Could you imagine if the thing that kills HOAs ended up being liability for the actions of their members?
Go Ralph go!
I’m a little hard.
That would be great, but police can barely take a person’s guns away if they aren’t actively involved in a crime. I’d be shocked if a court found an HOA to have that power. I’m not against it but I don’t even think the Supreme Court of 12 years ago would do for it, much less this Supreme Court.
It wouldn’t be “no guns”, it would be “carry this insurance if you have guns” and then fining the people who don’t or won’t carry the insurance.
I doubt that fine would be legal.
The most I’ve seen is just a standard requirement for a license/permit (i.e. legal ownership), and maybe restricting open/concealed-carry in the neighborhood (but outside the house. Inside your house is out of the HOA’s grasp, though.)https://vinteum.io/security/qas-about-guns-in-your-hoa/
Edit: Kansas actually doesn’t require any license or permit to buy or own a gun. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Kansas
HOAs implement illegal rules all the time. They were literally first used to end run discrimination laws. It doesn’t even have to be insurance, it could be something else to frustrate gun owners lives. That’s the beauty of selective enforcement /s
Illicit rule making being in their repertoire wouldn’t make it any more just (two wrongs, and everything) or enforceable, as the gun owner could easily just not abide by or pay it. Also, Making any regulation/fee or anything to “frustrate” gun owners could also be seen as harassment.
There is no indication that the guy ever used or brandished the gun outside his home, which is where the HOA’s jurisdiction would be. Like I said, the HOA can’t do a damn thing about what goes on inside someone’s home. If they were to try, it would fall flat the minute it gets challenged especially with Kansas being one of the states having a castle doctrine which implies the possibile use of a gun (i.e. deadly force) for defense.
The case is likely going to be about the castle doctrine and it’s limits on whether someone standing on your doorstep constitutes a threat, (which it doesn’t) along with trying to prove that the kid was trying to break in (this I doubt) which could justify an imminent threat.
I am in no way on the side of the old man. I actually think he was completely in the wrong (also got off way too easy) and the kid was legitimately just at the wrong house.
My opinion is the man should be evaluated for mental fitness and if unfit would be required to need a caretaker, of sorts. If no mental issues, be tried and convicted for the first degree assault (attempted homicide) charge.
The HOA however does not have any actual stake in it that I’ve found, as the kid was shot from behind the storm door by the old man who was inside his house.
It’s pissing into the wind to assume an hoa won’t do the wrong thing.
There’s existing mechanisms to enforce fines.
I’m not talking about this article just HOAs in general
Yes. I’m not saying that they wouldn’t try to come up with bogus/farfetched regulations, but they legitimately cannot do anything about what goes on behind closed doors in someone’s house. To do otherwise would be a breach in that person’s right to privacy. It’d be like an HOA telling you, you have to vacuum/sweep/mop every other day, otherwise you can be fined. (or saying you can’t have sex on Sundays)
HOAs do have some extralegal clout, but the right to privacy stops them from interfering in anything you do that isn’t openly visible. (i.e. Doing a meatspin in front of a window facing the street can be penalized, but taking a dump in your kitchen sink can’t, unless the sink is in front of a window facing the street and the blinds/curtains/shutters are open.)
Shooting your gun makes a loud noise that can lower property value hence gun use falls under hoa purview.
So HOA mandated suppressors… sweet.
Ah yes, let’s ensure only the well off can afford firearms.
You’re right. Let’s give everyone good free gun insurance. We can call it Otrumpacare
Ah yes, let’s ensure only the well off can afford firearms.
Let’s be fair, half the point of an HOA is keeping the poors (and ethnics, but they aren’t allowed to say that part out loud any more) out of your neighborhood to maintain property values. So your HOA requiring you to carry some kind of gun insurance wouldn’t be completely unreasonable, if you can’t afford it (or anything else they want) you shouldn’t be living under that HOA.
Also why I don’t live in an HOA, and having an HOA was a red flag when I was looking for a house.
Guns aren’t cheap. If you can buy a gun, and you can buy ammo, you can afford insurance. It’s only the well off who already can afford firearms so I don’t get what you’re arguing? You wanna give guns to poor people?
