Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Renters (squatters) rights: tenants (landlord) are jerks

13468913

Posts

  • DivideByZeroDivideByZero Registered User regular
    So now a 22-year old beat cop two months out of the academy gets to be the arbiter of the validity of multiple legal documents on the spot, and also gets to decide whether or not somebody is homeless tonight.

    Instead of, y'know, a judge.

    Nothing wrong with that scenario, no sir.

  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    Soralin wrote: »
    Soralin wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    What would you consider to be a reasonable requirement for removing someone with no right to be on a property?

    You appear to want to be able to call the police and have them kick someone out based on your assurance that you are the property owner, which is insane for a variety of reasons.

    If I return from my 3 month European vacation to find a stranger in my house, I want to call the police and have him arrested immediately. I don't care if he told the neighbors that he was house sitting, or if he found a hidden key and so didn't break in. I have my drivers liscense and other papers showing I own the house, and that should be enough. I know the next objection will be that he could have been sub leasing, but then he should have gotten something in writing. Under no circumstances should I be barred from my home or from ejecting a criminal from it, IMO.
    What if he has a lease? Could be forged or could be from someone who didn't really own the property. Happens.

    Why does the writing matter? Maybe you found a new girlfriend in Europe. Same situation, does the old one get arrested?

    How in the world did the person know that you would be out of town for an extended period of time with no one checking in and a way to get in but not to steal anything and move their stuff in. To what end? If anything that seems more far fetched than the alternative.

    I agree that this is far fetched. The shanty town in your warehouse is more likely, and also strikes me as a more straight forward case. If they have a claim, let it be made in court, but don't continue the unlawful (in the sense that even if there was a contract, such contract was illegal and contrary to public policy) use continue.
    At which point, a couple of police officers show up at your house, and arrest you for illegally squatting there. You complain that you're not squatting there, that you own the house and live there. But, under spacekungfuman's new laws, none of that matters. Someone has made the accusation, and therefore you are to be arrested and removed immediately, and if you do indeed have the right to be there, you can prove it in court.

    Remember, if there's 2 parties involved in a law, there's always at least 2 opposing directions a law can be exploited in. You seem to always be assuming that the person claiming ownership is always the one being honest, and the person claiming residency is always the one being dishonest, when the situation could also be exploited the other way around, and often is. A good law has to be able to handle exploitative situations from both directions.

    But I can produce government issued ID and tax statements stating that I am the lawful owner. I am not saying that a bare accusation should be sufficient, only that where one party has documentation of their right to live there and the other does not, that should be sufficiency for the police to remove the party with no documented right. And, just to say it, I think that moving towards all such rights bring documented and notarized would be an improvement.
    Honey, lets move in together. We just need to get the 313b limited liability cohabitation by mutual agreement on a month to month basis form.

    Don't you see how far fetched this would be? Look, I know you are rich but just for a second think about how the rest of the world works. If I say to someone who makes 15 grand a year that I will wave 50 bucks a month off their rent in exchange for not having a lease what do you think they will say? Don't you think that abusive people would use this to their advantage? You are basically giving them the ability to make anyone not on the lease homeless.

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Soralin wrote: »
    Soralin wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    What would you consider to be a reasonable requirement for removing someone with no right to be on a property?

    You appear to want to be able to call the police and have them kick someone out based on your assurance that you are the property owner, which is insane for a variety of reasons.

    If I return from my 3 month European vacation to find a stranger in my house, I want to call the police and have him arrested immediately. I don't care if he told the neighbors that he was house sitting, or if he found a hidden key and so didn't break in. I have my drivers liscense and other papers showing I own the house, and that should be enough. I know the next objection will be that he could have been sub leasing, but then he should have gotten something in writing. Under no circumstances should I be barred from my home or from ejecting a criminal from it, IMO.
    What if he has a lease? Could be forged or could be from someone who didn't really own the property. Happens.

    Why does the writing matter? Maybe you found a new girlfriend in Europe. Same situation, does the old one get arrested?

    How in the world did the person know that you would be out of town for an extended period of time with no one checking in and a way to get in but not to steal anything and move their stuff in. To what end? If anything that seems more far fetched than the alternative.

    I agree that this is far fetched. The shanty town in your warehouse is more likely, and also strikes me as a more straight forward case. If they have a claim, let it be made in court, but don't continue the unlawful (in the sense that even if there was a contract, such contract was illegal and contrary to public policy) use continue.
    At which point, a couple of police officers show up at your house, and arrest you for illegally squatting there. You complain that you're not squatting there, that you own the house and live there. But, under spacekungfuman's new laws, none of that matters. Someone has made the accusation, and therefore you are to be arrested and removed immediately, and if you do indeed have the right to be there, you can prove it in court.

    Remember, if there's 2 parties involved in a law, there's always at least 2 opposing directions a law can be exploited in. You seem to always be assuming that the person claiming ownership is always the one being honest, and the person claiming residency is always the one being dishonest, when the situation could also be exploited the other way around, and often is. A good law has to be able to handle exploitative situations from both directions.

    But I can produce government issued ID and tax statements stating that I am the lawful owner. I am not saying that a bare accusation should be sufficient, only that where one party has documentation of their right to live there and the other does not, that should be sufficiency for the police to remove the party with no documented right. And, just to say it, I think that moving towards all such rights bring documented and notarized would be an improvement.
    Honey, lets move in together. We just need to get the 313b limited liability cohabitation by mutual agreement on a month to month basis form.

