Man, I was from the title really hoping something with squatting on other people that squatted, or squatting on other people that squatted, or a mix of them. Would have been more fun
I never heard of this guy but he seems pretty funny.
Awesome way to handle the situation as well.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;49413758]I never heard of this guy but he seems pretty funny.
Awesome way to handle the situation as well.[/QUOTE]
Watch his stuff. He actually confronts corruption.
[editline]29th December 2015[/editline]
What a moron... no wonder people don't own homes in Detroit.
She's everything those nuts like Ted Cruz or whatever use to justify killing social security, something people actually need.
[QUOTE]"My government name"[/QUOTE]
Is she a sovereign citizen that collects benefits?
I just love the whole bit about power.
"You're... you're stealing a little bit of power."
"I am... blessed."
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49413810]Watch his stuff. He actually confronts corruption.
[editline]29th December 2015[/editline]
What a moron... no wonder people don't own homes in Detroit.
She's everything those nuts like Ted Cruz or whatever use to justify killing social security, something people actually need.
Is she a sovereign citizen that collects benefits?[/QUOTE]
She's transgender apparently, so the name she goes by differs from what documentation the city has on her.
He's got some other great videos.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEP8pr0xqwI[/media]
The ohio republican reaction to just hearing the name 'Trump'.
I'm going through, watching more of this guys videos, and I have to say, I've got a lot of respect for this reporter. He speaks up against idiotic ideas like Trump's Mexico wall, but also speaks out against sanctuary cities. He fights against corruption in the police, but he doesn't pretend that all this black lives matter stuff is justified.
Generally, the guy seems pretty balanced.
[QUOTE=Hinterlight;49414169]She's transgender apparently, so the name she goes by differs from what documentation the city has on her.[/QUOTE]Yeah, but the squatter was presenting identifying papers from the postal office to the owner as evidence of the squatter's own name.
Would have been a lot funnier without the semi-transgender snub near the end of it.
[QUOTE=Flameon;49414339]Would have been a lot funnier without the semi-transgender snub near the end of it.[/QUOTE]
"Respect"
?
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49414351]"Respect"
?[/QUOTE]
There was more to that scene/interaction than him saying "respect"
This guy is great, best piece IMO:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1KmTAY67zA[/media]
He looks like a more gritty Jon Stewart.
How do you justify squatting anyway?
[QUOTE=kidkiller745;49416727]How do you justify squatting anyway?[/QUOTE]
You're a poor homeless person who has kids who just got evicted for some reason and there's a house across the street that's being used by absolutely nobody. Are you just going to sit by in the cold or at a shitty homeless shelter or are you going to try to use the house that nobody else was using? Then, 2 years later, after you've spent your own time, money, and effort into fixing up the house, some random stranger comes along and demands that you get out of the house despite the fact that they have been sitting on the property for 2 years and not doing jack shit with it. I think you'd be pretty pissed too. I'm not saying that this woman was in the right, I'm just saying that honestly this is a bit of a moral grey zone.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;49416788][B]I'm just saying that honestly this is a bit of a moral grey zone.[/B][/QUOTE]
lol no
You are referring to the [U]property owner [/U]as some "random stranger" yes?
[editline]30th December 2015[/editline]
it doesn't fucking matter if someone is sitting on a property for years before using it. [I]That's how owning something works.[/I]
You're literally justifying robbery because "welp they weren't using it at the time so."
I was not expecting that boyfriend
[QUOTE=General J;49417025]lol no
You are referring to the [U]property owner [/U]as some "random stranger" yes?
[editline]30th December 2015[/editline]
it doesn't fucking matter if someone is sitting on a property for years before using it. [I]That's how owning something works.[/I]
You're literally justifying robbery because "welp they weren't using it at the time so."[/QUOTE]
It's not that simple. You do realize that this person was actually improving and maintaining this property right? Ever heard of Adverse Possession? It may not exactly apply in this case, but the idea is still the same.
And you also realize by random stranger I mean as in a random stranger to you in the proposed scenario, besides mentioning the fact that the people in the neighborhood didn't really know who the owner was until the supposed incident where the owner tried to run over the squatter with a car?
But like I said, I'm not trying to justify jack, I'm just noting how this is more a moral grey area then some may believe.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;49417384]It's not that simple. You do realize that this person was actually improving and maintaining this property right? Ever heard of Adverse Possession? It may not exactly apply in this case, but the idea is still the same.
And you also realize by random stranger I mean as in a random stranger to you in the proposed scenario, besides mentioning the fact that the people in the neighborhood didn't really know who the owner was until the supposed incident where the owner tried to run over the squatter with a car?
But like I said, I'm not trying to justify jack, I'm just noting how this is more a moral grey area then some may believe.[/QUOTE]
None of your reasons go anywhere close to establishing a moral gray area because the owner is CLEARLY in the right. Also, no, adverse possession laws have nothing to do with this because they, at minimum, require 7+ (Michigan requires 15) years of continually using the property, but more importantly the "squatter" needs some legal reason for being on the property.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;49416788]You're a poor homeless person who has kids who just got evicted for some reason and there's a house across the street that's being used by absolutely nobody. Are you just going to sit by in the cold or at a shitty homeless shelter or are you going to try to use the house that nobody else was using? Then, 2 years later, after you've spent your own time, money, and effort into fixing up the house, some random stranger comes along and demands that you get out of the house despite the fact that they have been sitting on the property for 2 years and not doing jack shit with it. I think you'd be pretty pissed too. I'm not saying that this woman was in the right, I'm just saying that honestly this is a bit of a moral grey zone.[/QUOTE]
Houses in Detroit are extremely cheap. Also, the home owner isn't just some random stranger.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;49417384]It's not that simple. You do realize that this person was actually improving and maintaining this property right?[/QUOTE]
"improving and maintaining" is not what I would call drilling through the walls and doing some ghetto bullshit creating a giant fire risk to steal electricity.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;49417384]besides mentioning the fact that the people in the neighborhood didn't really know who the owner was until the supposed incident where the owner tried to run over the squatter with a car?[/QUOTE]
Yeah I wouldn't exactly believe the word of someone who was charged with attempting to kill someone with a deadly weapon when they're trying to stop an owner from evicting them from their property.
