Thread for when someone on the other side does something good

[steve dave]

to play devils advocate for cops they are the only people willing to do that crap. if you want to put a punisher sticker on your f150 and go to the gun range and beat the living crap out of your wife or ex wife then by all means just feel rough ridin' free and do it. until you step up to the plate though maybe shut the eff up, huh?

[catastrophe]

It’s a fair criticism. I’m torn as to whether policy should be informed by assuming law enforcement sucks at their job

judging guilt or innocence (or validity of residence) is not their job! (but I guarantee they would suck at it if it was part of their job)

Sure but the problem is that without some sort of prejudging by a police officer, the only distinction between trespass and a “residence” dispute is the offender saying he has a right to be there. I don’t really favor that being the line between police having a duty to enforce the law and all of the sudden lacking jurisdiction to act entirely.

[steve dave]

guilty party seems pretty dead to me if you catch my drift (blows smoke off barrel of gun I just shot a dog with after shooting and missing it 9 times)

[michigancat]

It’s a fair criticism. I’m torn as to whether policy should be informed by assuming law enforcement sucks at their job

judging guilt or innocence (or validity of residence) is not their job! (but I guarantee they would suck at it if it was part of their job)

Sure but the problem is that without some sort of prejudging by a police officer, the only distinction between trespass and a “residence” dispute is the offender saying he has a right to be there.

I mean, yeah. The "prejudging" is the problem!The cops could definitely say that's enough under the Desantis law to not forcibly remove someone. But also, a property owner could just say someone doesn't have a right to be there and the cop believes them and removes the tenant. If you don't see any potential danger or abuse in that I think we're done here

[catastrophe]

Ok but what does abuse look like in this scenario?

Landlord says tenant is squatting. Tenant says “actually I have a lease, and I’ve paid my rent.” Cop says “meh, landlord said you shouldn’t be here, take it up with the court” and escorts tenant off premises.

What does the landlord do next? Change the locks? What stops the tenant from coming back to his residence in 15 minutes? It’s not illegal for him to be there, even if the cop kicked him off. Is the cop going to physically force the tenant to hand over all his house keys? And the landlord locks the door behind him?

And if you think a landlord would call the cops just to get someone removed so they could illegally evict (by changing the locks or moving someone else in or whatever) the new law only makes that fractionally easier. They could also simply wait until the tenant goes to work in the morning to do the same thing.

[michigancat]

Ok but what does abuse look like in this scenario?

Landlord says tenant is squatting. Tenant says “actually I have a lease, and I’ve paid my rent.” Cop says “meh, landlord said you shouldn’t be here, take it up with the court” and escorts tenant off premises.

What does the landlord do next? Change the locks? What stops the tenant from coming back to his residence in 15 minutes? It’s not illegal for him to be there, even if the cop kicked him off. Is the cop going to physically force the tenant to hand over all his house keys? And the landlord locks the door behind him?

And if you think a landlord would call the cops just to get someone removed so they could illegally evict (by changing the locks or moving someone else in or whatever) the new law only makes that fractionally easier. They could also simply wait until the tenant goes to work in the morning to do the same thing.

I mean yeah the landlord would probably change the locks and/or throw their stuff into the street or any tactics they already use to illegally evict after the cops kick the tenants out. But now you don't need to confront the tenants in person or wait until they go to work, plus you get the added bonus of cops with guns scaring the crap out of them. The fear of being arrested/forcibly removed again will likely reduce the chance of the tenant doing anything about it compared to coming home from work and finding the locks changed. Especially for those tenants unfamiliar with tenant law or the legal system in general (everyone but landlords).

I think you recognize many of the ways this can be abused, you just agree with them.

[Spracne]

I'm used to cat making better arguments than he is making, here. I'm persuadable, but you're kind of pushing me in the opposite direction.

[catastrophe]

I think you recognize many of the ways this can be abused, you just agree with them.

Agree with what?

You started this conversation by criticizing conservatives for pointing to random squatter incidents to create some kind of boogeyman but your problem with the proposal is based on the fact you simply distrust cops and landlords to follow the law based on the (horrible) incidents you’ve read about them in your circles.