    Don't you see how far fetched this would be? Look, I know you are rich but just for a second think about how the rest of the world works. If I say to someone who makes 15 grand a year that I will wave 50 bucks a month off their rent in exchange for not having a lease what do you think they will say? Don't you think that abusive people would use this to their advantage? You are basically giving them the ability to make anyone not on the lease homeless.

    That people willingly engage in illegal activity is not a reason to make it legal. That $15k person will probably also agree to be paid under the table, but that doesn't make it right or prevent us from going after him and his employer.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Soralin wrote: »
    Soralin wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    What would you consider to be a reasonable requirement for removing someone with no right to be on a property?

    You appear to want to be able to call the police and have them kick someone out based on your assurance that you are the property owner, which is insane for a variety of reasons.

    If I return from my 3 month European vacation to find a stranger in my house, I want to call the police and have him arrested immediately. I don't care if he told the neighbors that he was house sitting, or if he found a hidden key and so didn't break in. I have my drivers liscense and other papers showing I own the house, and that should be enough. I know the next objection will be that he could have been sub leasing, but then he should have gotten something in writing. Under no circumstances should I be barred from my home or from ejecting a criminal from it, IMO.
    What if he has a lease? Could be forged or could be from someone who didn't really own the property. Happens.

    Why does the writing matter? Maybe you found a new girlfriend in Europe. Same situation, does the old one get arrested?

    How in the world did the person know that you would be out of town for an extended period of time with no one checking in and a way to get in but not to steal anything and move their stuff in. To what end? If anything that seems more far fetched than the alternative.

    I agree that this is far fetched. The shanty town in your warehouse is more likely, and also strikes me as a more straight forward case. If they have a claim, let it be made in court, but don't continue the unlawful (in the sense that even if there was a contract, such contract was illegal and contrary to public policy) use continue.
    At which point, a couple of police officers show up at your house, and arrest you for illegally squatting there. You complain that you're not squatting there, that you own the house and live there. But, under spacekungfuman's new laws, none of that matters. Someone has made the accusation, and therefore you are to be arrested and removed immediately, and if you do indeed have the right to be there, you can prove it in court.

    Remember, if there's 2 parties involved in a law, there's always at least 2 opposing directions a law can be exploited in. You seem to always be assuming that the person claiming ownership is always the one being honest, and the person claiming residency is always the one being dishonest, when the situation could also be exploited the other way around, and often is. A good law has to be able to handle exploitative situations from both directions.

    But I can produce government issued ID and tax statements stating that I am the lawful owner. I am not saying that a bare accusation should be sufficient, only that where one party has documentation of their right to live there and the other does not, that should be sufficiency for the police to remove the party with no documented right. And, just to say it, I think that moving towards all such rights bring documented and notarized would be an improvement.
    Honey, lets move in together. We just need to get the 313b limited liability cohabitation by mutual agreement on a month to month basis form.

    Don't you see how far fetched this would be? Look, I know you are rich but just for a second think about how the rest of the world works. If I say to someone who makes 15 grand a year that I will wave 50 bucks a month off their rent in exchange for not having a lease what do you think they will say? Don't you think that abusive people would use this to their advantage? You are basically giving them the ability to make anyone not on the lease homeless.

    That people willingly engage in illegal activity is not a reason to make it legal. That $15k person will probably also agree to be paid under the table, but that doesn't make it right or prevent us from going after him and his employer.

    Wow, way to be as insulting as possible.

    I make 11k a year, I would not agree to be paid under the table.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    That people willingly engage in illegal activity is not a reason to make it legal.

    No one said make it legal. However two people did something illegal. Which means two people can deal with the consequences.

    PSN: allenquid
  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Soralin wrote: »
    Soralin wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    What would you consider to be a reasonable requirement for removing someone with no right to be on a property?

    You appear to want to be able to call the police and have them kick someone out based on your assurance that you are the property owner, which is insane for a variety of reasons.

    If I return from my 3 month European vacation to find a stranger in my house, I want to call the police and have him arrested immediately. I don't care if he told the neighbors that he was house sitting, or if he found a hidden key and so didn't break in. I have my drivers liscense and other papers showing I own the house, and that should be enough. I know the next objection will be that he could have been sub leasing, but then he should have gotten something in writing. Under no circumstances should I be barred from my home or from ejecting a criminal from it, IMO.
    What if he has a lease? Could be forged or could be from someone who didn't really own the property. Happens.

    Why does the writing matter? Maybe you found a new girlfriend in Europe. Same situation, does the old one get arrested?

    How in the world did the person know that you would be out of town for an extended period of time with no one checking in and a way to get in but not to steal anything and move their stuff in. To what end? If anything that seems more far fetched than the alternative.

    I agree that this is far fetched. The shanty town in your warehouse is more likely, and also strikes me as a more straight forward case. If they have a claim, let it be made in court, but don't continue the unlawful (in the sense that even if there was a contract, such contract was illegal and contrary to public policy) use continue.
    At which point, a couple of police officers show up at your house, and arrest you for illegally squatting there. You complain that you're not squatting there, that you own the house and live there. But, under spacekungfuman's new laws, none of that matters. Someone has made the accusation, and therefore you are to be arrested and removed immediately, and if you do indeed have the right to be there, you can prove it in court.