I don't know whether you seriously think you're unbiased or not, but from my perspective your bias clearly shows. You're cherry picking every possible excuse for this dangerous criminal to just steal someone else's house and do whatever they want with it (including breaking serious safety codes whilst stealing electricity) whilst ignoring everything wrong with the situation. Please do not pretend that you're objectively unbiased, because you're not. There is no grey area in this circumstance.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;49416788]You're a poor homeless person who has kids who just got evicted for some reason and there's a house across the street that's being used by absolutely nobody. Are you just going to sit by in the cold or at a shitty homeless shelter or are you going to try to use the house that nobody else was using? Then, 2 years later, after you've spent your own time, money, and effort into fixing up the house, some random stranger comes along and demands that you get out of the house despite the fact that they have been sitting on the property for 2 years and not doing jack shit with it. I think you'd be pretty pissed too. I'm not saying that this woman was in the right, I'm just saying that honestly this is a bit of a moral grey zone.[/QUOTE]
Moral grey zone my ass. If I came home to a house with people living inside of it after a 9-month deployment or something like that, I'd want them gone regardless of what their sob story is. It's my property and they do not have permission to use it.
Your argument could be applied to just about anything and it'd be equally as ridiculous. Is it a "morally grey" zone when someone steals a car that's been sitting in the driveway for a long time? What about a bank just up and taking someone's savings because oh they weren't spending it anyways?
Someone not using something for a long period of time does not change the morality of those actions. Property is property. People pay money for the right to do whatever the fuck they want with that property, whether it's live in it or sit on it, and nobody has any right whatsoever to just up and take over whether it's been vacant for one day or fifty years.
I should have realized this before I posted, but this all comes down to some differences in the idea of property. Personally I believe that if you are just going to do jack shit with something for a long period of time, why do you get any more claim to it then someone who really fucking needs it? Of course it is the American way to always 100% side with the property owner, so I really shouldn't be surprised if anyone disagrees with this idea. In the end I'm just going to stop posting in this thread, it's clear you guys believe too strongly in your ideas so what's the point?
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("then don't start dumb arguments" - Orkel))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;49417916]why do you get any more claim to it then someone who really fucking needs it?[/QUOTE]
Because YOU FUCKING OWN IT. It's your property. You paid to have it.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;49417384]It's not that simple. You do realize that this person was actually improving and maintaining this property right? Ever heard of Adverse Possession? It may not exactly apply in this case, but the idea is still the same.
And you also realize by random stranger I mean as in a random stranger to you in the proposed scenario, besides mentioning the fact that the people in the neighborhood didn't really know who the owner was until the supposed incident where the owner tried to run over the squatter with a car?
But like I said, I'm not trying to justify jack, I'm just noting how this is more a moral grey area then some may believe.[/QUOTE]
Do you own a car? What if some dude comes down and wipes the windshield off. Does he then get to take it off your hands because he "improved and maintained" it?
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;49417916]I should have realized this before I posted, but this all comes down to some differences in the idea of property. Personally I believe that if you are just going to do jack shit with something for a long period of time, why do you get any more claim to it then someone who really fucking needs it? Of course it is the American way to always 100% side with the property owner, so I really shouldn't be surprised if anyone disagrees with this idea. In the end I'm just going to stop posting in this thread, it's clear you guys believe too strongly in your ideas so what's the point?[/QUOTE]
This should be bannable honestly. You can't just spout retarded shit in a thread and say "peace out" instead of backing it up.
[QUOTE=kidkiller745;49416727]How do you justify squatting anyway?[/QUOTE]
The scenario stated in the OP is indeed pretty much unjustifiable.
However after watching this documentary:
[video=youtube;XL3n59wC8kk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XL3n59wC8kk[/video]
If that's too long for you friendly jordies sums it up quickly and is considerably funnier while explaining it:
[video=youtube;clC_vIlbtME]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clC_vIlbtME[/video]
Consider the fact that there are corporations that buy up property and then do absolutely nothing with them for the sole purpose of raising the price of land and attempting to sell it for more later.
If somebody decided to squat in those places I wouldn't hold it against them in fact good on them for fucking over rich bastards that are actively making life worse for everyone else.
Still legally wrong but if you rely on the law to provide your moral compass you will probably be pointed in the wrong direction at least once in your life.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;49416788]honestly this is a bit of a moral grey zone.[/QUOTE]
breaking into someone's house isn't moral.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;49417916]I should have realized this before I posted, but this all comes down to some differences in the idea of property. Personally I believe that if you are just going to do jack shit with something for a long period of time, why do you get any more claim to it then someone who really fucking needs it? Of course it is the American way to always 100% side with the property owner, so I really shouldn't be surprised if anyone disagrees with this idea. In the end I'm just going to stop posting in this thread, it's clear you guys believe too strongly in your ideas so what's the point?[/QUOTE]
I get that people in dire straights with the homeless shelters full really dont have a choice sometimes but i dont think we should be arguing that it's a good thing. That should be fixed by better welfare programs, maybe even a universal basic income, not justifying squatting. Also get that playing real estate can be destructive and wasteful but that should probably be solved with property tax rather than saying its fine to squat in empty houses.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
