Details are still scant, but…
“I mean, he had a lot of ammunition in that house, and certainly … all of us were strapped, you know, with ammunition, and we were calling for additional ammunition,” Kraus said. “Like I said, we tried to give him every opportunity to come out.”
…I’ll go way out on a limb and suggest that this could’ve been handled better.
People should have a home if the action here were to provide another housing option, then this wouldn’t have happened. Also seems the person likely had a traumatic reason for being evicted and needed help.
I agree. But I probably wouldn’t phrase that as “they could stop evicting people”.
Even if well implemented social housing existed, one should still be able to evict people from expensive property they aren’t willing or able to pay for.
Dude, shut the fuck up.
I hope you get to be in this dude’s situation one day and you have to take your homelessness with a please and thank you, sir, may I have another.
He occupied a house, not an apartment. He got evicted because he wouldn’t settle for less than a whole house.
I may be in this dude’s situation one day. And you know what I’m gonna do? Move to a cheaper apartment.
Where do you have that information? There was nothing about the reason for the eviction in this article or the one it linked to.
Here is a pic of the residence. Idk if rented or not but it is not small
And here is the real reason for the conflict
Source is the link to yet another article found within the linked article mentioned in OPs linked article. They post his address I snapped the Street View pic from that.
Indeed. If you want anything better than the cheapest apartments to exist, you have to be able to evict people who can’t afford more than the cheapest apartments.
But people these days can’t even afford the cheapest apartments, so what’s the point of having “better” apartments for the minority?
So instead let the people move into those apartments for free, damage them and then let them shoot at police trying to evict them?
Would you be willing to part with your life savings to give them to me just because I left a comment to your thread? If not, why are you expecting other people to part with the houses they built with their life savings for some random bloke?
By definition, people can afford the cheapest apartments, because that’s how those apartments get rented at that price point.
Do you not see the problem here?? Your definition only includes those able to rent. As soon as the price of the cheapest apartment rises anyone under that cutoff becomes invisible to you.
Yes that is what happens when you have too little supply.
Fuck the children of poor people, idiots should’ve been working to supplement the families income if they didn’t want to be crammed into a room with their siblings. Lazy ass kids…
I love how you say this like it’s a crime against humanity lol
👍
Removed by mod
If it prevents someone from being homeless without risking someone else (or me) being homeless then yes. Private property should not be of a higher concern than someone having shelter.
Removed by mod
Do you not understand the difference between taking from someone that’s hoarding a resource required by society and taking everything someone owns?
Removed by mod
This is bad faith trolling. Youre conflating the private property corporations and the wealthy hoard, depriving people of vital resources for their own profit, with my personal property of a few spoiled apples that I wasn’t able to eat.
Me pinching pennies so I can donate even more is not going to make a lasting impact whereas disowning those willfully depriving others will.
Removed by mod
Personal Property is distinct from Private.
You’re literally advocating for stealing from one person to provide for another here so the question is apt.
and they gave the correct answer.
Some people should be allowed to fail.
Some people being anyone who is unable to pay rent?
Sure, I could conceive of a scenario where someone who couldn’t afford rent should be allowed to fail. Are you unable to?