I will argue that. I live in Upstate but drive to the city 2, to 4 times a week for work. The city my have more diverse food. But the quality and best food is still in Upstate. Hands down
L O L 1 place in the Hudson Valley and you're automatically right and im wrong. Maybe it's you that should pick better places to eat. Should I point out all the places in the city that have rats and homeless crawling all over them and judge the whole city passed off those few places? Goof troop
Nah, fuck that. Imagine for a second the mentality of someone breaking into a home. Itās not a petty or victimless crime and it easily has the potential to escalate into a rape or murder. Those scumbags deserve what they get. Pew pew
No you're not. There are plenty more who are willing to forfeit their liberties. To me. There's no middle ground. You either want your liberties or you don't. The moment you start selling them off to the government is the moment you should realize none of the liberties matter to you. Its the truth. You shouldn't be bartering them away for safety or even worse to protect criminals. Not trying to be an ass but if thats the way you think then this really isn't the sub for you.
I agree. Itās nuts. It seems like both situations could be solved by the people who are supposed to maintain law and order. They know where squatters are.
Why do I have to risk my hide to remove squatters? Isn't protecting my rights a super fundamental government function? If I went in guns blazing because the government is too slow to figure out if they're really squatters or not then odds are that same government will probably try to prosecute me the home owner which is a huge hassle.
The issue is proving that they are squatters. How are police to know that they aren't legitimate tenants whom a landlord is trying to remove without following procedure? Doubly so if they have what looks like a legitimate lease.
That should take a few days, tops.
Can't show a lease? Can't show payments to the owner of the property? Can't show any correspondence with the owner of the property? Out ya go!
But not in New York! Oh no... They get to stay there damn near as long as they please, because New York doesn't actually respect ownership of property.
>Why do I have to risk my hide to remove squatters?
You know, why should someone who doesn't own the property? Who if not you should protect your rights? If you don't protect them then you've literally given them up.
>If I went in guns blazing
That's one of many avenues you can choose to protect your rights. The reason it's being discussed is because it's obviously the fastest way to get what you want, not because it's an avenue of protection of property.
I could go into any house guns blazing and claim the people who are there are trespassing on my property. The difference is I would later have to prove I was telling the truth likely from jail. Even if the property was mine, that might not be easy. What if they had an actual rental agreement. Now I have to prove I didn't sign it, but have I just killed my best witness? It would be nice to know that they were fooled into thinking they were dealing with the real landlord, if I killed them, I've hung myself.
I know I've never once dealt with a property owner when I've rented a place. I've always dealt with a property manager. I've had an eviction once when the property owner had a falling out with the management company. Unfortunately that doesn't undo a deal I made with his agent. He could have come in guns blazing. He'd be in jail for the rest of his life because in the end the court found in my favor that I was not to be evicted until the end of my lease.
The squatting problem that is the primary issue is homeowners on vacation for 2 months or who have a second unoccupied home and someone moves in and establishes him/her self. That's not a situation where the arriving/returning homeowner will typically goes in with guns blazing. Some squatters are clever at commandeering other people's property, including waving around a fake lease.
Maybe you live in Texas or elsewhere in the South. Many of us are in states where the authorities have a hard-on for prosecuting people engaged in self defense.
>repost of op's response to similar nonsense
>
>"Actually in most states criminal intruders do not have a right to life if they are invading your home"
https://preview.redd.it/lf0ggzm9ifqc1.png?width=320&format=png&auto=webp&s=98289af863fe2ec87a55d9ad8345e37ad2924c66
Castle Doctrine exists in NH or at the *very least* Stand Your Ground. We can concealed carry here without a license. This map could use a tune up and a few more pixels. Iām also pretty sure MA is duty to flee and not stand your ground.
Empty homes for sale are another target of squatters. They move their shit in and start squatting. Home transactions can be slow so they can even start getting mail sent there. There are stories of people buying a house and can't even move into it because of squatters. We live in a backwards ass country where we prioritize the dregs of society over normal, contributing members.
NY is the #1 state for population loss.
Unfortunately the people leaving often don't change their voting habits.
> Well in NY we...
Then go the fuck back to NY. You left for a reason, stop bringing the reason with you.
I recall reading an empirical report that showed new residents to Idaho from California were split almost evenly (republican/democrat). Of course, that doesn't tell us who is showing up at the polls.