    Remember, if there's 2 parties involved in a law, there's always at least 2 opposing directions a law can be exploited in. You seem to always be assuming that the person claiming ownership is always the one being honest, and the person claiming residency is always the one being dishonest, when the situation could also be exploited the other way around, and often is. A good law has to be able to handle exploitative situations from both directions.

    But I can produce government issued ID and tax statements stating that I am the lawful owner. I am not saying that a bare accusation should be sufficient, only that where one party has documentation of their right to live there and the other does not, that should be sufficiency for the police to remove the party with no documented right. And, just to say it, I think that moving towards all such rights bring documented and notarized would be an improvement.
    Honey, lets move in together. We just need to get the 313b limited liability cohabitation by mutual agreement on a month to month basis form.

    Don't you see how far fetched this would be? Look, I know you are rich but just for a second think about how the rest of the world works. If I say to someone who makes 15 grand a year that I will wave 50 bucks a month off their rent in exchange for not having a lease what do you think they will say? Don't you think that abusive people would use this to their advantage? You are basically giving them the ability to make anyone not on the lease homeless.

    That people willingly engage in illegal activity is not a reason to make it legal. That $15k person will probably also agree to be paid under the table, but that doesn't make it right or prevent us from going after him and his employer.
    Just so we are clear you are advocating that real estate contracts not being in writing be actively illegal or just unenforceable?

    The whole idea just seems so far fetched that I don't think that I can be understanding you correctly. What your proposing is that every person staying in a apartment be ready, at a moments notice, to show written proof of their right to be there or face immediate eviction and not just that but face criminal trespass. That every single person involved in a lease have their names on said lease or face homeless at the will of the tenant on the lease. And to stop what? A one in a million chance that someone would invade your property without stealing or breaking anything and you have to spend a day going to the courthouse and getting them evicted.

  • DivideByZeroDivideByZero Registered User regular
    rockrnger wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Soralin wrote: »
    Soralin wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    What would you consider to be a reasonable requirement for removing someone with no right to be on a property?

    You appear to want to be able to call the police and have them kick someone out based on your assurance that you are the property owner, which is insane for a variety of reasons.

    If I return from my 3 month European vacation to find a stranger in my house, I want to call the police and have him arrested immediately. I don't care if he told the neighbors that he was house sitting, or if he found a hidden key and so didn't break in. I have my drivers liscense and other papers showing I own the house, and that should be enough. I know the next objection will be that he could have been sub leasing, but then he should have gotten something in writing. Under no circumstances should I be barred from my home or from ejecting a criminal from it, IMO.
    What if he has a lease? Could be forged or could be from someone who didn't really own the property. Happens.

    Why does the writing matter? Maybe you found a new girlfriend in Europe. Same situation, does the old one get arrested?

    How in the world did the person know that you would be out of town for an extended period of time with no one checking in and a way to get in but not to steal anything and move their stuff in. To what end? If anything that seems more far fetched than the alternative.

    I agree that this is far fetched. The shanty town in your warehouse is more likely, and also strikes me as a more straight forward case. If they have a claim, let it be made in court, but don't continue the unlawful (in the sense that even if there was a contract, such contract was illegal and contrary to public policy) use continue.
    At which point, a couple of police officers show up at your house, and arrest you for illegally squatting there. You complain that you're not squatting there, that you own the house and live there. But, under spacekungfuman's new laws, none of that matters. Someone has made the accusation, and therefore you are to be arrested and removed immediately, and if you do indeed have the right to be there, you can prove it in court.

    Remember, if there's 2 parties involved in a law, there's always at least 2 opposing directions a law can be exploited in. You seem to always be assuming that the person claiming ownership is always the one being honest, and the person claiming residency is always the one being dishonest, when the situation could also be exploited the other way around, and often is. A good law has to be able to handle exploitative situations from both directions.

    But I can produce government issued ID and tax statements stating that I am the lawful owner. I am not saying that a bare accusation should be sufficient, only that where one party has documentation of their right to live there and the other does not, that should be sufficiency for the police to remove the party with no documented right. And, just to say it, I think that moving towards all such rights bring documented and notarized would be an improvement.
    Honey, lets move in together. We just need to get the 313b limited liability cohabitation by mutual agreement on a month to month basis form.

    Don't you see how far fetched this would be? Look, I know you are rich but just for a second think about how the rest of the world works. If I say to someone who makes 15 grand a year that I will wave 50 bucks a month off their rent in exchange for not having a lease what do you think they will say? Don't you think that abusive people would use this to their advantage? You are basically giving them the ability to make anyone not on the lease homeless.

    That people willingly engage in illegal activity is not a reason to make it legal. That $15k person will probably also agree to be paid under the table, but that doesn't make it right or prevent us from going after him and his employer.
    Just so we are clear you are advocating that real estate contracts not being in writing be actively illegal or just unenforceable?

    The whole idea just seems so far fetched that I don't think that I can be understanding you correctly. What your proposing is that every person staying in a apartment be ready, at a moments notice, to show written proof of their right to be there or face immediate eviction and not just that but face criminal trespass. That every single person involved in a lease have their names on said lease or face homeless at the will of the tenant on the lease. And to stop what? A one in a million chance that someone would invade your property without stealing or breaking anything and you have to spend a day going to the courthouse and getting them evicted.

