Gang of Lithuanian squatters 'snatch ANOTHER home while owner is out

Originally posted by mryanbrown
reply to post by DaMod

 

I'm fairly confident the only states you can kill an intruder, are redneck states which disagree with human rights and Natural/Common Law.

Trespassing is trespassing, it's not directly a motive to MURDER someone. And a jury can still find you guilty despite the law.

edit on 23-9-2010 by mryanbrown because: (no reason given)

It is nice you stand up for minorities. Yet i find it reprehensible you would label an entire "state" as a "redneck state" because they don't follow what you call "natural/common law".

Did you know that natural/common law allows for killing someone who is in your home threatening you? There is no human rights violation for shooting a home invader.

I live in a state well known for shooting home invaders. Come in my house unauthorized, you MIGHT get warned to leave before i end your life. Too many people get their doors kicked in because the residents of that house do not defend themselves appropriately.

Call me a redneck all you want. My reputation on this site is solid, and I am as far from redneck as you will find. The next time you take comfort in saying that you stand up for minorities, remind yourself that labeling an entire, multimillion person segment of humanity as a redneck is no less bigoted. It might even be viewed as hypocritical.

Theres no justice like pistol grip pump justice.

also its not like he was out for like 30 mins and they snuck in he was gone for some time..

The pensioner, who suffers with arthritis, felt ill while he was out and stayed at a friend's house until he was well enough to return.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...

You don't have to kill them, but if they want to get violent, nothing wrong with shooting a leg off imo.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


You reputation on this site in is ruins...

Only joking my american pal, agree with everything you said

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by DaMod

 

So if I walked into your home uninvited, wasn't armed, posed no violent threat you could kill me?

The fact that you are in my home uninvited poses a threat to me and my family, unarmed or not.

if you walk in and aren't acting threatening, you will be asked to leave. If you do not leave, i will have my wife call the cops to tell them that the sooner they get there, the more likely you will only be bleeding and not dead. I will beat you mercilessly, with all the adrenaline that my nearly 400lb frame can muster as i respond to the basic biological "fight or flight" response.

If you are smart enough to leave before you head is removed by my hands, then i will cease my attack. I am not violent. Haven't hit anyone since i was a stupid child in stupid boyhood scuffles. I don't kill insects. However, i am no pacifist. I will defend myself, and I believe in using overwhelming force when defending myself. The one who pulls punches is the one that will end up as a victim.

One more thing to mention: while i have a couple of guns, i don't keep them even close to being able to be fired. I will not allow my 12 year old to make a stupid mistake that destroys people lives. If my home is invaded it is just me, my hands, and whatever i can pull out of my kitchen drawer (i obsess about my knives, as i am an avid cook. you can shave with them).

Like i said, i am not a violent man. But i am very private. having an intruder in my house is going to elicit a nuclear blast of a response from me.

reply to post by canuckster


The police only have criminal law to work with. Had the legal occupier been the legal owner, which the police would have been able to check with the land registry, he could have reported the crime, ie, illegal entry into occupied premises and given his consent for the police to enter the property without a warrant and escourt the illegal occupiers out. The officers attending would have the authority to use their discretion. Nowadays, this discretion seems exercised more with reference to equality laws than to fulfil that part of the police oath to uphold the law, defend the rights of the person and protect property. .

Originally posted by Erasurehead
This happened to a friend of mine from London. He moved to New York for a job and was renting out his flat. The guy he was renting to moved out and when he returned to London to check out the place squatters took over his flat and refused to get out.

He handled it by himself. He gathered a bunch of his mates and about 12 of them went over there and removed them from the premises with force. I can see this being a problem for someone in their 70's that doesn't have the strength to fight these losers. He mentioned something called squatters rights in the UK that I don't fully understand.

Can anyone from the UK tell me what exactly are squatters rights?

"Squatters rights", when they exist (they're are still a few countries in Europe where there's that kind of legislation, but don't ask me about the specifics for the UK), usually apply to situations where a home or building was abandoned for a long enough period of time, and is not claimed with valid proof by any owner, so there will be no legal conflict of property over the place. In that case, if some people move to an officially abandoned place can keep it as long as they occupy it for a minimum period of time. The Police usually makes sure that this period gets shortened before the squatters can legally call that place "home".

Don't look for any law that protects invaders against renters or owners, it's a distortion created by some posters here, especially the original poster. No government does that, it' would be beyond-FUBAR stuff.

Originally posted by defcon5
First thing these folks should do is call all their utility companies and have everything immediately shut off. See how long they can stand living in the homes without heat, AC, water, and electricity.

Lol I was just thinking the same thing. Might as well mess with them while they're inside your home. It's outrageous though that the government isn't "able" to do anything about it.

Originally posted by lucid eyes
Leftwing/Liberal Governments dont really believe in private property so they wont protect people who rent or own Houses.

