Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2019 March 10

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 10

In France, is the prime minister immune to criminal investigation?

Recently, due to criminal investigations against Bibi Netanyahu, there has been talk about a proposed law nicknamed "The French Law" preventing criminal investigation of the prime minister. Is this actually the law in France? 37.26.148.172 (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

An article in the French Constitution of 1958 states that the president "shall incur no liability by reasons of acts carried out in his official capacity" -- which was amended to include "throughout his term of office, the president shall not be required to testify before any French court of law or administrative authority and shall not be the object of any civil proceedings, nor of any preferring of charges, prosecution or investigatory measures. All limitation periods shall be suspended for the duration of said term of office."

Source: Harkov, Lahav. "Is Netanyahu the new Chirac?". www.jpost.com. Jerusalem Post. — 107.15.157.44 (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC) -- P.s.: note that France has both a president (Emmanuel Macron) and a prime minister (Édouard Philippe)

To clarify a little, in the French semi-presidential system... "Although it is the Prime Minister of France, the Government as well as the Parliament that oversee much of the nation's actual day-to-day affairs, especially in domestic issues, the French President wields significant influence and authority, especially in the fields of national security and foreign policy". The role of the President of Israel is largely ceremonial and it is the Prime Minister of Israel that "holds the real power". Alansplodge (talk) 12:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

How was the Mexican-American War viewed by Americans decades later?

In his memoirs (which were completed shortly before his death in 1885), former U.S. President and former Union Army General Ulysses S. Grant discussed his opposition to the 1845 U.S. annexation of Texas as well as to the subsequent Mexican-American War (1846-1848):

http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/america7_brief/content/multimedia/ch14/research_01d.htm

Have there been any other Americans who mentioned their views on the Mexican-American War decades after the end of this war? If so, who were these Americans and what were their views about this war?

Basically, I'm interested in seeing the attitudes of Americans in the late 19th and early 20th centuries towards the Mexican-American War. Futurist110 (talk) 08:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Not a direct answer to your question, but there was a warming of relations between Mexico & US during the period known as the porfiriato (November 28, 1876 — May 25, 1911).[1] —107.15.157.44 (talk) 09:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I would assume that attitudes towards the 1898 war with Spain (American Anti-Imperialist League etc.) would retrospectively color attitudes towards 1848... AnonMoos (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps try your search using the older term, “Mexican War”? For example, there are only three hits at Internet Archive for “Mexican-American War” and a date range of 1868-1918, but there are 399 hits if you change the term to “Mexican War”. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

In America we often tend to call it the Mexican War. Maybe because Mexican-American War would seem redundant. (Like in France where what we call French fries, they just call fries.) Although the 1898 conflict is typically called the Spanish-American War. Go figure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Many French people will be quick to remind you that fries are actually Belgian (not originally French)... AnonMoos (talk) 05:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

In any case, they don't call them French fries. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Probably because they don't consider them to be French... AnonMoos (talk) 05:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Which certainly was the good choice they made - Belgian fries have been said to be shrinking in size lately brutally hot, dry summer etc.. --Askedonty (talk) 08:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I would expect a pretty widespread view that the war was a good thing. I don't know where you'd find dissent from that in the US. A lot of the contemporary opposition (at the time of the war) was on the grounds getting land from Mexico would most likely be slave territory, and it got rolled into that whole issue. But even before the Civil War, there wasn't talk of giving it back.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Wehwalt -- very few people in the U.S. after 1848 ever seriously proposed giving the lands of the "Mexican Cession" back, but that's a little bit different from being retrospectively enthusiastic about the war. I don't think that there's anything necessarily inconsistent about simultaneously feeling that the Mexican war ultimately ended up being a good thing for the U.S. over the long term, and also feeling that it was fought for the wrong reasons, and ended up hastening the coming of the U.S. Civil War... AnonMoos (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The discovery of gold in late 1848 probably fed a lot of "it's a good thing we won!" feelings. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

What time did polls open and close in Great Depression Germany?