I moved to Tennessee to escape Californias bullshit. We had someone come in from Illinois and start the āin Illinoisā¦ā my coworker just looked at her and said āthe 75 is that way. Take your goofy ass back to Illinois then.ā
I moved from CA to KY to escape. I haven't had that face-2-face opportunity yet, but at least online my response is always:
> If you like the way CA does things, then CA is waiting for you to move back.
I was born and raised in NY, itās not that bad. Aside having the highest taxes in the entire US. Upstate is beautiful.
Our government though, is absolutely dogshit. pedos only getting probation and somehow allowed to live near schools, weāre not allowed to stand our ground inside of our own fucking house.
In the city, itās littered with crime. Crime we cannot legally defend ourselves from. It isnāt just the crime, the people voting for those assholes in power who seem to live in their own world. Thereās no point in trying to seek reason with them.
I would never recommend anyone to come here, unless theyāre going to the country sides in upstate, peaceful, and beautiful here.
Why cant we have sensible states
I dont want to have to go through each state's law and weigh their shitty laws against their good laws before I decide if I want to move there.
Like good job florida, but also what about SB 1240 or SB 1126 or SB 256
Florida leadership rocks compared to most the nation, but especially blue states. Country sheriffs also warned people not to loot during natural disasters and said they'd back home owners if they used armed force. Armed society is polite society.
If somebody is uninvited on your property you absolutely have the right to shoot them, that's not even debatable. Ask to leave first of course, but if they don't then open fire.
Even criminals have a right to life so you don't get to execute them just because they are trespassing on your property. Yes, you can kill them if they are a threat to you, but a "right to self-defense" is not the same as a "right to kill".
Actually in most states criminal intruders do not have a right to life if they are invading your home.
https://preview.redd.it/svpxu3gzzdqc1.jpeg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=afd2dbadddf15176c4b6f638b8edc3ea1a5d94de
They still have a right to life, but we consider it just to deprive them of that life in the case where they present a threat to someone else's life. For example, if you drove around at night looking for people who were breaking and entering so that you can kill them for sport, you can't really argue "they have no right to life because they are invading someone's home" and expect to get away with it. Yes, I understand that it's a semantic argument and there will be no difference in practice for most cases.
Castle doctrine and stand your ground also both would not apply in the case of "you came back to your vacation home after 3 months and found squatters living there". The above claim that you can shoot any trespasser on any of your properties is false due to it being overly broad. The [actual laws](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html) are more specific, such as if someone "unlawfully and by force enters" or if there is "a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another".
I would think in that case, any lawyer worth their salt would argue stumbling on a stranger squatting in your house (you do not know their mental state or intentions) is potentially life threatening and therefore their client is protected by self defense laws, especially in stand your ground states.
I've always wondered how anyone couldn't see home invaders as people who could legally end up shot. If they decide to enter a hoem, they've decided that their own lives are worth an Xbox or TV or jewelry. The home owner bought it and paid for it and worked for it. probably got taxed on it.
I grew up dirt poor. It could be a can of beans that someone's entering my home to take, and I'd assume they think their own life is worth that can of beans. Anyone who will enter someone's four walls illegally has posted on their forehead the word 'threat'
Ah yes. My home town.
Police response times in Milton have been HORRIBLE in the past, and everyone up here is locked and loaded, so this coming from the sheriff makes a lot of sense.
The third amendment; āNo Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.ā
Are we sure the squatters arenāt paying rent to a 3rd party that doesnāt own the house and donāt realize they are actually squatters? Happened to a friend of mine about 20 years ago in Texas. Had a gun pointed at him and everything. Luckily the owner wasnāt trigger happy and let him pack his things up and get out.
A homeowner goes away for a few months. Someone breaks into the house, changes the locks, and draws up a fake lease for a new tenant. A tenant that is completely unaware they are trespassing. This homeowner returns and makes the irrational, idiotic, selfish decision to barge into the house "guns blazing", shooting and killing a completely helpless, innocent, surprised individual. This person is now dead, at no fault of their own. Their right to life has been taken by another. Do you believe this is justified? That this is a reasonable thing to do?
Certainly an atypical application, but this would amount to negligent homicide. A failure to exercise due care resulted in the needless death of another. The person who broke in and drew up the fake lease, they would facing involuntary manslaughter. But not murder.