    It's basically the voter fraud argument. Something it's possible to agree with in theory, but spend five minutes thinking about the consequences and it becomes clear that the "solution" is more likely to be harmful than the problem, since the problem almost never happens anyway.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Well, we have seen that it can take more than "a day" to get sorted out.

    Still, a solution worse than the problem.

  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Well, we have seen that it can take more than "a day" to get sorted out.

    Still, a solution worse than the problem.
    Sometimes courts get backed up but I would imagine that it never takes more than one day at the courthouse if your house has been invaded by homeless people.

    I could see how it would get put on the back-burner if it was just some vacant warehouse or something.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    rockrnger wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Well, we have seen that it can take more than "a day" to get sorted out.

    Still, a solution worse than the problem.

    Sometimes courts get backed up but I would imagine that it never takes more than one day at the courthouse if your house has been invaded by homeless people.

    I could see how it would get put on the back-burner if it was just some vacant warehouse or something.

    Between backlogs at the courthouse and a low priority from police to actually enforce the eviction, however, we're talking about a process that can take quite some time.

    And that case in Colorado demonstrates that this can be the case even if it is the property owner's (now) primary residence. That's a problem.

    But again, this doesn't make it a common problem, nor justify the proposed solution. Also, if your courts are backed up, that's a problem that needs to be addressed. This doesn't make squatter's rights or any other given issue the problem, it makes your backed up civil court system a problem. You should pressure your appropriate level of government to fix this, because obvious backed-up civil courts are going to cause plenty of other issues as well.

  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    SKFM also seems to be neglecting o understand an important part of rental law and residency. I live in a rented apartment. But you read the actual lease for the term of the lease and as long as I keep my end of it I LEGALLY OWN the area that is being rented. My landlord is trespassing if he barges into my apt without reason. Being able to kick me out on my ass without recourse is as much a violation of my property rights as squatters moving in are to the landlord.

    A rented property is not simply a place you pay to sleep in. Its your residence just as much as if you owned the place.

    AManFromEarthQuidfrandelgearslipzagdrobshryke
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    So now a 22-year old beat cop two months out of the academy gets to be the arbiter of the validity of multiple legal documents on the spot, and also gets to decide whether or not somebody is homeless tonight.

    Cops have to make quick decisions with dire consequences. That is a necessary aspect of being a cop.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Harrisonburg, VARegistered User regular
    Right, but not when it comes to legal proceedings. They don't make judgments like that on their own.

    AManFromEarthHacksaw
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    So now a 22-year old beat cop two months out of the academy gets to be the arbiter of the validity of multiple legal documents on the spot, and also gets to decide whether or not somebody is homeless tonight.

    Cops have to make quick decisions with dire consequences. That is a necessary aspect of being a cop.

    I think in situations where life and limb are not at risk, it's probably best to limit the level to which we expect them to.

  • DivideByZeroDivideByZero Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    So now a 22-year old beat cop two months out of the academy gets to be the arbiter of the validity of multiple legal documents on the spot, and also gets to decide whether or not somebody is homeless tonight.

    Cops have to make quick decisions with dire consequences. That is a necessary aspect of being a cop.

    True, but I have a bit of a problem with the responsibilities of a judge, with all the procedures and accountability that a court of law provides, being handed off to the police to solve a nonexistent problem.

    Captain Carrot
  • MadCaddyMadCaddy Registered User regular
    edited December 2012
    Feral wrote: »
    So now a 22-year old beat cop two months out of the academy gets to be the arbiter of the validity of multiple legal documents on the spot, and also gets to decide whether or not somebody is homeless tonight.

    Cops have to make quick decisions with dire consequences. That is a necessary aspect of being a cop.

    I hope this is a "yea and", and not serious... Gotta love the popo sorting out domestic disputes. Always win win for all parties involved.

    MadCaddy on
  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    So now a 22-year old beat cop two months out of the academy gets to be the arbiter of the validity of multiple legal documents on the spot, and also gets to decide whether or not somebody is homeless tonight.

    Cops have to make quick decisions with dire consequences. That is a necessary aspect of being a cop.
    Snap police judgment!

    I find you guilty.
    The fence belongs to the smiths.
    Your RV counts as a motor vehicle for constitution rights!

    This has been snap police judgment turn in next week when we set precendent regarding habius corpus for the prisoners at gitmo.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    So now a 22-year old beat cop two months out of the academy gets to be the arbiter of the validity of multiple legal documents on the spot, and also gets to decide whether or not somebody is homeless tonight.

    Cops have to make quick decisions with dire consequences. That is a necessary aspect of being a cop.

    Feral you know better than that, this is not justification to bring this particular decision into a cop's purview, anymore than it already is.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • HacksawHacksaw J Duggan Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    So now a 22-year old beat cop two months out of the academy gets to be the arbiter of the validity of multiple legal documents on the spot, and also gets to decide whether or not somebody is homeless tonight.

    Cops have to make quick decisions with dire consequences. That is a necessary aspect of being a cop.

    Not when it comes to matters of things pertaining to the duties and responsibilities of officers of the court. Cops, for example, do not get to sign their own search warrants. This country has due process for a reason, and it does not get waived but for circumstances extraordinary. The example provided does not fit neatly into that category.