Was the voting front-loaded?

How did they do "last call" pre-Reich? Did you have to vote before closing time or just get on line before then (like my state) or could you even join the queue later?

Did this change later?

Did some parties vote earlier than others on average? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia has an article on de:Wahlrecht der Weimarer Republik. About opening times, it says it was usually 8am to 6pm during the summer months, or 9am to 7pm during the winter months. No answers to any of the other questions. I'm not even sure the question about "front-loaded" is meaningful in the first place (or maybe I don't understand the term). What exactly would constitute a "front-loading" effect in an election that happens on a single day with a single counting after all the polling stations close? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

If it was very front-loaded that would suggest high partisaness and low apathy among those who can safely vote their choice, despite such eagerness not affecting the outcome. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm still not sure I understand what you mean by that term, "front-loaded". The only context I can find it on the web is in discussing the timing of presidential primaries in the US, and it's far from obvious to me how that concept should be applicable to a single-day parliamentary vote. Can you explain? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about that, time of vote isn't very politically interesting in the US since it's a full workday for many people while primary timing is politically interesting. I was wondering if one can guess anything about different parties' supporters by what is known of the distribution of vote times. Did some parties tend to vote earlier in the day than others, long line before polls opened even, were there lines at closing time? (the US media likes to show places with lines at high turnout elections though this might just be a symptom of many Americans working till ~17:00 up to an hour from the only place they can vote and then having to get on line by 18:00-20:00). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

You might find some pointers in this [2] (German-language) work on political campaigning in the Weimar Republic. On p.230 the author mentions that the Communist party was known for particularly thorough organization in its campaigns and that their party members were encouraged to vote as early as possible (so that they could then participate in more campaigning and picketing for the rest of the day). Haven't read further through the book to see if it has any comparable info on other parties or about broader classes of voters. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Would it have been legal to tell employees they're fired if they don't work those 10 hours to keep them from voting communist or social democrat? Maybe making Monday a day off and shortening Tuesday 2 hours to compensate? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

From 1918 to 1923 that would have been illegal because the maximum allowed workday was 8 hours(German), which excludes break time. Besides that, preventing that exact sort of behaviour by an employer is one of the main points of a union. And yes, it would have been illegal because work on sunday, or specifically Sonntagsruhe in German, prohibited most work on sundays from 1. july 1892 onwards. And Sunday appears to be the traditional election day for Germany, it is nowadays anyway and i spotchecked a few Weimar era ones to confirm. The 'Sonntagsruhe' only got relaxed in recent decades but is still somewhat a thing even in modern day Germany, just as a small sidenote. In other words, no, employers could not order their employees to work on a sunday because only certain types of businesses were even allowed to be open by law. (dealing with fresh produce as a random example, things like that). And perhaps there even was some law in Weimar that would guarantee anyone elligible to cast a vote, although i cannot provide a reference for that as i am unsure what to actually search for. Despite failing, the Weimar Republic actually was quite decent, perhaps even progressive, in some regards. 85.16.226.58 (talk) 01:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I forgot to add that even if people were allowed to work on Sundays, the workday was generally, but not always, capped at 5 hours according to the 'Sonntagsruhe' article. 85.16.226.58 (talk) 01:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Incandescent light bulb in the United States

How common are incandescent light bulbs (or hot bulbs) in the United States compared to cool bulbs? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

They're still around. Lots have been replaced though. 100-watt incandescents only cost a dollar for multiple bulbs. Some right-wingers and just people who liked them stockpiled them. I think they're still sold. Compact fluorescent bulbs must've been cheaper long-term for room lighting by the early 2000s cause I started seeing them a lot then. LEDs took a lot longer to be more cost effective than compact fluorescents but now even the streetlights are LEDs. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

