Submitted by Rogue-Island-Pirate t3_10r3ite in RhodeIsland
Comments
allhailthehale t1_j6tmimi wrote
The way that the articles are using passive voice to describe 'the door getting kicked in' is pretty wild.
From the Fall River Reporter: According to Providence Police and WJAR 10, Jensen and two others went up to a third-floor apartment on Prudence Avenue to evict 36-year-old Rufus Watson when the apartment’s door was kicked in and Watson shot Jensen with an AR-15 gun.
CocaineSlippers t1_j6tomsm wrote
LOL ABC6 doesnt even mention the landlord kicking the door in. The way they worded their articles tells us all we need to know about how they wanted us all to feel about it...
Every single news outlet calling it an "eviction". Could these journalists be more braindead?
Proof-Variation7005 t1_j6tq0f8 wrote
I think they suck at updating stories with new information after adding stuff. My working theory is that the computer that can update stories is in the studio they've been secretly locked out of. It's the only explanation for them pretending a minor fire needs to keep them out for several months
CocaineSlippers t1_j6trpd9 wrote
I wish I could give them the benefit of the doubt, but they've been so wrong so many times in their reporting on a variety of different stories that i cant even take them seriously.
Proof-Variation7005 t1_j6ub1ul wrote
the computer with all the right information is in the studio that eddie accidentally locked them out from on december 23rd.
[deleted] t1_j6ueu0s wrote
[deleted]
trabblepvd t1_j6x1av0 wrote
I think updating a news story would involve a disclaimer saying what was changed and why. Its probably more efficient to make a new story as new info comes out and letting the old one stand with its publication date. Probably dates back to and reflects on print editions of newspapers, and that history even if print still isnt the primary delivery anymore.
Proof-Variation7005 t1_j6xjmpt wrote
I think links stories get updated pretty regularly now. That's pretty normal. As long as the header has time originally posted and timestamps for any updates, that's pretty standard for news in the 21st century.
For a story like this the initial post would be "Heavy police presence at address" then probably updated it was a shooting, then updated it was a fatal shooting, then updated with more detail after they get a more formal story/background info or whatever.
I wish media outlets would wait until there's a little more verifiable info to report before the first one, but people act like it's some kind of "Gotcha!" if another outlet has the link up earlier so the public ruins everything.
StreetStatistician t1_j70s0wq wrote
"You can in fact castle doctrine your landlord if they try to break in and kick your ass" is probably not a message most owners of news agencies want propagated.
FAYCSB t1_j6tuuux wrote
The Holy Spirit was the one to kick the door in. The Lord was on her side.
Until she got shot, of course.
drsherbert t1_j6ttce6 wrote
You’re correct. You have a right to defend yourself against intruders whether the house is yours or not
fishythepete t1_j6u6wmv wrote
This is actually a really interesting case. Let's see if there's a good answer in the books on whether or not self-defense here could presumably be lawful under the castle doctrine, even in the face of an illegal self-help eviction.
The statute codifying the doctrine in RI is:
>§ 11-8-8. Injury or death — Defense.
>In the event that any person shall die or shall sustain a personal injury in any way or for any cause while in the commission of any criminal offense enumerated in §§ 11-8-2 — 11-8-6, it shall be rebuttably presumed as a matter of law in any civil or criminal proceeding that the owner, tenant, or occupier of the place where the offense was committed acted by reasonable means in self-defense and in the reasonable belief that the person engaged in the criminal offense was about to inflict great bodily harm or death upon that person or any other individual lawfully in the place where the criminal offense was committed. There shall be no duty on the part of an owner, tenant, or occupier to retreat from any person engaged in the commission of any criminal offense enumerated in §§ 11-8-2 — 11-8-6.
Key here - a tenant, or even a mere occupier (who presumably has an even more tenuous grasp on possession than a tenant) are protected here with a rebuttable presumption. The defense offered by a rebuttable presumption of self-defense is significant, but not absolute. Let's look to §§ 11-8-2 — 11-8-6, part of RI's B&E statutes to see if the landlord's conduct even falls under those crimes delineated in § 11-8-8. The closest I found were § 11-8-2 & § 11-8-2.2, with the latter secondary to the former, so we only need review the latter:
>§ 11-8-2. Unlawful breaking and entering of dwelling house.