[michigancat]

You started this conversation by criticizing conservatives for pointing to random squatter incidents to create some kind of boogeyman but your problem with the proposal is based on the fact you simply distrust cops and landlords to follow the law based on the (horrible) incidents you’ve read about them in your circles.

My main issue with the law is that cops and landlords can now LEGALLY remove a tenant they are in dispute with without a hearing, where previously that was illegal.

[catastrophe]

Well you’re using a different meaning of “legal” than me because evicting a rightful tenant subjects the landlord to damages, 3x rent, attorneys fees, and perjury charges.

https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2024/621/billtext/er/pdf

[Kat Kid]

Well you’re using a different meaning of “legal” than me because evicting a rightful tenant subjects the landlord to damages, 3x rent, attorneys fees, and perjury charges.

https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2024/621/billtext/er/pdf

Who is more likely to retain a lawyer, tenants or landlords?

There are tons of examples of people just deciding it isn't worth it to pursue their legal recourse, if they even know that they have a legal case and it is usually poor people.

I'm comfortable with the current tail risk of criminal trespass against tenants having more precarity to the whims of their landlords.

[catastrophe]

Well you’re using a different meaning of “legal” than me because evicting a rightful tenant subjects the landlord to damages, 3x rent, attorneys fees, and perjury charges.

https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2024/621/billtext/er/pdf

Who is more likely to retain a lawyer, tenants or landlords?

There are tons of examples of people just deciding it isn't worth it to pursue their legal recourse, if they even know that they have a legal case and it is usually poor people.

I'm comfortable with the current tail risk of criminal trespass against tenants having more precarity to the whims of their landlords.

The law provides you cannot evict someone with a valid lease, it awards attorneys fees for wrongful conviction, and it says wrongful eviction cases should be quickly pushed through by the courts.

If the situation is as dire as Mich makes it out to be, lawyers are going to descend on Florida tenants like locusts begging for their business. That’s about as easy money as you can make.

[steve dave]

I think a lot of people just get mad when anything happens that could benefit wealthy people. Which directionally is probably ok but at the micro level doesn’t work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[michigancat]

Well you’re using a different meaning of “legal” than me because evicting a rightful tenant subjects the landlord to damages, 3x rent, attorneys fees, and perjury charges.

https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2024/621/billtext/er/pdf

The ACLU reports that 81% of landlords are represented in eviction court proceedings, compared to 3% of renters. Studies show that “between 51 percent and 75 percent of tenants without legal representation lost their case in court.”

[michigancat]

I think a lot of people just get mad when anything happens that could benefit wealthy people. Which directionally is probably ok but at the micro level doesn’t work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

this is more about the direct rough ridin' over of poor people than the benefits of rich people. I'm OK with plenty of policies that benefit the wealthy much more than this will.

[catastrophe]

Well you’re using a different meaning of “legal” than me because evicting a rightful tenant subjects the landlord to damages, 3x rent, attorneys fees, and perjury charges.

https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2024/621/billtext/er/pdf

The ACLU reports that 81% of landlords are represented in eviction court proceedings, compared to 3% of renters. Studies show that “between 51 percent and 75 percent of tenants without legal representation lost their case in court.”

Did you miss my point about how the new law includes a fee shifting provision when a tenant is removed from the property? Attorneys would be happy to take that case with no cash up front. Not so much if a tenant is in a bona fide legal dispute with a landlord.

If you think landlords have a massive advantage in traditional eviction proceedings (which I don’t disagree with), you would think they would much prefer that route over utilizing the anti-squatting law, which is exactly the policy you’ve been advocating for ITT.

[michigancat]

Well you’re using a different meaning of “legal” than me because evicting a rightful tenant subjects the landlord to damages, 3x rent, attorneys fees, and perjury charges.

https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2024/621/billtext/er/pdf

The ACLU reports that 81% of landlords are represented in eviction court proceedings, compared to 3% of renters. Studies show that “between 51 percent and 75 percent of tenants without legal representation lost their case in court.”

Did you miss my point about how the new law includes a fee shifting provision when a tenant is removed from the property? Attorneys would be happy to take that case with no cash up front. Not so much if a tenant is in a bona fide legal dispute with a landlord.

