Submitted by phillycheeez t3_126uoag in philadelphia
Comments
Lorenaelsalulz t1_jeb1w3z wrote
I’m hoping this puts an end to her gravy train.
Johnnygunnz t1_jebcnet wrote
Lol. Ok.
I mean, I REALLY do, too. But... lol... ok. I won't hold my breath.
AbsentEmpire t1_jebuyio wrote
The only way gravy trains like this along with other corrupt and unethical city government deals are coming to an end is when we stop reelecting corrupt machine candidates, and only vote for people who pledge to reform the charter to end practices like this .
BureaucraticHotboi t1_jed230m wrote
With stuff like this, it only comes up when absolutely egregious situations arise and the public protests. The reason we have these “agents” is because until the 60s Philly had elected constables like the rest of PA. They were basically eviction mercenaries and the final straw was one selling the furniture of a destitute family that was evicted without cause and became a public outrage. This type of work is dirty and should only be carried out by public servants who answer to a public office that has the ethics rules of city government. Sadly the sheriff’s department is not really that either
Jericho-941 t1_jed87go wrote
I read that to the tune of Ozzy Osbourne's Crazy Train.
Badkevin t1_jebxudv wrote
Yeah, we are talking about the freeload squarer?
blodreina_kumWonkru t1_jeb9po3 wrote
Why was she even allowed to be awarded this contract given her husband's position?!
malkith313 t1_jebagis wrote
cause philadelphia /s
zoicyte t1_jebcn1z wrote
No /s needed.
cerialthriller t1_jebivzd wrote
Why would her husband even take that position if he couldn’t funnel money through his wife!
BureaucraticHotboi t1_jed2c0g wrote
This is one of those areas that is just such a dark corner of municipal government that only effects poor people so it hasn’t been subject to the scrutiny that the rest of our government (which definitely still has massive issues) has. This is old school corruption and abuse of power
[deleted] t1_jed8op0 wrote
[removed]
TheFAPnetwork t1_jeda27c wrote
Nepotism
porkchameleon t1_jeb10ur wrote
> Shuter was awarded the contract, which has paid millions of dollars in fees collected from landlords, in a private, noncompetitive process, the Inquirer reports. Her husband, David Shuter, sits on the municipal court and has presided over eviction hearings that have produced work for his wife's office, WHYY reports. Marisa Shuter's father, Alan Silberstein, formerly ran the municipal court system as president judge.
Corruption at worst, nepotism at best.
You also have lobbying legal in this country^TM that is essentially bribing your elected officials, nothing too shocking here (unless they broke the law; I don't think ethics committee would even bother).
VicWoodhull t1_jebtsro wrote
This has been known for a long time and allowed to continue
docterry6973 t1_jecw10e wrote
What? I refuse to believe that such corruption could exist in Philadelphia. No!
[deleted] t1_jeb0q2c wrote
[removed]
Ultimating_is_fun t1_jedizq9 wrote
Does corruption get easier to track down than this? It's literally a one step connection lol.
It's like playing connect the dots, and the goal object is a straight line.
Norman_Door t1_jebl2a6 wrote
Source?
VicWoodhull t1_jebu0u7 wrote
Norman_Door t1_jeec89s wrote
Thanks! Hadn't heard about this.
phillycheeez OP t1_jeblox8 wrote
Norman_Door t1_jeecdyw wrote
Thanks! Hadn't heard about this.
signedpants t1_jeb7nko wrote
Why are private companies in charge of this? Just random people with zero accountability measures carrying guns around?
memettetalks t1_jebbk46 wrote
This is the wild west society many people seem to want. No social contract, just people trying to make a buck. Lowest bidder is king.
LurkersWillLurk t1_jebd13m wrote
Sadly, the city Sheriff’s Office isn’t even much better
ScoutG t1_jebffg5 wrote
There’s a challenger running in the primary for sheriff. Michael Untermeyer. Seems unconnected to the current corrupt stuff that happens there. I’m voting for him if only to get the current group out.