  • dlinfinitidlinfiniti Registered User regular
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    So now a 22-year old beat cop two months out of the academy gets to be the arbiter of the validity of multiple legal documents on the spot, and also gets to decide whether or not somebody is homeless tonight.

    Cops have to make quick decisions with dire consequences. That is a necessary aspect of being a cop.

    Not when it comes to matters of things pertaining to the duties and responsibilities of officers of the court. Cops, for example, do not get to sign their own search warrants. This country has due process for a reason, and it does not get waived but for circumstances extraordinary. The example provided does not fit neatly into that category.

    like that'll stop him from dragging you out of bed and throwing you onto the street
    Judge-Dredd-Movie-Poster-2-600x320.jpg

    AAAAA!!! PLAAAYGUUU!!!!
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited December 2012
    Frankly, I think you guys have gotten so caught up in dogpiling on SKFM that you're not considering the full implications of the arguments you're making. Here's how the conversation progressed:
    But I can produce government issued ID and tax statements stating that I am the lawful owner. I am not saying that a bare accusation should be sufficient, only that where one party has documentation of their right to live there and the other does not, that should be sufficiency for the police to remove the party with no documented right. And, just to say it, I think that moving towards all such rights bring documented and notarized would be an improvement.
    Feral wrote:
    So now a 22-year old beat cop two months out of the academy gets to be the arbiter of the validity of multiple legal documents on the spot, and also gets to decide whether or not somebody is homeless tonight.

    Cops have to make quick decisions with dire consequences. That is a necessary aspect of being a cop.

    First, let's put this in context of the NYC law. SKFM calls the police, claims there's a stranger in his house. Stranger claims squatting rights. Is simply saying the magic words "I've been here for 30 days" enough to make the police go away? Obviously not, or no burglary or home invasion arrest would ever occur.

    So we ask the squatter to produce some evidence of their squatting. A piece of mail seems to be the expected evidence. Okay, does any "piece of mail" work? Let's use a reduction to the absurd here: the squatter produces a brown paper bag with his name and the current address scrawled on it in crayon. Should the police just walk away at that point? Guess what, we are now asking the police to 'be the arbiter of the validity' of a document. (Technically a 'legal document', if that piece of mail has a postmark.)

    The fact is, cops are the first but not final arbiters of the validity of multiple legal documents all the goddamn time. A traffic stop is the most obvious case - license and registration, please. Another common situation more relevant to home ownership is when an alarm system goes off and the cops are dispatched to investigate, and they find somebody there claiming to be the homeowner offering to show them a picture ID. (How do we know that ID is valid? Shit, we can't ask cops to be the 'arbiter of the validity of a legal document'.)

    Probable cause to arrest may involve inspection of evidence at the call. DivideByZero seems to have a problem with that, but we can't expect cops to be robots - they have to exercise subjective judgment, by the unavoidable nature of their job.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
    shryke
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited December 2012
    Or, more succinctly:
    Right, but not when it comes to legal proceedings. They don't make judgments like that on their own.

    They have to judge whether it's a legal proceeding (eviction) or a crime in progress (trespassing). And, yes, they might have to make that judgment on their own. This is no different than the other thousands of times during a cop's career that they have to judge whether a situation is a civil or a criminal matter.

    And that judgment might involve inspecting evidence on the scene. That evidence may involve documents, despite DivideByZero's dismay.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • HacksawHacksaw J Duggan Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    Or, more succinctly:
    Right, but not when it comes to legal proceedings. They don't make judgments like that on their own.

    They have to judge whether it's a legal proceeding (eviction) or a crime in progress (trespassing). And, yes, they might have to make that judgment on their own. This is no different than the other thousands of times during a cop's career that they have to judge whether a situation is a civil or a criminal matter.

    And that judgment might involve inspecting evidence on the scene. That evidence may involve documents, despite DivideByZero's dismay.

    That's all well and good, but please tell me you're not arguing they be the first and final arbiter in this kind of situation. I know you're smarter than that.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited December 2012
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Or, more succinctly:
    Right, but not when it comes to legal proceedings. They don't make judgments like that on their own.

    They have to judge whether it's a legal proceeding (eviction) or a crime in progress (trespassing). And, yes, they might have to make that judgment on their own. This is no different than the other thousands of times during a cop's career that they have to judge whether a situation is a civil or a criminal matter.

    And that judgment might involve inspecting evidence on the scene. That evidence may involve documents, despite DivideByZero's dismay.

    That's all well and good, but please tell me you're not arguing they be the first and final arbiter in this kind of situation. I know you're smarter than that.

    No, and nobody here is.

    Not even SKFM.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
    spacekungfuman
  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    Or, more succinctly:
    Right, but not when it comes to legal proceedings. They don't make judgments like that on their own.

    They have to judge whether it's a legal proceeding (eviction) or a crime in progress (trespassing). And, yes, they might have to make that judgment on their own. This is no different than the other thousands of times during a cop's career that they have to judge whether a situation is a civil or a criminal matter.

    And that judgment might involve inspecting evidence on the scene. That evidence may involve documents, despite DivideByZero's dismay.

    They can already do this.

