or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › killing Trayvon
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

killing Trayvon - Page 111

post #1651 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

I think they are intrinsically neither good nor bad.

For instance, you have a house with great views. The great views have your neighbor's house between you and them, but it's one story, so you have your great views. The neighbor decides to build another two stories...there goes your views and your property value drops.

Mr. Redneck moves in across the way or down the street. He decides he likes to have five rusty pick up trucks up on blocks in his front yard at all times. Looks like shit and there goes your property value.

The family with five kids down the street decides to sink a basketball hoop into the pavement at the end of their driveway and you have to constantly stop or run over kids when you're entering or existing your house by car. Additionally, you can't open your front door and get piece and quiet due to the constant "bounce, bounce" of the ball and the yelling of the kids. You put your house up for sale, your agent holds an open house, and reports all visitors complained about kids blocking the way.

A good HOA stops that.

No doubt HOAs can be bad and the board can have bad people on it. Just saying it's a value neutral tool.

You're not necessarily wrong. But unless you're 1. on the board or 2. Related to a board member you're in a tough spot.

I deal with a lot of people in HOAs. Never heard a good thing about them. Am representing one client where the HOA is trying to fine the resident because the family has an unregistered dog (pit bull) which is actually medically approved as a fog for treating retards and the five year old daughter is a retard. I'm going to lose that case because that's the way it goes with HOAs.

For myself, I live across the street from a church on a block of fully employed people in a county that's 95%+ white. I'll take my chances without a HOA.

EDIT - also my neighbor has an above ground pool in his backyard. And a teen daughter. And she has friends.
post #1652 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey_birdman View Post


You're not necessarily wrong. But unless you're 1. on the board or 2. Related to a board member you're in a tough spot.

Or you're lawyered up beyond belief. I won't get into it but I am. So much all the best lawyers in town, including the few RE specialists, would not take a case against me. No shit here on this. smile.gif

Quote:
EDIT - also my neighbor has an above ground pool in his backyard. And a teen daughter. And she has friends.

Win.
post #1653 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchausen View Post

The most ridiculous thing about it is that even if it were an order from a police officer and not a suggestion from a 911 dispatcher, it still doesn't really mean anything. Unless Florida has declared martial law, you aren't under any obligation to obey orders from the police if you aren't breaking any other laws.

It's not about whether he was obligated to listen to them or not, more of the fact he was made aware that he shouldn't be following him and there was no good reason to.
post #1654 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey_birdman View Post

You're not necessarily wrong. But unless you're 1. on the board or 2. Related to a board member you're in a tough spot.
I deal with a lot of people in HOAs. Never heard a good thing about them. Am representing one client where the HOA is trying to fine the resident because the family has an unregistered dog (pit bull) which is actually medically approved as a fog for treating retards and the five year old daughter is a retard. I'm going to lose that case because that's the way it goes with HOAs.
For myself, I live across the street from a church on a block of fully employed people in a county that's 95%+ white. I'll take my chances without a HOA.
EDIT - also my neighbor has an above ground pool in his backyard. And a teen daughter. And she has friends.

Good post.

Have you has a chance to down that first brewski, Harv? LOL
post #1655 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nosu3 View Post


It's not about whether he was obligated to listen to them or not, more of the fact he was made aware that he shouldn't be following him and there was no good reason to.

There's no good reason to do many things. Does not make them criminal.
post #1656 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

There's no good reason to do many things. Does not make them criminal.

I wasn't suggesting it was... but explained why that "order" from the dispatcher is of value. It prevents the claim that following TM was necessary. He claimed he was approached and attacked, right? That is contradictory to the evidence that he was following TM who was fleeing away from the scene, not toward him.
post #1657 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nosu3 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

There's no good reason to do many things. Does not make them criminal.

I wasn't suggesting it was... but explained why that "order" from the dispatcher is of value. It prevents the claim that following TM was necessary. He claimed he was approached and attacked, right? That is contradictory to the evidence that he was following TM who was fleeing away from the scene, not toward him.

I do not think anyone is claiming it was "necessary." In fact, quite the opposite. So what you're arguing is beyond me.
post #1658 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

I do not think anyone is claiming it was "necessary." In fact, quite the opposite. So what you're arguing is beyond me.

facepalm.gif
post #1659 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nosu3 View Post

I wasn't suggesting it was... but explained why that "order" from the dispatcher is of value. It prevents the claim that following TM was necessary. He claimed he was approached and attacked, right? That is contradictory to the evidence that he was following TM who was fleeing away from the scene, not toward him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

I do not think anyone is claiming it was "necessary." In fact, quite the opposite. So what you're arguing is beyond me.

I think what Nosu is saying ( and correct me if I'm wrong ) is that TM was on the phone with his girlfriend specifically saying he was going back to his Dad's apartment and some dude (Z) was following him. Nothing indicates he suddenly changed his mind and attacked Z as Z claims. It seems that Z was following TM based more on suspicions raised from previous events than anything TM did at that time and that had Z simply followed the "directive/order/suggestion" whatever you call it from the dispatcher, none of this would have happened. There must be more evidence the prosecutor has yet to release so.... lurker[1].gif
post #1660 of 6250
There's a lot of stuff Z could have done to avoid the whole situation. Whether that equals a crime or not is the question now.
post #1661 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

There's a lot of stuff Z could have done to avoid the whole situation. Whether that equals a crime or not is the question now.

There is a whole lot that Martin's parents could have done too. Why was a kid who was suspended for drugs out walking around the neighborhood?
post #1662 of 6250
rolleyes.gif
post #1663 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texastyle View Post

There is a whole lot that Martin's parents could have done too. Why was a kid who was suspended for drugs out walking around the neighborhood?

You finally eclipsed the dumb that HB and all have posted in this thead. Congrats!
post #1664 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Why do you feel this way?

I think it's been discussed already (and in another thread somewhere) but I basically hate the crazy shit that they do. My statement was actually tongue in cheek (I didn't realize that they could actually be held responsible for anything) but it looks like it may actually had some merit?
Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey_birdman View Post

You're not necessarily wrong. But unless you're 1. on the board or 2. Related to a board member you're in a tough spot.
I deal with a lot of people in HOAs. Never heard a good thing about them. Am representing one client where the HOA is trying to fine the resident because the family has an unregistered dog (pit bull) which is actually medically approved as a fog for treating retards and the five year old daughter is a retard. I'm going to lose that case because that's the way it goes with HOAs.
For myself, I live across the street from a church on a block of fully employed people in a county that's 95%+ white. I'll take my chances without a HOA.
EDIT - also my neighbor has an above ground pool in his backyard. And a teen daughter. And she has friends.

I live about an hour outside of Philly and a local HOA just ruled against a family taking in a seeing eye dog for several months. A little flexibility would go a long way IMO.

When I worked for a local transportation company, a woman from an HOA called me demanding the personal information of someone who parked a moving truck in front of their condo because she wanted to confront them and have their truck moved. I guess this HOA thought that people should somehow move their furniture in from outside the community. Not really sure how one does that. Fucking idiot.
post #1665 of 6250
The positions on those HOA boards don't pay anything, so the most of the people who are interested in them are the kind of people who get off on telling others what to do.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › killing Trayvon