>(a) Every person who shall break and enter at any time of the day or night any dwelling house or apartment, whether the dwelling house or apartment is occupied or not, or any outbuilding or garage attached to or adjoining any dwelling house, without the consent of the owner or tenant of the dwelling house, apartment, building, or garage, shall be imprisoned for not less than two (2) years and not more than ten (10) years for the first conviction, and for the second and subsequent conviction shall be imprisoned for not less than four (4) years and not more than fifteen (15) years, or fined not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or both.
The language of the statute is unambiguous, even if the intent is not. If the owner (landlord) gives consent, then it is not a crime under § 11-8-2 — 11-8-6, and the presumption of self-defense is not afforded under RI's castle doctrine.
orm518 t1_j6upibe wrote
I think you need to reconcile the fact that when you lease a property you no longer have full reign over the space. Here the owner can’t consent to her b&e simply because she owns it, if the property is leased out. The tenant has a right to possession and use of the space.
Also, what the LL here is doing is illegal anyways there is no what are called “self help” evictions in RI, check the Landlord Tenant Act. See 34-18-44 about self help.
Disclaimer: I’m a lawyer but don’t really do this work, but I definitely think your reasoning that LL can just consent away b&e is dead wrong.
fishythepete t1_j6vlgr1 wrote
>I think you need to reconcile the fact that when you lease a property you no longer have full reign over the space.
That is not relevant here.
>Here the owner can’t consent to her b&e simply because she owns it, if the property is leased out.
This isn’t how the law works. There are undoubtably other crimes and torts the owner could be charged with here. That’s irrelevant to whether or not the castle doctrine could apply to the tenant’s self defense claims. RIs castle doctrine laws limit application of that defense to B&E cases as defined in the statute.
The owner did something wrong. That something wasn’t B&E, so the castle doctrine won’t provide a defense here.
>The tenant has a right to possession and use of the space.
Right. Again, other torts and crimes, not relevant to the castle doctrine. Which is what I was writing about. Specifically.
>Also, what the LL here is doing is illegal anyways there is no what are called “self help” evictions in RI, check the Landlord Tenant Act. See 34-18-44 about self help.
That’s probably why I specifically stated that the landlord was engaged in an illegal self-help eviction. Because they’re not legal. I mean, I’m guessing that was my thought process.
>Disclaimer: I’m a lawyer but don’t really do this work, but I definitely think your reasoning that LL can just consent away b&e is dead wrong.
Disclaimer: I’d say I think that you’ve been on the wrong end of “I’m a lawyer”ing me before, but a good lawyer does not just think, they confidently assert.
orm518 t1_j6yzif1 wrote
No a good lawyer knows what the fuck he’s saying and then confidently asserts. The worst “lawyers,” are the Reddit ones, Fishy Pete, spouting off theories.
Dangerous_Public_164 t1_j6u8ar3 wrote
the above does not preclude a claim of self defense, it merely precludes (or would preclude, if a court accepted it) a statutory claim of self defense under ch 8 specifically.
fishythepete t1_j6uacdg wrote
Which is why the opening paragraph specifically outlined that the question I was answering wasn't whether the fact pattern precluded a claim of self defense, but rather whether "there's a good answer in the books on whether or not self-defense here could presumably be lawful under the castle doctrine, even in the face of an illegal self-help eviction.
ProvBroker t1_j6uftoj wrote
Thanks for the due diligence!
Dangerous_Public_164 t1_j6ug0er wrote
yup, you were specific. I was also being even more specific because your comment was potentially misleading to a layperson.
good luck with your bad self dude.
