8 ms·

Homeowner arrested after trying to evict squatters from his own property

ggm 3y ago
Having been a squatter, in a different economy, different time, long ago (London, 1980s) I have mixed feelings about this. It would suck to own property you have intent for, and finding its been occupied. At an individual level I can totally relate how crap that would be. I did the "crime" and I'm not in denial about its downside risk for property owners. Most squatted property in the time I was doing it, was owned by large organisations and left empty for a mixture of reasons, despite the severe housing shortage. Nobody I knew was looking to dispossess individual home owners, absentee or not. We broke into housing owned by corporates which was unavailable for ordinary use, had been cut off from power, we got power reconnected and we lived there briefly, until the law courts evicted us. Some friends uplifted their squat into social housing inside the system. Other people did it as a political act, There have been long standing socialised squats in Amsterdam, in Copenhagen. And yes, drug dealing and prostitution is a problem in illegal housing. Also in legal housing. But I can't pretend there aren't issues in squatting. It is surprising sometimes (at least to some people) how quickly "taking the law into your own hands" can become a crime. The whole "stand your ground" thing is really complex because "I acted in self defence" can very quickly turn out to have gone to another place.
- timbo1642 3y ago
  [dead]
- matchbok 3y ago
  You seem to think your actions were virtuous because of ... "evil corporations"? I hope you eventually grew out of your angsty teen "stick it to the man" phase.
  - ggm 3y ago
    I don't think my actions were virtuous at all. They were opportunistic. I observe that it was a crime against a corporate body, not an individual. It certainly cost them money, going to law to recover their empty houses wasn't free. In no sense did I mean to say "I was virtuous" -Only that it was aimed at solving my problem (and others) at the expense of a body, not a person. You may differ, but many feel crimes against corporates are distinct from crimes against individuals, virtue aside. I don't think corporate personhood is an unalloyed "good" What's the point of growing up? It seems boring (Peter Pan, probably) This was almost 40 years ago. Are you the same edgy person you were 40 years ago? I am pretty sure I am not.
    - stranded22 3y ago
      I think it is commendable that you have shared something which is often viewed upon negatively by others (as shown here). Thanks for giving a different viewpoint.
  - jochem9 3y ago
    They also say the property was left empty for 'various reasons' amids a housing crisis. You can argue that the right to have a home prevails over the right to let a property sit empty and rot away. This is the case in the Netherlands, where squatting rights are very limited these days, but where its still necessary to go to court for an eviction where the property owner needs to prove they have plans for the property and want to act on them soon. There is also a law in Amsterdam that requires that all housing that sits empty for more than 6 months is reported to the city. The city then forces the property owner to make it liveable again and rent it out. Both examples show that property rights are not absolute in certain parts of the world.
shadowgovt 3y ago
It's rough being a landlord. A lot of laws are stacked against you. The easiest way to avoid them is to not be one.
- Quillbert182 3y ago
  The problem with that is it can happen to a random homeowner on vacation, not just landlords.
  - Guvante 3y ago
    You don't face months long legal battles over that. These examples were otherwise vacant homes. Landlords have fewer rights than home owners.
- skoopie 3y ago
  Yes, the laws have the unintended(?) consequence of creating a moat around large corporate property ownership.
- NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
  I certainly sympathize with landlords, because they put up with a lot of drama and legal trouble and really intricate interpersonal troubles. But let's not forget that the laws are also stacked against tenants. There are supposedly rights, but the first power a landlord has against the tenant is not knowing those rights. Likewise, the landlord is able to do everything by the book, right up to the brink of legality, like clockwork on a rigid schedule. You will receive your 48-hour notice 5 minutes after the office closes on a Friday. Eviction processes can be really arduous for both sides, but they can also be swift and painful for the tenant. I have found that there are basically no attorneys who take on tenants' rights issues, particularly for low-income/affordable housing situation, because there is no money. There are plenty of them who take landlords' rights very seriously! If you are a landlord, odds are that you've got an in-house attorney or a good one on retainer who can advise you every step of the way. I speak for my jurisdiction only, and I don't pretend to know or espouse a global perspective on this stuff. It's different everywhere.
