Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

katieleehaw t1_j6tgqq8 wrote

Reply to comment by infromthestorm in Man claims self-defense in Providence landlord homicide by Rogue-Island-Pirate

A person who was not an officer of the law kicked his door in, armed. He defended himself. Unfortunately his gun wasn't legal so he's going to face some legal consequences, but this sounds, on the basis of the information given so far, like self defense.

This is not how "eviction" works - you have to go through a lawful process, not just try to physically remove someone.

54

geffe71 t1_j6tk3ji wrote

He’s also a prohibited person, so shouldn’t have had a gun

12

Good-Expression-4433 t1_j6tlj7e wrote

He shouldn't have, no. But the law with eviction procedures are there for a reason and help protect both tenants and landlords. What if he didn't have a gun? Was she was going to force him at gunpoint to leave? There's definitely still variables here but she went about it in a way that circumvented the law and the courts and paid the price for it.

Even if he was a scumbag and had an illegal gun, it was still an illegal eviction and breaking and entering and he could be justified in a self defense claim.

34

sandsonik t1_j6tva30 wrote

But he wasn't the tenant. She did not rent the apartment to him. He was not protecting his home, he was a home invader who wouldn't leave.

Yeah, she was a fool to take him on herself instead of involving the police. I had a landlord who went through something similar to a former tenant of my apartment. The original tenant moved out, his friends moved in but they weren't on the lease. They wouldn't leave and laughed when he asked them for the rent. My landlord punched one and got arrested. Years later he still considered it worth it. I guess he was lucky that's all that happened to him.

−8

realitythreek t1_j6u3rp0 wrote

Assuming they were considered a squatter, you still have to follow eviction to remove them. You’re just wrong.

13

Good-Expression-4433 t1_j6u8oym wrote

They could have been legally a squatter which still requires eviction proceedings. Also, the solution to that situation, even if they were a straight up trespasser, isn't to get your friends to go in with guns when you're not in immediate danger. You call the police and let them know there's a trespasser.

7

sandsonik t1_j6ulq3h wrote

Obviously. I acknowledged that they went about it all wrong. Though I wonder how one serves eviction notice to someone, if they don't even know who they are?

−1

Good-Expression-4433 t1_j6umyas wrote

You call the police. They take a police report on the situation and often go to the residence to get that information for you if possible. You then take that information and the report to the court when you file for an eviction.

Even if the lady didn't get shot, she would have had the pants sued off her, even if he's a squatter, for violating eviction laws. The penalties on that can be harsh if you try and "self help" evict someone by bypassing the court, even before getting into the issues of breaking and entering and threats with a firearm.

5

CocaineSlippers t1_j6tpbss wrote

You're correct, and he'll end up soundly convicted of those firearms related charges. That doesnt negate the self defense claim though. There is no duty to retreat in RI, so as long as the story doesn't develop differently his claim of self defense will probably stand.

16

astrangeday13 t1_j6u2d8x wrote

There is duty to retreat in RI

−6

StreetStatistician t1_j6ucruu wrote

There is generally no duty to retreat from your home and even if there was explain to us how one would safely retreat from the average slummy 3 story apartment against an armed group of people.

8

degggendorf t1_j6u6twi wrote

A source for you, in case anyone doesn't think what you said is accurate:

> When it comes to using deadly force to defend yourself, Rhode Island is a “duty to retreat” state, as opposed to a “stand your ground” state. The duty to retreat means you must first avoid the danger by retreating to safety before you can exercise deadly force, if you are aware of an available way to escape the situation.

https://www.thomasianlaw.com/blog/2020/december/self-defense-in-rhode-island/

−1

kyle_spectrum t1_j6u8y2w wrote

Castle doctrine applies here. Duty to retreat is only for out of home cases

13

StreetStatistician t1_j6v35o7 wrote

Even if RI was among the states and countries where there is some degree of duty to retreat even in cases of a home invasion but of course there actually has to be a safe route of retreat which I'm guessing was not the case here.

