3 ms·
From what I can gather from the article, it does seem to be entirely legal. He never forcibly removes the squatters, just makes their life annoying and difficul
by cpncrunch 10mo ago
From what I can gather from the article, it does seem to be entirely legal. He never forcibly removes the squatters, just makes their life annoying and difficult, and they usually choose to leave. He also doesn't attack anyone, and only uses the weapons for self defence.
I think any property owner could do the same, but it's just a risk that they don't want to take. Who wants to get up close to a (potential) knife wielding meth addict?
- tripletao 10mo agoYeah. I think the additional trick is that squatters often have a fraudulent lease. That makes it owner vs. tenant, and the police have orders to err on the side of not facilitating an illegal eviction. The owner could attempt to owner-occupy the property, but there's no document for that and there is a lease. So when the police show up, the owner is very likely to be the one removed or arrested. The sword guy makes it tenant vs. tenant, so neither party has that formal advantage. Of course the police know the game, but they're generally happy with the workaround.