ScoutG t1_jebfeka wrote
There’s a challenger running in the primary for sheriff. Michael Untermeyer. Seems unconnected to the current corrupt stuff that happens there. I’m voting for him if only to get the current group out.
MoreShenanigans t1_jebm5if wrote
What does the sheriff even do? I'm guessing they make sense in counties that have multiple towns and/or unincorporated communities, the sheriff can cover what the local police departments don't. But since the county = the city for Philly, what's the point?
Kodiak_85 t1_jebolca wrote
Transport prisoners, provide courthouse security, locate and arrest subjects with outstanding warrants and handle any civil law enforcement (like evictions normally, but not in Philly apparently.)
1up t1_jebprum wrote
Auctioning property to satisfy judgments is mostly what they with respect to civil judgment enforcement. They do kick people out of houses too but not for landlord/tenant evictions.
MoreShenanigans t1_jebrest wrote
TIL, thanks
IFSEsq t1_jec4r2y wrote
The sheriff also handles eviction.
[deleted] t1_jebnnxn wrote
[removed]
ArcherChase t1_jecj3yp wrote
Because private industry is the free market and always better than government. Don't you Capitalism?
OccasionallyImmortal t1_jecmhac wrote
This is true. No armed government employee has ever needlessly shot someone. This company (won't, but) could lose their contract over this. The police? Not a chance.
AbortedWalrusFetus t1_jecq2zi wrote
Counterpoint: unlike the police this person can actually get fired, and likely doesn't have qualified immunity. It's not much, but it might actually be an upgrade considering that.
BureaucraticHotboi t1_jed35v6 wrote
I could almost agree, but most of these guys are ex-cops and have basically no oversight except the company that was hired to do the evictions. I’d rather it was a public employee and honestly not sure it needs to be law enforcement.
AbortedWalrusFetus t1_jeez1tl wrote
I haven't really seen examples of public employees in Philadelphia held accountable for much. A private one can at least face liability. Normally I might agree with you, but the city government does not function normally or anywhere close to ideally
BureaucraticHotboi t1_jefq4he wrote
I will say the Inspector Generals office has actually weeded out most of the literal graft. I’m not saying their isn’t misuse of funds or other thing. But people are no longer widely taking bribes. Which is something lol
[deleted] t1_jebhmyt wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jebp4oa wrote
[removed]
JBizznass t1_jeay0zl wrote
Evictions can get real ugly real fast. I’ve had the displeasure of attending several evictions, like this is the day you are dragged out by the sheriff’s office and your stuff moved to storage evictions. They can get really scary really quick. The officers who do this work tend to be some of the most even tempered with nerves of steel folks I’ve ever encountered. They also tend to give people a lot of opportunity to do the right thing before any escalation takes place. I’m not saying this particular office did the right thing here since we don’t know the full story. Rather I’m saying I couldn’t hack it one day doing that job and I’m glad these folks are willing to do it!
kilometr t1_jeb6z5u wrote
Yeah. I would say that evictions are difficult and it’s lucky we don’t see this more often.
My parents used to rent out a back room studio to our house. We moved in part cause it was more trouble then it was worth. The unit was pretty affordable and I think Section 8 housing. I feel like the 8 years there maybe were like 2 forced evictions took place, along with a couple of tenants who left voluntarily. It was a small town so the police force would show up and make sure they vacated the property. I remember one time it involved my mom getting hit in the back with a pan and the tenant arrested. Usually if a forceful presence is needed, things likely are about to boil over.
Ultimating_is_fun t1_jedjau2 wrote
>I remember one time it involved my mom getting hit in the back with a pan and the tenant arrested.
Why do people suck? Like, I get that life situations can be a disaster. But if you don't pay rent and the evictions process unfolds over the course of months, why would anybody blame the landlord?
hairlikemerida t1_jeehdh9 wrote
As a landlord, everyone loves to hate us. I mean, I understand why. Easy target, economy sucks, and most landlords are the worst (we try really hard not to be). It's just frustrating that everything eventually boils down to people saying "Landlords are scum" to everything we do.