    If a police officer thinks that someone hasn't been their long enough to have squatters rights they can arrest them. What we are talking about is when a cop comes to a building with obvious signs of occupancy for longer than 30 days. Space is saying that 1) all real estate transactions have to be in writing(completely unworkable) and that 2) that police have to be able to judge who has the right to be in a building (completly outside of their area)

  • MadCaddyMadCaddy Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    Frankly, I think you guys have gotten so caught up in dogpiling on SKFM that you're not considering the full implications of the arguments you're making. Here's how the conversation progressed:
    But I can produce government issued ID and tax statements stating that I am the lawful owner. I am not saying that a bare accusation should be sufficient, only that where one party has documentation of their right to live there and the other does not, that should be sufficiency for the police to remove the party with no documented right. And, just to say it, I think that moving towards all such rights bring documented and notarized would be an improvement.
    Feral wrote:
    So now a 22-year old beat cop two months out of the academy gets to be the arbiter of the validity of multiple legal documents on the spot, and also gets to decide whether or not somebody is homeless tonight.

    Cops have to make quick decisions with dire consequences. That is a necessary aspect of being a cop.

    First, let's put this in context of the NYC law. SKFM calls the police, claims there's a stranger in his house. Stranger claims squatting rights. Is simply saying the magic words "I've been here for 30 days" enough to make the police go away? Obviously not, or no burglary or home invasion arrest would ever occur.

    So we ask the squatter to produce some evidence of their squatting. A piece of mail seems to be the expected evidence. Okay, does any "piece of mail" work? Let's use a reduction to the absurd here: the squatter produces a brown paper bag with his name and the current address scrawled on it in crayon. Should the police just walk away at that point? Guess what, we are now asking the police to 'be the arbiter of the validity' of a document. (Technically a 'legal document', if that piece of mail has a postmark.)

    The fact is, cops are the first but not final arbiters of the validity of multiple legal documents all the goddamn time. A traffic stop is the most obvious case - license and registration, please. Another common situation more relevant to home ownership is when an alarm system goes off and the cops are dispatched to investigate, and they find somebody there claiming to be the homeowner offering to show them a picture ID. (How do we know that ID is valid? Shit, we can't ask cops to be the 'arbiter of the validity of a legal document'.)

    Probable cause to arrest may involve inspection of evidence at the call. DivideByZero seems to have a problem with that, but we can't expect cops to be robots - they have to exercise subjective judgment, by the unavoidable nature of their job.

    This is rationalizing to the extreme, and over broadening the subject.. Police have as much volition and agency as any other individual, but their abilities are deputized to them to arrest and otherwise detain people. The question is how much time is fair in all instances of default for a resident of a domicile to remain, given a complaint (most likely from a citizen with some claim on the property, one would hope..). Now, giving an individual officer to much power without some oversight is a very important concern, and why you see officers working in pairs often to decrease any individual officers liability for a stakeholding(heh) decision on an individual. Another concern is liability if there is an error committed in some judgement of the validity of the claim (and why a judge is generally preferrable, and a court order.. I think wanting warrants, and notices of eviction is a founding principle of our country.). 3 days is the norm, and I don't think you disagree with that.. The 30 days in extreem cases is for particularily clever criminals, and they're still held accountable if they ever have any assets worth a lick (and probably going to jail for B&E or trespass, as well as any civil penalities)..

    The argument truly began with spacekungfuman stating that the current methods for removal of individuals from a domicile are to heinous, and he has chosen to live in a state/city, or buy property in a state/city where that is the case. Just because he is being let down by his particular jurisdiction doesn't mean the entire due process is inherently flawed.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited December 2012
    rockrnger wrote: »
    If a police officer thinks that someone hasn't been their long enough to have squatters rights they can arrest them. What we are talking about is when a cop comes to a building with obvious signs of occupancy for longer than 30 days. Space is saying that 1) all real estate transactions have to be in writing(completely unworkable) and that 2) that police have to be able to judge who has the right to be in a building (completly outside of their area)

    The two bolded lines are completely incompatible.
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    The question is how much time is fair in all instances of default for a resident of a domicile to remain, given a complaint (most likely from a citizen with some claim on the property, one would hope..).

    Not exactly. The question is - how do we define the difference between an unpaying tenant and a trespasser?

    Let's go back a few steps in this conversation:
    japan wrote: »
    What would you consider to be a reasonable requirement for removing someone with no right to be on a property?

    You appear to want to be able to call the police and have them kick someone out based on your assurance that you are the property owner, which is insane for a variety of reasons.

    If I return from my 3 month European vacation to find a stranger in my house, I want to call the police and have him arrested immediately. I don't care if he told the neighbors that he was house sitting, or if he found a hidden key and so didn't break in. I have my drivers liscense and other papers showing I own the house, and that should be enough. I know the next objection will be that he could have been sub leasing, but then he should have gotten something in writing.

    I don't see why asking a tenant to show some basic documentation of tenancy is onerous.

    The counterargument that DBZ gave is that we can't expect police to look at documents on a trespassing call. I think that's dumb.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
    spacekungfuman
  • MadCaddyMadCaddy Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    If a police officer thinks that someone hasn't been their long enough to have squatters rights they can arrest them. What we are talking about is when a cop comes to a building with obvious signs of occupancy for longer than 30 days. Space is saying that 1) all real estate transactions have to be in writing(completely unworkable) and that 2) that police have to be able to judge who has the right to be in a building (completly outside of their area)

    The two bolded lines are completely incompatible.
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    The question is how much time is fair in all instances of default for a resident of a domicile to remain, given a complaint (most likely from a citizen with some claim on the property, one would hope..).