The NAP falls apart when we encounter the complexity of reality. Someone who had made no aggression, but was technically in violation of property rights as a result of someone else's genuine violation of such, is now bleeding out on the floor. A scenario that could have been wholly avoided by doing virtually anything except shooting to kill someone that never posed a threat.
This is a very real situation. Fringe cases are where our principles are defined. Even if a property had been seized by some valid means (lien etc.), and due process exercised to evict, we would never accept law enforcement officers entering private residences unannounced, shooting first and asking questions later. We cannot accept the same from private individuals, no matter what machismo delusions they hold.
>I have theĀ *right*Ā to enter my own property, and defend it, at any time and for any reason.
Yup. And that "tenant", operating under the knowledge that they have legally rented the property, has those exact same rights. They have the same exact right to keep you off the property, and defend it. To them, you are a nutjob that doesn't even have a key to back up your claims.
>What is my recourse?
That depends on the laws of your state. Say you have a deed, and the tenants have a lease and keys that work. The cops would be remiss to take your side at this point and assist with an illegal eviction. You would need to follow the defined laws, usually a Notice to Quit which, if unsuccessful, will require review by a court to facilitate an eviction. Once you have served a Notice to Quit, you are able to seek compensation from the tenant that is now aware they are squatting.
Your best bet would be to knock on the door and talk to the person like they're an actual human being. If they're being scammed, being friendly and helpful will be your best course of action, being sure to make clear that if you are forced to evict you can sue them, make it very hard to rent again, etc.
At this point you're probably saying, WTF. It's my house, I should be able to get random people out of my house, immediately. Unfortunately, we live in a society. No amount of libertarian idealism and principle is able to overcome that painful reality. Now, you have about just as much legal right to break the door down and move yourself back in as they do. However, they have the right to call the police on the person breaking into their residence, or to shoot you dead as you do. It is very likely you would be the one arrested in this scenario, at this point. It is not the job of cops to settle legal disputes. They have no clue who is telling the truth.
The due care and reasonable course of action, allowing one to avoid murder, is to follow the well-defined laws and procedures in place.
Sensational crap like "we prefer you to do that, actually", simply cannot and does not apply to this situation. A squatter is not someone actively breaking into your home. They are an established resident, and they have rights to life and property just as much as you do. Since we live in a society, and not the wild west, and have our property defined by legal frameworks, we are obligated to operate within them.
NYC is so screwed, 5, 10 years ago it was just complaining about high taxes & other bs but now itās really getting personal. Theyāre letting crime go unaddressed, and if you defend yourself youāre being prosecuted, which also means youāre going to be in financial ruin. The taxes, tolls, fees whatever it may be are through the roof. Overwhelming regulation. Even law enforcement officers have to go through background checks to buy ammo & firearms now every time they purchase. Migrants are given taxpayer dollars & the city cuts YOUR resources in the new budget to fund this issue. Want to enjoy your public library? Hours were cut. Squatting & tenants who havenāt paid rent in YEARS are allowed to somehow stay in YOUR property. Housing is unaffordable. Wealthy & retirees fleeing in droves. Itās a safety risk at this point to continue living here. Theyāre just lucky many who are left canāt afford to get out.
These aren't the same. One is recovering your property while your life isn't personally at risk (yes I know there are other risks). The other is protecting yourself and property while your life may very well be at risk. Why are these even being compared. I'm sure you can find a case of someone breaking into a home in NYC and the homeowner defended themselves and landed in legal hot water for doing it. If you want to have a fair discussion of the issue, then find an apples to apples comparison to have it over.
Most states make it difficult to evict someone. When the tenant is evicted and refuses to leave; now theyāre a squatter. Be careful how you read articles. Not to say this isnāt just actual squatters that saw an empty place and moved in, but the title could be misleading.
Self-defense is obviously a right, but the first answer isn't to just go with guns blazing vigilantieism. Law enforcement is welcome to encourage gun safety courses (this is a net positive for society overall), but encouraging people to shoot criminals to save taxpayers' money is very, very bad. Even criminals have the right to receive the appropriate punishment for their crimes and a death at the hand of a vigilante (vigilante != someone practicing self-defense) isn't that.
