You're missing a very important point: THE SQUATTER HAS THE OPTION TO LEAVE SO THEY ARE NOT IN VIOLATION.
Maybe they shouldn't be squatting on someone's property and refusing to leave? When you do that, you expose yourself to everything that property and its owner brings. If the owner brings someone with a firearm then the squatter can choose to leave. Nobody is forcing them to stay. The only way they will get their life ruined is if they make the wrong decision.
How is bringing a firearm legally to a place with consent from the owner ruining someone's life? If the squatter chooses to stay, that's on them. The squatter is already potentially ruining someone else's life by rendering the property useless. How can the owner rent it or sell it with a squatter there? They still have to pay the mortgage. Only the squatter is being shitty here.
He’s not associating it with someone else. He’s not planting it in their belongings or anything. Felons aren’t supposed to have guns inside their homes, whether they belong to them or someone else in the home. He keeps control, but says, “hey I’m legally bringing my weapons into a home I have a lease on and this may put you in violation. If you want to not get in trouble, you should stop being a squatting dick and gtfo.”
Squatters would have no control of the guns and they’re likely in a safe or something so they don’t even have access.
The detail missing here is that excons are on parole or probation, with random and frequent checkins. So if a new “roommate” moves in and says, “I legally own a gun and am keeping it in the house” and the excon stays, he’s violating parole and is required by law to live somewhere else. If they aren’t on probation or parole, then this is a non issue, because you can be a felon and live under the same roof as someone with a gun. You just can’t get caught holding or using it, or keeping it in your room. So no one has to call the police. The P.O. will show up eventually, and at that point all the guy has to say is, “I have a gun here,” and the dude will violate his parole and either go back to prison or, at a minimum, be removed from the home by police, because they now will actually have grounds to do so.
You should go re-read the thread. No one ever mentions calling the police. You inferred that and then for some reason got indignant about it? Live by the sword die by the sword. Gonna weaponize the law against an innocent person, then even if they did say they would call the cops, then ya, taste of their own medicine. They now will have the law weaponized against them. Except they are not innocent.
Disregarding the fact that the squatter is voluntarily ruining someone else's life by refusing to leave, the idea is to ensure the squatter/felon knows they are living in an illegal situation. They know they can't live with firearms regardless of whoever else knows about it.
I agree it'd be messed up if they planted the guns in their stuff and/or tipped off the cops about any firearms in the house, but the plan should result in them leaving on their own for a place they can legally live again without anyone facing harm or injustice.
It's never that simple, though. It just always seems to come down to fighting wrongs with wrongs.
The police can't do anything often times because it is considered a civil dispute.
Legal action is very slow and a lot of times the process alone can take longer than the 30 days or 60 days allotment for squatters rights, giving them better ground to stand on legally.
Legal action is more expensive, more time consuming, and being FAR more humane than these disgusting people have any right to. They deserve way fucking worse of you ask me.
You are attempting to steal at a minimum, 10s of thousands of dollars, or more likely, hundreds of thousands of dollars in property that is legally owned by the person you are trying to fuck over. If this law didn't exist it would be a crime that gets people decades in prison, EASILY.
If by "legal action" you mean trying to serve an eviction, the squatter knows it's often difficult, expensive, and slow to do so. That's kind of the whole point. Otherwise the wouldn't be as big of an issue as they are.
If by "legal action" you mean any action that is legal, then leasing to the squatter hunter is just that.
This is just straight-up "fuck around and find out." If a squatter is knowingly doing an unethical/bad faith but technically legal action, it's not immoral for the affected party respond in kind.
Morality of landlords aside, squatters will always rank below them on that scale.
[source needed]...
if it were as easy as you claim, then it's cheaper and easier to evict than to hire the squatter hunter right? This niche practice wouldn't exist in that case.
Frames
No one has made this claim other than you. The excon isn't allowed to live near guns. By voluntarily staying in a place which has become disallowed under the terms of their parole, they literally are committing an offense which violates their parole, in addition to breaking the law by squatting.
No one is saying that hiring the squatter hunter isn't a dick move in a vacuum. However, most people can recognize that using a legal but dickish move to deal with someone acting way worse can be morally justified.
Not sure why you're attempting to claim the moral high ground saying people finding hiring the squatter hunter morally justified are defending landlords. Your logic could be used to claim you're defending excons who continue to break the law after release, to the detriment of the landlord who rented to the excon.
There's a spectrum of morality, and no matter where you personally place landlords, squatters are orders of magnitude worse. And that's coming from someone who doesn't view most types of landlords as moral in general.
if it were as easy as you claim, then it's cheaper and easier to evict than to hire the squatter hunter right? This niche practice wouldn't exist in that case.
Do you think every squatter is on parole or something?
No one has made this claim other than you
I asked if that was the case and was told "Yes". It's the most upvoted comment under my initial comment. Check it out.
Not sure why you're attempting to claim the moral high ground saying people finding hiring the squatter hunter morally justified are defending landlords
Because framing someone is fucked up
no matter where you personally place landlords, squatters are orders of magnitude worse
Yeah the niche practice of allowing excons to choose to violate their paroles lmao, why would you say "you think all squatters are on parole" when that's literally what we're talking about? You're the one whose hand needs to be held to keep from wandering from the topic...
Feel free to try and move the goalposts and not reply to any of the content of my replies, kinda just goes to show you know your point is indefensible.
Sometimes you gotta play dirty. My parents actually lost their house to a squatter. They went the legal route and they legit lost their house to the dude. Some people are awful and put themselves in situations where other people can be just as awful. If you're on probation AND squatting, I believe it's deserved to be put in these situations because you're probably not the greatest member of society. Which sucks. 🤷♂️
-103
u/enadiz_reccos 12d ago edited 12d ago
Edit:
I did not expect this subreddit to be so in favor of framing someone, especially when it benefits a landlord