[deleted] t1_j6uickn wrote
[removed]
Dangerous_Public_164 t1_j6xkr85 wrote
I'll tell you what, if you weren't intending to be misleading in your "analysis" you certainly succeeded despite yourself. That's why I chimed in. I'm genuinely unsure what you thought was worthwhile about your limited discussion of RI castle doctrine under ch 8 but, your comment was not expansive enough to provide the context to a layperson reader that it was simply your thoughts on a very, very limited slice of a single defense that could be raised at trial.
I am an attorney, I adequately understood what you were trying to say, which was also clear by my post.
again tho--good luck with your bad self. I won't engage with you again, sir lord of logic.
edited to add, if anyone is reading these posts by this exhausting dumbass i just blocked and is temped to think he knows what he's talking about, try to figure where he pulled the fact pattern he's referencing from and consider whether he evidences any understanding of applied jurisprudence on ri's castle doctrine particularly as it pertains to any duty to retreat. or whether maybe he's just pretending to understand a complex thing because he read a statute. which is sort of like walking into your doctor's office with a mayo clinic diagnosis.
fishythepete t1_j6ye0vh wrote
>I'll tell you what, if you weren't intending to be misleading in your "analysis" you certainly succeeded despite yourself.
You've called my post misleading three times now. With literal 0 explanation on what part of it you find misleading. Feel free to flesh out that thought a little bit. Because I'm not sure that word means what you think it means.
>I'm genuinely unsure what you thought was worthwhile about your limited discussion of RI castle doctrine under ch 8 but,
And... you're an attorney? Let me spell it out for you.
- It's an interesting fact pattern, as most self-defense / castle doctrine defenses arise out of attacks by unknown assailants, vs. a known person with a reasonable (if unlawful) goal.
- RI is a duty to retreat state. The shooter breached that duty.
- There are few exceptions to that duty. § 11-8-8 outlines the exception provided by the castle doctrine.
>your comment was not expansive enough to provide the context to a layperson reader that it was simply your thoughts on a very, very limited slice of a single defense that could be raised at trial.
Unless the layperson reader read the first paragraph... Again, the opening didn't state that I was undertaking a comprehensive review of defenses available to the shooter. It also wasn't silent on the scope of review. It detailed the exact question I was looking to answer. Are you under the impression that any analysis which doesn't boil the ocean is misleading by design?
It's like you just opened a can of carrots you bought and you're getting all worked up about being misled because the carrots are a slightly different color than those on the tin. And there are no peas. You were sold carrots, you got carrots, and any angst that comes out of the transaction exists entirely within you.
>I am an attorney, I adequately understood what you were trying to say, which was also clear by my post.
Lulz
>again tho--good luck with your bad self. I won't engage with you again, sir lord of logic.
Oh no
Good-Expression-4433 t1_j6tkl6t wrote
So landlord shows up armed with her friends to do an illegal eviction instead of going through the courts or the police, likely threatened the guy for him to be prepared for them with a gun, and she got shot.
Regardless of if Watson is a good person or not, the victim went about it in the worst way possible and I'd argue that situations like that would turn violent more often than not.
[deleted] t1_j6whbnh wrote
[deleted]
Good-Expression-4433 t1_j6x231w wrote
Which has nothing to do with legality of the situation. Even if he wasn't the one being rented to, hea may have established squatters rights which meant she was required to evict him. Call the police, report a squatter, they get the information, you file for eviction. The fact that the dude was waiting for her with a rifle definitely implies there was a history of threats, even if just preceding the break in. She had knowledge that he was living there for her to evict him so he wasn't just an immediate trespasser, and even if he was, she still had the responsibility to call the police and not what she did.
If she survived, the dude was going to be able to sue the fuck out of her.
[deleted] t1_j6x2t51 wrote
[deleted]
Good-Expression-4433 t1_j6x3egb wrote
You're right. But even if he didn't have them, he was still staying there as a guest of the legal tenant. The story doesn't say there's no lease or that an eviction had already occurred. His cousin had a lease but no longer lived there who was there as a guest of the leaseholder/unauthorized sublease and they were going to evict the guy still living there. There's still a requirement to go through eviction proceedings in order to legally terminate the lease and classify the guy living there as a trespasser. And even that doesn't warrant going in with friends to shoot him or threaten him at gunpoint. It just means the police can remove him.
