potentially face the consequences.

 

[gustaftp]

You’re making me laugh with how hard you’re trying to paint me as someone who doesn’t appreciate history. I appreciate Disney parks history quite a lot, I’ve watched these videos with wonder the first time I saw some of it.

Your virtue signaling and moral posturing over something that doesn't affect you makes me laugh.

People doing other types of bad things doesn't excuse the bad thing that urbexes do. That's Ethics 101 and will have a judge laugh at you. It's the argument of five-year-olds.

Dude, I had a judge dismiss an entire case against me because I was urban exploring as opposed to vandalizing or breaking and entering or burgling -- because urbex isn't actually "bad" even though you try to portray it as such. And since I am quite involved in local issues and city planning my intentions became quite clear to the judge.

Also - Ethics 101 professors would be laughing at you for drawing parallels between urbex and rape. They aren't remotely comparable, no matter how much you try to turn yourself into a pretzel justifying that explanation.

As usual, you demonstrate that you do not have a good grasp of the law or the legal consequences surrounding urbex. But by all means, keep up the fake outrage.

 

[deeevo]

Would be really cool to see him break in to AK and do his UE in Kilimanjaro Safaris. Maybe get some night time video of the African savanna.

 

[NormC]

Even better would be footage from his jail cell.

 

[larryz]

Dude, I had a judge dismiss an entire case against me because I was urban exploring as opposed to vandalizing or breaking and entering or burgling -- because urbex isn't actually "bad" even though you try to portray it as such. And since I am quite involved in local issues and city planning my intentions became quite clear to the judge.

This is so silly. We don't need to get to the point of defining trespassing, I think we all know these things are technically crossing that line.

Apparently, we do, because some of us don't.

 

[s8film40]

Apparently, we do, because some of us don't.

Well what I meant was we all know it's technically trespassing, we just disagree how severe the crime is and what the consequences should be.

 

[BoarderPhreak]

Well what I meant was we all know it's technically trespassing, we just disagree how severe the crime is and what the consequences should be.

We might... The courts don't.

 

[LukeS7]

Dude, I had a judge dismiss an entire case against me because I was trespassing as opposed to vandalizing or breaking and entering or burgling -- because urbex isn't actually "bad" even though you try to portray it as such.

FTFY.

Urban exploring is just a term people use to distance themselves from what it actually is. Honestly, come on. This is coming from someone who has done this before too. Call a spade a spade and stop trying to portray Ubexers as doing the general public a favor with what they do. They do it for the adrenaline rush most of the time because they know they aren't supposed to be there and out of their own personal curiosity, not to uncover new information for the general public.

 

[networkpro]

Would be really cool to see him break in to AK and do his UE in Kilimanjaro Safaris. Maybe get some night time video of the African savanna.

Here here! I for one would enjoy seeing his camera sliding down the gullet of a Nile crocodile.