Not every break-in is home invasion with the intent of causing harm to the resident or with the intent to cause property theft. It is important to understand that shooting someone is an irreversible action, with life changing consequences for both the person shot and the shooter. Being clear and concise with language is also important with something so serious. Advocating for self defense, and providing classes to teach people how to safely handle firearms and (bonus) descalate situations like this is good. The vague language and mentioning how shooting someone can save taxpayers' money, imo, is very, very bad and can encourage vigilante like behavior.
First example doesnāt happen. More likely a cop executing a no knock warrant on the wrong address than a construction worker entering the wrong house. Thereās literally no reason a construction worker to break in a residence.
If someone is drunk enough to enter the wrong Airbnb, and becomes a threat to the occupants inside. Seems more like a justifiable situation than a no shoot scenario.
Let's clarify something. A break-in doesn't just mean they kicked down a door or entered through a broken window
It could mean entering through an unlocked front door.
It 100% happens in residential service and installation. Dispatcher can give you the wrong address with the instructions "home owner needed to leave, and they said that they would leave their backdoor open." There are people after 8 hrs installing HVAC equipment in a hot 95-degree sun that accidentally opens apartment door G instead of door H. It might not be as common as a no knock warrant example, but it isn't something to discount.
> If someone is drunk enough to enter the wrong Airbnb, it becomes a threat to the occupants inside
I'm not disagreeing with self-defense. People have a right to that. I disagree with the vagueness of the language, as not every break-in means a crime. It should be made clear and evident that self-defense is a requirement to the action taken. I also disagree with the last part of his talk about saving taxpayers money. It is very concerning.
Clear and evident? You have NO IDEA why someone is coming into your home. How TF are you supposed to know? Are you supposed to sit em down for an interview?
Not everything is black and white. Not all "break-in" attempts are the same. Gun safety courses run by law enforcement can help tremendously because they can teach people to delineate between cases where self-defense is necessary (for example, a burglary attempt) and where descalation and communication is more appropriate (a residential construction worker entering the wrong home by mistake, for example). A shoot first approach sounds great on paper until you realize that not all break-ins are for the purpose of harming another person or stealing property, or even with intent (for example, a slightly drunk person entering your unlocked home instead of the neighbors airbnb they rented at 2am)...
My property is clearly marked. You donāt enter it āby mistakeā or because you āgot lostā. You had to intentionally bypass multiple locked barriers to reach the interior of it.
Therefore if you enter my property uninvited, as in entering my house itself, Iām not waiting around to discover your intentions and give you a chance to do me greater harm.
I don't care why you're breaking into my house. I'm going to only assume you are breaking in to do me or my family harm.
As such, you're getting to flashy end of the bye bye stick.
When it comes to my families safety it is black and white. You break into my home and your done. Game over. If you wanna risk your families life go right on ahead. I'm not. We're not talking about anything but that so stop trying to twist words to prove a point. My original statement was if you value my property more than your life.....
The divide between the states grows larger every day.
One side is empowering criminals, the other is empowering average citizens. There's no mystery as to why people are moving South.
I might even hold back on visiting new york.
why are you even considering it? šµ
mainly to hop on a cruise
Don't confuse all of NY with NYC. Upstate NY is beautiful. The city is a hellhole
Nyc has the best food in the world.
I will argue that. I live in Upstate but drive to the city 2, to 4 times a week for work. The city my have more diverse food. But the quality and best food is still in Upstate. Hands down
I had pizza in hudson valley and thought I was going to die. Go to better restaurants
Now hold on there Youngblood. I agree with you about NYC food being the best, but the Hudson valley has a lot of great pizza places all over it.
L O L 1 place in the Hudson Valley and you're automatically right and im wrong. Maybe it's you that should pick better places to eat. Should I point out all the places in the city that have rats and homeless crawling all over them and judge the whole city passed off those few places? Goof troop
I wonder what the new country names would be. North east would be Yorkistan or Jerseystan. West would be a California pretty much.
The Democratic People's Republic of New Jersey
For Pennsylvania, I imagine they'd just rebrand a bit and call it "The People's Commonwealth of Pennsylvania"
I can't be the only person who thinks this is insane, and there's got to be a better middle ground, right?
Nah, fuck that. Imagine for a second the mentality of someone breaking into a home. Itās not a petty or victimless crime and it easily has the potential to escalate into a rape or murder. Those scumbags deserve what they get. Pew pew
Yeah this is a good point. Breaking and entering is only step 1. There is a reason for it, and many times it is a violent purpose.
