3 ms·

If you get trespassed then wouldn't the police get involved?

by Aerroon 3mo ago

darreninthenet 3mo ago
Depends on the laws in Belgium (I've no idea what they are)... in the UK for example trespass by itself is not a criminal matter, even if somebody refuses to leave your property... they need to be doing something else.
- n4r9 3mo ago
  Just to clarify. The UK police can assist you in ejecting trespassers, whom you have told to leave your house, in order to "prevent a breach of the peace". They won't arrest or charge trespassers unless they have reason to suspect criminal activity. In this case the Belgian police might have been justified in escorting the journalists off the premises. But I'm not sure what grounds they had to detain and question them.
- 1234letshaveatw 3mo ago
  They should have claimed the reporters were using AC
gspr 3mo ago
They weren't trespassing, they were invited! Aside: why do Americans always talk about trespassing as something that is done to the trespasser? Isn't trespassing the act itself? If I plant myself in your livingroom uninvited, then surely I am trespassing. Why do so many people instead say that I "get trespassed"?
- Aerroon 3mo ago
  Because in semi-public places, like a store, you are only trespassing if you've been told to leave (you are trespassed).
  - gspr 3mo ago
    Why "are you trespassed" if you're told to leave? I understand that you might not be engaging in the act of trespassing until you have been made aware that you must leave. But refusing to do so surely then means that you are trespassing not that you "are trespassed? Trespassing is the act. The trespasser is the subject undertaking the act. The object that is being trespassed upon is surely then the offended location and/or person?
- NopIdoN 3mo ago
  the trespasser got trespasserized* by the trespassee, who was trespassed against when the trespasser did a trespass on them * trespasserified
- darthwalsh 3mo ago
  Because it's a common phrase? Same as "get carded"? English is flexible; almost any combination of words can start to have meaning.
  - efreak 3mo ago
    Tresspass is not a reflexive verb. It does not happen to you, rather it's an action you perform. Saying someone got trespassed is like saying you were driven when you go somewhere in your car, or that the door opened itself; you're taking the agency away from the person doing the trespassing and saying that they didn't actually do it themselves, but rather someone else did it/it something that happened to them. This isn't a judgement on the article; it you don't want to say they were trespassing, then you should say it differently: they were _charged with_ or _accused of_ trespassing, etc.
    - bentley 3mo ago
      > Tresspass is not a reflexive verb. Correct. But it is, sometimes, a transitive verb. One can trespass (go somewhere one is not allowed), and one can be trespassed (be banned from a property). One can even be trespassed against, which has a different meaning altogether (to be wronged by someone else). I think you and the other commenters are confused by the usage of “trespassing someone” because it’s not an everyday usage of the term. “Trespassing someone” is essentially shorthand for “formally banning someone.” Being formally banned from someplace (and notified of it) has special legal significance: it’s basically what determines whether you get kicked out (in the case of mere trespassing) versus getting arrested (criminal trespass). That’s why this phrasing is especially common among cops and other legal personnel. > Saying someone got trespassed is like saying you were driven when you go somewhere in your car, or that the door opened itself; you're taking the agency away from the person doing the trespassing and saying that they didn't actually do it themselves, but rather someone else did it/it something that happened to them. It’s not like that at all. The difference between “she trespassed” and “he trespassed her” is not the same as the difference between “the vase broke” and “she broke the vase,” even though both are examples of intransitive/transitive uses of a verb. Humans discussing trespassing in a legal context found it convenient for “trespass” to gain a new meaning when used transitively. This usage has now been around for decades so it’s not particularly new anymore, but it’s still uncommon because most people don’t have a need to talk about trespassing in a legal context, and notice of trespass in particular.

If you get trespassed then wouldn't the police get involved?

by Aerroon 3mo ago

If you get trespassed then wouldn't the police get involved?

Depends on the laws in Belgium (I've no idea what they are)... in the UK for example trespass by itself is not a criminal matter, even if somebody refuses to leave your property... they need to be doing something else.

n4r9 3mo ago
Just to clarify. The UK police can assist you in ejecting trespassers, whom you have told to leave your house, in order to "prevent a breach of the peace". They won't arrest or charge trespassers unless they have reason to suspect criminal activity. In this case the Belgian police might have been justified in escorting the journalists off the premises. But I'm not sure what grounds they had to detain and question them.
1234letshaveatw 3mo ago
They should have claimed the reporters were using AC

gspr 3mo ago

They weren't trespassing, they were invited! Aside: why do Americans always talk about trespassing as something that is done to the trespasser? Isn't trespassing the act itself? If I plant myself in your livingroom uninvited, then surely I am trespassing. Why do so many people instead say that I "get trespassed"?

Aerroon 3mo ago
Because in semi-public places, like a store, you are only trespassing if you've been told to leave (you are trespassed).
- gspr 3mo ago
  Why "are you trespassed" if you're told to leave? I understand that you might not be engaging in the act of trespassing until you have been made aware that you must leave. But refusing to do so surely then means that you are trespassing not that you "are trespassed? Trespassing is the act. The trespasser is the subject undertaking the act. The object that is being trespassed upon is surely then the offended location and/or person?
NopIdoN 3mo ago
the trespasser got trespasserized* by the trespassee, who was trespassed against when the trespasser did a trespass on them * trespasserified
darthwalsh 3mo ago
Because it's a common phrase? Same as "get carded"? English is flexible; almost any combination of words can start to have meaning.
- efreak 3mo ago
  Tresspass is not a reflexive verb. It does not happen to you, rather it's an action you perform. Saying someone got trespassed is like saying you were driven when you go somewhere in your car, or that the door opened itself; you're taking the agency away from the person doing the trespassing and saying that they didn't actually do it themselves, but rather someone else did it/it something that happened to them. This isn't a judgement on the article; it you don't want to say they were trespassing, then you should say it differently: they were _charged with_ or _accused of_ trespassing, etc.
  - bentley 3mo ago
    > Tresspass is not a reflexive verb. Correct. But it is, sometimes, a transitive verb. One can trespass (go somewhere one is not allowed), and one can be trespassed (be banned from a property). One can even be trespassed against, which has a different meaning altogether (to be wronged by someone else). I think you and the other commenters are confused by the usage of “trespassing someone” because it’s not an everyday usage of the term. “Trespassing someone” is essentially shorthand for “formally banning someone.” Being formally banned from someplace (and notified of it) has special legal significance: it’s basically what determines whether you get kicked out (in the case of mere trespassing) versus getting arrested (criminal trespass). That’s why this phrasing is especially common among cops and other legal personnel. > Saying someone got trespassed is like saying you were driven when you go somewhere in your car, or that the door opened itself; you're taking the agency away from the person doing the trespassing and saying that they didn't actually do it themselves, but rather someone else did it/it something that happened to them. It’s not like that at all. The difference between “she trespassed” and “he trespassed her” is not the same as the difference between “the vase broke” and “she broke the vase,” even though both are examples of intransitive/transitive uses of a verb. Humans discussing trespassing in a legal context found it convenient for “trespass” to gain a new meaning when used transitively. This usage has now been around for decades so it’s not particularly new anymore, but it’s still uncommon because most people don’t have a need to talk about trespassing in a legal context, and notice of trespass in particular.