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.

  • ikiru@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    66
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    …I’ll go way out on a limb and suggest that this could’ve been handled better.

    Yeah, I mean, they could stop evicting people and sentencing them to homelessness.

    That would be a start and would have avoided this entire thing.

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I mean the guy could have not spent all his money on guns and ammo and pay rent?

      Where are guns on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs do you reckon?

      • sudo22@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ammo costs far less than rent and lasts far longer then just a month when purchased.

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s also not essential, so…

          (I know, I know, it’s hard to admit that guns aren’t the most important thing in life for you guys)

          • sudo22@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You sound no different than boomers telling younger people to stop buying lattes and avocado toast to fix our financial burdens.

            (Under handed comments add nothing to the conversation, you just sound like an asshole)

            Edit: I thought this guy couldn’t afford rent and was another victim of the housing crisis, rather then just refusing to pay it (something about being a sovereign citizen). My bad.

            • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Dude, if you’re budget is so tight that you can barely afford to pay your rent then choose your priorities. For that guy it was guns > rent? He deserves zero pity if he gets thrown out on the street. Heck, gun nuts are all about individual responsibilities? Well that’s what individual responsibilities looks like and it looks like he just couldn’t accept it so he felt the need to shoot at the people coming to evict him.

            • SCB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Guarantee you that him just liquidating the guns and ammo would’ve been enough money for a new apartment or to pay his rent.

              Dude didn’t want to pay and wanted to fight the gov because he was a SovCit.

              Sources said Hardison believed he was a sovereign citizen, meaning he thought he was exempt from the law.

              A Channel 11 News photographer discovered a video of Hardison during a prior interaction with police in 2019. In the video, you can see a Moorish flag, which is flown by Moorish sovereign citizens.

              Hardison had a criminal history dating back to at least 2000.

              Source: further nested news links if you chase the articles back.

    • InvaderDJ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Agreed, but this is probably not the case to make the argument with. If someone has the guns and ammo to fight off police enforcing property owner rights (something they would be way more gung ho about than stopping a school shooter it seems) for six hours, they have the money to pay for rent.

        • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          How are you going to finance housing then? Honest question. Not everyone can buy housing outright. Lots of people are very poor at managing their finances. See, my mom for exhibit A.

          • ikiru@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Socialized housing that is paid through government funds and taxes.

            • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              We do need socialized housing, but the government doesn’t have the ability to construct and manage most of the housing. Too expensive. The bureaucracy would kill it, just look at what happened to the Soviet Union.

              My city can’t even build an apartment building without spending 8 years in design review. And they’re having a private nonprofit so ask the lifting.

              US real estate is worth around $43 trillion.

    • 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.

        • 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]@lemm.ee
                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]@lemm.ee
            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]@lemm.ee
            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]@lemm.ee
                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]@lemm.ee
                    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.

      • 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.