Submitted by Rogue-Island-Pirate t3_10r3ite in RhodeIsland
[deleted] t1_j6tj7ez wrote
Reply to comment by katieleehaw in Man claims self-defense in Providence landlord homicide by Rogue-Island-Pirate
It appears the eviction was illegal. But it also appears that Watson was trespassing. He was not the tenant and had no legal right to be there.
I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s way more to this story than we have learned to date.
And the entire situation illustrates how our country’s gun culture inevitably ends lives unnecessarily. This situation is unlikely to have ended (or even unfolded) this way in countries with common sense restrictions on personal firearms and ammunition.
degggendorf t1_j6tq6o9 wrote
> He was not the tenant and had no legal right to be there.
Is anyone saying that the tenant didn't want him in the apartment? Otherwise, I'm pretty sure you're allowed to have guests over to your apartment.
lecreusetpopcorn t1_j6vnmwi wrote
In most leases, you are required to notify your landlord of any occupant over the age of 18 who stays in your apartment for more than 8-ish days (I say “-ish” because every state is different). That doesn’t mean tenants do, but the rule is in the lease for these, and other similar situations. For example: one person (leaseholder) rents a unit (likely because the “occupant” wouldn’t qualify due to their credit, income, criminal background, etc.) and they (the leaseholder) either never move in, or are only in the unit sporadically and the occupant, (not technically a leaseholder and therefore not technically bound by the terms of the lease) is the main resident. Based only on my personal experience, these situations are usually a mess, and almost always end in damage (not only to the unit they occupy but others as well), violence or threats of violence, and an unbelievable waste of resources for a landlord/property management teams (who aren’t the ‘bad guy’ landlord). Are there times when it works out, sure. But more often than not, it ends in the courts, sometimes for years, which is an additional waste of resources.
[deleted] t1_j6whdyr wrote
[deleted]
lecreusetpopcorn t1_j6vosaq wrote
Even if the tenant wanted him there, he’s an unauthorized occupant.
Dopey-NipNips t1_j6wcem6 wrote
A landlord isn't allowed to force an unauthorized occupant into the street at gunpoint though
lecreusetpopcorn t1_j6wm5gm wrote
I never said they were.
Dopey-NipNips t1_j6wmf9t wrote
So what's the point of your comment
It makes absolutely no legal or moral difference if the landlord didn't authorize his occupancy of this apartment.
You have to legally evict an unauthorized occupant
lecreusetpopcorn t1_j6wrtpt wrote
The point of my comment was to answer the above question “is anyone saying the tenant didn’t want him in the apartment… you’re allowed to have guests over to you’re apartment.”
You are allowed to have guests. You’re not allowed to have unauthorized occupants. Whether the leaseholder wanted him there is irrelevant.
sandsonik t1_j6tvnaq wrote
If he was a "guest", where was his host?
degggendorf t1_j6tx9gs wrote
I don't know.
You are allowed to leave your apartment when there's someone else there anyway. There's no buddy system law as far as I know.
sandsonik t1_j6untjz wrote
The article said the renter named in the lease no longer lived there. He moved.
[deleted] t1_j6tqk33 wrote
Most leases place specific restrictions on long-term subleasing “guests.”
degggendorf t1_j6tt4so wrote
And you read this lease to be able to so definitively say he "had no legal right to be there"?
lecreusetpopcorn t1_j6vnueq wrote
Well… he never signed a lease.
[deleted] t1_j6turzs wrote
I’m going to go out on a limb and say that if he wasn’t the leaseholder/tenant, and was inhabiting the unit after the tenant abandoned it (as the article suggests), the balance of evidence suggests he probably was squatting or trespassing.
Of course, there’s always the possibility that this is the rare exception, but it’s a rare exception for a reason.
degggendorf t1_j6txfuk wrote
The language you use in this comment seems to more accurately convey speculation, as opposed to how you initially phrased it.
