Recent comments in /f/RhodeIsland

lecreusetpopcorn t1_j6vnmwi wrote

In most leases, you are required to notify your landlord of any occupant over the age of 18 who stays in your apartment for more than 8-ish days (I say “-ish” because every state is different). That doesn’t mean tenants do, but the rule is in the lease for these, and other similar situations. For example: one person (leaseholder) rents a unit (likely because the “occupant” wouldn’t qualify due to their credit, income, criminal background, etc.) and they (the leaseholder) either never move in, or are only in the unit sporadically and the occupant, (not technically a leaseholder and therefore not technically bound by the terms of the lease) is the main resident. Based only on my personal experience, these situations are usually a mess, and almost always end in damage (not only to the unit they occupy but others as well), violence or threats of violence, and an unbelievable waste of resources for a landlord/property management teams (who aren’t the ‘bad guy’ landlord). Are there times when it works out, sure. But more often than not, it ends in the courts, sometimes for years, which is an additional waste of resources.

0

Finnbalt t1_j6vmn8y wrote

You just made fun of the bloke's spelling mistake, now you're talking about Huns? Is Attila going to come back from the dead and raze D.C. to the ground if access to firearms and firearm accessories aren't restricted?

Do NYC and California have some sort of racist laws preventing miscegenation between normal people and Huns?

3

fishythepete t1_j6vlgr1 wrote

>I think you need to reconcile the fact that when you lease a property you no longer have full reign over the space.

That is not relevant here.

>Here the owner can’t consent to her b&e simply because she owns it, if the property is leased out.

This isn’t how the law works. There are undoubtably other crimes and torts the owner could be charged with here. That’s irrelevant to whether or not the castle doctrine could apply to the tenant’s self defense claims. RIs castle doctrine laws limit application of that defense to B&E cases as defined in the statute.

The owner did something wrong. That something wasn’t B&E, so the castle doctrine won’t provide a defense here.

>The tenant has a right to possession and use of the space.

Right. Again, other torts and crimes, not relevant to the castle doctrine. Which is what I was writing about. Specifically.

>Also, what the LL here is doing is illegal anyways there is no what are called “self help” evictions in RI, check the Landlord Tenant Act. See 34-18-44 about self help.

That’s probably why I specifically stated that the landlord was engaged in an illegal self-help eviction. Because they’re not legal. I mean, I’m guessing that was my thought process.

>Disclaimer: I’m a lawyer but don’t really do this work, but I definitely think your reasoning that LL can just consent away b&e is dead wrong.

Disclaimer: I’d say I think that you’ve been on the wrong end of “I’m a lawyer”ing me before, but a good lawyer does not just think, they confidently assert.

−5

weednpornnpolitics t1_j6vjmqa wrote

Eyyupp. Just like this new pistol brace thing where we in ri cant have NFA items...the atf's free amnesty tax stamp means nothing here. You'll see those cases getting prosecuted in the future too. Re the ghost gun thing here tho, clearly Mr. Watson opted to be judged by twelve instead of carried by six. Prohibition DOES NOT WORK. Of anything. Ever.

7

weednpornnpolitics t1_j6vjbb2 wrote

Can you post a technique vid to youtube on the mental gymnastics u use? Shits impressive. Tyrrany could mean the govt too genius...muskets were used to kill deer sure but we killed a lot of fucking english with them. Any fudd that argues civilian arms are just for sport needs to read a history book. You need to read several.

3

rick_n_snorty t1_j6vi38z wrote

If the fbi found your you were stockpiling Sarin gas, you’d be arrested for plotting a terror attack. You absolutely do not have the indiscriminate right to bear any armament I’m the US. And yes state laws can absolutely restrict banning any types of weapon.

Source: nyc hun laws, RI gun laws, California hun laws.

3

rick_n_snorty t1_j6vgkki wrote

Super seeds? Are those what they’re growing down the street from me and the federal government is doing nothing about it?

Any state can ban any type of firearm, it doesn’t matter if there’s an amendment about it or not. If you think otherwise, go buy a fully automatic m16 in RI and we’ll see how that plays out.

Laws change over time, the right to bear arms to fight a tyrannical government was a tad bit different back then. You’re saying musk, , North Korea, the Chinese, and saudis should be able to buy 100 acres in Nebraska, and start building thermonuclear weapons in the middle of the country and that’s totally fine because in America everyone has the god given right to bear arms? Bit different than the musket on musket warfare the amendment was made for, no?

5

Loveroffinerthings t1_j6vf867 wrote

How European sounding! Remember having to use the toilet so bad and fumbling for a coin, then to find out the tp was a grab before you enter situation.

2