    Not exactly. The question is - how do we define the difference between an unpaying tenant and a trespasser?

    Let's go back a few steps in this conversation:
    japan wrote: »
    What would you consider to be a reasonable requirement for removing someone with no right to be on a property?

    You appear to want to be able to call the police and have them kick someone out based on your assurance that you are the property owner, which is insane for a variety of reasons.

    If I return from my 3 month European vacation to find a stranger in my house, I want to call the police and have him arrested immediately. I don't care if he told the neighbors that he was house sitting, or if he found a hidden key and so didn't break in. I have my drivers liscense and other papers showing I own the house, and that should be enough. I know the next objection will be that he could have been sub leasing, but then he should have gotten something in writing.

    I don't see why asking a tenant to show some basic documentation of tenancy is onerous.

    The counterargument that DBZ gave is that we can't expect police to look at documents on a trespassing call. I think that's dumb.

    We can't be expecting police to be making judgements on the overall issue with a claim.. If it's sole primary residence against sole primary resident, as in the above mentioned example with the few month trip abroad, the person will be evicted within hours after whatever arraignment judge becomes available, or a supervisor, etc... The only time this really becomes dubious is when it's, honestly, dubious. Yes, people will game the system, but that's inherent with any established system of governance, and this particular one is HEAVILY localized, which I find proper.

    Now, if you have someone who's lived in a building for a decade, made improvements to it, or if there's been a road cut into your property that you haven't noticed for 5-10 years (I think I've heard as low as 5..) I think as a property owner you have to take some pride of ownership and assure that your belongings are in their proper condition/boundaries.

  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    If a police officer thinks that someone hasn't been their long enough to have squatters rights they can arrest them. What we are talking about is when a cop comes to a building with obvious signs of occupancy for longer than 30 days. Space is saying that 1) all real estate transactions have to be in writing(completely unworkable) and that 2) that police have to be able to judge who has the right to be in a building (completly outside of their area)

    The two bolded lines are completely incompatible.

    The context for line two is cases where it's non-obvious if someone is a trespasser. The bit about obvious signs of occupancy for longer than 30 days. For example, someone might have been scammed and truly believe he is renting an apartment which is owned by someone else. Or the owner might be trying to evict his tenant by accusing him of being a trespasser.

  • DivideByZeroDivideByZero Registered User regular
    Feral, I'm not claiming that police don't or shouldn't have the ability to examine evidence or documents presented by parties to a dispute. I'm just saying that, in this particular instance, where society has determined, "Hey, in the interest of protecting people from douchebag property owners, let's require that a court make the decision on whether or not this person is now homeless" -- I don't support replacing the due process of the courts with police discretion.

    It's a matter of harm; just as I'd rather a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man go to prison, I don't think ten days or whatever for a judge to determine if an eviction is justified is too big a price to pay to avoid legitimate tenants falling victim to an unscrupulous landlord and/or naive or corrupt cops.

    While I understand, sympathize, and agree with space's consternation on the issue, I don't agree that his proposed solution is better for society than, say, reducing court backlogs to expedite eviction proceedings.

    AManFromEarth
  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    If a police officer thinks that someone hasn't been their long enough to have squatters rights they can arrest them. What we are talking about is when a cop comes to a building with obvious signs of occupancy for longer than 30 days. Space is saying that 1) all real estate transactions have to be in writing(completely unworkable) and that 2) that police have to be able to judge who has the right to be in a building (completly outside of their area)

    The two bolded lines are completely incompatible.
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    The question is how much time is fair in all instances of default for a resident of a domicile to remain, given a complaint (most likely from a citizen with some claim on the property, one would hope..).

    Not exactly. The question is - how do we define the difference between an unpaying tenant and a trespasser?

    Let's go back a few steps in this conversation:
    japan wrote: »
    What would you consider to be a reasonable requirement for removing someone with no right to be on a property?

    You appear to want to be able to call the police and have them kick someone out based on your assurance that you are the property owner, which is insane for a variety of reasons.

    If I return from my 3 month European vacation to find a stranger in my house, I want to call the police and have him arrested immediately. I don't care if he told the neighbors that he was house sitting, or if he found a hidden key and so didn't break in. I have my drivers liscense and other papers showing I own the house, and that should be enough. I know the next objection will be that he could have been sub leasing, but then he should have gotten something in writing.

    I don't see why asking a tenant to show some basic documentation of tenancy is onerous.

    The counterargument that DBZ gave is that we can't expect police to look at documents on a trespassing call. I think that's dumb.
    Oh, I see where you are getting confused. The police can charge anyone that they want with criminal trespass. If I have legal squatter rights I would just be not guilty.

    The police also have a separate function of enforcing eviction (who has the rights to a property) notices given by civil court. What space is advocating is that police have the ability to evict people without the court order.

    Also, part of squatter's rights is usually having received mail at the property so that is pretty easy to do. What isn't easy is to have written proof that you have rights to a building because most such contracts are verbal.