No, all of that is wrong, and yes, the poor people should have guns. Everyone has the right to self defense.
Guns can be cheap, ammo is generally affordable, and there could be many who could afford both but not insurance. $250 one time purchase versus $hundreds or $thousands annually.
Also, there’s no way in hell you could put a requirement to pay regular insurance costs as a requirement to exercise a Constitutional right. The courts would flush that down the shithole immediately.
Have you seen the price of ammo lately? That’s pretty much the system we have now.
I’d be shocked if a court found an HOA to have that power.
Courts have pretty consistently found that HOA’s have more power than local authorities. That’s why they can set their own laughably restrictive bylaws.
Second amendment violations may not fly, but that’s a constitutionality problem, not a limit specifically on HOAs.
I hate HOA’s, but some people like them. Regardless of how I feel about HOA’s I still think it’s dumb as hell that they should have any sort of liability for a member of an hoa doing something like this.
The percentage of people I know that like HOAs is absurdly small, including neighbors and acquaintances from the last HOA I was in. Almost everyone I know hates them but is forced to deal with them because almost every neighborhood has one. Towns require them for new zoning because it allows them to pass the buck on code enforcement and then a handful of people love them because it lets them power trip The vast majority are just stuck with them due to lack of options.
I’ve ran into a lot of people living in them who like em. Some people are just anal about wanting to only see trimmed uniform lawns and no trashcans or broken down vehicles anywhere near them.
I think it’s dumb to let others have a say in what color I make my house or how long I can have a car sit as a driveway ornament.
We specifically only looked for houses without HOAs, then during closing it was revealed that there was one the realtor “missed” because it was basically defunct. Within weeks of moving in we got a letter saying how the HOA was stepping up its game to make up for the last few years and it became the bane of our existence. One of the board members was obsessed with issuing citations and fining people for backing cars into their driveways because “the CCRs say that you can’t park a vehicle in an extreme state of disrepair for more than 48 hours so if you back it in I can’t see if it has a current registration sticker on the license plate.” The only people I’ve ever met that like them are control freak karens like that dude.
Fuck HOAs.
You should have bailed at closing and fired your realtor with prejudice. Most realtors are almost bigger pieces of scum than hoa’s. Taking like 12 grand each for doing up a bit of paperwork. You can pay a lawyer $1500 and find your own place on zilliw or Facebook marketplace. I bought my house in 2010 with no realtors or lawyers at all (seller also didn’t have one). Just met up at the bank I was getting the home loan through and filed some generic stuff. Done deal.
It wasn’t worth starting over again with the way the market was. It was Seattle area in 2017 where every sale was a bidding war. There are good realtors, that just wasn’t one.
Yeah? On a normal home purchase where the house is being looked at by the purchaser before deciding on it, what good is a realtor?
That, or a developer buys a plot of land, makes a neighborhood with some amenities, and then it’s damn near impossible to kill because of those amenities. My HOA is pretty lightweight - half our budget pays the trash bill. But we do have a few plots of land that belong to the association, don’t even have any structures on them, and if the HOA were to dissolve someone would need to assume responsibility for those spots. I can only imagine what it would be like if we had a pool.
Yeah, that part of the suit will fail. But I think it’s worth trying to expand the dragnet of responsible parties regardless. The more people at risk of going to jail for shootings, the more people might support gun control.
It isn’t the same as parents getting jailed for their kid’s mass shooting. But I kinda feel a little bit like it’s still worth trying just to increase a societal sense of culpability.
I 100% disagree. There shouldn’t be any sort of dragnet for a crime beyond the people who did it or planned it.
Where does it stop? Blame the auto manufacturer for making a fast car used as a getaway vehicle for a robbery?
Blame the knife manufacturer for a stabbing? Blaming the company that sold the knife manufacturer the steel blanks, knowing they were getting made into knives? Blame the mining company that sold the iron ore to the steel company? It’s all an idiotic well of useless accountability. No one else should be accountable outside of the stabber. Same for guns, ammo manufacturers, steel factories, etc.
You can commit crimes with almost anything. Maybe I’ll shove kleenex down your throat until you pass out and you can sue kleenex for it.
Good. Adults need to be responsible and held accountable for their actions.