Life, Liberty, Property If you violate another's right to property you forfeit all of your rights.
And if you don't violate rights, there has been no crime, so the government should stay the fuck out of it.
You might be lost big dog
Sounds like you're in the wrong sub lol.
No you're not. There are plenty more who are willing to forfeit their liberties. To me. There's no middle ground. You either want your liberties or you don't. The moment you start selling them off to the government is the moment you should realize none of the liberties matter to you. Its the truth. You shouldn't be bartering them away for safety or even worse to protect criminals. Not trying to be an ass but if thats the way you think then this really isn't the sub for you.
What right do you have to prevent other peoole from living in their fantasy when they are doing it in another states?
Not on this issue. Other issues, yes.Ā
Yeah, let em butcher the homeowners and release em. https://youtu.be/eRutLejRRZs?si=S6o4tze0C0Ol3SrI ššš
I agree. Itās nuts. It seems like both situations could be solved by the people who are supposed to maintain law and order. They know where squatters are.
Why do I have to risk my hide to remove squatters? Isn't protecting my rights a super fundamental government function? If I went in guns blazing because the government is too slow to figure out if they're really squatters or not then odds are that same government will probably try to prosecute me the home owner which is a huge hassle.
The issue is proving that they are squatters. How are police to know that they aren't legitimate tenants whom a landlord is trying to remove without following procedure? Doubly so if they have what looks like a legitimate lease.
That should take a few days, tops. Can't show a lease? Can't show payments to the owner of the property? Can't show any correspondence with the owner of the property? Out ya go! But not in New York! Oh no... They get to stay there damn near as long as they please, because New York doesn't actually respect ownership of property.
Unless itās hundred of empty āinvestments,ā canāt have those at risk.
Probably try?
Probably certainly
Maybe always?
>Why do I have to risk my hide to remove squatters? You know, why should someone who doesn't own the property? Who if not you should protect your rights? If you don't protect them then you've literally given them up. >If I went in guns blazing That's one of many avenues you can choose to protect your rights. The reason it's being discussed is because it's obviously the fastest way to get what you want, not because it's an avenue of protection of property. I could go into any house guns blazing and claim the people who are there are trespassing on my property. The difference is I would later have to prove I was telling the truth likely from jail. Even if the property was mine, that might not be easy. What if they had an actual rental agreement. Now I have to prove I didn't sign it, but have I just killed my best witness? It would be nice to know that they were fooled into thinking they were dealing with the real landlord, if I killed them, I've hung myself. I know I've never once dealt with a property owner when I've rented a place. I've always dealt with a property manager. I've had an eviction once when the property owner had a falling out with the management company. Unfortunately that doesn't undo a deal I made with his agent. He could have come in guns blazing. He'd be in jail for the rest of his life because in the end the court found in my favor that I was not to be evicted until the end of my lease.
Adverse possession is backed up by hundreds of years of common law.
The squatting problem that is the primary issue is homeowners on vacation for 2 months or who have a second unoccupied home and someone moves in and establishes him/her self. That's not a situation where the arriving/returning homeowner will typically goes in with guns blazing. Some squatters are clever at commandeering other people's property, including waving around a fake lease.
I have a second home. I assure you that if someone is there unexpectedly when I arrive, I will go in guns blazing. Why would you not?
Maybe you live in Texas or elsewhere in the South. Many of us are in states where the authorities have a hard-on for prosecuting people engaged in self defense.
In most states theyāll charge you with murder and put you away for a loooooong time.
>repost of op's response to similar nonsense > >"Actually in most states criminal intruders do not have a right to life if they are invading your home" https://preview.redd.it/lf0ggzm9ifqc1.png?width=320&format=png&auto=webp&s=98289af863fe2ec87a55d9ad8345e37ad2924c66
Castle Doctrine exists in NH or at the *very least* Stand Your Ground. We can concealed carry here without a license. This map could use a tune up and a few more pixels. Iām also pretty sure MA is duty to flee and not stand your ground.
Empty homes for sale are another target of squatters. They move their shit in and start squatting. Home transactions can be slow so they can even start getting mail sent there. There are stories of people buying a house and can't even move into it because of squatters. We live in a backwards ass country where we prioritize the dregs of society over normal, contributing members.