One of my tenants hasn't paid rent in months. We took a chance on renting to them as they were a young couple very close to expecting their first child. They didn't have much, no family to rely on. As a small family business landlord, we like trying to help people and we are able to do so every once in a while, so we approved them and their rent is well below market rate and we don't do increases. As their one year lease was nearing the end, I didn't want to renew (as they had consistently been late and owed back rent), but my parents did because they really wanted to help them. So we waived all of their late fees and let them use their last month's rent to catch up to be in compliance so the lease could renew.
Now they're four months behind with seven months left on their lease. We're in the middle of the Eviction Diversion Program right now. If the tenant owes less than $3,000.00, the City will pay their back rent, as well as an additional month of rent so the tenant has breathing room, which is very nice of the City, but we've been in this for almost two months and still haven't gotten anything.
Went to the building recently to perform the annual fire alarm test and I see a GoPuff order sitting outside with their name on it with a brand new $60 Bluetooth speaker in the bag, as well as other items. I brought the bag in so it wouldn't get stolen and I'd certainly never say something to them about it, but it really hurt to see that. I try and tell myself that they could've had a gift card or something, but they probably didn't.
I doubt that they'll start paying after we get done with the EDP. And we can't evict until three months after the EDP closing date.
ETA: Out of the $1,400 they've accrued in late fees, I've waived closed to $1,200 of them. I've stopped waiving them.
EmmaSchiller t1_jefxpis wrote
"It's just frustrating that everything eventually boils down to people saying "Landlords are scum" to everything we do."
​
But if you think you're one of the good one landlords, then this statement doesn't apply to you, so why do you get upset by it?
​
Is it because you know that making money off of a necessity is scum behaviour and that landlords ARE scum?
Ultimating_is_fun t1_jefpwve wrote
>It's just frustrating that everything eventually boils down to people saying "Landlords are scum" to everything we do.
If I were a landlord I'd try to discriminate based on how much reddit/Twitter the tenant uses. The echo chambers really affect people IRL
kilometr t1_jeel7ky wrote
I think so people just expect to be able to live somewhere for free. The women was agitated cause she came home to her stuff in bags outside on the curb. She wasn’t home during the eviction.
She eventually did come back later to apologize to my mom. But I feel that was to help avoid heavy charges.
T-rex_with_a_gun t1_jeckxuy wrote
exactly, but lets be real, the tenants have TON of notice its happening.
its not like its in the middle of the night drive by eviction.
they get 10 day notice to quite, court date, 10 day to move out willingly, and then a eviction notice.
RJ5R t1_jedgvbw wrote
This. Friend of ours had to evict his tenant in Mt Airy. Process took months from start to finish. Tenant knew well in advance. It wasn't like they pulled out with a moment's notice at 5am
Salt-3 t1_jedx2fw wrote
Sure it can get ugly and we don't know the full story but there really isn't ever a reason to shoot someone in the head as an officer (except like taking down a shooter). If they were coming at the officer they coukd shoot them literally anywhere else or perhaps use a tazer
NorthernLitUp t1_jeax5nj wrote
Not much to say about this until the full story comes out. Someone being threatened with deadly force (knife) has the right to use deadly force to defend themselves, but it's unclear at this point if that's what actually happened.
mennobyte t1_jebau82 wrote
So you're saying that if someone is subject to a no knock raid they have a right to use deadly force to defend themselves and will be legally protected?
NorthernLitUp t1_jebaza3 wrote
And the relevance to this article is......?
mennobyte t1_jebbfo1 wrote
The relevance is that the argument "you have the right to defend yourself if threatened" isn't one that exists as universally as you imply.
Also, it's reasonable to expect officers to have better trigger discipline than to knee jerk "they had a knife so their life is forfeit" as excuse for anything that happens.
Stak215 t1_jebfu8j wrote
Or here's a crazy thought, don't fucking pull a knife out on someone who is trying to evict you for not paying your rent to the tune of $8,000 after you already went to court and were ordered by a judge to leave the apartment.