It depends on the circumstances. Incandescent bulbs are still used for heat lamp purposes, e.g. at a fast-food restaurant that has a bin for short-term retention of french fries after pulling them out of the cooking oil. Such bins are covered (to prevent objects from falling into the bin) and are enclosed on one to three sides, so they need some sort of lighting if the workers are to be able to see clearly. If they used fluorescent lamps, they'd have to have an extra system to keep the fries hot, but incandescent lamps do both jobs at once. Nyttend (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that is an application where incandescent light bulbs of the right temperature would be a near perfect solution. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Anna_Frodesiak -- the only connected incandescent bulb in my apartment is the little one in my refrigerator, unless I forgot to change the bulb in my closet before I stacked up so much stuff there that I can't get to it anymore... -- AnonMoos (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The power company (Duke) where I live in the U.S. (S. Carolina) gives away free CFL bulbs. So, there is little reason for an average consumer to buy incandescent bulbs. You have two choices: Go to the store and buy bulbs or sit and home and have the power company mail free bulbs to you. Similarly, the water company gives away free low-flow shower heads. So, I don't clean mine. Every year I just get a new one for free. The fire department gives away free smoke detectors and batteries. Now, I wish the garbage company would give us free trash bags. 12.207.168.3 (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Note that while incandescent bulbs generate a lot of heat (using up more energy in the process), they are also more tolerant of heat, so are still used as appliance bulbs in ovens, etc. (not as a heat source, but to provide light). Other applications that can benefit from the extra heat generated are heating a dog house in winter, older Easy Bake Ovens, or light fixtures in humid areas (such as a shower stall) that would otherwise fog up. Also, an incandescent bulb is like a light and space heater in one, which isn't such a bad combo in winter. For example, a desk light that warms you up a bit might be nice. Of course, these bulbs would need to be replaced with LED bulbs or CFLs in summer, and many would find it annoying to swap bulbs every 6 months. Also, incandescent bulbs work better with dimmer switches. (Some LEDs are dimmable, but tend not to work as well at the very low end, such as instantly going from half brightness to none.) SinisterLefty (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The bulb in my lava lamp is incandescent due to the heat that is needed to keep the lava flowing. Though, it just burned out the other day and I haven't yet replaced it. The bulbs in the rest of the house have been getting replaced as they burn out over the years. I don't receive free ones as one of the posters above said. And LEDs are more expensive than incandescent the last time I priced them. †dismas†|^(talk) 22:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Isn't the total cost of LED ownership still less expensive? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Although I am far from right wing, I did buy a supply of the 100-watt bulbs prior to them going mostly off sale, in 2011. I wasn't happy about the state of the replacement technology and figured this would tide me over until it matured. In 2017, I mostly converted to LED light fixtures and bulbs.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Was it the insufficient color rendering index? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I didn't like the color, if that is what you mean. Additionally, the cost was still high and I had read of issues disposing of used or broken bulbs.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all! That is very interesting.

Good on those organizations for giving out those things. Bloody good.

Yes, I was wondering if USA had broken their incandescent habit. I know old habits sometimes die hard over there. (Please get on board with the metric system. :) Miles and gallons inches are daft.) And here in China, incandescents are seldom seen. Actually, I suspect the transition to cool lights here was hastened by a distaste for the yellowish light of incandescents because that light is what poor people had. They love the bright, white, harsh new cool lights. Here is it is all white lights on the ceiling rather than the lovely yellowish lights at eye level or below.

I was wondering about dimmers and non-incandescents. Now I know.

And as for heat lights, yes, what will everyone do about Easy Bakes and Lava lamps? I wonder if there will be a heater one can buy that screws into a light socket now that incandescents are on the way out. Maybe there is, and that content can go into Infrared lamp. I use incandescents in this yogurt maker a clever young person made for me. It creates wonderful yogurt, although I had to request an extra bit of wood to keep the jar's temperature more even. I stocked up on bulbs because they are getting hard to find.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The fact that other countries keep lecturing us about our refusal to adopt a non-human measuring system is all the more reason not to convert. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Countries? It's everyone saying inches are stupid, except inchworms of course. They consider the metric system an attack on their personal identity. See also Inchworms Against the Metric System, an insanely violent direct-action group which has created teensy explosions outside the National Institute of Standards and Technology for years. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The metric system is fine where appropriate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I thought that answers at the Reference Desks were supposed to be based on actual sources as much as possible. Here is a report by the National Electrical Manufacturers Association that states, "By the end of 2015, traditional incandescent lamps were virtually gone from store shelves and manufacturers were no longer shipping those lamps as a result of EISA-2007." Low wattage special purpose bulbs are excluded from the report which focuses on general purpose lighting. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't the light bulb law sound like something the Republicans would've repealed by now? They didn't? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