2

degggendorf t1_j6u94uj wrote

Ah got it, thanks for the correction.

1

kyle_spectrum t1_j6u9hub wrote

I'm a liberal myself I'm sure you are aswell. You should look into r/liberalgunowners. It will open your eyes to see not everyone who wants a gun is a deranged killer. First of all it's a right not a privilege like driving is. And 2nd we've seen how some states little by little have been eroding rights. I would also check into the court case that says police have no duty to protect citizens. At the end of the day your life and your families life is in your hands.

3

degggendorf t1_j6u9r1k wrote

Erm, what? Do you have me confused for someone else? I don't remotely believe anyone with a gun is a deranged killer, and I can't imagine I've implied that anywhere either.

1

kyle_spectrum t1_j6ua4h8 wrote

No your the person who said these laws should be enforced unless my app is acting up.

1

degggendorf t1_j6ub516 wrote

I said it's too bad they didn't stop a killing, yes.

I am not sure how that means that I also think all owners are deranged killers or anything else you said.

3

astrangeday13 t1_j6ucgha wrote

I thought Castle law only applied to the occupant, not the owner but I could be wrong.

1

kyle_spectrum t1_j6ud3qk wrote

Right. The tenant has he castle doctrine right not the landlord

4

kyle_spectrum t1_j6ud8gh wrote

Right. The tenant has he castle doctrine right not the landlord

3

StreetStatistician t1_j6u5ll6 wrote

Given his landlord and vigilantes tried to kick in his door and kill or throw him out in winter, it sounds like he is exactly the person who should have a gun.

10

Good-Expression-4433 t1_j6u9e8l wrote

Hell even if the dude was a piece of shit with a warrant out, it doesn't change that in this particular case, the dude was legally in the right. He could always get charged for possession of a firearm if he's a convicted felon or owning an illegal firearm, but legally he was in the right to defend himself from an armed intruder.

7

sandsonik t1_j6ultb8 wrote

They were BOTH armed intruders

−2

StreetStatistician t1_j6v1t5y wrote

No, he wasn't. He was an authorized guest of the person on the lease and legally there is no distinction between a guest living there or the person on the lease when it comes to most legal matters such as home defense or domestic violence.

Why are you determined to find fault with a guy who was subject to an illegal eviction and breaking and entering from an armed intruder?

4

lecreusetpopcorn t1_j6zw7ro wrote

How do you know he was an authorized guest? An authorized guest is only authorized if authorized by the landlord. Not the leaseholder.

Also, we have no idea if the leaseholder wanted him there. Pure conjecture.

1

sandsonik t1_j6wnjo7 wrote

And I could ask why are you determined to stick up for an illegal gun owner who was residing there illegally and not paying rent? Neither party in this story is innocent.

And the person who rented the apartment moved away, so I'm not sure how you think he's allowed to have guests in a place he no longer lives? Am I allowed to have guests stay at your house? Or all my former apts, just because I once lived there?

0

StreetStatistician t1_j6x6wee wrote

I love that you've rationalized a violent landlord parasite who kicked in someone's door on the same moral plane as someone who is late on their rent and has a gun to defend themselves.

You're also bafflingly (willingly) ignorant about tenant and occupancy laws. You just hate the poor lol.

3

barsoapguy t1_j76qxyn wrote

I mean the man has a point , this guy isn’t on the lease! That’s a huge huge problem.

Maybe if he had been paying the rent on time she wouldn’t have gone to these extremes . It sucks that someone like this has to be treated the same via eviction as someone on the signed lease!

1

sandsonik t1_j78yjcf wrote

Oh, you know this person is poor? How?

Show me where I rationalized her kicking in the door with a gun. I clearly said that was foolish and she should have called the cops. The fact that she felt the need to be armed and accompanied makes me wonder what sort of interactions they'd already had.

You just hate landlords, and if non paying renters cause her to be evicted, will you then stick up for her?