- 3y ago
bmitc 3y ago
> The active-duty officer was told by police they could not evict Simon and that the issue is considered a “civil matter.” I don't understand. If I person takes over your home while you're there, it's an invasion that the police will respond to. If someone breaks into your home and steals stuff from it, that's robbery that the police will respond to. But if someone simply starts living in your home when you're not there, that's suddenly a "civil matter" that the police can't do anything about?
- JimtheCoder 3y ago
  Just curious - do police officers have access to a system that proves home/property ownership?
  - andsoitis 3y ago
    The can ask the homeowner to show physical proof of title. Not rocket science. Not unlike car license when pulled over.
  - spaceduck 3y ago
    My driver's license has my photo and my home address on it.
    - JimtheCoder 3y ago
      This would indicate that you reside there, not that you own the location...
      - spaceduck 3y ago
        I only care about primary residence, any problems that landlords have can be solved by selling all the extra properties they own.
  - bmitc 3y ago
    I'm pretty sure the police could just call the town office, at least in my town, and easily verify who owns a home. I would be surprised if the police do not already have direct access to this information.
calgarymicro 3y ago
> “They told the police that I was a home invader and that it was their home. And so I ended up being arrested and detained,” Arko said. The arrest itself was because police believed the squatters at first. The homeowner never actually did anything illegal in this case.
- bmitc 3y ago
  I just don't understand it. Apparently, there were drugs and prostitutes in the home, but the police arrest a decent looking person who says it's his home? Why is that not a situation where they go okay, prove it, and he pulls up paperwork and such? Instead, they just arrest him. It's pretty confusing how you can literally be arrested for being physically threatened with a gun on your own property.
  - justrealist 3y ago
    The police can't search the home without a warrant. They just showed up at the door where one person was (presumably) inside, and the other trying to get in. > Why is that not a situation where they go okay, prove it, and he pulls up paperwork and such I mean... I own my house and I'm not sure I could do this on the spot. Maybe I have a copy of some paperwork somewhere? But I can understand a police officer not wanting to learn to be a lawyer on the spot.
    - bmitc 3y ago
      Maybe they shouldn't arrest people then if they don't have the information required to make that determination. It takes a two minute phone call to the town offices to determine who owns a property.
      - gregjor 3y ago
        Actually it's not that easy. Paperwork could be in progress for a sale, for example. Or the squatters can produce a fake lease agreement. None of that would appear in any county or city records. The courts, not the police, look at evidence and hear both sides if someone claims to own or rent a property. Before jumping to conclusions like this try calling your town office or county assessor to find out if that's something they can actually do, accurately and with current information, over the phone, 24/7. I already know the answer. The police do not act as prosecutors, legal researchers, or judges. The law protects squatters, unfortunately I agree. The police are law enforcers, not arbitrators or title insurance researchers.
pengaru 3y ago
Wouldn't you just SWAT these clowns out of your property? The cops show up investigating the anonymous call, discover the drugs, prostitute, guns, who knows what else. Arrests are made, home reclaimed.
- JimtheCoder 3y ago
  Doesn't the home become a crime scene or something? Can't stuff be confiscated? I don't think you just walk back in and chill as the perps are being led away...
  - pengaru 3y ago
    I don't think you just walk back in and chill in any case of this scenario upon getting rid of such vermin. The place is likely trashed, your possessions are likely fucked up. It sounds like six months were burned on getting an eviction authorization. So the competition here is six months. Can the cops get over with their "crime scene" needs within six months? If so, this looks like a winner to me. At least in this option they're immediately removed and go straight to jail. Not six months more of this free-loading bullshit at your expense.
tzs 3y ago
> “I didn’t walk in on a family eating dinner. I walked in on weapons, a prostitute, a bunch of dogs in the back, my fence broken down,” he told a reporter. How did he know that there was a prostitute?
Guvante 3y ago
The law benefits squatters in otherwise empty homes because evicting them means making them homeless. As much as it sucks to lose access to your property the other side is losing access to a home which is way worse.
