| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 6: |
Line 6: |
| | :I ''think'' it might actually be because Megan is under the mistaken impression that it's neither Nebraskan nor Missourian territory, so neither set of cops actually have jurisdiction (similar to that thing where apparently there's an area of [https://www.forbes.com/sites/robinandrews/2017/11/26/icymi-you-can-get-away-with-murder-in-part-of-yellowstone-national-park/ Yellowstone] where no one has jurisdiction). | | :I ''think'' it might actually be because Megan is under the mistaken impression that it's neither Nebraskan nor Missourian territory, so neither set of cops actually have jurisdiction (similar to that thing where apparently there's an area of [https://www.forbes.com/sites/robinandrews/2017/11/26/icymi-you-can-get-away-with-murder-in-part-of-yellowstone-national-park/ Yellowstone] where no one has jurisdiction). |
| | ::I believe you're right. The title text seems to confirm this.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.172|162.158.255.172]] 20:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC) | | ::I believe you're right. The title text seems to confirm this.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.172|162.158.255.172]] 20:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC) |
| − | :::While I saw the possibility of the Lawless Unclaimed Territory explanation (i.e. nobody has jurisdiction), I feel very sure the intended meaning is that the state that can get there has no jurisdiction and the state they're in can't get to them because of the river. (Mainly because Unclaimed Territory is a bit of a logical leap, while Cops Are Cut Off is fairly logical and somewhat true. Note the wording that "cops can't do a thing", not "there are no cops"). What amuses me is that I've heard of this location before AND that it is indeed true that there are no bridges, so it is indeed quite true that you can't reach this location from the rest of Nebraska. But of course I'm sure cops wouldn't hesitate to pass through Missouri. :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::::Good thoughts! I was having a tough time wrapping my head around why the cops wouldn't just use a boat or helicopter, if necessary. That's why I didn't immediately consider it was the river stopping them.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.172|162.158.255.172]] 14:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| | :I'd edit it myself, but I'm not entirely sure if I'm right. Thought I'd bring up the possibility so others could decide. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.47.24|172.68.47.24]] 16:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC) | | :I'd edit it myself, but I'm not entirely sure if I'm right. Thought I'd bring up the possibility so others could decide. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.47.24|172.68.47.24]] 16:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC) |
| | | | |
| Line 26: |
Line 23: |
| | | | |
| | :How exactly can you commit suicide by beheading? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 04:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC) | | :How exactly can you commit suicide by beheading? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 04:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC) |
| − | ::He could have committed suicide by slitting his throat, then something happened that caused his head to fall off. But who knows? [[User:Herobrine|Herobrine]] ([[User talk:Herobrine|talk]]) 07:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
| |
| − | :::Or by putting on the [[https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blindpanic.com%2Fhumor%2Fvecna.htm Head of Vecna]] [[User:Kazzie|Kazzie]] ([[User talk:Kazzie|talk]]) 05:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::A guillotine would be a handy device for a suicidal beheading. [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 13:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
| |
| − | :I’M SORRY, THEY FOUND A HEADLESS CORPSE??? [[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict|talk]]) 18:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::Well, would you expect them to find a headless ''non-''corpse just wandering around enjoying the scenery? (Well, not looking at the scenery. Or listening to it/smelling it. Feeling the breeze in its hair..? Body-hair, maybe, like the chest (if it was a male headless person?) unless it was even more exposed than that, but while I know that there's a Germanic tradition of naturism, not sure how Dutch/Walloon would react to a headless ''and'' nude person walking around. There'd be questions to ask. Not that I know how they'd get their answers, either.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.179|141.101.98.179]] 19:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Wait, so, basically, two people buy plots of land with river flowing between them, after years the river changes course, and they go to court and hire experts to find ''why'' the river changed course and, depending on the outcome, one person can win a chunk of land the other person had paid for? And this is common in 21st century law systems? That's quite depressing. [[User:Jaalenja|Jaalenja]] ([[User talk:Jaalenja|talk]]) 09:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
| |
| − | :...Except these aren't the property lines of people buying land, these are the borders of subsections of a country. If two people had bought land at this spot, one would now be on the other side (but would still live in Nebraska), the other just wouldn't have waterfront property any more (but would still have property in Missouri). [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 03:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::I was not talking about the comic itself, but about this part of the explanation
| |
| − | In cases of pure accretion, it is possible for a parcel of land to be entirely eroded away on one side of a river, and have material be added to the opposite side of the river. In such cases, one property owner could lose all their land.
| |
| − | ::...and
| |
| − | In the real world, however, river systems undergo both accretion and avulsion multiple times over a period of time. This makes the determination of property lines along riverine boundaries one of the most complicated aspects of boundary surveying.
| |
| − | ::I am by no means expert, maybe it's just poorly worded explanation, but it certainly gave me the impression that something as arbitrary as the cause of a river changing course can affect whether or not someone gets to keep their land, which is by itself as absurd as the very fact they can lose land due to river changing course. [[User:Jaalenja|Jaalenja]] ([[User talk:Jaalenja|talk]]) 08:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :Jaalenja, you are correct in your reading of my text. A person can lose land due to a river or stream changing location, but since this is due to accretion/reliction, it happens very slowly, over decades. Year by year, a property on the outside of a bend of a river will be eroded by natural forces. Over decades of erosion it's possible to lose acres of land. Given enough time, it's conceivable that an entire property could be eroded, but that's pretty rare. Conversely, a property on the inner side of a bend can gain silt, then sand, then rocks, and eventually vegetation. The time scales that these occurrences happen are usually over generations, which is why most people don't worry about it.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :Quick changes are the avulsive river movements, and in those cases, the property boundary doesn't change, because it was a sudden occurrence and the property didn't get destroyed in the process. It may seem like an odd system, but it has been held to be the most equitable way to deal with such natural forces by the English common law system and later on, the American legal system.[[User:Surveyorap|Surveyorap]] ([[User talk:Surveyorap|talk]]) 01:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Congrats Randy, your title text made me claw my eyes out. Thankfully, I know kung-touch-typing-fu. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.11.155|172.68.11.155]] 11:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I removed the incomplete because I can't imagine how this explanation could be made any more complete than it is. In fact, this is one of most complete explains I've seen. Great job everybody! [[User:Gbisaga|Gbisaga]] ([[User talk:Gbisaga|talk]]) 18:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I read the title text as a joke on 'pier'acy and 'marina'time law, as a freshwater-based set of puns rather than a pizza set. [[User:Phineas81707|Phineas81707]] ([[User talk:Phineas81707|talk]]) 05:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Can't believe there was no mention of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bir_Tawil Bir Tawil], the only habitable area on earth that isn't claimed by a country. It's basically exactly the scenario Megan supposes to be happening in the comic (minus the river) - one country claims one border and the other country claims a different border so they both claim the same area, but the way the borders are drawn, Bir Tawil is claimed by neither country. Edited to add a mention. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.82|162.158.255.82]] 04:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
| |
