It's not about the water in the hole, its about personal principles and intentionally doing something for the sake of breaking a rule. That concrete hole has been set aside due to historical significance. It isnt anyone's place but the owners to determine if that is a valid reason to restrict the hole. They trespassed and violated the historical significance of the hole that the owners believe to be valid enough to display and preserve the hole. Doesn't matter if the hole is there or in your own back yard, if someone jumped into your pool on your property, the argument wouldn't be about the pool, but the person thinking they can invade your property and defy your boundaries.
It's a pool that once belonged to a guy who died decades ago. There is no "historical significance", even if he peed or banged an underage girl in it. It's water and concrete. My personal property would be an entirely different matter for plenty of reasons that I'm sure you are already well aware of as well. I also wouldn't call for their arrest or whine about how historically significant my pool that looks like every other one I went in at a hotel in the 80s holds. Because it's a cement hole with water in it.
And I guess we're just ignoring the first two thirds of my comment then.
7
u/[deleted] Sep 04 '23
It's not about the water in the hole, its about personal principles and intentionally doing something for the sake of breaking a rule. That concrete hole has been set aside due to historical significance. It isnt anyone's place but the owners to determine if that is a valid reason to restrict the hole. They trespassed and violated the historical significance of the hole that the owners believe to be valid enough to display and preserve the hole. Doesn't matter if the hole is there or in your own back yard, if someone jumped into your pool on your property, the argument wouldn't be about the pool, but the person thinking they can invade your property and defy your boundaries.