In short, the situation was pretty ironclad grounds to terminate the lease through eviction proceedings but he was not a legal trespasser at that point nor was the landlord justified in an armed breaking and entering.
ProvBroker t1_j6xg7jf wrote
Adverse possession is completely different matter than establishing tenancy…
Indy_420 t1_j6u2x9n wrote
Its crazy how 2 months ago 3 of those gun laws didnt exist.
kyle_spectrum t1_j6u8jo8 wrote
Yeah crazy how we cant have "large" magazines but an off duty cop can shoot at teenagers during road rage and be found not guilty.
pushad t1_j6uc30o wrote
Lol are you refrrring to the cop in the white truck and the kids at I think a pizza shop? Can’t believe he didn’t get charged
kyle_spectrum t1_j6ucg9s wrote
Yeah but even our national guard here in Rhode island can get "large magazines" the way I see it if we can't have 30 round mags shouldn't either because why do they need more than 10 if they aren't facing threats of large magazines. Unless there are still those magazines used by criminals in which case proves the laws don't work.
pushad t1_j6udc4h wrote
All gun laws are infringements.
kyle_spectrum t1_j6udp1p wrote
I thibk people forget that 1. Gun rights are rights not privileges 2. The actual reason for the 2nd amendment which is defense of an enemy foreign or domestic. And 3 that police has no duty to protect citizens according to the Supreme court.
rick_n_snorty t1_j6utq4v wrote
It’s public knowledge how nuclear fission works. Getting the resources to do so is a bit tougher. But go ahead and go try to build a nuclear missile.
>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
Your back yard and drinking buddies don’t count as a well regulated militia… they tried that in Oregon.
States absolutely have the right to make laws that contradict federal laws. I can go to two public stores and buy a schedule 1 drug that is federally on the same level as heroin, and I can do it legally 5 minutes from my house. Oklahoma made it illegal to have an abortion before you can even know your pregnant before Rowe v wade was overturned.
Guns are fine, you’re a fucking idiot for thinking it’s a great idea for the government to let billionaires have nukes for shits n giggles because you’re scared you’ll need to take on the us government with your Glock and semi auto ar.
State judges can totally challenge or go against federal laws, then it moves up the court system. Why are you citing an amendment (literally designed to be amended) without having a basic understanding of how state and federal laws work?
weednpornnpolitics t1_j6vjbb2 wrote
Can you post a technique vid to youtube on the mental gymnastics u use? Shits impressive. Tyrrany could mean the govt too genius...muskets were used to kill deer sure but we killed a lot of fucking english with them. Any fudd that argues civilian arms are just for sport needs to read a history book. You need to read several.
Indy_420 t1_j6vcibs wrote
guess you never heard of the constitution. super seeds all state laws.
rick_n_snorty t1_j6vgkki wrote
Super seeds? Are those what they’re growing down the street from me and the federal government is doing nothing about it?
Any state can ban any type of firearm, it doesn’t matter if there’s an amendment about it or not. If you think otherwise, go buy a fully automatic m16 in RI and we’ll see how that plays out.
Laws change over time, the right to bear arms to fight a tyrannical government was a tad bit different back then. You’re saying musk, , North Korea, the Chinese, and saudis should be able to buy 100 acres in Nebraska, and start building thermonuclear weapons in the middle of the country and that’s totally fine because in America everyone has the god given right to bear arms? Bit different than the musket on musket warfare the amendment was made for, no?
Indy_420 t1_j6vzmve wrote
you can own an automatic rifle with a tax stamp. you know nothing.
rick_n_snorty t1_j6w29ie wrote
So if there are no gun restrictions at all in the us what’s your issue?
rick_n_snorty t1_j6w25xg wrote
>§ 11-47-8. License or permit required for carrying pistol — Other weapons prohibited.