By the way, incandescent bulbs still seem to be shown over someone's head when they get an idea in cartoons, comics etc. I wonder if some kids now might have difficulty understanding the metaphor? -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Their grandparents can explain it to them, along with artifacts like telephones with dials, record players, and Victory Gardens. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The continuing use of symbols long after their physical counterparts have become obsolescent may preserve general understanding of them. Other such symbols which young people presumably understand include, off the top of my head, the floppy disc symbol used as the 'save' icon on current computer systems, the steam locomotive symbol used to warn motorists of an open level crossing, and a bellows-lensed box camera symbol used similarly to notify the presence of a speed camera (the latter two are current in the UK, I can't speak to other jurisdictions).

I wonder if there's a general term for such 'fossilised' symbols and whether we have, or should have, an article on the topic? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.123.27.125 (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

US railroad crossing signs are normal-sized road signs with a black X dividing the sign into 4 parts. The top and bottom quadrants are empty and the other quadrants have one black R. The railroads drive on manmade soil ridges, tunnels, els or trenches where I live so I don't get to see them often. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Isn't the "email" symbol an old fashioned envelope, and the "mobile phone number" symbol one of those old-fashioned dial telephones from the seventies? 2A02:C7F:BE3D:8000:DC4D:B980:1C56:F386 (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, although envelopes are nowhere near obsolete. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Not yet obsolete? I shouldn't have sold my envelope factory. Saaay Bugs, wanna buy my carbon paper company? The stuff is coming back! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

You could probably corner the market in liquid paper for a very modest sum.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Wise investment, Wehwalt. Our fling with computers is just about done and the century of the typewriter is about to start. All hail. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I get plenty of snail-mail, and nearly all of it comes in envelopes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Dunno about the US, but here in Australia a number of cafes and restaurants trying to achieve an "olde worlde" look, and some just trying to look chic, in my view, use decorative, overly-large, incandescent bulbs as part of achieving this goal. HiLo48 (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, HiLo48. I think LEDs can be yellowish and reside inside a bulb. Almost the same effect, I think. I don't think flourescents can avoid being horrible, harsh, nasty white. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• If by "harsh, nasty" white you mean the nice bluish white called "cool white", then yes, there are other colors of fluorescents. There are horrible pinkish white ones called "warm white", and more expensive ones called "full spectrum". --76.69.46.228 (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, some bulbs using LEDs are made to look like old old style filament lamps, but some definitely have real filaments. Try Googling "filament cafe bulbs" and look at the images. HiLo48 (talk) 03:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I think I've seen those. They are very attractive, actually. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Re this comment:

Regarding "free trash bags", when I lived in Portugal the lixeiro used to come very early every morning (including Sundays and public holidays, of which there were many), with the dustcart, to collect the rubbish. This is probably because the pavements are narrow and there are no gardens. Thus there is no room for dustbins and rubbish cannot be allowed to accumulate. The situation in this country is vastly different - now even swans root around in bins for food [3]. Things deteriorated after the Government abolished the statutory duty on local authorities to collect at least weekly, with householders complaining about growing numbers of rats. Government efforts to restore this frequency have failed - some local authorities are looking at monthly collections and recycling is collected separately. Does this problem exist in the States?