    AManFromEarth
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited December 2012
    It's a matter of harm; just as I'd rather a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man go to prison, I don't think ten days or whatever for a judge to determine if an eviction is justified is too big a price to pay to avoid legitimate tenants falling victim to an unscrupulous landlord and/or naive or corrupt cops.

    Legitimate tenants have lease agreements. :P

    rockrnger wrote: »
    What isn't easy is to have written proof that you have rights to a building because most such contracts are verbal.

    We're talking about residency here. Most rights of residency are verbal contracts?

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited December 2012
    The more you guys argue, the more on SKFM's side I'm getting.

    His scenario was: "If I return from my 3 month European vacation to find a stranger in my house, I want to call the police and have him arrested immediately. I don't care if he told the neighbors that he was house sitting, or if he found a hidden key and so didn't break in. I have my drivers liscense and other papers showing I own the house, and that should be enough. I know the next objection will be that he could have been sub leasing, but then he should have gotten something in writing."

    In this scenario, in NYC, if the trespasser had been there for 30 days*, he is now legally an "unpaying tenant" and SKFM must go through eviction proceedings to regain access to his own primary residency.

    This is pants-on-head retarded, frankly.

    * - It wouldn't actually matter if the trespasser had been there for 30 days or not. All that matters is if the house appears to have been lived in.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Except Space's argument is about made up nonsense and his solution is even worse than the status quo.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    The more you guys argue, the more on SKFM's side I'm getting.

    His scenario was: "If I return from my 3 month European vacation to find a stranger in my house, I want to call the police and have him arrested immediately. I don't care if he told the neighbors that he was house sitting, or if he found a hidden key and so didn't break in. I have my drivers liscense and other papers showing I own the house, and that should be enough. I know the next objection will be that he could have been sub leasing, but then he should have gotten something in writing."

    In this scenario, in NYC, if the trespasser had been there for 30 days, he is now legally an "unpaying tenant" and SKFM must go through eviction proceedings to regain access to his own primary residency.

    This is pants-on-head retarded, frankly.

    He also didn't show this having ever happened.

    PSN: allenquid
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    The more you guys argue, the more on SKFM's side I'm getting.

    His scenario was: "If I return from my 3 month European vacation to find a stranger in my house, I want to call the police and have him arrested immediately. I don't care if he told the neighbors that he was house sitting, or if he found a hidden key and so didn't break in. I have my drivers liscense and other papers showing I own the house, and that should be enough. I know the next objection will be that he could have been sub leasing, but then he should have gotten something in writing."

    In this scenario, in NYC, if the trespasser had been there for 30 days, he is now legally an "unpaying tenant" and SKFM must go through eviction proceedings to regain access to his own primary residency.

    This is pants-on-head retarded, frankly.

    He also didn't show this having ever happened.

    http://www.insideedition.com/headlines/5101-family-fights-to-reclaim-their-home-after-they-say-squatters-moved-in

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    It's a matter of harm; just as I'd rather a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man go to prison, I don't think ten days or whatever for a judge to determine if an eviction is justified is too big a price to pay to avoid legitimate tenants falling victim to an unscrupulous landlord and/or naive or corrupt cops.

    Legitimate tenants have lease agreements. :P

    rockrnger wrote: »
    What isn't easy is to have written proof that you have rights to a building because most such contracts are verbal.

    We're talking about residency here. Most rights of residency are verbal contracts?
    I forget the correct terminology here but I was talking about people who have a legal right to occupy a building.

    For myself, I don't use written contracts (everything I would put in them is already the law so there isn't much point) and most of the smaller landlords I know don't either. Past that it is unusual for couples to both be on the lease even where they use them.

    Keep in mind that squatters rights apply to people that tenants want to kick out as well as landlords. Think of how spaces policy would effect people in abusive relationships.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    Also, this happened in California, but because for once we're actually the state of sanity (when does that ever happen in CA?), it was dealt with by the cops:

    http://www.timesheraldonline.com/news/ci_22279523/vacaville-man-returns-from-vacation-find-vallejo-squatter

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Short term sublets are very often made without leases. This is dumb for the tenant because it makes their rights harder to enforce, but it not an unheard of circumstance, nor is it of the same variety of shady dealings as being paid under the table.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    The more you guys argue, the more on SKFM's side I'm getting.

    His scenario was: "If I return from my 3 month European vacation to find a stranger in my house, I want to call the police and have him arrested immediately. I don't care if he told the neighbors that he was house sitting, or if he found a hidden key and so didn't break in. I have my drivers liscense and other papers showing I own the house, and that should be enough. I know the next objection will be that he could have been sub leasing, but then he should have gotten something in writing."

    In this scenario, in NYC, if the trespasser had been there for 30 days, he is now legally an "unpaying tenant" and SKFM must go through eviction proceedings to regain access to his own primary residency.

    This is pants-on-head retarded, frankly.

    He also didn't show this having ever happened.

    http://www.insideedition.com/headlines/5101-family-fights-to-reclaim-their-home-after-they-say-squatters-moved-in

    That's not what he described or in New York though.

    The guy who did that in Colorado didn't manage to hold on to the house because of squatting laws, but because he claimed he lived there when filing the bankruptcy which forced the police to back off. He'd supposedly also believed he legitimately purchased the home, which makes it kind of important to protect him too even if he didn't.

    PSN: allenquid
13468913
Sign In or Register to comment.