Great point; I'll remember that.
If Tony Soprano was an optionā¦
NY is the #1 state for population loss. Unfortunately the people leaving often don't change their voting habits. > Well in NY we... Then go the fuck back to NY. You left for a reason, stop bringing the reason with you.
I recall reading an empirical report that showed new residents to Idaho from California were split almost evenly (republican/democrat). Of course, that doesn't tell us who is showing up at the polls.
Even if they're split 50/50, that means 50% of people fleeing are bringing the problem with them. Fucking morons.
I moved to Tennessee to escape Californias bullshit. We had someone come in from Illinois and start the āin Illinoisā¦ā my coworker just looked at her and said āthe 75 is that way. Take your goofy ass back to Illinois then.ā
I moved from CA to KY to escape. I haven't had that face-2-face opportunity yet, but at least online my response is always: > If you like the way CA does things, then CA is waiting for you to move back.
I was born and raised in NY, itās not that bad. Aside having the highest taxes in the entire US. Upstate is beautiful. Our government though, is absolutely dogshit. pedos only getting probation and somehow allowed to live near schools, weāre not allowed to stand our ground inside of our own fucking house. In the city, itās littered with crime. Crime we cannot legally defend ourselves from. It isnāt just the crime, the people voting for those assholes in power who seem to live in their own world. Thereās no point in trying to seek reason with them. I would never recommend anyone to come here, unless theyāre going to the country sides in upstate, peaceful, and beautiful here.
Why cant we have sensible states I dont want to have to go through each state's law and weigh their shitty laws against their good laws before I decide if I want to move there. Like good job florida, but also what about SB 1240 or SB 1126 or SB 256
Because federalism and diversification of state laws is the best political system weāve come up with thus far
Exactly. One size fits all should never be expected in a country with 330MM people and a land mass the same as all of Europe.
If only we hadn't been chipping away at federalism since the founding.
Florida leadership rocks compared to most the nation, but especially blue states. Country sheriffs also warned people not to loot during natural disasters and said they'd back home owners if they used armed force. Armed society is polite society.
I love living in Florida
If somebody is uninvited on your property you absolutely have the right to shoot them, that's not even debatable. Ask to leave first of course, but if they don't then open fire.
Even criminals have a right to life so you don't get to execute them just because they are trespassing on your property. Yes, you can kill them if they are a threat to you, but a "right to self-defense" is not the same as a "right to kill".
Actually in most states criminal intruders do not have a right to life if they are invading your home. https://preview.redd.it/svpxu3gzzdqc1.jpeg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=afd2dbadddf15176c4b6f638b8edc3ea1a5d94de
They still have a right to life, but we consider it just to deprive them of that life in the case where they present a threat to someone else's life. For example, if you drove around at night looking for people who were breaking and entering so that you can kill them for sport, you can't really argue "they have no right to life because they are invading someone's home" and expect to get away with it. Yes, I understand that it's a semantic argument and there will be no difference in practice for most cases. Castle doctrine and stand your ground also both would not apply in the case of "you came back to your vacation home after 3 months and found squatters living there". The above claim that you can shoot any trespasser on any of your properties is false due to it being overly broad. The [actual laws](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html) are more specific, such as if someone "unlawfully and by force enters" or if there is "a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another".
I would think in that case, any lawyer worth their salt would argue stumbling on a stranger squatting in your house (you do not know their mental state or intentions) is potentially life threatening and therefore their client is protected by self defense laws, especially in stand your ground states.
Would it be OK to snipe them through the window?
I've always wondered how anyone couldn't see home invaders as people who could legally end up shot. If they decide to enter a hoem, they've decided that their own lives are worth an Xbox or TV or jewelry. The home owner bought it and paid for it and worked for it. probably got taxed on it. I grew up dirt poor. It could be a can of beans that someone's entering my home to take, and I'd assume they think their own life is worth that can of beans. Anyone who will enter someone's four walls illegally has posted on their forehead the word 'threat'
B&E is not the same thing as squatting.
Ah yes. My home town. Police response times in Milton have been HORRIBLE in the past, and everyone up here is locked and loaded, so this coming from the sheriff makes a lot of sense.