(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to possess a bump-fire device, binary trigger, trigger crank, or any other device that when attached to a semi-automatic weapon allows full-automatic fire. Individuals who possess these items shall have ninety (90) days from the enactment of this section to either sell, destroy, or otherwise remove these items from the state of Rhode Island. Every person violating the provisions of this section shall, upon conviction, be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than ten (10) years, or by a fine up to ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or both, and, except for a first conviction under this section, shall not be afforded the provisions of suspension or deferment of sentence, nor a probation.
Mmkay
rick_n_snorty t1_j6w2qky wrote
Just fucking say you like guns and wanna shoot ‘em, that’s a totally valid reason to like em. The whole “there should be no limits to people arming themselves, chemical weapons are totally fine. If musk straps a nuke to his rocket, that’s totally cool”
The entire idea of “any weapons laws are an infringement on my god given rights” is just fucking absurd and clearly not how the law was intended. We didn’t have chemical weapons in 1776.
emaildylan99 t1_j6wkqyh wrote
You can’t get a tax stamp in RI… for example, we’re all screwed here when that pistol brace rule goes into effect. No way for us to register like in many other states.
rick_n_snorty t1_j6vi38z wrote
If the fbi found your you were stockpiling Sarin gas, you’d be arrested for plotting a terror attack. You absolutely do not have the indiscriminate right to bear any armament I’m the US. And yes state laws can absolutely restrict banning any types of weapon.
Source: nyc hun laws, RI gun laws, California hun laws.
Finnbalt t1_j6vmn8y wrote
You just made fun of the bloke's spelling mistake, now you're talking about Huns? Is Attila going to come back from the dead and raze D.C. to the ground if access to firearms and firearm accessories aren't restricted?
Do NYC and California have some sort of racist laws preventing miscegenation between normal people and Huns?
StreetStatistician t1_j6yf2ug wrote
Wait until I give the mongols AR15s and they hear about this steppe tribe discrimination.
rick_n_snorty t1_j6vnty4 wrote
Got me, I fat thumbed it. I at least made a joke out of the typo, kept it on topic and had a solid argument though….
orm518 t1_j6upv8w wrote
He got charged, but he got a not guilty verdict after trial.
the_falconator t1_j6vjw34 wrote
He did get charged, he just went to trial and wasn't convicted. Didn't help that the victim wasn't exactly sympathetic, jury essentially said "we don't care that he was it the wrong that kid deserved to get shot"
Space_faces t1_j6xy06w wrote
Daniel Dolan? The guy who shoots people for no reason? That Daniel Dolan? Who dives drunk before shooting people? I'm making him very Google-able.
[deleted] t1_j6up79v wrote
[deleted]
kyle_spectrum t1_j6u8pkz wrote
Also on the whole ghost gun thing, let's say it wasn't a landlord but an actual intruder, would they still charge them for possession even if it was a valid self defense case?
thehillshaveI t1_j6uyg3z wrote
they would. there's basically no way you're skating on tbe gun charge no matter how legitimate whatever else you did was.
edited to add: if the facts as presented are true it was still an intruder, even if she owned the place. kicking in the door armed with goons isn't her right even if the person in there wasnt the legal tenant.
weednpornnpolitics t1_j6vjmqa wrote
Eyyupp. Just like this new pistol brace thing where we in ri cant have NFA items...the atf's free amnesty tax stamp means nothing here. You'll see those cases getting prosecuted in the future too. Re the ghost gun thing here tho, clearly Mr. Watson opted to be judged by twelve instead of carried by six. Prohibition DOES NOT WORK. Of anything. Ever.
sbaz86 t1_j71dsfx wrote
Well, doing time is better than being buried I guess.
degggendorf t1_j6u6igf wrote
Too bad they weren't enforced sooner or a life may have been saved
StreetStatistician t1_j6u7yul wrote
So the guy would have been defenseless against an armed group of vigilantes at best trying to throw him out into the street in winter.
degggendorf t1_j6u8n2y wrote
I guess it wasn't clear...I also think that laws regarding evictions, threatening with a deadly weapon, etc. ought to be enforced too.