- 2A02:C7F:BE3D:8000:DC4D:B980:1C56:F386|2A02:C7F:BE3D:8000:DC4D:B980:1C56:F386 18:13, 12 March 2019

In my borough (Hackney) it is illegal to put out rubbish for collection without having first separated out the recycling, which must be placed in a "green bag". Is this coercion prevalent in the States? 92.8.223.219 (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I've seen in some cities in the US and Canada a number of recycling bins per house, even for food scraps (which looked animal- and swan-proof). Where I live in Virginia, we make our own arrangements for trash service with any of several local providers (it is not a tax-funded service) and they generally expect that paper, bottles and aluminum cans will be put in a separate bin. You can go further in recycling; for example I usually save any used-up batteries for when I go to the local organic market, which has a small bin for them. They even have one for corks, but I generally buy wine either in a box or a screw-top bottle so I generate few of those.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Aside

We have lots of these LEDs (or are they flourescent?) here in the home. Some we never turn off. Those seem to last forever while ones that get turned on and off seem to burn out. Considering the electricity consumption by cool lights is cheap, I suspect that is more cost efficient for the planet and us if we do keep them on always. Does that sound right? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Turning some bulbs on and off shortens their life but being used also brings them closer to death. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Understood, Sagittarian Milky Way. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Vehicular trespass

Imagine that you park your car in a public place and don't lock it. After you leave, I enter the car, even though I know that it's not mine and that I don't have permission to enter. Later, I get out and don't steal or damage anything, and as I didn't start the engine, I didn't reduce the amount of remaining fuel. I assume that many jurisdictions have laws prohibiting such actions, but what would this concept be called? Vehicular trespass, Trespass to vehicle, Trespass to vehicles, and everything else I've checked are all red links. I found Trespass to chattels, but at least under US federal law, one must prevent the owner from using it to an extent or must cause some sort of damage, so apparently it's not applicable since I enter while you're not there and don't cause any harm to anyone/anything. Nyttend (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

In Montana, there is Criminal trespass to vehicles: A person commits the offense of criminal trespass to vehicles when the person purposely or knowingly and without authority enters any vehicle or any part of a vehicle. — Many other jurisdiction have similar laws. As to where on Wikipedia this could be added, presumably somewhere under Property torts —2606:A000:1126:28D:5037:449F:59D8:1A33 (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

New Zealand legislation says that it is an offence to be found without reasonable excuse in a vehicle, but it is a defence if defendant can show he had no intention to commit any other offence. Akld guy (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

It is important to note that "breaking and entering" is a common phrase in movies and television shows. It is not a legal term. It is not necessary to "break" into something to commit a crime. If the door is unlocked and you open it, it is just as much a crime as if the door was locked and you picked the lock. The point being that your scenario of an unlocked car isn't important. It is a car, locked or unlocked. If you are basing your opinion on television knowledge, you surely assume that an unlocked car is different. If you base it on legal knowledge, you won't care if it was locked or unlocked. 12.207.168.3 (talk) 13:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, but it's absolutely a legal term, though its definition depends on jurisdiction, and some jurisdictions have no such law. In Virginia, for example, 'breaking and entering' and 'entering without breaking' with intent to commit larceny are covered by different sections of the burglary statute (§18.2-90 through -92). This statute is known as "common law burglary", and indeed as our article breaking and entering notes, this crime has its origins as a common law concept. You're right that "breaking" doesn't necessarily require anything be broken. It doesn't even require unlocking anything - simply deceiving a property owner to gain access to a building you would not have otherwise been allowed within could be considered breaking. This is all to distinguish as a separate or different crime entering property that law abiding persons are prevented from entering by means of a physical barrier. I believe from my search for statutes that only a minority of jurisdictions continue to make this distinction for the purpose of burglary statutes, but of course an act of breaking would be a likely factor in proving intent. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Coming back to this... Trespass on private property is applicable. You mention trespass to chattels. That applies to the ability to operate a vehicle. In particular, if I park my car in front of your driveway so you can't pull out, I am guilty of trespass to chattels. I have inhibited your ability to properly operate your vehicle. Trespass on private property is what you are referring to. A vehicle is property. Many people pay property tax on their vehicles. Therefore, it should be no surprise that a vehicle is property. By entering a vehicle, you are entering private property. You are trespassing. You can argue that no harm is done by trespassing, but that hasn't traditionally held up in court. The act of trespassing is considered harmful. 12.207.168.3 (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