Shh. If there’s one thing “responsible gun owners” can’t stand, it’s being held responsible.
Gun enthusiasts here, does me wanting to “disarm” people for breaking gun safety rules count?
Count as what? Being responsible? I’d say yes.
I meant taking their entire arm off so they cant make the mistake again.
Only if they get free bear arm transplants, so their constitutional rights are not infringed upon.
This might actually work. The Supreme Court says there’s a right to bear arms, but nowhere does it say we have a right to arms or other appendages.
This lawsuit is explicitly about the opposite of that, holding his neighbors responsible for his actions, as if he were a toddler and they his parents.
Removed by mod
Fuck off.
Because intruders always ring your doorbell before breaking in.
Not to justify the actions of the shooter, but ringing the doorbell before breaking in is definitely a thing. It’s a means of checking if the house is occupied - if you’re just trying to steal things, an unoccupied house is ideal, and if someone answers when you ring, it’s easy enough to make up an excuse and walk away.
A much better solution than a gun, though, is a security door (similar to a screen door, but more kick proof).
ringing the doorbell before breaking in is definitely a thing
It’s only a thing because that’s predominantly what “normal” people do. There’s plausible deniability, and it still doesn’t change the fact that almost all people who knock on the door are not breaking in
A security door is good too but tbh both is better. And 3" door screws and a kick plate. Of course that only saves you insofar as you don’t open the door for the threat, too.
Yep. I was robbed at knifepoint by a couple of goons. They knocked politely first.
Outside the door? Cop problem. Inside the door? Your problem.
that is definitely not the law lmao
It’s in the crime handbook under “must do”
I hope this 84 year old piece of shit doesn’t die before this case concludes. Hard to believe it’s already been more than a year since this happened.
Every time a case like this comes up I either think “wow, it’s been THAT long?” Or “wow, it happened THAT recently?”
What if he did it for the free nursing home aka prison. Pwn3d
I wouldn’t be shocked if somehow the kid lands in jail
Considering he’s black and in America, he has a good chance of that anyway unfortunately, often for some low-level drug crime that would have gotten a white person at most community service.
Removed by mod
Standing on someone’s porch is trespassing now? Better shoot the mailman.
Suing the HOA is an interesting one; I wonder if the rest of the residents in that HOA could sue as well, I mean, having a known psychopathic firearms enthusiast in the neighborhood must decimate the property values.
Maybe after the conviction they could have a bylaw like, “any owner housing a resident convicted of an armed assault will be fined $1,000 daily.”
I think the idea is that if that old geezer croaks while the court is twiddling their thumbs on this case, the HOA will at least still be there to pay…
I’m really liking the precedent this could set. HOAs like to wield government-like authority with none of the limits that actual government (is supposed to) operate under, ostensibly to provide a “nicer” neighborhood. And then a young man gets shot for ringing a door bell.
I ask all the other HOA residents of the nation: Are any of YOUR neighbors getting ready to tank YOUR property values like Andrew Lester did for his neighbors? If a resident of your HOA answers his doorbell with a hail of lead, and it makes the news like this one did, you think it’s going to be easy to find a buyer for your house?
There will still be his estate after he dies.
Anyways this is part of why I support a legal duty to retreat. If you can shoot anyone on your property some people will do shit like this
Last I saw I thought he was also criminally charged since this was well outside the scope of castle doctrine or no duty to retreat. Both of them require a reasonable threat which was not present.
Removed by mod
You’re right, I do hold multiple pro-social beliefs.
Saddens me to know NPCs made it to Lemmy.
Funny fact, “Stand your ground” is also the Law in Germany. And in 150 years of German Law there were exactly seven cases where “Stand your ground” was used to defend an violent act.
Because it’s extremely limited in scope with a corresponding duty to retreat or because there aren’t enough black people for racists to be scared of?
I don’t think fear of minorities is the reason. We have other optically different minorities around. Arabs, Vietnamese, Turks. On the other hand I think I have only interacted with one black person around here EVER. Which was kinda funny because he spoke heavy Bavarian dialect and had a perfectly German name.
While lots of people feel uneasy around Minorities, violence still is very low. To be honest, as a German I am more afraid of a left German punk or right German Skinhead than any other minority.