- Quillbert182 3y ago
  The problem is, this can make a random homeowner homeless. The article mentions a service member who comes home to find someone living in her primary residence, not a rental property. That person is now homeless because of this. It could also happen to a person on vacation.
  - spaceduck 3y ago
    That particular home was being rented out before they returned home, that sounds 100% like a legal matter. I don't think the vacation scenario is equivalent unless it's a multi-month vacation.
  - lotsoweiners 3y ago
    Shoot the asshole who was in your house and say it was a home invasion.
    - Bye_Felicia 3y ago
      I 100% support this. It's just like any other infestation of vermin, you need to use any means necessary.
  - ydlr 3y ago
    No, the article says that it was her real estate agent that discovered the squatter and that the house had previously been rented. Your confusion is understandable. The framing of both situations in the article is "homeowner returned to discover squatters" but even their own facts don't line up with that narrative. I suspect both situations are probably much more mundane tenant disputes and the article is pushing an agenda.
konfusinomicon 3y ago
Squatters rights are completely insane and irrational in some places. in a large upstate NY city that rhymes with smahchester, an acquaintance of mine's mother died early in the era of covid. his crackhead brother traded this information for a fix and the dealer moved in uninvited. because of the eviction moratorium there was nothing he could do legally to remove the guy. attempts to brute force the eviction were met with potentially deadly force. after time it was no longer worth it to pay the property taxes and as such the house went into foreclosure and eventually was auctioned off. the real slap in the face was that the squatter won the auction. mind you this was in a not so nice area but still it illustrates how strange the law is around squatting can be. stealing a man's house is on the level of destroying his career. there should be laws protecting property owners, not the other way around. I suppose there is a bit of nuance to squatting that should be considered and may be valid, but those times are not the ones you hear about
- lotsoweiners 3y ago
  Hired goons are a thing and probably well worth the price to keep squatters away from your property.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    Very illegal. You want to turn a civil matter into a criminal one, that’s how you do it.
    - pseudo0 3y ago
      If the squatter leaves to buy food and the locks get changed, it sounds like that would also be a civil matter.
    - friend_and_foe 3y ago
      So is breaking into someone's house, but that doesn't seem to he an issue for the courts. When the court system fails you, I believe you have a right to take matters into your own hands. The court system is created so that we don't start feuds, harm people above and beyond what's reasonable response to their action, prevent abuses. It's here to protect us so that we don't have to violently protect ourselves. When it fails to do so, what choice do you have? The court is an institution of civilization, when it fails we go back to the natural way.
gregjor 3y ago
Oh good -- a lot of comments where HN armchair lawyers and civil rights experts get to argue how the world should work in their opinion versus how the world actually works and debate the imperfections and injustices. Bonus for posting an issue that will give commenters a chance to air their libertarian bona fides. If we only had all property ownership and rental records "on the blockchain" by now the police could just consult that and know for sure who owned a property or had a legitimate lease. If everyone had to carry and produce identification for the police they could check that against the title or lease agreement... well maybe we need biometrics and so on to protect against fake documents or false names, but I'm sure all of this is solvable with the right technology. Why don't we have an API that can tell the police who owns or rents what properties? What kind of world do we live in where human beings get to mess everything up like this?
- LewisVerstappen 3y ago
  You’re arguing against an imaginary enemy. The only person who brought any of that up is you lol.
  - gregjor 3y ago
    Really? Did you read any of the comments describing how the police could and should check who owns the property?
    - LewisVerstappen 3y ago
      Link the ones mentioning a blockchain/API/biometrics then?
      - gregjor 3y ago
        I think you missed the sarcasm. Do you remember when one of the proposed legitimate uses for blockchain was recording all property deeds and records? I was making fun of that.
Bye_Felicia 3y ago
[flagged]
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  It may shock you to learn that neither the law nor common American morality consider people to be "vermin."

