News Buzzy’s been stolen?

[DreamfinderGuy]

Anyway, nothing on Disney property is abandoned.

River Country and Discovery Island say hello.

 

[MisterPenguin]

River Country and Discovery Island say hello.

They're not abandoned. Disney still owns them. Unused is not abandoned.

Urbexers call owned and unused property "abandoned" to immorally justify their trespass.

 

[DreamfinderGuy]

They're not abandoned. Disney still owns them. Unused is not abandoned.

Urbexers call owned and unused property "abandoned" to immorally justify their trespass.

If something is truly abandoned, then it isn’t trespassing.

 

[King Panda 77]

If something is truly abandoned, then it isn’t trespassing.

But the two places you mentioned are not abandoned .

 

[WildRide]

Me. Penguin is spot on. Everything discussed in this thread needs to be viewed through that lens.

 

[Goofyernmost]

You forgetting about Discovery Island, it was completely abandoned after they opened AK.

Well, I would think that if anyone wanted to explore a island that has nothing on it but trees, and probably one or two alligators, are welcome to it. That is different then an open pavilion in an active park regardless of what it is currently being used for. What are they going to find on that island that anyone would want to see? Big Foot, perhaps? Besides it has been done more then once. And due to that, there is probably less concern by Disney. Nothing new to see there, so not really part of the discussion. It is amazing the amount of creative justification that some can come up with. Nothing valid, of course, but, quite creative at times, albeit mostly irrelevant.

 

[elhefe4]

If something is truly abandoned, then it isn’t trespassing.

Nope. Whether you use the legal definition:

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.

or the colloquial definition:

trespass
/ˈtrɛspəs/
verb
gerund or present participle: trespassing

1. 1.
   enter someone's land or property without permission

entering someone's property without permission, regardless of whether it's "abandoned" (however that's defined), is still trespassing, which is a crime. I think people mistook my previous distinction between burglary and trespassing as support for the urban explorers who trespass, but it's the opposite. People keep arguing that intent matters, but for trespassing it does not. It's a crime to simply be on property for which you haven't been given permission. Burglary is trespassing with intent to commit another crime (usually, but not solely, theft) and the fact that we have this separate crime of burglary implies that we as a society intended to criminalize being on property that we don't have permission to be on, regardless of intent. If someone owns the property you're "exploring" on and they haven't given you explicit permission to be there, you're committing a crime, full stop.

 

[MisterPenguin]

If something is truly abandoned, then it isn’t trespassing.

Keep changing that goal post.

Nice use of "something" so you can weasel out of whether Discovery Island is abandoned or not.

So, let's reset:

Discovery Island is no longer used by Disney as an attraction for guests, but, Disney still owns it. It is Disney property. Disney gets to decide who goes to that island or not. Because of that, it is not "abandoned" in the legal sense. It still has an owner who controls it. Disney doesn't want people on that island. Therefor, the people who sneak onto it, whether or not they video it; whether or not they break or take things; just going out to it without Disney's permission is *trespassing.*

Yes or no?

 

[DreamfinderGuy]

entering someone's property

If it’s truly abandoned, then it isn’t anyone’s property. By the legal definition, a space that’s still owned by someone, even if it’s a deserted island that hasn’t had the owners on it for 20 years, is trespassing.

 

[elhefe4]

By the legal definition, a space that’s still owned by someone, even if it’s a deserted island that hasn’t had the owners on it for 20 years, is trespassing.

Bingo, you're finally getting it! That's exactly correct.

This part though, not so much:

If it’s truly abandoned, then it isn’t anyone’s property.

Did you not read the legal definition? It's pretty clear.

 

[DreamfinderGuy]

This part though, not so much:

 

[elhefe4]

View attachment 339481

It's like you're trying to help my case. Entering property which has no owner can't logically be considered trespassing. Apparently we agree there. If you pull the plat for River Country and Discovery Island, I think you'll find that the owner is one "Walt Disney Company" or some shell company they used. Not exactly abandoned.

 

[BoarderPhreak]

I think some are missing the obvious. Here's a big, stinking clue...

If it has a sign to the effect of "KEEP OUT" then just do it, mmmmkay?

 

[DreamfinderGuy]

Entering property which has no owner can't logically be considered trespassing

Exactly! Looks like we’re finally agreeing. I’m trying to defend urbex in general in that area, not River Country or DI, because they’re still technically Disney Property

 

[DreamfinderGuy]

Let's put it this way: I am much more inline with Seph than I am with Matt.

Seph Lawless? He’s an idiot. Tried fact correcting him on something about River Country once, and he went off on me and blocked me. Must feel nice to throw a fit and end up being the lesser person in comparison to a kid just trying to help out his historical accuracy, lol.

 

[elhefe4]

Exactly! Looks like we’re finally agreeing. I’m trying to defend urbex in general in that area, not River Country or DI, because they’re still technically Disney Property

I'm confused by your reference to those two areas then. It sounded like you were saying they're abandoned and fair game for people to explore without permission.

 

[DreamfinderGuy]

I'm confused by your reference to those two areas then. It sounded like you were saying they're abandoned and fair game for people to explore without permission.

Poor word choice. I’m trying to say that not all urbex is bad like these boards are painting it out to be. Urbex isn’t theft. Theft is Theft. Urbex on Disney Property is also trespassing, since nothing is technically (legally) considered abandoned

 

[elhefe4]

Poor word choice. I’m trying to say that not all urbex is bad like these boards are painting it out to be. Urbex isn’t theft. Theft is Theft. Urbex on Disney Property is also trespassing, since nothing is technically (legally) considered abandoned

Okay, sounds like we're on the same page. Also, I think your definition of abandoned property only refers to tangible personal property, not land. It's very difficult to find land that doesn't have an owner. You're right though, theft is theft, and entering property with intent to commit a crime is burglary. Without criminal intent, it's still trespassing.

 

[wdwmagic]

Lets bring the debate about urban exploring to a close and get back to the original topic. Feel free to start a new thread about that subject if you wish. Thanks.

 

[Bleed0range]

You forgetting about Discovery Island, it was completely abandoned after they opened AK.

I remember that my dad used to own a lot behind our house overgrown with woods that had a lot of old junk from the 80s in it. He didn’t feel like spending money to clear it out but he also didn’t want people messing around with it either.