Sure, there are also Poles, Romanians and Italians but those are not visibly different
Make that bitch homeless. The only reason you should ever be homeless for, being a racist POS. Merica’s 🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲
I do agree that racism is rampart, but so is homelessness. You can’t think of a better punishment?
Dye their skin so they become the race they hate./s
Edit: ooh, and then have them deal with the cops, or try to get insurance or healthcare.
I think being homeless is one of the degrading things you can do to someone, especially on purpose.
I don’t think you understand homelessness. Forcing someone to be homeless isn’t a humiliating act. You might as well give the 84 year old man the electric chair.
I was born naked! gonna die naked!
Get em
Go for it, milk that old shmegeggie 'till the teats fall off.
This makes total sense, with the typical MO of a ne’er-do-well ringing the doorbell before trying to get into a building nefariously.
The law being challenged for those interested (commonly known as “stand your ground” law)
21-5222. Same; defense of a person; no duty to retreat. (a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent it appears to such person and such person reasonably believes that such use of force is necessary to defend such person or a third person against such other’s imminent use of unlawful force. (b) A person is justified in the use of deadly force under circumstances described in subsection (a) if such person reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or a third person. © Nothing in this section shall require a person to retreat if such person is using force to protect such person or a third person.
I personally think it is pretty obvious that there was not “reasonable” cause to shoot someone simply since they rang your doorbell, but now it is up to a jury.
I also doubt this would be in the headlines if it was white man shooting white man or black man shooting black man. This really just seems like race baiting which isn’t surprising in an election year I guess, moreso it’s disappointing.
Lester, who later said he saw a large Black man at his door and was scared, shot through a glass storm door and then shot Yarl once again when he fell.
I don’t think the media needlessly added race to it, the guys statement did.
Describing someone using their race isn’t racism
Making the story about race rather than “this old man shot this young man for seemingly no reason, old man bad” is, in fact, race baiting
This event happened days before another story like this- where some teens accidentally drove up the wrong driveway and the owner started shooting and killed one of them. Both stories showed the state of mind of gun owning homeowners when someone approaches their home. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/kaylin-gillis-shot-driveway-new-york-what-to-know-rcna80280
"A 20-year-old woman with dreams of becoming a marine biologist was fatally shot by a homeowner Saturday when the car she was in turned into the wrong driveway in upstate New York.
Kaylin Gillis’ death, which occurred days after 16-year-old Ralph Yarl was shot and seriously injured after ringing the wrong doorbell in Kansas City, has sparked a national conversation around gun violence as well as “stand your ground” and “castle doctrine,” both self-defense laws."
sparkeda national conversation [sparked] around gun violence as well as “stand your ground” and “castle doctrine,” both self-defense laws."this. This, is the headline.
The whole “black man killed by white man” is just race baity.
You’re hired
Heaven forbid the media spend time talking about the massive racism problem we have in America.
deleted by creator
If he saw a white man, well, he probably wouldn’t have shot, but he wouldn’t have said a ‘large white man’ if he had to describe it.
He’s explaining why he was scared, and felt “black” was an apt word to include in an explanation is telling.
Dude had a gut reaction to a strange person, in large part, by his own wording, because they were black. It’s pertinent.
I get it, sometimes the media does inject race of victim selectively when it might not be relevant. There was a shooting death in my area recently, and the story was lamenting about black on black violence, when a story almost exactly like it played out between white people a little while back and race wasn’t cited. But here, it’s pretty core to the story.
this old man shot this young man for seemingly no reason
That itself is reason enough for this story to go viral. The racial element was just the icing on the cake.
The idea is that it wasn’t for no reason, his comments make it pretty clear he’s uncomfortable around black people. Doesn’t necessarily make him a racist but certainly a bigot though perhaps of ignorance rather than actual malice.
Describing someone using their race when it is a clear way to discern them from a crowd of people is not racist; but describing someone by their race when it’s entirely irrelevant is likely driven by racism.
The kid being “black” in the statement adds nothing to the information. He could have easily said “I saw a large man at the door and I got scared” and it would not have been any different, since it isn’t like he is trying discern the kid from a crowd. “Black” is being used to justify his fear of the person, and this is inherently racist.