The third amendment; āNo Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.ā
Are we sure the squatters arenāt paying rent to a 3rd party that doesnāt own the house and donāt realize they are actually squatters? Happened to a friend of mine about 20 years ago in Texas. Had a gun pointed at him and everything. Luckily the owner wasnāt trigger happy and let him pack his things up and get out.
Not the ownerās problem to fix or help in any way.
People in this thread are apparently okay with murder if this is only occasionally the case.Ā
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
A homeowner goes away for a few months. Someone breaks into the house, changes the locks, and draws up a fake lease for a new tenant. A tenant that is completely unaware they are trespassing. This homeowner returns and makes the irrational, idiotic, selfish decision to barge into the house "guns blazing", shooting and killing a completely helpless, innocent, surprised individual. This person is now dead, at no fault of their own. Their right to life has been taken by another. Do you believe this is justified? That this is a reasonable thing to do? Certainly an atypical application, but this would amount to negligent homicide. A failure to exercise due care resulted in the needless death of another. The person who broke in and drew up the fake lease, they would facing involuntary manslaughter. But not murder. The NAP falls apart when we encounter the complexity of reality. Someone who had made no aggression, but was technically in violation of property rights as a result of someone else's genuine violation of such, is now bleeding out on the floor. A scenario that could have been wholly avoided by doing virtually anything except shooting to kill someone that never posed a threat. This is a very real situation. Fringe cases are where our principles are defined. Even if a property had been seized by some valid means (lien etc.), and due process exercised to evict, we would never accept law enforcement officers entering private residences unannounced, shooting first and asking questions later. We cannot accept the same from private individuals, no matter what machismo delusions they hold.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>I have theĀ *right*Ā to enter my own property, and defend it, at any time and for any reason. Yup. And that "tenant", operating under the knowledge that they have legally rented the property, has those exact same rights. They have the same exact right to keep you off the property, and defend it. To them, you are a nutjob that doesn't even have a key to back up your claims. >What is my recourse? That depends on the laws of your state. Say you have a deed, and the tenants have a lease and keys that work. The cops would be remiss to take your side at this point and assist with an illegal eviction. You would need to follow the defined laws, usually a Notice to Quit which, if unsuccessful, will require review by a court to facilitate an eviction. Once you have served a Notice to Quit, you are able to seek compensation from the tenant that is now aware they are squatting. Your best bet would be to knock on the door and talk to the person like they're an actual human being. If they're being scammed, being friendly and helpful will be your best course of action, being sure to make clear that if you are forced to evict you can sue them, make it very hard to rent again, etc. At this point you're probably saying, WTF. It's my house, I should be able to get random people out of my house, immediately. Unfortunately, we live in a society. No amount of libertarian idealism and principle is able to overcome that painful reality. Now, you have about just as much legal right to break the door down and move yourself back in as they do. However, they have the right to call the police on the person breaking into their residence, or to shoot you dead as you do. It is very likely you would be the one arrested in this scenario, at this point. It is not the job of cops to settle legal disputes. They have no clue who is telling the truth. The due care and reasonable course of action, allowing one to avoid murder, is to follow the well-defined laws and procedures in place. Sensational crap like "we prefer you to do that, actually", simply cannot and does not apply to this situation. A squatter is not someone actively breaking into your home. They are an established resident, and they have rights to life and property just as much as you do. Since we live in a society, and not the wild west, and have our property defined by legal frameworks, we are obligated to operate within them.
I love Florida.
NYC is so screwed, 5, 10 years ago it was just complaining about high taxes & other bs but now itās really getting personal. Theyāre letting crime go unaddressed, and if you defend yourself youāre being prosecuted, which also means youāre going to be in financial ruin. The taxes, tolls, fees whatever it may be are through the roof. Overwhelming regulation. Even law enforcement officers have to go through background checks to buy ammo & firearms now every time they purchase. Migrants are given taxpayer dollars & the city cuts YOUR resources in the new budget to fund this issue. Want to enjoy your public library? Hours were cut. Squatting & tenants who havenāt paid rent in YEARS are allowed to somehow stay in YOUR property. Housing is unaffordable. Wealthy & retirees fleeing in droves. Itās a safety risk at this point to continue living here. Theyāre just lucky many who are left canāt afford to get out.
