IANAL, but wouldn't the burden of proof be on the prosecution to prove that the accused knew about signs that weren't posted at the entrance he used?Liberty wrote:It could hold if the accused could convince the court that he had never seen or known about the sign. Convincing the court of that might involve lying. Some might have a moral issue with this.pbandjelly wrote:notice was still given, you were still trespassing.Kalrog wrote:Find a different entrance. I had an operation at a hospital in Austin last year and there was 1 entrance that didn't have a sign at all. Guess what entrance I always took?
"oh but the one entrance..."
sure. good luck with the judge with that.
AND that the accused knew that it was the hospital's intent that the policy established by signs posted at one entrance applied to entrances where they weren't posted? Which would involve proving that there had been communication between the hospital policy makers and the accused?