Posting "No Trespassing" signs does not give the "poster" the right to use violence. It merely means that the violator could be subject to arrest for trespassing. I have no idea where "trespassers may be shot" became legitimized in our culture. Trespassers may not be shot. They may only be shot if you are in fear of your life. Individuals are also allowed to protect their property, i.e., from burglars and thieves. However, some individual who might be on one's property to take a photo of a bridge or even to hunt could not be shot under protection of law.

Posting "No Trespassing" signs does not give the "poster" the right to use violence. It merely means that the violator could be subject to arrest for trespassing. I have no idea where "trespassers may be shot" became legitimized in our culture. Trespassers may not be shot. They may only be shot if you are in fear of your life. Individuals are also allowed to protect their property, i.e., from burglars and thieves. However, some individual who might be on one's property to take a photo of a bridge or even to hunt could not be shot under protection of law.

Posting "No Trespassing" signs does not give the "poster" the right to use violence. It merely means that the violator could be subject to arrest for trespassing. I have no idea where "trespassers may be shot" became legitimized in our culture. Trespassers may not be shot. They may only be shot if you are in fear of your life. Individuals are also allowed to protect their property, i.e., from burglars and thieves. However, some individual who might be on one's property to take a photo of a bridge or even to hunt could not be shot under protection of law.

So, I'm photographing covered bridges (91) in the state of Indiana. Many bridges in rural areas have property owner fencing adjacent to the roadway with no trespassing signage in clear view. There intent is obvious...stay the hell off my property. But here is the thing; there is a ten foot right of way on both sides of the road, and they are eliminating access with their fencing. The dilemma: obey the signage, or assert your right to public access. To get to the waterway to photograph the bridge, I need access. I assert my rights. Additionally, some prohibit access to the waterway the same way...but here is the thing, they do not own to the shore line, only to the high water mark, which is defined by flooding. Knowing the law, I assess the situation and determine how bad I want that waterway view of the covered bridge, and act accordingly. I know the law, and I know my rights...but, I don't know the hostility that could come down on my head. I take a pocket full of money, and if necessary, I'll buy my way out of hostility, and I walk away with the shot! Got to have guts, determination, and a clear view of what you are doing. Navigable streams are owned by the state. Having fun but being cautious also. Get the shot!