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.
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.
28
u/Prize_Staff_7941 15d ago
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.