> who is to blame if a hipster falls down a chute 50 feet onto concrete?
Why wouldn't it be the hipster's fault?
Why wouldn't it be the hipster's fault?
On the flip side I now live in a country where the law guarantees public access to the river running alongside of my property. The locals don’t actually know how the law works, only that they are supposed to have river access. So they jump fences, walk through my property, steal things on their way by, cut down my trees to make smokey fires for their bbq, piss and shit all over, leave empty beer cans and bottles and trash on the riverbank or in the river, and then swear that it’s their right to do so. So when they enter my property, they get a shotgun in their face and they are encouraged to find one of the myriad of other points of entry to the river. The law says they can access the river, but not that they can trespass to do it. Enter from the abandoned field on the other side. It’s the same river.
The public don’t respect public places. They treat them as private places they can destroy and leave. The article talks about the place where homeless people would shelter from the wind but fails to mention that they also piss there until the spot reeks from 3 meters away. Is that their right too?
> I had a freight elevator door pin my hand and damage a bunch of nerves while I was helping someone move furniture into his illegal Brooklyn loft. I got $50k for it.
You were doing something illegal, got injured, and sued? And you say "the system is broken"? The system is broken because of behaviour like yours
I lived in Bushwick for a year and a half, never met my landlord, and I'm sure the building was breaking at least a dozen laws, but it was relatively affordable so no one really asked questions.
Nor was moving stuff in it.
Only the occupation of a non-residential space residentially was.
At least, that's what my brother told me, who lived in such an apartment. It was an eccentric place, but everything seemed up-to-code.
In most states you can use deadly force to protect your life, not your property. If some dude come in your place to steal a TV and you shoot them in the back with a shotgun of course you will get sued.
Actually in most states you can use deadly force to protect your property, what is generally not permitted is using deadly force to protect others property.
Home invasions and burglaries where someone is home are so rare where I live they make the state news when they happen.
The only time I've heard of someone being successfully sued was after executing a home invader who had already been shot and lying unconscious/dead, all caught on camera. Course they also went to jail.
You CANNOT use lethal force to protect property. However there is a special case called Castle Doctrine where a home invader automatically meets the "WILL" condition. A reasonable person can assume that a person breaking into their home WILL kill, kidnap, or maim them. The capability part is usually satisfied as well. However this is why you can't shoot through your front door when someone is trying to break in. You have no reasonable belief that they can hurt you if there is a physical barrier between you and them.
EDIT ADDENDUM: You totally CAN shoot someone in the back if they have invaded your home and you catch them unawares. (This isn't a good idea if you can't identify them as an intruder, but legally speaking you are in the clear) However if they are fleeing they are no longer an imminent threat.
In Maryland, Castle Doctrine isn't enshrined by law but is held by precedent and still requires "reasonable belief" of harm.
In Texas, someone entering your property illegally can be met with lethal force in most circumstances, and some property can be protected with lethal force (with more than a few caveats, including the time of day).
Lethal force is lethal force. Whether you shoot someone in a cowboy duel face to face or smack them with a lead pipe when they are unaware doesn't overwhelmingly matter (putting aside reasonable belief issues that might arise).
Also hopefully to make sure that someone doesn't put themselves into a situation where they can be legally killed by someone else. Being mindful that entering someone's home unannounced or brandishing a knife or fists to intimidate that trespasser on your back 40 could result in your death.
These requirements are from old style common law. I should have mentioned that it varies a lot from state to state and even under varying circumstances. For instance, if someone is 20 feet away from you, holding a knife and threatening to kill you, can you shoot them without going to prison?
The question is, does a "Reasonable Person" have a belief that the man holding a knife at 20 feet is able to kill you before you can react. He can't reach you right? But how long does it take a person to cover 20 feet and stab you? Could you react in time? How do you know that he could have covered the distance before you could draw your weapon? Can you beat that brandishing charge if you don't shoot?
Well if you point that gun at him and didn't know how fast that person can cover that 20 feet at the time then it isn't admissible as evidence for your legal defense to prove that a reasonable person would believe the person CAN kill you. Instead the DA will just say "He was 20 feet away!" and the jury will put you in jail because you didn't have the training or evidence that you KNEW he could cover that distance in less time than you can draw.
IMPORTANT: If you are willing to use deadly force, and arm yourself to do so, then you should be trained to do so legally. Not relying on rumors and advice of Hacker News commenters!
You're on the internet holding forth on when/how to "use deadly force, legally", eh?
Are you a lawyer?
If you are an armed citizen please seek training in how to safely and legally use your weapon. Knife, gun, batons, or even less than lethal weapons included. It could keep you out of prison.
A better thing to say before giving such advice about home defense would be to preface it with: "In a home invasion it is always better to take your family and hole up while waiting for the police rather than trying to confront the burglar."
Maybe I should just avoid commenting!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_shooting_controversy
Literally shot someone in the back while they stole a TV. 911 even told him not to do anything, don't shoot anyone, just stay inside, cops were on the way. Shot the guys anyway, and got off... because Texas. The wiki article doesn't say it, but IIRC they dropped the TV due to the shooting and it was broken.
I get being angry at them for the stuff they do while on the river or getting to it but this interpretation is bullshit. If they're allowed access to a location but every piece of abutting property is owned by someone to exercise that right they HAVE to trespass somewhere.
Could you expand on this a bit? What is an illegal loft in this context? Was he squatting there or was the loft just not zoned residential? Were you allowed to use the freight elevator, or was that trespass?
You would be reasonable to think that, but it's pretty much up in the air who gets held to account. It depends on the specifics of the situation, the lawyers of both sides and the stakes involved.
This is a problem with abandoned heavy industrial facilities. The owners make themselves generationally rich from that business. And then, when it loses profitability, they close the facility and let it rot (perhaps changing the property ownership several times). A huge facility in a place where people live just rusting away to nothing, too expensive to demolish, unusable for other purposes, just sitting there as a sign of that community's economic implosion. This is the kind of stuff that conditions people's judgment of the property owners. There is a reasonable point of concern there and it can pop out when somebody gets hurt exploring that place.