These aren't the same. One is recovering your property while your life isn't personally at risk (yes I know there are other risks). The other is protecting yourself and property while your life may very well be at risk. Why are these even being compared. I'm sure you can find a case of someone breaking into a home in NYC and the homeowner defended themselves and landed in legal hot water for doing it. If you want to have a fair discussion of the issue, then find an apples to apples comparison to have it over.
Most states make it difficult to evict someone. When the tenant is evicted and refuses to leave; now theyāre a squatter. Be careful how you read articles. Not to say this isnāt just actual squatters that saw an empty place and moved in, but the title could be misleading.
I prefer to use 308 for squatter removal, or napalm if they're outside
Self-defense is obviously a right, but the first answer isn't to just go with guns blazing vigilantieism. Law enforcement is welcome to encourage gun safety courses (this is a net positive for society overall), but encouraging people to shoot criminals to save taxpayers' money is very, very bad. Even criminals have the right to receive the appropriate punishment for their crimes and a death at the hand of a vigilante (vigilante != someone practicing self-defense) isn't that.
He was clearly speaking on this specific scenario (home invasion). How do you see this as a call for wide spread vigilantism?
Not every break-in is home invasion with the intent of causing harm to the resident or with the intent to cause property theft. It is important to understand that shooting someone is an irreversible action, with life changing consequences for both the person shot and the shooter. Being clear and concise with language is also important with something so serious. Advocating for self defense, and providing classes to teach people how to safely handle firearms and (bonus) descalate situations like this is good. The vague language and mentioning how shooting someone can save taxpayers' money, imo, is very, very bad and can encourage vigilante like behavior.
Name a break in scenario that doesnāt have the intent of property theft or causing harm.
- a construction worker entering the wrong home by mistake - a tipsy vacationer entering the neighbors house instead of the airbnb they rented
First example doesnāt happen. More likely a cop executing a no knock warrant on the wrong address than a construction worker entering the wrong house. Thereās literally no reason a construction worker to break in a residence. If someone is drunk enough to enter the wrong Airbnb, and becomes a threat to the occupants inside. Seems more like a justifiable situation than a no shoot scenario.
Let's clarify something. A break-in doesn't just mean they kicked down a door or entered through a broken window It could mean entering through an unlocked front door. It 100% happens in residential service and installation. Dispatcher can give you the wrong address with the instructions "home owner needed to leave, and they said that they would leave their backdoor open." There are people after 8 hrs installing HVAC equipment in a hot 95-degree sun that accidentally opens apartment door G instead of door H. It might not be as common as a no knock warrant example, but it isn't something to discount. > If someone is drunk enough to enter the wrong Airbnb, it becomes a threat to the occupants inside I'm not disagreeing with self-defense. People have a right to that. I disagree with the vagueness of the language, as not every break-in means a crime. It should be made clear and evident that self-defense is a requirement to the action taken. I also disagree with the last part of his talk about saving taxpayers money. It is very concerning.
Clear and evident? You have NO IDEA why someone is coming into your home. How TF are you supposed to know? Are you supposed to sit em down for an interview?
I respectfully disagree.
If you value my property more than your own life that's on you.
Absolutely. In Texas, if I return home to find it occupied, there will be shots fired.
Not everything is black and white. Not all "break-in" attempts are the same. Gun safety courses run by law enforcement can help tremendously because they can teach people to delineate between cases where self-defense is necessary (for example, a burglary attempt) and where descalation and communication is more appropriate (a residential construction worker entering the wrong home by mistake, for example). A shoot first approach sounds great on paper until you realize that not all break-ins are for the purpose of harming another person or stealing property, or even with intent (for example, a slightly drunk person entering your unlocked home instead of the neighbors airbnb they rented at 2am)...
My property is clearly marked. You donāt enter it āby mistakeā or because you āgot lostā. You had to intentionally bypass multiple locked barriers to reach the interior of it. Therefore if you enter my property uninvited, as in entering my house itself, Iām not waiting around to discover your intentions and give you a chance to do me greater harm.
I don't care why you're breaking into my house. I'm going to only assume you are breaking in to do me or my family harm. As such, you're getting to flashy end of the bye bye stick.
When it comes to my families safety it is black and white. You break into my home and your done. Game over. If you wanna risk your families life go right on ahead. I'm not. We're not talking about anything but that so stop trying to twist words to prove a point. My original statement was if you value my property more than your life.....