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" <ahk@chinet.com>
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: <v14kth$12o43$1@dont-email.me>
References: <UBI20240503@dont-email.me> <v1315q$kbjk$1@dont-email.me> <v132lu$klfe$1@dont-email.me> <v13v61$qm1a$1@dont-email.me>
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 <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>On 5/3/2024 9:17 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> 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.