You play stupid games you win stupid prizes.
mennobyte t1_jebgasw wrote
Read the article again. It didn't say the person shot had a knife. It said there was a scuffle involving a knife (they claim) but not who the scuffle was between or who was holding it.
Stak215 t1_jebnkvx wrote
Okay, keep living in that fantasy world of yours. The bottom line is, the people should have vacated the property as ordered by a judge instead of trying to figure out a way to screw over the landlord even more and creating issues and getting aggressive with the officer whose job is to evict them since they won't do it themselves.
They fucked around and found out and you want to somehow turn this around into it being the eviction officers fault.
mennobyte t1_jebqi5z wrote
The article literally says that there is no statement that the person who was shot had a knife.
And it was not an officer, as the article also made clear, it was an armed private contractor in civilian clothes.
If anyone is living in a fantasy world, it's not me.
Stak215 t1_jeca9lg wrote
The headline literally says landlord tenant OFFICER. That is his title to which I referred to him as. Then goes on to say allegedly the woman had a knife so my comments stand until the article is updated to say it was proven there was no knife.
You have a good night.
minze t1_jecdjuj wrote
From the article:
>Landlord-tenant officer shoots woman in head during eviction, police say
>A Philadelphia deputy landlord-tenant officer shot a woman...
>The incident took place inside the Girard Court Apartments in Sharswood shortly after 9 a.m. Lt. Jason Hendershot, of the Police Department’s officer-involved-shooting unit said ...
>Philadelphia courts rely on a private attorney, appointed by Municipal Court’s president judge and known as a landlord-tenant officer...
>This attorney deputizes private security contractors...
Not sure which article you are reading to say "it was not an officer, as the article also made clear, it was an armed private contractor in civilian clothes". Yes it was a private contractor but yes, they are an officer, deputized and all...as the article made abundantly clear
mennobyte t1_jecf1if wrote
They are not law officers (police) they are mall cops. They don't have the training, I'd say they're not accountable but neither are the police.
Saying officer confers them the status of being law enforcement. They were not anymore than blackwater is the us military
minze t1_jeevkls wrote
Agreed but they are recognized officers. there are many different types of officers that are deputized. Law Enforcement Officers are the ones we most commonly refer to but they are not the only types of deputized officers. Hell, we have multiples types of those around as well, Septa police officer, Temple police officer, but there are also non law enforcement officers around. Correctional officers, Court officers. So the blanket statement of "And it was not an officer" is totally incorrect. They are officers. they are not law enforcement officers (i.e. police).
themadcaner t1_jed9ooz wrote
You cannot read. Lt. Jason Hendershot works for the Police Department and made a statement regarding the incident - he is not the person involved in the shooting.
minze t1_jeeuw46 wrote
and that is exactly where reding comprehension comes in. Which department does Lt. Jason Hendershot work for? He works for the...the Police Department’s officer-involved-shooting unit.
No, he is not involved in the shooting. His department, the one that investigates officer involved shootings, is the one handling this. I knew it would be missed so I bolded that statement but apparently it wasn't enough for people to understand.
You are literally arguing that the person is not an officer because the department that is investigating it is the one that handles officer involved shootings.
Reading comprehension my man. reading comprehension.
[deleted] t1_jebpgpv wrote
[removed]
NorthernLitUp t1_jebc1uq wrote
What Does Stand Your Ground Law Allow
Provided that you are not engaged in criminal activity and you are not in possession of an illegal firearm, the Stand Your Ground law authorizes the use of deadly force to protect yourself from threats of force or bodily injury without being required to first try to escape.
