Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A stranger secretly lived in my home

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 199 posts

Re: A stranger secretly lived in my home

#131

Post by atatatat »

frosted-flakes wrote: post #121
kennywinker wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they lived together there? Even when it's under the status of a romantic relationship, that's still at least partially a tenant-landlord relationship and as such the tenant has rights. Setting aside all the gender politics - you don't get to evict a tenant at a moment's notice. And yeah, he got evicted sorta. But he still owns the house. I'm not saying it's an ideal situation... but given the tenant landlord powe…

I'm trying to get this straight. If he owns the house and lives there, then why do his tenant's rights supersede his own? The tenant might live there and thus has certain rights, but so does he .

Not if he's determined to be an aggressor in the eyes of law enforcement in the (at least, US) jurisdiction.

Re: A stranger secretly lived in my home

#132

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC »

hellbannedguy wrote: post #116
jacquesm wrote: post #99

I had a tacit agreement with a homeless guy I discovered one day sleeping in my car. I'll keep the doors unlocked and you don't mess it up and by 7 am you're gone. He was by far the best tenant I ever had, we did this for close to two years and then I moved. The area where I lived was an older industrial zone in the East of Amsterdam, there wasn't a whole lot around there other than a salvation army post and I figure…

I did a similar thing in San Francisco when working at the ballpark. Someone smashed my window, and someone stole my radio. (I knew the cops wouldn't do anything besides laugh.) Didn't care about the radio, but that window bothered me. I decided to keep the doors unlocked, and carried a portable radio to work. (Too cheap to pay for parking.) I put a sign on the rear window, "Please go ahead and sit in the truck, or s…

> I think my truck was being used as a drug drop,

That could actually end up getting you in legal trouble, and at the least get your car seized.

Re: A stranger secretly lived in my home

#133

Post by atatatat »

xnyan wrote: post #117
corndoge wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The pendulum needed to swing toward protecting women by default He owned the house. If she felt in danger, the cops should come and escort her out of the house that doesn't belong to her. I don't see how your story is related to this.

If you legally live in someone’s home, in most jurisdictions (in the US) then you have at least some rights even if you don’t pay rent. The alternative is that one partner can abuse the other, then throw them out on the street if they wish or if the victim complains. I think it would be better if there was a real third option, but I’m not aware of it.

Reclaim any of the 51+% of our federal budget on weapons we either don't ever shoot or leave in the desert,

use the reclaimed former tax revenue to maintain separate apartments longer, even if just a bedroom one rents.

Re: A stranger secretly lived in my home

#134

Post by [deleted] »

jacquesm wrote: post #120
itwy wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's hilarious. How did the rest of the conversation go?

I just dropped him off at the nearest light. He would leave a small bag in the car from then on so he didn't have to lug all his stuff around. This was around 1989, the location is Veemarkt in Amsterdam ('Veemarkt' is dutch for cattle market). Back then homeless people in Amsterdam were fairly rare, now there are 100's of them.

[deleted]

Re: A stranger secretly lived in my home

#135

Post by snypher »

morpheos137 wrote: post #128
jacquesm wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither are all people that are housed normally.

True but your property should be your safe space. You are free to welcome homeless into your home or car if you want but understand that by doing so you are taking a risk.

Replace 'homeless' with 'people' and I totally agree.

Re: A stranger secretly lived in my home

#136

Post by ModernMech »

nsxwolf wrote: post #95
whirlingdervish wrote: post #24

A couple years ago one of the devs I work with came in to the office very early for some reason and discovered a man sleeping in one of the conference rooms. After the fact we discovered that an emergency exit door wasn’t locking properly. He didn’t take anything even though he could have easily made off with tens of thousands of dollars of electronics. He just needed somewhere to sleep.

He also might have attacked or raped someone. That is not a safe situation. It’s not just about property.

90% of victims of rape and sexual assault know their attacker. The prototypical rapist is not a disheveled homeless man attacking you in the middle of the night. Rather, he is your boss, your friend, your relative, your date. If you find yourself warning people of rape and assault when talking about the homeless, think hard about why that is. Because going by the numbers, it’s the housed who you should be afraid of when it comes to rape and sexual assault, not the homeless.

Re: A stranger secretly lived in my home

#137

Post by ModernMech »

anm89 wrote: post #122
lisper wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is equally ridiculous. A group does not become meaningless once it gets beyond a certain size. The Republican Party is very large. That does not make it meaningless.

righ which is exactly my point. the republican party as a structure has influence. that does not mean being a member of it gives you any meaningful influence. the collective has distributed power. this is in the same way as how the government as a collective determines a lot of how our society runs without their being people who "control society" even though the government is made up of people.

It’s not quite distributed though, it’s concentrated into a few hands, and we can name those individuals. Those hands passed a tax bill in 2017 that sent 80% of benefits to corporations and the top 1% of Americans. It was the only major piece of legislation they passed after getting into power between 2017 and 2019. That was a choice as to how they used their power, and they used it to help the richest Americans. That’s what people mean when they say “the people who structure society”.

Re: A stranger secretly lived in my home

#138

Post by leppr »

elcano wrote: post #75
pen2l wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I visited SanFran a couple of years ago, and this reminded me of a homeless guy, in his late 60s I imagine, that I saw at a fast food chain. So I was I think at in-and-out, and a homeless guy was going through the garbage bin to find food. When I came over to dump my stuff in the bin, he was immediately considerate and stepped aside so I could dump the covers and napkins, whilst making sibilant sounds and keeping his…

I would assume that you would have to very mentally stable to resist all that humiliation without going nuts. I have a friend that wasn't homeless, but all unemployment money was used on rent required to keep his shared custody (without an apartment to house the kids, you cannot have custody). He always was clean and used good clothes, but he made the line with homeless people to get free food daily. Otherwise he wou…

> He always was clean and used good clothes

An alternative explanation could be that the women thought he was abusing the service to get free food even if he didn't need it, and thus put on some faces that he misinterpreted.

Re: A stranger secretly lived in my home

#140

Post by powersnail »

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #70
vegetablepotpie wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but laws enforced selectively based on feelings is its own form of tyranny.

It can be but usually isn't. The value of a local, penalty-backed law is in it's ability to guide bulk behavior. These laws imply a bargain we make with our governments, that enforcement will be limited to the stated objective. Reducing traffic speeds by citing a few speeders - this upholds that bargain. Citing every possible speeder while those fines fatten the police budget is a gross perversion.

> Reducing traffic speeds by citing a few speeders - this upholds that bargain. Citing every possible speeder while those fines fatten the police budget is a gross perversion.

I don't know. I feel that the citing every speeder is overall better than selectively catching a few speeders. First, it's fairer, leaving less space for selective enforcement based on arbitrary criterion. Second, based on my experience on US highway, the latter isn't very effective. While I usually cruise at speed limit, vehicles rush past me at 80~90 mph every day.

I certainly don't agree with the idea that police should give fines as much as possible to make profits. But it's equally wrong to deliberately reduce the amount of enforcement, because less enforcement leads to less profit.

In my opinion, enforcement is enforcement; the profit-making problem shouldn't even be a consideration when we decide how enforcement is carried out. It should be dealt with separately.

Post reply on HN