Sencuk and one of Toma’s roommates got into a physical altercation, leading to Sencuk filing an emergency protective order against Toma. The judge granted the order, which forced Toma to stay 500 feet away from them — and his own home, effectively leaving him homeless.
But it was what happened. All because the courts believed Sencuk (the squatter).
It’s kinda interesting situation. In a situation like this, what is the best course of action? If someone in a household is assaulting another, one party is going to end up kicked out when th law gets involved. So why should ownership be a mitigating factor?
Yeah it’s a messy situation that the media is trying to spin into some rage-bait headline. A similar scenario would be a husband beating up his stay-at-home wife, who then gets a protective order against him. The headline here could also read “squatter uses courts to get homeowner kicked out of his own property” and half of the people who see it would skip reading the details and start ranting about “the rights of homeowners!, this country is going to shit!, and blah blah blah.”
Sigh. You’re right. It’s not like the “physical altercation” didn’t occur because the guy who got assaulted was trying to claim squatter’s rights and wouldn’t leave the house that he didn’t live in.
What does that even mean? Is that a roundabout way of saying that this guy deserved to be assaulted and that a homeowner can, or should be able to, physically harm anyone in their home for any reason simply because they own it?
You sure the guy who was assaulted didn’t live there? It seems they quoted the homeowner right in the headline as saying “I let my friends live in my garage for months.”
It seems like you’re Just making up your own story and your own facts at this point.
You know the system is genuinely broken when people can “squat” and force you out of your own home; while you’re still living there.
That’s not what happened, but I agree with you on the thought.
But it was what happened. All because the courts believed Sencuk (the squatter).
That quote says nothing about squatting. it mentions a protective order being issued after a physical altercation occurred.
It’s kinda interesting situation. In a situation like this, what is the best course of action? If someone in a household is assaulting another, one party is going to end up kicked out when th law gets involved. So why should ownership be a mitigating factor?
Yeah it’s a messy situation that the media is trying to spin into some rage-bait headline. A similar scenario would be a husband beating up his stay-at-home wife, who then gets a protective order against him. The headline here could also read “squatter uses courts to get homeowner kicked out of his own property” and half of the people who see it would skip reading the details and start ranting about “the rights of homeowners!, this country is going to shit!, and blah blah blah.”
Sigh. You’re right. It’s not like the “physical altercation” didn’t occur because the guy who got assaulted was trying to claim squatter’s rights and wouldn’t leave the house that he didn’t live in.
What was I thinking? 🤦♂️
What does that even mean? Is that a roundabout way of saying that this guy deserved to be assaulted and that a homeowner can, or should be able to, physically harm anyone in their home for any reason simply because they own it?
You sure the guy who was assaulted didn’t live there? It seems they quoted the homeowner right in the headline as saying “I let my friends live in my garage for months.”
It seems like you’re Just making up your own story and your own facts at this point.
Squatting has nothing to do with your quote, or anything else.