1

Captain-Cannoli t1_j6upabu wrote

Now that you mention it I wonder if this would be something worth mentioning to fight against the mag ban

3

BigDaddyCoolDeisel t1_j6whcwv wrote

"Jensen was renting the apartment to Watson's cousin who no longer lived there."

−2

[deleted] t1_j6tj7ez wrote

It appears the eviction was illegal. But it also appears that Watson was trespassing. He was not the tenant and had no legal right to be there.

I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s way more to this story than we have learned to date.

And the entire situation illustrates how our country’s gun culture inevitably ends lives unnecessarily. This situation is unlikely to have ended (or even unfolded) this way in countries with common sense restrictions on personal firearms and ammunition.

−16

degggendorf t1_j6tq6o9 wrote

> He was not the tenant and had no legal right to be there.

Is anyone saying that the tenant didn't want him in the apartment? Otherwise, I'm pretty sure you're allowed to have guests over to your apartment.

11

lecreusetpopcorn t1_j6vnmwi wrote

In most leases, you are required to notify your landlord of any occupant over the age of 18 who stays in your apartment for more than 8-ish days (I say “-ish” because every state is different). That doesn’t mean tenants do, but the rule is in the lease for these, and other similar situations. For example: one person (leaseholder) rents a unit (likely because the “occupant” wouldn’t qualify due to their credit, income, criminal background, etc.) and they (the leaseholder) either never move in, or are only in the unit sporadically and the occupant, (not technically a leaseholder and therefore not technically bound by the terms of the lease) is the main resident. Based only on my personal experience, these situations are usually a mess, and almost always end in damage (not only to the unit they occupy but others as well), violence or threats of violence, and an unbelievable waste of resources for a landlord/property management teams (who aren’t the ‘bad guy’ landlord). Are there times when it works out, sure. But more often than not, it ends in the courts, sometimes for years, which is an additional waste of resources.

0

lecreusetpopcorn t1_j6vosaq wrote

Even if the tenant wanted him there, he’s an unauthorized occupant.

−1

Dopey-NipNips t1_j6wcem6 wrote

A landlord isn't allowed to force an unauthorized occupant into the street at gunpoint though

4

lecreusetpopcorn t1_j6wm5gm wrote

I never said they were.

0

Dopey-NipNips t1_j6wmf9t wrote

So what's the point of your comment

It makes absolutely no legal or moral difference if the landlord didn't authorize his occupancy of this apartment.

You have to legally evict an unauthorized occupant

6

lecreusetpopcorn t1_j6wrtpt wrote

The point of my comment was to answer the above question “is anyone saying the tenant didn’t want him in the apartment… you’re allowed to have guests over to you’re apartment.”

You are allowed to have guests. You’re not allowed to have unauthorized occupants. Whether the leaseholder wanted him there is irrelevant.

0

sandsonik t1_j6tvnaq wrote

If he was a "guest", where was his host?

−3

degggendorf t1_j6tx9gs wrote

I don't know.

You are allowed to leave your apartment when there's someone else there anyway. There's no buddy system law as far as I know.

12

sandsonik t1_j6untjz wrote

The article said the renter named in the lease no longer lived there. He moved.

2

[deleted] t1_j6tqk33 wrote

Most leases place specific restrictions on long-term subleasing “guests.”

−8

degggendorf t1_j6tt4so wrote

And you read this lease to be able to so definitively say he "had no legal right to be there"?

9

[deleted] t1_j6turzs wrote

I’m going to go out on a limb and say that if he wasn’t the leaseholder/tenant, and was inhabiting the unit after the tenant abandoned it (as the article suggests), the balance of evidence suggests he probably was squatting or trespassing.

Of course, there’s always the possibility that this is the rare exception, but it’s a rare exception for a reason.

−8

degggendorf t1_j6txfuk wrote

The language you use in this comment seems to more accurately convey speculation, as opposed to how you initially phrased it.