[deleted] t1_j6txjks wrote
I generally apply Occam’s Razor to most situations. It has rarely failed to deliver.
One of the more annoying responses to common sense observations is endless demands for citations… from folks who never cite anything themselves.
degggendorf t1_j6u6zf9 wrote
Yeah it must be annoying not being able to just say whatever you want without regard for its accuracy
[deleted] t1_j6u7b7k wrote
Well gosh, it’s equally pleasing to have you there to parse my every word to impute meaning that wasn’t communicated! So I’m doubly lucky!
Such guardians of “accuracy” truly improve society 😁
StreetStatistician t1_j6v3hfd wrote
>Occam’s Razor
The most simple and common scenario would be assuming he was just the guest of the tenet, not some bizarre scenario you've concocted.
Cshooter1026 t1_j6u4fha wrote
I noticed in all your posts that have to do with firearms, you are always talking about other countries and how they do things, especially the UK. Perhaps one of those other countries, like the UK, would be better suited for you since you seem to live them so much.
degggendorf t1_j6u7f4h wrote
> I noticed in all your posts that have to do with firearms
That seems to be the case for you too
> would be better suited for you since you seem to live them so much.
Do you need me to invite you to leave for somewhere with gun laws that align with your preferences too?
Or can we just all agree that there's value in seeking to improve where we live, and that the "if you don't like it you can leave" mentality is pretty meaningless?
Cshooter1026 t1_j6u9u30 wrote
I will agree there is value in seeking improvement where you live, what I do not agree with is my rights being stripped away because of what happened in other places by insane people and that there is a slim (very slim) possibility of MAYBE happening here because nothing is absolute. Have you read the wording of the AWB they are proposing? Do you know anything about firearms? If you did you would understand why this or clearly overreach by politicians who want to pass “feel good” laws. On a side note, I am not your enemy, they politicians are. This is exactly how they want us, divided and at each others throats.
degggendorf t1_j6uavsd wrote
Huh? You are arguing against so many things I have never said. My comment you're replying to is affirming your right to have your own opinions and work to make the state what you want it to be, even if that's different from someone else's wishes.
> This is exactly how they want us, divided and at each others throats.
You seem to be succumbing to that in the very comment you're calling it out in. Look at it...I said let's all agree that we can have differing opinions and stop telling everyone to leave, then you spiral into a mountain of assumptions about me stripping your rights, that I don't know anything about guns, and how politicians are the enemy.
[deleted] t1_j6u4sik wrote
I’ve noticed that less educated, lower intellect individuals with a minimum of worldly experience tend to be resentful of the notion that they can learn from other places and people who are different from them and do certain things better.
The world is full of such small-minded places, commonly referred to as “underdeveloped.”
I’d like to avoid seeing my state and country continue to backslide towards underdeveloped status when we have potential to be much greater.
Therefore, if another country has a better way to build a car, or a smarter health delivery system, or a better design for transit systems, or a system that has largely eliminated gun violence, I choose to learn from them rather than stew in parochial ignorance.
You should try it!
Cshooter1026 t1_j6u6dbu wrote
Sure, how about we start with a license to watch tv, like the UK has? Or, we could require federal registration and licensing of computers, licenses to be able to post and reply to things online, and we could also limit how many posts you can make, all to try and prevent cyber bullying. That would be better way wouldn’t it?
[deleted] t1_j6u7npi wrote
If you can make your argument with some actual statistics, I won’t stop you.
That’s the beauty of critical thinking.
But I warn you, it will require thinking.
Cshooter1026 t1_j6u8shw wrote
Ah yes, I see this is the second time you have slyly insulted my intelligence, without even knowing anything about me which I have not done to you. That is ok though, I’ll go ahead and do it now and say that just shows the kind of person you are. Good banter though, I do enjoy it.
[deleted] t1_j6ucw7n wrote
Well, I mean your prior two posts insulted the intelligence of every reader, so…
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments