Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

geffe71 t1_j6tk3ji wrote

Reply to comment by katieleehaw in Man claims self-defense in Providence landlord homicide by Rogue-Island-Pirate

He’s also a prohibited person, so shouldn’t have had a gun

12

Good-Expression-4433 t1_j6tlj7e wrote

He shouldn't have, no. But the law with eviction procedures are there for a reason and help protect both tenants and landlords. What if he didn't have a gun? Was she was going to force him at gunpoint to leave? There's definitely still variables here but she went about it in a way that circumvented the law and the courts and paid the price for it.

Even if he was a scumbag and had an illegal gun, it was still an illegal eviction and breaking and entering and he could be justified in a self defense claim.

34

sandsonik t1_j6tva30 wrote

But he wasn't the tenant. She did not rent the apartment to him. He was not protecting his home, he was a home invader who wouldn't leave.

Yeah, she was a fool to take him on herself instead of involving the police. I had a landlord who went through something similar to a former tenant of my apartment. The original tenant moved out, his friends moved in but they weren't on the lease. They wouldn't leave and laughed when he asked them for the rent. My landlord punched one and got arrested. Years later he still considered it worth it. I guess he was lucky that's all that happened to him.

−8

realitythreek t1_j6u3rp0 wrote

Assuming they were considered a squatter, you still have to follow eviction to remove them. You’re just wrong.

13

Good-Expression-4433 t1_j6u8oym wrote

They could have been legally a squatter which still requires eviction proceedings. Also, the solution to that situation, even if they were a straight up trespasser, isn't to get your friends to go in with guns when you're not in immediate danger. You call the police and let them know there's a trespasser.

7

sandsonik t1_j6ulq3h wrote

Obviously. I acknowledged that they went about it all wrong. Though I wonder how one serves eviction notice to someone, if they don't even know who they are?

−1

Good-Expression-4433 t1_j6umyas wrote

You call the police. They take a police report on the situation and often go to the residence to get that information for you if possible. You then take that information and the report to the court when you file for an eviction.

Even if the lady didn't get shot, she would have had the pants sued off her, even if he's a squatter, for violating eviction laws. The penalties on that can be harsh if you try and "self help" evict someone by bypassing the court, even before getting into the issues of breaking and entering and threats with a firearm.

5

CocaineSlippers t1_j6tpbss wrote

You're correct, and he'll end up soundly convicted of those firearms related charges. That doesnt negate the self defense claim though. There is no duty to retreat in RI, so as long as the story doesn't develop differently his claim of self defense will probably stand.

16

astrangeday13 t1_j6u2d8x wrote

There is duty to retreat in RI

−6

StreetStatistician t1_j6ucruu wrote

There is generally no duty to retreat from your home and even if there was explain to us how one would safely retreat from the average slummy 3 story apartment against an armed group of people.

8

degggendorf t1_j6u6twi wrote

A source for you, in case anyone doesn't think what you said is accurate:

> When it comes to using deadly force to defend yourself, Rhode Island is a “duty to retreat” state, as opposed to a “stand your ground” state. The duty to retreat means you must first avoid the danger by retreating to safety before you can exercise deadly force, if you are aware of an available way to escape the situation.

https://www.thomasianlaw.com/blog/2020/december/self-defense-in-rhode-island/

−1

kyle_spectrum t1_j6u8y2w wrote

Castle doctrine applies here. Duty to retreat is only for out of home cases

13

StreetStatistician t1_j6v35o7 wrote

Even if RI was among the states and countries where there is some degree of duty to retreat even in cases of a home invasion but of course there actually has to be a safe route of retreat which I'm guessing was not the case here.

2

degggendorf t1_j6u94uj wrote

Ah got it, thanks for the correction.

1

kyle_spectrum t1_j6u9hub wrote

I'm a liberal myself I'm sure you are aswell. You should look into r/liberalgunowners. It will open your eyes to see not everyone who wants a gun is a deranged killer. First of all it's a right not a privilege like driving is. And 2nd we've seen how some states little by little have been eroding rights. I would also check into the court case that says police have no duty to protect citizens. At the end of the day your life and your families life is in your hands.

3

degggendorf t1_j6u9r1k wrote

Erm, what? Do you have me confused for someone else? I don't remotely believe anyone with a gun is a deranged killer, and I can't imagine I've implied that anywhere either.

1

kyle_spectrum t1_j6ua4h8 wrote

No your the person who said these laws should be enforced unless my app is acting up.

1

degggendorf t1_j6ub516 wrote

I said it's too bad they didn't stop a killing, yes.

I am not sure how that means that I also think all owners are deranged killers or anything else you said.

3

astrangeday13 t1_j6ucgha wrote

I thought Castle law only applied to the occupant, not the owner but I could be wrong.

1

kyle_spectrum t1_j6ud3qk wrote

Right. The tenant has he castle doctrine right not the landlord

4

kyle_spectrum t1_j6ud8gh wrote

Right. The tenant has he castle doctrine right not the landlord

3

StreetStatistician t1_j6u5ll6 wrote

Given his landlord and vigilantes tried to kick in his door and kill or throw him out in winter, it sounds like he is exactly the person who should have a gun.

10

Good-Expression-4433 t1_j6u9e8l wrote

Hell even if the dude was a piece of shit with a warrant out, it doesn't change that in this particular case, the dude was legally in the right. He could always get charged for possession of a firearm if he's a convicted felon or owning an illegal firearm, but legally he was in the right to defend himself from an armed intruder.

7

sandsonik t1_j6ultb8 wrote

They were BOTH armed intruders

−2

StreetStatistician t1_j6v1t5y wrote

No, he wasn't. He was an authorized guest of the person on the lease and legally there is no distinction between a guest living there or the person on the lease when it comes to most legal matters such as home defense or domestic violence.

Why are you determined to find fault with a guy who was subject to an illegal eviction and breaking and entering from an armed intruder?

4

lecreusetpopcorn t1_j6zw7ro wrote

How do you know he was an authorized guest? An authorized guest is only authorized if authorized by the landlord. Not the leaseholder.

Also, we have no idea if the leaseholder wanted him there. Pure conjecture.

1

sandsonik t1_j6wnjo7 wrote

And I could ask why are you determined to stick up for an illegal gun owner who was residing there illegally and not paying rent? Neither party in this story is innocent.

And the person who rented the apartment moved away, so I'm not sure how you think he's allowed to have guests in a place he no longer lives? Am I allowed to have guests stay at your house? Or all my former apts, just because I once lived there?

0

StreetStatistician t1_j6x6wee wrote

I love that you've rationalized a violent landlord parasite who kicked in someone's door on the same moral plane as someone who is late on their rent and has a gun to defend themselves.

You're also bafflingly (willingly) ignorant about tenant and occupancy laws. You just hate the poor lol.

3

barsoapguy t1_j76qxyn wrote

I mean the man has a point , this guy isn’t on the lease! That’s a huge huge problem.

Maybe if he had been paying the rent on time she wouldn’t have gone to these extremes . It sucks that someone like this has to be treated the same via eviction as someone on the signed lease!

1

sandsonik t1_j78yjcf wrote

Oh, you know this person is poor? How?

Show me where I rationalized her kicking in the door with a gun. I clearly said that was foolish and she should have called the cops. The fact that she felt the need to be armed and accompanied makes me wonder what sort of interactions they'd already had.

You just hate landlords, and if non paying renters cause her to be evicted, will you then stick up for her?

1