7

[deleted] t1_j6txjks wrote

I generally apply Occam’s Razor to most situations. It has rarely failed to deliver.

One of the more annoying responses to common sense observations is endless demands for citations… from folks who never cite anything themselves.

−5

degggendorf t1_j6u6zf9 wrote

Yeah it must be annoying not being able to just say whatever you want without regard for its accuracy

4

[deleted] t1_j6u7b7k wrote

Well gosh, it’s equally pleasing to have you there to parse my every word to impute meaning that wasn’t communicated! So I’m doubly lucky!

Such guardians of “accuracy” truly improve society 😁

−2

StreetStatistician t1_j6v3hfd wrote

>Occam’s Razor

The most simple and common scenario would be assuming he was just the guest of the tenet, not some bizarre scenario you've concocted.

2

Cshooter1026 t1_j6u4fha wrote

I noticed in all your posts that have to do with firearms, you are always talking about other countries and how they do things, especially the UK. Perhaps one of those other countries, like the UK, would be better suited for you since you seem to live them so much.

−2

degggendorf t1_j6u7f4h wrote

> I noticed in all your posts that have to do with firearms

That seems to be the case for you too

> would be better suited for you since you seem to live them so much.

Do you need me to invite you to leave for somewhere with gun laws that align with your preferences too?

Or can we just all agree that there's value in seeking to improve where we live, and that the "if you don't like it you can leave" mentality is pretty meaningless?

5

Cshooter1026 t1_j6u9u30 wrote

I will agree there is value in seeking improvement where you live, what I do not agree with is my rights being stripped away because of what happened in other places by insane people and that there is a slim (very slim) possibility of MAYBE happening here because nothing is absolute. Have you read the wording of the AWB they are proposing? Do you know anything about firearms? If you did you would understand why this or clearly overreach by politicians who want to pass “feel good” laws. On a side note, I am not your enemy, they politicians are. This is exactly how they want us, divided and at each others throats.

1

degggendorf t1_j6uavsd wrote

Huh? You are arguing against so many things I have never said. My comment you're replying to is affirming your right to have your own opinions and work to make the state what you want it to be, even if that's different from someone else's wishes.

> This is exactly how they want us, divided and at each others throats.

You seem to be succumbing to that in the very comment you're calling it out in. Look at it...I said let's all agree that we can have differing opinions and stop telling everyone to leave, then you spiral into a mountain of assumptions about me stripping your rights, that I don't know anything about guns, and how politicians are the enemy.

1

[deleted] t1_j6u4sik wrote

I’ve noticed that less educated, lower intellect individuals with a minimum of worldly experience tend to be resentful of the notion that they can learn from other places and people who are different from them and do certain things better.

The world is full of such small-minded places, commonly referred to as “underdeveloped.”

I’d like to avoid seeing my state and country continue to backslide towards underdeveloped status when we have potential to be much greater.

Therefore, if another country has a better way to build a car, or a smarter health delivery system, or a better design for transit systems, or a system that has largely eliminated gun violence, I choose to learn from them rather than stew in parochial ignorance.

You should try it!

−2

Cshooter1026 t1_j6u6dbu wrote

Sure, how about we start with a license to watch tv, like the UK has? Or, we could require federal registration and licensing of computers, licenses to be able to post and reply to things online, and we could also limit how many posts you can make, all to try and prevent cyber bullying. That would be better way wouldn’t it?

1

[deleted] t1_j6u7npi wrote

If you can make your argument with some actual statistics, I won’t stop you.

That’s the beauty of critical thinking.

But I warn you, it will require thinking.

−1

Cshooter1026 t1_j6u8shw wrote

Ah yes, I see this is the second time you have slyly insulted my intelligence, without even knowing anything about me which I have not done to you. That is ok though, I’ll go ahead and do it now and say that just shows the kind of person you are. Good banter though, I do enjoy it.

5

[deleted] t1_j6ucw7n wrote

Well, I mean your prior two posts insulted the intelligence of every reader, so…

1