ggm 3y ago

Having been a squatter, in a different economy, different time, long ago (London, 1980s) I have mixed feelings about this. It would suck to own property you have intent for, and finding its been occupied. At an individual level I can totally relate how crap that would be. I did the "crime" and I'm not in denial about its downside risk for property owners. Most squatted property in the time I was doing it, was owned by large organisations and left empty for a mixture of reasons, despite the severe housing shortage. Nobody I knew was looking to dispossess individual home owners, absentee or not. We broke into housing owned by corporates which was unavailable for ordinary use, had been cut off from power, we got power reconnected and we lived there briefly, until the law courts evicted us. Some friends uplifted their squat into social housing inside the system. Other people did it as a political act, There have been long standing socialised squats in Amsterdam, in Copenhagen. And yes, drug dealing and prostitution is a problem in illegal housing. Also in legal housing. But I can't pretend there aren't issues in squatting. It is surprising sometimes (at least to some people) how quickly "taking the law into your own hands" can become a crime. The whole "stand your ground" thing is really complex because "I acted in self defence" can very quickly turn out to have gone to another place.

timbo1642 3y ago
[dead]
matchbok 3y ago
You seem to think your actions were virtuous because of ... "evil corporations"? I hope you eventually grew out of your angsty teen "stick it to the man" phase.
- ggm 3y ago
  I don't think my actions were virtuous at all. They were opportunistic. I observe that it was a crime against a corporate body, not an individual. It certainly cost them money, going to law to recover their empty houses wasn't free. In no sense did I mean to say "I was virtuous" -Only that it was aimed at solving my problem (and others) at the expense of a body, not a person. You may differ, but many feel crimes against corporates are distinct from crimes against individuals, virtue aside. I don't think corporate personhood is an unalloyed "good" What's the point of growing up? It seems boring (Peter Pan, probably) This was almost 40 years ago. Are you the same edgy person you were 40 years ago? I am pretty sure I am not.
  - stranded22 3y ago
    I think it is commendable that you have shared something which is often viewed upon negatively by others (as shown here). Thanks for giving a different viewpoint.
- jochem9 3y ago
  They also say the property was left empty for 'various reasons' amids a housing crisis. You can argue that the right to have a home prevails over the right to let a property sit empty and rot away. This is the case in the Netherlands, where squatting rights are very limited these days, but where its still necessary to go to court for an eviction where the property owner needs to prove they have plans for the property and want to act on them soon. There is also a law in Amsterdam that requires that all housing that sits empty for more than 6 months is reported to the city. The city then forces the property owner to make it liveable again and rent it out. Both examples show that property rights are not absolute in certain parts of the world.

shadowgovt 3y ago

It's rough being a landlord. A lot of laws are stacked against you. The easiest way to avoid them is to not be one.

Quillbert182 3y ago
The problem with that is it can happen to a random homeowner on vacation, not just landlords.
- Guvante 3y ago
  You don't face months long legal battles over that. These examples were otherwise vacant homes. Landlords have fewer rights than home owners.
skoopie 3y ago
Yes, the laws have the unintended(?) consequence of creating a moat around large corporate property ownership.
NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
I certainly sympathize with landlords, because they put up with a lot of drama and legal trouble and really intricate interpersonal troubles. But let's not forget that the laws are also stacked against tenants. There are supposedly rights, but the first power a landlord has against the tenant is not knowing those rights. Likewise, the landlord is able to do everything by the book, right up to the brink of legality, like clockwork on a rigid schedule. You will receive your 48-hour notice 5 minutes after the office closes on a Friday. Eviction processes can be really arduous for both sides, but they can also be swift and painful for the tenant. I have found that there are basically no attorneys who take on tenants' rights issues, particularly for low-income/affordable housing situation, because there is no money. There are plenty of them who take landlords' rights very seriously! If you are a landlord, odds are that you've got an in-house attorney or a good one on retainer who can advise you every step of the way. I speak for my jurisdiction only, and I don't pretend to know or espouse a global perspective on this stuff. It's different everywhere.
3y ago

bmitc 3y ago

> The active-duty officer was told by police they could not evict Simon and that the issue is considered a “civil matter.” I don't understand. If I person takes over your home while you're there, it's an invasion that the police will respond to. If someone breaks into your home and steals stuff from it, that's robbery that the police will respond to. But if someone simply starts living in your home when you're not there, that's suddenly a "civil matter" that the police can't do anything about?

