Police in Michigan say a startling discovery was made on the roof of a Michigan grocery store: A woman was living inside the store sign for roughly a year.
  • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
    3·
    6 months ago

    A spokesperson for SpartanNash, the parent company of Family Fare, said store employees responded “with the utmost compassion and professionalism.”

    “Ensuring there is ample safe, affordable housing continues to be a widespread issue nationwide that our community needs to partner in solving,” Adrienne Chance said, declining further comment.

    Warren said the woman was cooperative and quickly agreed to leave. No charges were pursued.

    “We provided her with some information about services in the area,” the officer said. “She apologized and continued on her way. Where she went from there, I don’t know.”

    I feel like there’s very few opportunities these days to say this, but the cops and business owners in this situation actually seem to have behaved in a very humane and decent way here, so that’s a nice surprise

    • Sentient Loom@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      0·
      6 months ago

      cops and business owners in this situation actually seem to have behaved in a very humane and decent way

      Well it’s nice that they didn’t beat her to death. But they still kicked her out and didn’t actually provide any more help. “Services in the area” probably will be less adequate than what she’d had before they booted her.

      I don’t expect them to actually take care of her, but they don’t get a gold star for declining to bludgeon, strangle, or imprison her. She’s on her own.

      • Skeezix@lemmy.world
        1·
        6 months ago

        This is where it’s at in the US: people feel a warm sense of happiness when a marginalized person isnt beaten to death or shot by authorities.

  • enbyecho@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    6 months ago

    The director of a local homeless assistance group is quoted as saying:

    “Obviously, we don’t want people resorting to illegal activity to find housing."

    IANAL but here’s a funny twist of the law. It’s not generally illegal, per se, for the woman have done this until she was caught and legal action was taken and was successful. The mere act of it was not in itself illegal. Heck, in California you have to give squatters 3 days notice (the area where she stayed could be seen as “vacant”).

    Anyway, food for thought. Lest, you know, one require housing.

    • Ullallulloo@civilloquy.com
      0·
      6 months ago

      Trespassing is illegal, even if the law sometimes gives even law-breaking squatters extra rights in evictions.

      • enbyecho@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        6 months ago

        Yes, trespassing is illegal. But you haven’t trespassed until it’s established that you have trespassed. Legally.

        • Ullallulloo@civilloquy.com
          0·
          6 months ago

          You obviously aren’t legally guilty of it until you’ve been charged and convicted, but that doesn’t mean you haven’t actually done it in the meantime.

          • KAYDUBELL@lemm.ee
            0·
            6 months ago

            That’s not how trespass works. You have to be “noticed” that you are not welcome on the property. Once you are on notice you have trespassed if you haven’t left

            • Ullallulloo@civilloquy.com
              0·
              6 months ago

              No, at least common law trespass definitely does not require any noticing. Can you show me any statutory form that does? Obviously crimes are hard to prosecute without witnesses, but very few crimes require someone to notice at the time for it to be a crime.

              Edit: I read that too fast.

              • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
                0·
                6 months ago

                “Common law” has no relevance to state law matters in the US (nor Federal, for that matter). Here is the relevant statute in this case:

                https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=MCL-750-552

                The bar for trespass is met only if the perpetrator has been “forbidden” from accessing the property by the owner. This does not have to be in person, or verbal. A “keep out” or “no trespassing” sign would suffice, and this is why such things exist. In this case I would be immensely surprised if there weren’t some kind of employees only, authorized personnel only, or keep out sign posted on whatever method of ingress was used to reach the inside of the sign.

                The intent of this is clear, it’s so nobody can get done for merely setting foot on a property in some situation where they didn’t realize they’d left public right of way or a property where they had authorization to be. You have to tell the person to GTFO (either preemptively or upon discovery) and if they don’t, then they can be arrested.

                • Ullallulloo@civilloquy.com
                  0·
                  6 months ago

                  Ohh, my bad. Y’all mean like “given notice”, not like “disturbing the owner”. I read that too fast.

                  Common law is still valid in every state in the US (except maybe Louisiana), although obviously statutory law usually overrides it. You’re right that there’s no federal common law since Erie v. Tompkins though.

                  And I agree with your analysis of that statute. That is interesting too, since my state, Illinois, does not require explicitly being forbidden by the owner. It’s much more in line with the common law idea of trespassing as simply being going somewhere without authority, express or implied.