As a statutory matter, I don't see much of anything that's specific to this. California's burglary statute actually specifies that entering a vehicle with larcenous intent is a crime if the vehicle is locked, though this requirement does not exist for houses[4]. Actually stealing anything from the car is still a crime, however, as is driving it without the permission of the owner (under two different statutes with different intent requirements: [5][6]; if it's just a joyride and not a theft, this is simply called "trespass").

Fundamentally, the common law concept of "trespass" is to be on private property without the consent of the owner. Quoting from the third restatement of the torts, "Consent exists when, regardless of the intent of the possessor, a reasonable person would understand the words, conduct or inaction of the possessor to constitute consent."[7]

This is actually a pretty immensely complicated subject of common law, and one even the Supreme Court has to clarify now and then. It's common sense that a locked door, security guard, or a sign saying "KEEP OUT" means that you do not have the consent of the owner to be present. But when you have consent otherwise, and for how long, or for what purpose, oh... yeah, lots of caselaw there. Lots of nuance.

This is why you'll see references to "with intent to _____" in statutes related to criminal trespass, especially ones that do not specifically deal with "breaking", whether or not that word is used. That is, although it's a hairy question sometimes whether a reasonable person could assume permission to go somewhere, it's safer to assume that the owner of property does not give you permission to rob him, and therefore entering his property with intent to steal is nonconsensual.

Anyway, I find it extremely interesting that under California statute trespass in a vehicle requires you to either break into it or drive it, but simply getting inside an unlocked car on a public street is not a trespass. I mean, I think I'm a reasonable person, but would not assume I had permission to enter anyone's parked car without a crazy good reason. I'll note the curiosity that in the Montana Statute referenced above, further up where "enter" is defined [8], it is stated that the assumption of permission to enter only exists for "land", and not vehicles or occupied structures ("occupied structure" in law usually means 'in use' as opposed to 'abandoned', rather than literally 'occupied at this very moment'). I suppose this is a fair way of clearing any confusion of when you have permission: Never. (Okay, separately the Montana statutes create privilege to enter for surveyors, appraisers, and fire officials, but you're never in doubt whether you are one of those.)

Anyway, very different philosophies here, completely at opposite ends of what you are apparently supposed to assume you can do. I guess Montanans really like their private property private. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

From what I can tell, in Indiana, it's only criminal trespass if you are in the vehicle when someone else who doesn't have permission is control 35-43-2-2. (Even if vehicles are also covered under the sections dealing with property, I don't see how the requirements would be met from the scenario outlined above since no one posts signs on their cars saying 'do not enter' or whatever. An exception may be if the vehicle is also a dwelling so e.g. a RV or car owned by a homeless person.)

But it could be "Unlawful entry of motor vehicle" 35-43-4-2.7. Irrelevant but I found that Indiana has a specific offence for sex offenders using UAV for following, contacting or recording people 35-42-4-12.5.

P.S. The links are all to the same page but specific subsections. Because of the large size, it may take a while to go to the right part, or in some cases could fail completely.

P.P.S. In relation to what the IP said above, in Indiana the offence 35-43-2-1 and 35-43-2-1.5 is either burglary or residential entry but the law does specifically use those words "A person who breaks and enters the building or structure of another person, with intent to commit a felony or theft in it, commits burglary, a Level 5 felony." and "A person who knowingly or intentionally breaks and enters the dwelling of another person commits residential entry, a Level 6 felony."

