(no subject)

[theweaselking]

Ex-Marine evicted for being "too loud" when a man tries to kill her in her apartment.
Dorothea Thomas was attacked last Friday. After surviving six gunshot wounds and a jump from her second-story balcony to escape the man trying to kill her, she got out of the hospital on Tuesday. On Wednesday, she found a notice on her front door, ordering her to leave. The former Marine and police officer was served with an eviction notice for, among other things, being too loud.

According to The Daily News, the eviction notice said Thomas had violated her lease agreement because she was attacked on the apartment grounds. The apartment manager reportedly told Thomas that she needs to pay her rent until she moves out in a few weeks, and that she could get out of her lease without losing her security deposit.

"She was talking to me like she was doing me a favor for not penalizing me for breaking the lease," Thomas told the Daily News

Comments

Do what?

[unnamed525.livejournal.com]

Wait.
They're right. Contractually, she's responsible for the actions of anybody she invites onto the property in regards to whether or not those actions break the lease. You'd think that she'd learn her lesson after being attacked by one guy, but people are notoriously irrational when it comes to things like this ...
Basically, she shouldn't be spreading her legs for fucked up dudes.

Re: Do what?

[missysedai.livejournal.com]

Wow. I hope that's just sarcasm and you're not really a festering asshole.

I'd need more information about the situation to come to justified judgement

[unnamed525.livejournal.com]

I'm looking at it from a purely legal perspective (oh, yeah, and I read the whole article). If her lease states that she's responsible for the actions of people she invites onto the property, which it probably does, then she doesn't have a leg to stand on in a court of law if she invited him onto the property in this instance (if she didn't, legally things become vastly more complex), and the property owners are completely within their legal rights in evicting her ... Hell, they're argually ethically justified in doing it too ... even if the letter of the contract only allows them to do it because of "excessive noise", it's still a fact that somebody she invited onto the property put not only her life but also the lives of all the other residents at risk (presuming that she did invite him) and it's unlikely that she was completely unaware (except by willfull ignorance, which justifies nothing) of his apparent tendencies towards excessive violence. In the case of her having invited him in this instance, her legally non-existent right and ethically questionable right to continue to live in that apartment doesn't outweigh her neighbors' rights to not have a fellow renter bring about an unreasonable threat to their lives and the lives of their children.
However, if she had ended the relationship with this unstable person prior to his presence on the property at the time of the assault, and that action is what predicated his assault on her, then their legal and ethical standings, I'd say, dissolves; they can, of course, just choose to not renew her lease the next time its up for that.
However, if she decides she wants to get back with this "man" after he's been in jail ... well, I have no sympathy for her, and I really can't see why I should; maybe she would need a trusted relative to kick her ass if that's how things turn out. I have sympathy for her children, however, but that's a completely different question. I understand the strength of human emotions (I understand this all too well, in fact), but that doesn't justify her doing things she should know better than doing (like getting back into a relationship with a person who tried to kill you) because she "loves him".
Maybe that makes me a "festering asshole". So what? Why should I allow myself to feel sympathy for somebody if they reap the consequences of their own stupid actions that they should have already learned not to do?

Re: I'd need more information about the situation to come to justified judgement

[rimrunner.livejournal.com]

The article refers to the guy as an ex-boyfriend, although it doesn't say according to whom.

I love the headline. It sounds like the property manager's chief concern is the safety of the other residents (and/or the potential liability issue there).

The whole thing screams "more to the story" at me. Yes, it sincerely sucks to get kicked out of your apartment on top of being attacked and nearly killed.

On the other hand, if it were me, I'd not only be out of that apartment complex but out of the state.

Re: I'd need more information about the situation to come to justified judgement

[missysedai.livejournal.com]

I am sincerely wondering where you're getting all of this from. There is essentially ZERO information in that article, and yet you're creating this hugely detailed scenario that you think justifies your "blame the victim" ranting. You've already tried and convicted her for what you have decided is stupidity, when it could very well be that the guy broke in and tried to kill her because she had previously dumped him.

Maybe you should stick to your comment title's premise...you know, need more information? As it is, you're pulling things out of your ass, and making yourself look like, yes, a festering asshole.

Re: I'd need more information about the situation to come to justified judgement

[rimrunner.livejournal.com]

it could very well be that the guy broke in and tried to kill her because she had previously dumped him

That the article refers to the guy as an ex made me think this might be the case. It unfortunately often so happens that the time one is in most danger from an abusive partner is when one leaves, and (again unfortunately) restraining orders often aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

Re: I'd need more information about the situation to come to justified judgement

[waterspyder.livejournal.com]

That is very true. I also attended the court hearing of my friend to get a restraining order against her ex-boyfriend, and he readily agreed to it, but then got very agitated and upset when the judge started telling him that he could not go near her, the house or the University. He got even more agitated when he was told he could not contact her by phone, e-mail, through another person, or in any other conceivable fashion.

Re: Do what?

[waterspyder.livejournal.com]

I'm trying to figure out if you read that right. She was dating him, he turned psycho and tried to kill her.
I'm dating someone and he has keys to my place, I fail to see how his going nuts one day and coming over to kill me would make it my fault. One presumes that there is trust in a relationship. People invite other people over under the assumption that they will not start breaking things, or trying to commit murder.
And was the invitation verbalized or implied? Implied consent works for a lot of things, but not in matter such as this. I bet it will be his word against hers as to she invited him over that specific time.

Re: Do what?

[unnamed525.livejournal.com]

People rarely just turn psycho without any advanced warning. It's whether or not that assumption is justified that's important; if she was in a long-term relationship, then I don't see how it's likely that she wasn't aware of his apparent tendency towards violence. She's a Marine and a cop; it's plausible that she was attracted to him because of his tendencies towards violence. I really don't know enough about their relationship to be able to say anything definitively ... but if he had a set of keys, the invitation isn't implied, it's explicit, and the property owners are within their legal rights to evict her. She might not be ethically blameworthy, but that doesn't mean she isn't legally culpable.

Re: Do what?

[waterspyder.livejournal.com]

There are also instances like I had an ex-boyfriend who failed to tell me he was schizophrenic, and then went of his medication. He went from an okay guy to a raving psychotic lunatic chasing me with a knife in a little under 3 days.

There is probably not enough information in this article to really get a full sense of the situation. Usually "excessive noise" clauses can only be invoked with repeated offenses.