StreetStatistician t1_j6uci0i wrote
The problem is that enforcement of gun laws by both practice and design exists to enable vigilantes and punish "undesirables" who are often the people who actually need guns to defend themselves like this man.
Like why aren't any of the vigilantes being charged but the one guy who fought for his life is?
degggendorf t1_j6uf2yf wrote
>Like why aren't any of the vigilantes being charged but the one guy who fought for his life is?
Well, because one is dead and the others are being pursued as we speak. I hope they're found and charged too, for sure.
weednpornnpolitics t1_j6vju6l wrote
Oh, i see, so the evections should be enforced by guys with guns. Against people who no longer have guns. Seems like the guns are kinda important and everybody should have them
degggendorf t1_j6vkri2 wrote
Er, nope that's not what I'm saying.
kyle_spectrum t1_j6u8eov wrote
Lol what you want to do no knock raids on people who bought magazines in the past? You want another Brenna Taylor incident? I doubt the guy shot more than 10 times lol. Also they just throw charges to see what sticks. You're allowed less than 16 inch barrel if it's on a pistol.
emaildylan99 t1_j6un9d5 wrote
Interested in the 16 inch barrel charge as well. Wonder if it was actually a stock or they are trying to make the charge stick on a pistol brace.
degggendorf t1_j6u8xkq wrote
I mean, obviously not. Are those really the only two options you see, either murder civilians, or ignore laws?
kyle_spectrum t1_j6u95oa wrote
So then how do you enforce these laws? You can make as many unconstitutional laws as you like but if you can't enforce them then isn't it just for show? Kinda like the straw laws lol
degggendorf t1_j6u9dx8 wrote
> So then how do you enforce these laws?
I don't, because I'm not in law enforcement
> You can make as many unconstitutional laws as you like
No I can't, I'm also not in the legislature anymore
kyle_spectrum t1_j6u9mp3 wrote
Lol
Rogue-Island-Pirate OP t1_j6tdld4 wrote
From the Article: "by: Adriana Rozas Rivera
Posted: Jan 31, 2023 / 11:07 AM EST
Updated: Jan 31, 2023 / 07:46 PM EST
PROVIDENCE, R.I. (WPRI) — A man faces firearm charges in connection to the fatal shooting of a Providence landlord.
Police responded around 2:30 p.m. Monday to reports of shots fired at a home on Prudence Avenue. Jennie Jensen, who owns the property, was found lying in the hallway.
Providence Maj. David Lapatin said Jensen was attempting to evict Rufus Watson. Jensen was renting the apartment to Watson’s cousin who no longer lives there.
Jensen, accompanied by two others, kicked down the apartment door.
Watson was allegedly waiting inside with an AR-15 style rifle. Lapatin said police believe Jensen and her companions were also carrying weapons.
Watson said he fired in self-defense. He is now charged with possession of a firearm after being convicted of a crime of violence, two counts of possession of a large-capacity magazine, possession of a ghost gun, and possession of a barrel of less than 16 inches."
barsoapguy t1_j76pd99 wrote
Lapatin said Watson has a criminal record. He is being held on $100,000 bail.
BOKEH_BALLS t1_j6tx7qx wrote
Landlords are the lowest parasites in society and I do not feel bad for her at all, especially since she tried to illegally remove someone from a property.
vegemouse t1_j6u3tok wrote
In the middle of winter no less.
[deleted] t1_j6uz5gn wrote
[deleted]
ricel_x t1_j6ymbl1 wrote
Why is that? If someone was renting a room in your house, refused to pay you rent after you agreed, would you let them stay?
BOKEH_BALLS t1_j6yn4ko wrote
I would never become the lowest leech on society not even at gunpoint.
barsoapguy t1_j76pyu5 wrote
Your point of view are why rents are so high and fewer and fewer small home owners with second homes or even primary residents will even rent anymore.
