Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Adam H. Kerman" Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: What Did You Watch? 2024-05-02 (Thursday) Date: Sat, 4 May 2024 06:34:25 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 51 Message-ID: References: Injection-Date: Sat, 04 May 2024 08:34:25 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="996ed040b654c635fd3decdfd2b07a30"; logging-data="1138819"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18tislAyCxW9b74fvmRY3iN7DkwggD5E/o=" Cancel-Lock: sha1:RUOpYNX8x2kRRzXquaarn73YMSE= X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010) Bytes: 3271 Arthur Lipscomb wrote: >On 5/3/2024 9:17 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote: >> Arthur Lipscomb wrote: >> >>> Law & Order - "Castle in the Sky" - A homeless man and his daughter are >>> squatting in a penthouse and when the real owner shows up one night he >>> winds up dead. >> >> Everybody gets this wrong, including Steve Lehto in his videos. Living >> in a unit not yet sold in a mostly finished building is not squatting. >> It's trespass. Squatting has to do with a hostile encroachment upon >> ABANDONED land after a number of years which varies by state. Getting >> the semantics right makes a huge difference in these discussions and who >> can be arrested for what. >> >> The fact that this guy was HIRED as a security guard to PREVENT trespass >> is evidence that the property wasn't abandoned and that he cannot >> convert it for his personal use. >> >>> Fortunately for the man his daughter can alibi his self >>> defense claim. Doesn't the defense have to reveal that defense ahead of >>> time? Doesn't matter, this is Law & Order. >> >> I don't know if notice is required to assert self defense at trial. >> >>> Unfortunately for the man >>> the writers are on the DA's side so they concoct a convoluted way for >>> the guy to be convicted anyway. I was half rooting for the guy to not >>> be convicted. >> >> Why? The victim did nothing wrong. The perpetrator was entirely in the >> wrong. > > >We didn't see the actual crime. So the self defense story the defendant >said was plausible. Then his daughter backed him up. So at that point >I'm thinking reasonable doubt. If he didn't have a right to live there temporarily and the victim had every right to be there, I don't see how he had a self defense claim even if the story were true. I understand the gun was pointed at both him and his daughter, but they're the trespassers. >Then the whole nonsense where the >daughter just happens to be at Ellenor Frutt's house when she >conveniently confesses she lied on the stand. And the judge let her >testify, apparently without rebuttal. The guy the girl was talking too >clearly disputed what was said otherwise he'd be the testifying instead >of her.