This isn't about liberalism. This is about punks stealing someone's home. Don't be an instigator and derail this thread with nonsense buddy. Thanks.

Originally posted by Death_Kron

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by Death_Kron

 

The source had direct quotes from the police - feel free to contact the police and ask them about it.

Where is your proof for your case?

Non-existent, right?

Where is yours?

I can play this game all night...

See the thing is, the article (which you failed to read properly) had direct quotes from a senior police officer, saying that the lithuanians were as much a victim as the house tenants.

You have been asserting that they were involved - where is your evidence for this?

And when did you join the BNP?

I am a locksmith and I think this is really strange, usually when doing a residential re-key you can judge the circumstances and person you are dealing with enough to know if something fishy is going on before you even get started. I'm not familiar with UK law but I know in the US you are required to show proof of residence if a locksmith unlocks your house (but the article says they used a screwdriver to pry the door open, leaving marks.) but you know it would have to be a bit weird 1) they obviously did not have keys, which the locksmith would ask for. That's a red flag. 2) there would likely be family photos around the house. None of the people there would be in these photos. I don't know, it just seems to me unless the locksmith was brand new, he would ask for some type of proof before going on with the re-key, unless of course he was in on it.

Also, whats stopping the rightful tenant from doing the same thing to get their house back? Scope it out, when they leave, do it up! < -- edit: Nevermind.

But are the people occupying the house so unreasonable that they cannot have a talk with the rightful tenant and work something out? Surely they have some record of who they paid money to?

Here's an idea: stop being spineless pussies and forcefully take your home back. wait outside with a weapon, preferably a gun, but I know many countries like to keep their public helpless so its not always an option. Either way, call some family, friends, neighbors, and break back in and literally beat every single "squatter" within an inch of their life. I'm talking broken bones and choking on teeth, then see how many homes those people want to try to steal. This all seems a bit retarded as is, something seems fishy.

reply to post by budski


Where is your evidence that they weren't squatters? (apart from the article one minute your using to back up your agument, then next your contradicting)

I have been unable to find any legitimate news sources on this. Only satire sites with the full daily mail artical.


www.thespoof.com...

When the local council were contacted for a comment, the phone was answered by somebody with a heavy Lithuanian accent and very poor English. He did, however, manage to ask if we knew where he could buy some 10 year old girls.

Right....

Originally posted by Shark VA84
Here's an idea: stop being spineless pussies

Blunt, terse, crude, and somewhat vulgar.

But it sums up my thoughts very well.

I would be ashamed to have everyone know that I was so easily pushed around by random strangers.

Like i said, i would have my wife contact the police. But that is more for THEIR protection than ours.

reply to post by Cyprex



I didn't even need this story to know that is happens. And not just the UK.

Did you know that if you run a hotel, and someone has been there for 30 days, you cannot make them leave without eviction proceedings?

Squatters rights is something i have no problem with if the place they squat isn't being serviced by the utilities. Utility service, to me, shows that it is being lived in. I can still tell you that if you squat in a rent house that i own, i will beat you mercilessly until you are out of the house, then i will throw your crap out on top of your body. Of course, after I have told you to leave. If you come in between me and my ability to support my children, you will not be treated well. Even if you are family (i have fired my own sister for absenteeism)

Being the owner you would call it a burglary and not squatting and report it to
the police as such.

If the police checks on the tenants, they must open the door and you move
into your house and stay there.

The squatters cannot acquire any title to the property, because the sales
or leasing contract is invalid.

I doubt that I could not cancel at once all my utility contracts, if contractual
conditions permit immediate resignation.

The "squatters" would soon be aware that someone is still living in the house.

reply to post by Yissachar1

That is what Anarchy is.
That is why people fear Anarchy more than Tyranny.

haha nice one, that is exactly what I would do. But poor 72 year old guy...he will have to go the legal route I guess.

See this link :

www.landlordzone.co.uk...

It does not matter how loudly the Lithuanians attempted to claim squatters rights, they had no legal right to occupy the property. Once they were removed from the property, they had the legal right to 'present' as homeless to the local authorities housing needs department. The local authority then had a duty to investigate their need and either accept them onto the housing waiting list or provide them with advice and advocacy for housing in the private rented sector. Whilst the investigations are ongoing, the local authority has a duty to provide temporary accommodation, sometimes in the private or not for profit sectors and sometimes in purpose built council owned and run hostels etc. Private landlords and letting agencies are often used by local authorities to provide temporary housing to waiting list applicants.

Had the property not been legally occupied, they may have been able to claim squatters rights. The 2008 Housing and Regeneration Act reduced the rights of squatters, abolished the status of tolerated trespasser for former secure tenants and makes it more difficult to claim adverse possession (outright ownership of any land that a squatter has peacefully occupied unmolested by the legal owner of the property or his legally appointed representatives).