Nil Einne (talk) 09:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

One thing that strikes me at least from someone not involved in the legal field is that our articles in this area seem lacking. For example, we have Trespass to land, but the article doesn't really seem to deal very well with the fact that in modern times AFAIK there is often an offence to trespass on someone's real property even if they don't own the land it's on, for example some cases of apartments etc. Maybe to some extent it's derived from the transfer of rights by the owner of the land, but it seems to me more complicated than that. For example, if someone own apartment 4a, it may be trespass to enter apartment 3a or 5a even if these are over the exact same piece of land. I assume more likely trespass to land has evolved to cover real property more generally as modern norms etc changed.

IMO our article also doesn't seem to deal well with the way rights are transferred (or whatever). So for example, the owner of a land or property can in some circumstances trespass on their own property or land, like when they've rented it out. [9] [10] (This also gets into my earlier point, so for example in a 2 storey house with separate entries, if the owner rents out the flat above or below, they could trespass in that flat. But the renter likewise could trespass in the other flat.)

Likewise if the owner doesn't like someone the renter has invited onto the property, depending on the rental contract and local law, they may have cause to terminate the contract and sue the renter. But the invitee (actually from what I read recently legally they may be a licensee) possibly can't be trespassed from the property by the owner until they retake possession. And I think it's often the renter who has stronger cause for action than owner if it's a third party trespassing that neither of them wanted.

More generally, there may be a difference between the land and property on the land. E.g. I'm fairly sure in a number of jurisdictions, if there are no signs and you haven't been told to stay off, it's often fine to enter your neighbours garden if you want to talk to them and maybe even to have a look at something, especially during the day. Actually entering their house unless you've been given some affirmative sign it's okay (at the time or in the past) is more likely to be a problem. Possibly even the door being wide open isn't sufficient. (With likely defences if you were concerned something was wrong etc.) I interpret Indiana's law to likely be one example of this.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Your confusion is certainly justified since courts have also been confused by this as well. My mother's specialty is landlord-tenant law - she has written articles about it, and tells me that even practicing lawyers taking continuing legal education courses she's taught on the subject are consistently confused by it. The third restatement goes into this in quite some detail in section 49, "Possessors of land defined". In brief, over many decades courts have moved away from focusing on ownership of land in the context of trespass and liability, and toward control of land. The person in control of land is the person who has, usually with consent of the owner, de facto control over it, and thus is the (or a) possessor. Land here includes buildings and parts of buildings on that land. This section discusses the possibility of possession transfer, multiple possessors, and possession of only a portion of the land or for limited duration. Tenants are explicitly mentioned. Tangentially, I found it interesting you suggested the possibility that trespass in a vehicle might be treated differently if the vehicle is also a dwelling. Indeed, the California burglary statute explicitly states that a mobile home, RV, or similar is to be treated like a house and not a car. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

In Poland, it's a crime, punishable by 3 months to 5 years in prison, to use someone else's car, for whatever purpose, even for a short time and without breaking in. It's specified in article 289 of the Polish Penal Code. Of course, if you do break in, the penalty may be higher.

§ 1. Whoever takes a motor vehicle which is someone else's property, with the purpose of using it for a short period of time shall be subject to the penalty of deprivation of liberty for a term of between 3 months and 5 years.

§ 2. If the perpetrator of the act specified in § 1 disables a security device protecting the vehicle from the use by an unauthorised person, or the vehicle represents a property of considerable value, or if the perpetrator subsequently abandons the vehicle in a damaged condition or in such circumstances that there is a danger that the vehicle, its parts or contents will be lost or damaged, he shall be subject to the penalty of deprivation of liberty for a term of between 6 months and 8 years.

§ 3. If the act specified in § 1 has been perpetrated with the use of violence or threatening the immediate use thereof, or by causing a person to become unconscious or helpless, the perpetrator shall be subject to the penalty of deprivation of liberty for a term of between 1 and 10 years.

— Kpalion^(talk) 12:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

But just to be clear, "take" ("zabierać") would not describe the OP's situation. Henry^Flower 20:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps not. I'm just quoting a law, not giving legal advice. — Kpalion^(talk) 10:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)