They’re pointing out the old man’s perception of a small child, like legit iirc the dude is like 5’6" and like 14 at the time that ain’t large.
Why is age more relevant than race?
“Describing someone by their race isn’t racism, unless it is in a headline, in which case it is race baiting because it is an election year.”
Except we’re not talking about someone who simply described someone’s race. We’re talking about someone who tried to murder a person because of their race.
I’m also relatively confident that it wouldn’t have happened at all had it been a white man ringing the doorbell, or a black man on the inside of that house.
Wild how the poster above terms suing a man for shooting you in an act of blatant racism as “race baiting” by the victim.
It’s like his brain is on backwards and he knows racism is involved, but he can’t acknowledge what actually happened so he has to blame the victim for it.
He’s not saying the victim is race baiting (which wouldn’t really make sense), he’s saying the media is.
No, he literally replied to me saying the victim is race baiting.
If a man ~50 years younger than me that I don’t recognize/know knocks on my door at night, regardless of his race, I would be concerned. Would I just shoot him? No. Would an 80 year old man just shoot him? apparently, I guess… But equating it to racism, without any evidence, is simple race baiting…
The old man is clearly in the wrong, that doesn’t mean he is racist just because the kid was black
I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and say he overlooked the “by the victim” and probably was talking about the media.
Your larger point still stands, that given the reported facts, it seems pretty apparent that the old man was scared by the person in large part because the person was black. I don’t know why he wants to die on the hill that race didn’t matter when the old man said seeing a large black man scared him enough to shoot.
“Large black man.” Checking the photo in the article yeah that’s a teen boy. Image search for “Ralph Yarl” kid looks even younger in more candid shots.
Fucking of course there was a racial element, you have to deliberately close your eyes to pretend otherwise.
If a man ~50 years younger than me that I don’t recognize/know knocks on my door at night, regardless of his race, I would be concerned. Would I just shoot him? No. Would an 80 year old man just shoot him? apparently, I guess… But equating it to racism, without any evidence, is simple race baiting…
The old man is clearly in the wrong, that doesn’t mean he is racist just because the kid was black
You had a convincing comment, up until the last statement where you lost the plot.
To me the key point was did the kid open the door? I’ve seen conflicting reports about it.
Also, I hate HOAs as much as anyone, but I have no idea how they are involved in this one.
He was shot through the glass storm door, which would have been outside the front door.
Perp opened the front door, saw the kid through the glass and shot him.
Not to mention, it’s incredibly common to open a storm door to knock. Even if he had opened it, that doesn’t show any ill intent.
This is why the Castle Doctrine is bullshit. Who the fuck cares if the kid opened the door? That’s not justification enough to shoot him.
This is why the Castle Doctrine is bullshit. Who the fuck cares if the kid opened the door? That’s not justification enough to shoot him.
Castle Doctrine only applies to someone entering your home against your will. So if the kid was shot outside the front door then Castle Doctrine doesn’t apply. If he was inside the home, then under Castle Doctrine it’s reasonable to assume the stranger invading your home doesn’t have your best interests in mind and that you don’t have a duty to flee from them but instead may defend your home as an extension of self defense.
Usually the line is drawn at the threshold - if they’re outside the threshold then Castle Doctrine doesn’t apply. So if he was literally shot for knocking at the door/ringing the doorbell then Castle Doctrine wouldn’t apply., but if he was shot while trespassing inside the home…
We were talking about a scenario where the kid opened the door.
As far as Castle Doctrine goes, that’s not really important. What’s important is what side of the doorway he’s on.
According to the law, it is. (Even without castle doctrine a random stranger trying to gain entry into your house is usually grounds for self defense).
If the kid didn’t open the door, then I agree with you. But even the kid admitted to at least grabbing the handle of the door. I’d personally never do that at stranger’s or even an acquaintance’s house.
From a moral standpoint, please don’t try to walk into stranger’s houses uninvited.
From a moral standpoint, don’t try to kill someone for opening a door.
They could be liable if, and only if they are proven to be be aware (or willfully ignorant) that the man’s general conduct/demeanor would indicate a proclivity to violence rather than him just being crotchety. Unfortunately, things like that can be hard to prove as they can require a lot of digging.