In Pennsylvania, any person “has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and use force, including deadly force if . . . (he) believes it is immediately necessary to do so to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping, or sexual intercourse by force or threat.” See 18 Pa.C.S. § 505(b)(2.3) for the entire statute. The law further provides that in order to be allowed to “stand your ground” instead of retreating, the attacker against whom you are going to use deadly force must have a firearm or other lethal weapon that is visible at the time when you use deadly force.
mennobyte t1_jebcq2x wrote
I am well aware of what the law says. I am equally aware that when it is attempted to be used by citizens to defend themselves from the law, it is not applicable even if that person is a legal owner of a firearm and NOT the subject to the raid in question. Heck the cops can have the WRONG HOUSE and still punish the people defending their home. There's been quite a few high profile cases about this.
NorthernLitUp t1_jebd0v9 wrote
Ok but this is not that unless other information comes out. There are forums here for political discussion but that's not what this is.
mennobyte t1_jebdcxh wrote
I mean, you're the one who made the implication that the person who was killed was holding a knife. The article in question very specifically does not say that and explicitly says that information is not clear.
If we wait for information to come out, we wait for information to come out, but "That murder by a private citizen of another private citizen is a-ok" isn't really that decent of a default to take
Ultimating_is_fun t1_jedjo9d wrote
Cops get to go home to their families when their shift ends.
There's a fuck ton of issues with policing, but using deadly force when faced with somebody coming at them with a knife, for example, is not one of them.
mennobyte t1_jee5il1 wrote
It wasn't a cop.
And we don't know if the person shot was holding the knife.
And yes, using deadly force, even in that situation of it was correct, is a huge problem.
Ultimating_is_fun t1_jefpgcs wrote
>And yes, using deadly force, even in that situation of it was correct, is a huge problem.
You know how I know you don't work in a setting that might get dangerous?
mennobyte t1_jefpv8v wrote
you know how I know you don't know the stats for cause of death for most on-duty officers or the average amount of time lapsed between when an officer initiates in an encounter and resorts to lethal force?
BasileusLeoIII t1_jebcsn4 wrote
yes, their actions would likely constitute self defense
that won't be much solace to their loved ones though, because the police officers will turn them into swiss cheese
mennobyte t1_jebdlu5 wrote
I mean its not. When this has been tested they've lost that right to self defense pretty consistently. And the fact that the officers are not then charged with murder for killing someone who is exercising their lawful rights is kinda the problem
boytoy421 t1_jeblesh wrote
Iirc breeona Taylor's boyfriend wasn't charged for that exact reason
gereffi t1_jec3kk9 wrote
They should be, yeah. Are you saying they should be but are also upset about what this officer did?
mennobyte t1_jec47zx wrote
All we know is that the mall cop shot someone and claimed there was a knife but there is no news about who had the knife or even evidence there is a knife.
phillycheeez OP t1_jeaxsf5 wrote
Agreed, we don’t have the full story. That headline is crazy though. Pay your rent or get shot in the head!
NorthernLitUp t1_jeay81i wrote
People don't get shot in the head for refusing to pay rent or leave a place they're being evicted from. If that's what actually happened, that would be a headline for sure, but the story suggests there was some type of altercation which left the landlord-tenant officer with injuries. The headline seems like a deliberate attempt to stir up anger before anyone knows what actually happened.
CockercombeTuff t1_jeb2qvo wrote
It is definitely intentionally incendiary, but that's most media including the Inquirer. It wouldn't surprise me if the Inquirer wouldn't blink in rewriting the story to favor the officer under a certain set of circumstances, even if the important known details were entirely the same. That I don't have confidence in them (among many others) writing a dispassionate and just-the-facts news story is what frustrates me about them.
Away_Swimming_5757 t1_jebiu6c wrote
Sensational take... The more accurate way to state it would be: Pay your rent or get evicted.
phillycheeez OP t1_jebkm4s wrote
It wasn’t even a “take”, just a comment on the headline. You folks lit my ass up. I normally know when I’m going to get downvoted but definitely didn’t see it coming on this one.
EAGLESRCHAMPS18 t1_jecf993 wrote
Bc it’s a silly comment
worriedaboutlove t1_jebbyig wrote
Well, this is terrible.