JimtheCoder 3y ago
Just curious - do police officers have access to a system that proves home/property ownership?
- andsoitis 3y ago
  The can ask the homeowner to show physical proof of title. Not rocket science. Not unlike car license when pulled over.
- spaceduck 3y ago
  My driver's license has my photo and my home address on it.
  - JimtheCoder 3y ago
    This would indicate that you reside there, not that you own the location...
    - spaceduck 3y ago
      I only care about primary residence, any problems that landlords have can be solved by selling all the extra properties they own.
- bmitc 3y ago
  I'm pretty sure the police could just call the town office, at least in my town, and easily verify who owns a home. I would be surprised if the police do not already have direct access to this information.

calgarymicro 3y ago

> “They told the police that I was a home invader and that it was their home. And so I ended up being arrested and detained,” Arko said. The arrest itself was because police believed the squatters at first. The homeowner never actually did anything illegal in this case.

bmitc 3y ago
I just don't understand it. Apparently, there were drugs and prostitutes in the home, but the police arrest a decent looking person who says it's his home? Why is that not a situation where they go okay, prove it, and he pulls up paperwork and such? Instead, they just arrest him. It's pretty confusing how you can literally be arrested for being physically threatened with a gun on your own property.
- justrealist 3y ago
  The police can't search the home without a warrant. They just showed up at the door where one person was (presumably) inside, and the other trying to get in. > Why is that not a situation where they go okay, prove it, and he pulls up paperwork and such I mean... I own my house and I'm not sure I could do this on the spot. Maybe I have a copy of some paperwork somewhere? But I can understand a police officer not wanting to learn to be a lawyer on the spot.
  - bmitc 3y ago
    Maybe they shouldn't arrest people then if they don't have the information required to make that determination. It takes a two minute phone call to the town offices to determine who owns a property.
    - gregjor 3y ago
      Actually it's not that easy. Paperwork could be in progress for a sale, for example. Or the squatters can produce a fake lease agreement. None of that would appear in any county or city records. The courts, not the police, look at evidence and hear both sides if someone claims to own or rent a property. Before jumping to conclusions like this try calling your town office or county assessor to find out if that's something they can actually do, accurately and with current information, over the phone, 24/7. I already know the answer. The police do not act as prosecutors, legal researchers, or judges. The law protects squatters, unfortunately I agree. The police are law enforcers, not arbitrators or title insurance researchers.

pengaru 3y ago

Wouldn't you just SWAT these clowns out of your property? The cops show up investigating the anonymous call, discover the drugs, prostitute, guns, who knows what else. Arrests are made, home reclaimed.

JimtheCoder 3y ago
Doesn't the home become a crime scene or something? Can't stuff be confiscated? I don't think you just walk back in and chill as the perps are being led away...
- pengaru 3y ago
  I don't think you just walk back in and chill in any case of this scenario upon getting rid of such vermin. The place is likely trashed, your possessions are likely fucked up. It sounds like six months were burned on getting an eviction authorization. So the competition here is six months. Can the cops get over with their "crime scene" needs within six months? If so, this looks like a winner to me. At least in this option they're immediately removed and go straight to jail. Not six months more of this free-loading bullshit at your expense.

tzs 3y ago

> “I didn’t walk in on a family eating dinner. I walked in on weapons, a prostitute, a bunch of dogs in the back, my fence broken down,” he told a reporter. How did he know that there was a prostitute?