If you think landlords have a massive advantage in traditional eviction proceedings (which I don’t disagree with), you would think they would much prefer that route over utilizing the anti-squatting law, which is exactly the policy you’ve been advocating for ITT.

I don't think you're being very realistic with how often wrongfully evicted tenants will take advantage of those provisions and win. go read the book "Evicted" if you want to learn more about why I think this is so bad, I'm really done this time.

[Spracne]

I had a pro bono client who represented himself and won his eviction case. If cat's stats (TM) are true, that is a rare result. Still, the slumlord continued to pursue him, and that's where we came into the case. We whipped the slumlord's ass pretty good, if I do say so myself. But most poor people don't have access to a white-shoe law firm and just throw up their hands and give up, flee, move, etc.

[Pete]

gE has plan for how to address squatters in our corporate office as a part of our emergency preparedness program.  Most of these squatters are not going to answer the door, so subterfuge is required.

The key is to entice the squatter, praying upon their own self interests. The challenge is in finding something that will appeal to the vast majority of squatters.

Below is a mock up of our plan.




Not pictured (concealed behind bouquet) is the largest handgun made in America (a bespoke squattershooter3000).  When the squatter opens the front door gE staffers/summer-intern will blow the squatters rough ridin' brains all over the wall, door, woodwork, floor, and welcome mat.

[steve dave]

and we make Mexico pay for the cleanup

[steve dave]

I've never had a squatter encounter but I'd say squatter adjace is trespassing hunters which I've had a SHITLOAD of experience with. In western KS this is basically the most serious crime someone can commit. And sd's dad would uphold the law to the maximum amount possible which is shaming someone to the entire world (other ranchers) and really giving them the business. and if you are from out of town you can bet you got followed around all over the middle of nowhere until you just left the area. it's dirty business but someone has to uphold justice.

[SkinnyBenny]

 

Crosspost this with the HighstepperCat thread 

[catastrophe]

Well you’re using a different meaning of “legal” than me because evicting a rightful tenant subjects the landlord to damages, 3x rent, attorneys fees, and perjury charges.

https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2024/621/billtext/er/pdf

The ACLU reports that 81% of landlords are represented in eviction court proceedings, compared to 3% of renters. Studies show that “between 51 percent and 75 percent of tenants without legal representation lost their case in court.”

Did you miss my point about how the new law includes a fee shifting provision when a tenant is removed from the property? Attorneys would be happy to take that case with no cash up front. Not so much if a tenant is in a bona fide legal dispute with a landlord.

If you think landlords have a massive advantage in traditional eviction proceedings (which I don’t disagree with), you would think they would much prefer that route over utilizing the anti-squatting law, which is exactly the policy you’ve been advocating for ITT.

I don't think you're being very realistic with how often wrongfully evicted tenants will take advantage of those provisions and win. go read the book "Evicted" if you want to learn more about why I think this is so bad, I'm really done this time.

Yeah I think we're at an impasse cause we're supposed to be talking about whether a new law is good or bad and I'm the only person actually looking at the language of it.

Your beef is that landlord/tenant laws need to be overhauled, but when a new law comes along that only can be utilized by a landlord signing a document under penalty of perjury and makes them liable for 3x rent plus attorneys fees for wrongfully using it, you dismiss it as another attempt to screw over renters.

[michigancat]

yes because I hold more weight in how reality works and less in the text of ron desantis bill reacting to fox news headlines

[Dugout DickStone]

gE has plan for how to address squatters in our corporate office as a part of our emergency preparedness program.  Most of these squatters are not going to answer the door, so subterfuge is required.

The key is to entice the squatter, praying upon their own self interests. The challenge is in finding something that will appeal to the vast majority of squatters.

Below is a mock up of our plan.




Not pictured (concealed behind bouquet) is the largest handgun made in America (a bespoke squattershooter3000).  When the squatter opens the front door gE staffers/summer-intern will blow the squatters rough ridin' brains all over the wall, door, woodwork, floor, and welcome mat.

this has worked 100% of the time.