8 ms·

Not in the US. The property owner is liable for injury in the property even if the person was trespassing or committing a crime. People have legally shot intrud

by oskapt 7y ago

Not in the US. The property owner is liable for injury in the property even if the person was trespassing or committing a crime. People have legally shot intruders in their home and then been successfully sued in civil court for the injuries to the intruder. 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. I carried $1M liability insurance on my Brooklyn townhouse because some visitor could slip and fall and sue me for all sorts of hardship. The system is broken. 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?

dbatten 7y ago
To clarify... in the US, the property owner can be held liable for injury that results _from the property owner's negligence, etc._ even if the injured person was trespassing or committing a crime.
circlefavshape 7y ago
Wait > 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
- reificator 7y ago
  Yes. That's why they told the anecdote.
- taxidump 7y ago
  The apartment was illegal, possibly not zoned for residential or not up to code. The act of helping someone move would not be illegal. He had every right to sue.
- kempbellt 7y ago
  Much of Brooklyn's "residential" offerings aren't legally residential. They're old commercial buildings that landlords have cheaply repurposed to get a piece of the rising demand in housing. 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.
  - teslaberry 7y ago
    thank god people break the law or you'd be broke paying rent you couldn't afford, or homeless. the law is fucked in part. and it works in part. where the law breeds problems, lawbreakers sometimes provide solutions.
- Scoundreller 7y ago
  Being in the elevator wasn’t the illegal part though. Nor was moving stuff in it. Only the occupation of a non-residential space residentially was.
- frosted-flakes 7y ago
  "Illegal" apartments in converted warehouses are very common in Brooklyn. Supposedly, the city turns a blind eye to them. Once someone lives there, they can't be evicted, even if it's not a legal residence. So renovation works happen without a work permit. 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.
- deleted 7y ago
lm28469 7y ago
> People have legally shot intruders in their home and then been successfully sued in civil court for the injuries to the intruder. 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.
- throwaway_tech 7y ago
  >In most states you can use deadly force to protect your life, not your property. 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.
- merpnderp 7y ago
  In some locales if someone is in your home while you are there, regardless if you entered after them, they're a danger to your life and it is permissible to use deadly force. 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.
- foxyv 7y ago
  In order to use deadly force, legally, you have to meet three requirements. A reasonable person must believe that the other person CAN hurt or kill them. They must have a reasonable belief that the other person WILL hurt or kill them. Finally that threat has to be imminent. You can't go somewhere else and shoot someone because they say they are going to come kill you and you know they have a gun. 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.
rtkwe 7y ago
> The law says they can access the river, but not that they can trespass to do it. 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.
opo 7y ago
>...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. 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?

by oskapt 7y ago

dbatten 7y ago

To clarify... in the US, the property owner can be held liable for injury that results _from the property owner's negligence, etc._ even if the injured person was trespassing or committing a crime.

circlefavshape 7y ago

Wait > 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

reificator 7y ago
Yes. That's why they told the anecdote.
taxidump 7y ago
The apartment was illegal, possibly not zoned for residential or not up to code. The act of helping someone move would not be illegal. He had every right to sue.
kempbellt 7y ago
Much of Brooklyn's "residential" offerings aren't legally residential. They're old commercial buildings that landlords have cheaply repurposed to get a piece of the rising demand in housing. 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.
- teslaberry 7y ago
  thank god people break the law or you'd be broke paying rent you couldn't afford, or homeless. the law is fucked in part. and it works in part. where the law breeds problems, lawbreakers sometimes provide solutions.
Scoundreller 7y ago
Being in the elevator wasn’t the illegal part though. Nor was moving stuff in it. Only the occupation of a non-residential space residentially was.
frosted-flakes 7y ago
"Illegal" apartments in converted warehouses are very common in Brooklyn. Supposedly, the city turns a blind eye to them. Once someone lives there, they can't be evicted, even if it's not a legal residence. So renovation works happen without a work permit. 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.
deleted 7y ago

lm28469 7y ago

> People have legally shot intruders in their home and then been successfully sued in civil court for the injuries to the intruder. 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.

throwaway_tech 7y ago
>In most states you can use deadly force to protect your life, not your property. 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.
merpnderp 7y ago
In some locales if someone is in your home while you are there, regardless if you entered after them, they're a danger to your life and it is permissible to use deadly force. 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.
foxyv 7y ago
In order to use deadly force, legally, you have to meet three requirements. A reasonable person must believe that the other person CAN hurt or kill them. They must have a reasonable belief that the other person WILL hurt or kill them. Finally that threat has to be imminent. You can't go somewhere else and shoot someone because they say they are going to come kill you and you know they have a gun. 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.

rtkwe 7y ago

> The law says they can access the river, but not that they can trespass to do it. 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.

opo 7y ago

>...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. 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?