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.

  • crystal@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    31
    ·
    1 year ago

    People should be allowed to occupy and damage any property they’ve set foot on once, not matter how expensive

    • hglman@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • crystal@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • mathemachristian[he]
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      We need to throw people on the streets otherwise we risk damage to private property!

      • crystal@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Famko@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          But people these days can’t even afford the cheapest apartments, so what’s the point of having “better” apartments for the minority?

          • Maalus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            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?

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            By definition, people can afford the cheapest apartments, because that’s how those apartments get rented at that price point.

            • mathemachristian[he]
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

        • mathemachristian[he]
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          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…

      • Meowoem@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        So I can just take all your stuff and you’re fine with it because fuck private property?

        There are huge problems in the current system but just letting the person with the most guns do whatever they want is not a good solution

        • mathemachristian[he]
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You could be helping hundreds of people in poor countries survive, but you’re not. You should be selling your property and donating the proceeds to UNICEF or similar.

            • mathemachristian[he]
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Do you not understand the difference between taking from someone that’s hoarding a resource required by society and taking everything someone owns?

              • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You have more than you need, though, and someone else needs it more than you do. You don’t have to give up everything you own, just everything in excess of your need.

                • mathemachristian[he]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  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.

                  • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    You said

                    Private property should not be of a higher concern than someone having shelter.

                    Your private property could be used to help house someone much more in need than yourself.

    • ikiru@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • crystal@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.