4 ms·
In this case, the guy was a squatter for 27 years and his cabin burned down while he was in jail. There is no magic cure for statistical outliers of this sort.
by DoreenMichele 5y ago
In this case, the guy was a squatter for 27 years and his cabin burned down while he was in jail. There is no magic cure for statistical outliers of this sort.
He was a logger for years and he didn't have much money and he was used to being in the woods and then probably society grew up around him and now he's the one somehow in the wrong, basically.
Society moves forward and then we are all judgy towards the still living anachronisms who maybe weren't so weird "back in the day" but now it's just not done.
I'm glad someone had a little compassion for him instead of criminalizing him for being poor and old as is done all too often these days.
- voidfunc 5y ago27 years ago was 1994. Society has been here a long time already. Lets be real. Its not like its a post 94 invention. I get that he is not really harming anyone but he us squatting on someone else’s property. Theres all kinds if legal liability concerns for the property owner.
- DoreenMichele 5y agoI'm substantially younger than River Dave and a lot of social norms and legal stuff has changed within my lifetime. Even if the law doesn't change, how it gets viewed, interpreted and applied can. Social norms change and then older people are sometimes treated like their assumptions are crazy talk rather than totally normal assumptions from their childhood when what they are doing now wasn't some freakish, weirdo, "you must be an abusive criminal type" back then.
- anigbrowl 5y agoSquatting is good in my opinion, property rights are overly favorable to property owners while neglecting the needs of the property-less. The world is not like a game of Monopoly where we all start out with the same potential and resources and succeed or fail through a combination of look and good or bad decision-making. I think it's worth remembering that the US mores about property as enshrined the Constitution were a) meant to protect against landed aristocrats' forcible expansions of their estate, and b) codified at a time when the first Americans had colonized one relatively small corner of a continent that seemed vast beyond the imagination, and the acme of mechanization/industrial production was the water wheel.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- OrvalWintermute 5y agoActually, River Dave may have a pretty strong case for adverse possession [1] as he lived there for a very long time, over the 20 year limit for NH [2], and he was pretty active on the land. [1] https://courts-state-nh-us.libguides.com/adversepossession https://courts-state-nh-us.libguides.com/adversepossession [2] https://www.nashualaw.com/adverse-possession-in-new-hampshire/ https://www.nashualaw.com/adverse-possession-in-new-hampshir...
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Nasrudith 5y agoAdverse possession requires openness and discovery is what caused the saga.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- klyrs 5y agofrom [2], > Further, the claimant must possess the land adversely to the actual owner. This means that the adverse possessor cannot be occupying the land with the permission of the owner. Dave claims that he was given permission to occupy the land by a previous owner, which can complicate matters here. If the current owner took possession more than 20 years ago and insists that permission was not granted, then Dave wins. If they took possession less than 20 years ago, then Dave hasn't been there without permission for long enough, unless there's some duty to inform. Given that the legal dispute started in 2016 the window probably isn't even 27 years: more like 21. And without documentation to establish that he was actually there 27 years ago, it's not looking good for Dave here