3 ms·
Not always though. There are cases where people have gone on holiday and had their homes invaded and damaged, their possessions stolen (and often sold for drugs
by blueskin_ 13y ago
Not always though. There are cases where people have gone on holiday and had their homes invaded and damaged, their possessions stolen (and often sold for drugs), and have been stuck with long and costly legal battles to regain what is rightfully theirs. Squatting violates the victims' freedom of property. If insulting someone verbally can be referred to as violent, so should stealing their home and possessions.
I'm less concerned with invasion of business properties - while it should still be illegal, there is less loss to a business, who also typically have the legal staff and expertise as well as funds to get rid of them more swiftly and easily.
- tfgg 13y ago"had their homes invaded and damaged, their possessions stolen (and often sold for drugs)" Sounds like burglary and criminal damage, not squatting, is the issue here. The problem is that those are hard to prove and it's easier just to have a catch-all crime for squatting.
- runarberg 13y agoMay I note that theft, invasion of privacy, and vandalism are all violent crimes that causes harm to the victim[1]. Those crimes can follow almost any human acts, such as partying (party people mug), alcohol consumption (drunk people steal), protests (politically opposing people vandalize), but you wouldn't say those things are equal, you would look at these marginal cases as a subset and to be treated as separate acts. In short. Squatting is sometimes, but rarely followed with more violent and damaging crimes. But squatting in it self are not those crimes. --- [1] with exception, of course, in the case of vandalism, if no the "owner" is oblivious of its value, or when vandalism acts to prevent further vandalism, like the destruction of military tools and weapons.