Guvante 3y ago

The law benefits squatters in otherwise empty homes because evicting them means making them homeless. As much as it sucks to lose access to your property the other side is losing access to a home which is way worse.

Quillbert182 3y ago
The problem is, this can make a random homeowner homeless. The article mentions a service member who comes home to find someone living in her primary residence, not a rental property. That person is now homeless because of this. It could also happen to a person on vacation.
- spaceduck 3y ago
  That particular home was being rented out before they returned home, that sounds 100% like a legal matter. I don't think the vacation scenario is equivalent unless it's a multi-month vacation.
- lotsoweiners 3y ago
  Shoot the asshole who was in your house and say it was a home invasion.
  - Bye_Felicia 3y ago
    I 100% support this. It's just like any other infestation of vermin, you need to use any means necessary.
- ydlr 3y ago
  No, the article says that it was her real estate agent that discovered the squatter and that the house had previously been rented. Your confusion is understandable. The framing of both situations in the article is "homeowner returned to discover squatters" but even their own facts don't line up with that narrative. I suspect both situations are probably much more mundane tenant disputes and the article is pushing an agenda.

konfusinomicon 3y ago

Squatters rights are completely insane and irrational in some places. in a large upstate NY city that rhymes with smahchester, an acquaintance of mine's mother died early in the era of covid. his crackhead brother traded this information for a fix and the dealer moved in uninvited. because of the eviction moratorium there was nothing he could do legally to remove the guy. attempts to brute force the eviction were met with potentially deadly force. after time it was no longer worth it to pay the property taxes and as such the house went into foreclosure and eventually was auctioned off. the real slap in the face was that the squatter won the auction. mind you this was in a not so nice area but still it illustrates how strange the law is around squatting can be. stealing a man's house is on the level of destroying his career. there should be laws protecting property owners, not the other way around. I suppose there is a bit of nuance to squatting that should be considered and may be valid, but those times are not the ones you hear about

lotsoweiners 3y ago
Hired goons are a thing and probably well worth the price to keep squatters away from your property.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  Very illegal. You want to turn a civil matter into a criminal one, that’s how you do it.
  - pseudo0 3y ago
    If the squatter leaves to buy food and the locks get changed, it sounds like that would also be a civil matter.
  - friend_and_foe 3y ago
    So is breaking into someone's house, but that doesn't seem to he an issue for the courts. When the court system fails you, I believe you have a right to take matters into your own hands. The court system is created so that we don't start feuds, harm people above and beyond what's reasonable response to their action, prevent abuses. It's here to protect us so that we don't have to violently protect ourselves. When it fails to do so, what choice do you have? The court is an institution of civilization, when it fails we go back to the natural way.

gregjor 3y ago

Oh good -- a lot of comments where HN armchair lawyers and civil rights experts get to argue how the world should work in their opinion versus how the world actually works and debate the imperfections and injustices. Bonus for posting an issue that will give commenters a chance to air their libertarian bona fides. If we only had all property ownership and rental records "on the blockchain" by now the police could just consult that and know for sure who owned a property or had a legitimate lease. If everyone had to carry and produce identification for the police they could check that against the title or lease agreement... well maybe we need biometrics and so on to protect against fake documents or false names, but I'm sure all of this is solvable with the right technology. Why don't we have an API that can tell the police who owns or rents what properties? What kind of world do we live in where human beings get to mess everything up like this?

LewisVerstappen 3y ago
You’re arguing against an imaginary enemy. The only person who brought any of that up is you lol.
- gregjor 3y ago
  Really? Did you read any of the comments describing how the police could and should check who owns the property?
  - LewisVerstappen 3y ago
    Link the ones mentioning a blockchain/API/biometrics then?
    - gregjor 3y ago
      I think you missed the sarcasm. Do you remember when one of the proposed legitimate uses for blockchain was recording all property deeds and records? I was making fun of that.

Bye_Felicia 3y ago

[flagged]

shadowgovt 3y ago
It may shock you to learn that neither the law nor common American morality consider people to be "vermin."