BOKEH_BALLS t1_j77r76w wrote
Yes I am the reason not the large property conglomerates buying up condemned homes for pennies on the dollar and flipping them for insane amounts of rent.
barsoapguy t1_j77wq7a wrote
And whereas the issue there ? Were other people going to be living inside of condemned houses ?
vegemouse t1_j6u3q44 wrote
Kicking someone out of a house in the dead of winter is a form of violence.
barsoapguy t1_j76ppqm wrote
Someone not listed on the lease and not paying rent ? Ok bro here wasn’t on the lease but maybe just maybe if he had made the rent payments her and her crew might not have been so eager to evict someone giving them money.
Maybe if he had sold some of his guns he could have made rent 🤷🏿♂️
But you know the story , it’s some POS holdover with poor credit and apparently a criminal history who’s probably just trying to work the eviction system for as long as possible .
DentalFox t1_j6xmk7h wrote
Landlords honestly need to have a good relationship with their tenants
barsoapguy t1_j76nott wrote
The number one thing a landlord needs to do is properly screen their tenants. You just cannot rent to anyone and you most certainly must never rent to people with low credit scores and shoddy histories.
That’s how you end up with these types of situations. The cousin must have been poor or with little or no resources otherwise the thing to do would have been to simply go after him for all the fees involved in eviction/repair/the deposit ect.
Pleasant-Champion-14 t1_j71p7mh wrote
Rufus Watson was not even a legal tenant of the space. Illegal occupany and we dont know how many times the deceased person told him to get out. I have no sympathy for him. Go sleep on a family/ friend's couch. I hope he is sitting in jail now.
barsoapguy t1_j76r753 wrote
Story says he has a criminal history .
I hope they throw the book at him.
barsoapguy t1_j76p2f2 wrote
“Lapatin said Watson has a criminal record. He is being held on $100,000 bail.”
Yeah it’s always that sort of POS that does something like this, he was NOT on the lease .
The courts are SO slow to react ,I can entirely understand why people might take things into their own hands .
This lady probably took a chance and rented to someone without the best credit and he repaid her by allowing his POS cousin who definitely wouldn’t have passed a background check to stay over.
It should NOT be a big deal to remove someone not even listed on the lease when the primary tenant is no longer around . But no, you have to go through the ENTIRE eviction process as if you signed a legally binding contract with said party.
The take away here has to be you simply cannot take a chance on poor people. If the cousin had been middle class all she would have needed to do is start the eviction process and then sue for lawyers fees and anything else needed to cover the entire ordeal . A middle class individual would have the resources to allow the landlord to be made whole . A poor person does not.
How absolutely tragic.
VanessaWilliamsStan t1_j6v1mm5 wrote
"Self defense" with a llama in an apartment that you don't live in? Suuuure.
March_Latter t1_j6tonya wrote
I am sure the story that leads to this eviction would shed a bit more light on the story. Its not the tenant but some other person is the first sign of trouble. I bet they had been in the RI eviction process and she found out that even though she had not rented to this person, he was now her tenant and had more rights than she had. I have been a landlord in RI, and never again.
[deleted] t1_j6v9rwg wrote
Leech
March_Latter t1_j6ybo9i wrote
Idiot.
lecreusetpopcorn t1_j6zvq7g wrote
Second this
StreetStatistician t1_j70rrlf wrote
Mao did nothing wrong ;)
barsoapguy t1_j76qe6v wrote
What’s sad is a lot of these guy just do not get it at all. The fact that it’s so hard to remove someone NOT LISTED ON THE LEASE is why a lot of individuals who could rent out a room in their home or even a second home just look at things and go “nahhhh”
Which means the rents that ARE available are so much higher (less supply) and only well qualified applicants are accepted.
March_Latter t1_j76r6fj wrote
You are correct. I would never do it again and the few people who do are beaten not only by the states laws that prevent them from maintaining their property but by todays youth who somehow believe landlords are some special class of evil. I want to say I made 4% on the money I got from rents. I would make more money delivering newspapers than renting out to what has got to be the stupidest, most entitled, generation this country has ever produced. 20 hours a week for no money just isn't worth the bother to rent to these people.
barsoapguy t1_j76rqnj wrote
I have to think it’s a failure of the education system, the 20 year old kids can’t qualify or afford a 300K mortgage (because 20’s) so are forced to rent and are upset with high rents thereby vilifying landlords . Pushing for more and more restrictive laws that only push more landlords out of the market raising prices even higher.