NoWarButMyWar t1_jebf8yk wrote
The property owner doesn’t have a valid up to date rental license and has open L&I violations. Which judge signed off on this in the first place? It was an illegal eviction.
poncythug t1_jebrx90 wrote
The article states
"Court records show the landlord alleged more than $8,000 in unpaid rent, but ultimately reached an agreement with the tenants last May that no money was owed, the tenants would move out by January, and the landlord would make necessary repairs."
So I'm assuming the tenant didn't have an attorney and agreed to the deal in mediation which means the judge never even heard the case. The landlord's attorney likely knew they didn't have a case if what you said is true, and thus was willing to waive so much back rent on the condition that the tenant just surrenders the premises.
[deleted] t1_jeca8be wrote
[deleted]
NoWarButMyWar t1_jecqrbl wrote
What you posted is the source. The same source eviction defense groups use actually, the L&I site. This person was probably eligible for eviction diversion but the city does piss poor outreach in making that clear. You need a valid rental license to even file an eviction, but people still get evicted extrajudicially or sign over their right to fight it in court in exchange for rent forgiveness. End of the day someone was SHOT IN THE HEAD for refusing homelessness.
porkchameleon t1_jeb0fai wrote
A pretty awful situation pending additional details.
Although, I can't get it into my head how one expects to live on someone else's property without paying rent (in some cases for years). Forced evictions is some next level shit, so it really must be some serious delinquency (and tenants in question essentially held the owner hostage, according to the article).
Pay your bills.
FDE3030 t1_jeb8dr9 wrote
> I can't get it into my head how one expects to live on someone else's property without paying rent
Because they can.
A law that helps keep a hard working single mom in her home also helps keep a scummy tenant in the home that just doesn’t want to pay.
ScottEATF t1_jef2hw0 wrote
The owner who doesn't have proper licensing and hasn't kept their properties up to code.
So the owner hasn't been paying their bills here either, but you didn't seem to want to touch on that?
porkchameleon t1_jef77vd wrote
> The owner who doesn't have proper licensing and hasn't kept their properties up to code. > > So the owner hasn't been paying their bills here either, but you didn't seem to want to touch on that?
What are you assuming again?
ScottEATF t1_jefci1g wrote
No assumptions needed.
https://li.phila.gov/property-history/search?address=2101%20N%20COLLEGE%20AVE
porkchameleon t1_jefeotn wrote
How is any of this relevant (or even current) to what sounds like at least two years of back rent?
Zeeinsoundfromwayout t1_jeb4ivj wrote
Next level shit?
Join us Iin The real World for all this next level shit.
porkchameleon t1_jebd7h5 wrote
I'ma level with you, fam: in the past I've been unemployed for long stretches of time (months at a time, I think max was about 5 or 6 in a row without any income or unemployment). It was pretty dire: months behind on bills, credit cards maxed out (still fucked over a decade later), going to bed hungry and all that, so rent wasn't the top priority. A couple of times it's gotten to a point where my landlord had to take me to court, but all it took is talking to them about the situation, and even while they sent me associated paperwork (while giving me heads up that our agreement was unaffected) - it's never gone past that point, so eviction was never ever on the cards (I was close, though).
Eventually I paid it all off and when times got better - I paid ahead of schedule (and sometimes even for an extra month, just because).
Shit happens, but you can almost always work it out with the other side, clear and timely communication helps. Back back rent to lead to evection and what happened today - yeah, that's next level right there.
Head_Ad_2827 t1_jec5a7c wrote
Why pull a knife on someone with a gun?
SaltyLorax t1_jecd69b wrote
Desperation
Hot-Pretzel t1_jecnn18 wrote
I am almost certain that the victim contributed to herself getting shot. The story about trying to give the officer his stuff back sounds like bullshit.
[deleted] t1_jebbafp wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jec8zeo wrote
[deleted]
Trafficsigntruther t1_jech5f2 wrote
It wasn’t a cop that shot the tenant.
[deleted] t1_jecbben wrote
[removed]
Tentapuss t1_jeclrzs wrote
Thats one way to get her out. Jesus.