Such a vicious cycle of stupidity.
March_Latter t1_j76s4li wrote
I agree and have been watching it for years. These kids are shockingly stupid and can't even see the outcomes of their own statements. The news panders to them with articles like this also because it only takes five more minutes of investigation to look to see the court cases on this property. Evil squatter robbing property owner isn't a story todays young adults understand.
[deleted] t1_j6u8adg wrote
[removed]
infromthestorm t1_j6tezjd wrote
Murder? Manslaughter?
katieleehaw t1_j6tgqq8 wrote
A person who was not an officer of the law kicked his door in, armed. He defended himself. Unfortunately his gun wasn't legal so he's going to face some legal consequences, but this sounds, on the basis of the information given so far, like self defense.
This is not how "eviction" works - you have to go through a lawful process, not just try to physically remove someone.
geffe71 t1_j6tk3ji wrote
He’s also a prohibited person, so shouldn’t have had a gun
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.
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.
realitythreek t1_j6u3rp0 wrote
Assuming they were considered a squatter, you still have to follow eviction to remove them. You’re just wrong.
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.
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?
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.
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.
astrangeday13 t1_j6u2d8x wrote
There is duty to retreat in RI
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.
Captain-Cannoli t1_j6upcnr wrote
Nope, castle doctrine
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/
kyle_spectrum t1_j6u8y2w wrote
Castle doctrine applies here. Duty to retreat is only for out of home cases
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.
degggendorf t1_j6u94uj wrote
Ah got it, thanks for the correction.
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.
sneakpeekbot t1_j6u9j1w wrote
Here's a sneak peek of /r/liberalgunowners using the top posts of the year!
#1: A poster I made for last year's Pride Parade. | 445 comments
#2: the conservative gun owners did not appreciate my meme | 565 comments
#3: [NSFW] I'm sorry did my gun stop your rape | 793 comments
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^Contact ^^| ^^Info ^^| ^^Opt-out ^^| ^^GitHub
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.
kyle_spectrum t1_j6u9uir wrote
Yeah my bad wrong thread lol let me copy and paste
kyle_spectrum t1_j6ua4h8 wrote
No your the person who said these laws should be enforced unless my app is acting up.
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.
astrangeday13 t1_j6ucgha wrote
I thought Castle law only applied to the occupant, not the owner but I could be wrong.
kyle_spectrum t1_j6ud3qk wrote
Right. The tenant has he castle doctrine right not the landlord
kyle_spectrum t1_j6ud8gh wrote
Right. The tenant has he castle doctrine right not the landlord
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.
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.
sandsonik t1_j6ultb8 wrote
They were BOTH armed intruders
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?
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.
[deleted] t1_j70rhqs wrote
[removed]
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?
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.
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!
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?
Good-Expression-4433 t1_j6un83b wrote
That's not how the law works at all in this case.
Captain-Cannoli t1_j6upabu wrote
Now that you mention it I wonder if this would be something worth mentioning to fight against the mag ban
BigDaddyCoolDeisel t1_j6whcwv wrote
"Jensen was renting the apartment to Watson's cousin who no longer lived there."
[deleted] t1_j6tj7ez wrote
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…
RIFCSUPERFAN t1_j6tsef8 wrote
Certainly shouldn't be .. castle law, thank God.
ProvBroker t1_j6tl8oi wrote
Describing her actions as attempting to evict someone obscures that she was perpetrating an armed B&E (granted she was in fact strapped and behaving as described in the article). Although the loss of her life is certainly tragic, attempting an armed extrajudicial eviction was a pretty moronic move.
This is why we have courts and law enforcement officials who handle evictions. Now she’s dead over rent, and this guy is probably going to be convicted of several firearms related felonies and serve time.
Very sad day.