[deleted] t1_jecpkvp wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jednu9b wrote
[removed]
blodreina_kumWonkru t1_jec3znx wrote
> it’s unknown if the indicment will hurt or help his presidential campaign
America is full of idiots
IPA_lot_ t1_jeb40li wrote
Someone shot in the head and that’s horrible.
But why the fuck are people who are months behind on rent suddenly victims?
Edit - they didn’t die.
mennobyte t1_jebb38p wrote
I think it's the fact they died that makes them the victim because generally death isn't the punishment for having debt
IPA_lot_ t1_jebbfa3 wrote
Wow reading comprehension is hard.
mennobyte t1_jebbjqp wrote
I know it is. You'll get there though!
minze t1_jeceglp wrote
not the person you were replying to but I think their comment was because the woman didn't die. She was taken in to the hospital in critical condition and (from another article) is now in stable condition.
>I think it's the fact they died that makes them the victim because generally death isn't the punishment for having debt
BFreeFranklin t1_jebaw4o wrote
Being a deadbeat (to take your stance for granted) isn’t a capital offense. Even if the shooting turns out to be justified, it won’t be because the woman wasn’t paying rent.
IPA_lot_ t1_jebbdo5 wrote
Where the hell am I saying it’s ok to kill people for not paying rent?
All I’m saying is that now people who don’t pay rent are suddenly victims, even without being shot. People who are fully capable of working and paying bills ducking them because of whatever reason, are victims because “landlord bad.” Why is this a thing? Too many people want free shit.
memettetalks t1_jebdiaw wrote
I just think you're not understanding how completely our social systems fail people in poverty.
We know that people are sometimes unable to make ends meet and instead of investing in a social safety net, we address the issue with armed agents and criminalizing being poor.
This article gives an overview of how not having resources is a brutal cycle of hopelessness in many areas of society. https://www.forbes.com/sites/maggiegermano/2020/08/04/how-the-united-states-has-criminalized-poverty-and-how-to-change-that-now/?sh=7023d8693281
IPA_lot_ t1_jebk2yn wrote
Don’t rent houses you can’t afford
memettetalks t1_jebp8t6 wrote
I know that, because I have had access to quality education and financial advice. Not everyone has those privileges.
This is a douchy response.
IPA_lot_ t1_jebtca4 wrote
It’s a common sense response but ok.
[deleted] t1_jebtufg wrote
[removed]
memettetalks t1_jebcsmn wrote
You seem out of touch with how poverty effects people, but either way the moral argument is very simple here:
Nobody deserves to have mercenaries sent to their residence for trying to keep a roof over their head and failing.
A society that permits hiring mercenaries with no oversight to forcibly remove people from homes is a morally corrupt society.
King_Arber t1_jee9ixr wrote
There are other form of housing that are supplied to those people.
This person chose not to pay rent, had their day in court, lost, then the court permitted sending those people to force them out of the house. This person has plenty of opportunity to do the correct thing.
trainofgravy t1_jebc9ld wrote
Where does it say someone died?
IPA_lot_ t1_jebcf43 wrote
Doesn’t. That’s my bad
[deleted] t1_jeb8tul wrote
[deleted]
SwugSteve t1_jeb6xng wrote
reddit hates landchads
phillycheeez OP t1_jeaxbyk wrote
Your daily dose of senseless violence with a little bit of municipal corruption sprinkled in.
From another article:
In Philly, eviction court orders are handled by a private attorney's office handpicked by the Philadelphia Municipal Court. Since 2017, that contract has been held by Marisa Shuter, whose firm hires and trains private security personnel — often retired police officers — to serve as deputy landlord-tenant officers, the Inquirer reports.
Shuter was awarded the contract, which has paid millions of dollars in fees collected from landlords, in a private, noncompetitive process, the Inquirer reports. Her husband, David Shuter, sits on the municipal court and has presided over eviction hearings that have produced work for his wife's office, WHYY reports. Marisa Shuter's father, Alan Silberstein, formerly ran the municipal court system as president judge.