Pittsburgh active shooter: What we know about the suspect, William Hardison Sr.
stopthatgirl7@kbin.social to 
wpxi.com
William Hardison Sr. was killed during the shooting situation.
stopthatgirl7@kbin.social to stopthatgirl7@kbin.social to stopthatgirl7@kbin.social to William Hardison Sr. was killed during the shooting situation.
"An LLC took the house over and purchased it for $25,000 in March 2023."
Scummy businesses doing crap like this need to stop.
It's not a justification for what he did, but it is a reason why he did it.
The reason this happened is he stopped paying his taxes. Let's not confuse the cause and effect here. When he was confronted with the consequences of his actions, he chose to use violence.
Now we can have a discussion about whether "tax is theft," but that's immaterial to the fact that we do live in a society which charges taxes. One doesn't have the option to just opt out when they feel like it.
Noone should lose their primary residence, it should be protected(unless it is a mansion or something). Everyone should have a place to live. In Greece, primary residences used to have a lot of protections, so even if you were in debt, it would be very hard to lose your house. But thankfully, thanks to 15 years of austerity and "reforms" imposed by Troika and right wing governments, now you can easily lose your house, just like in the US.
What is the point of society, if people dont have a place to live.
In Greece, if you stop paying rent then can you keep living in your apartment rent-free? Or will you be forced to find another home?
If people who stop paying rent are forced to find a new home, then so should people who stop paying their mortgage.
Greece has high homeownership. Rent is obviously different but even with rent, it was harder to get evicted. The difference is that with mortgage, you probably already paid a big chunk of money and that bank can afford to get delayed payments, while rent might be paid to an individual who doesnt have the same flexibility.
One of the main drives of the "reforms", is that now banks can easily sell their lower performing mortgages to hedge funds, etc since it will be easier to evict people and auction their houses.
Ultimately, all people have a need for shelter, it is a fundamental human right. So unless the state does something about this, people should have a place to stay. But would the bank do if they take over the house? Banks dont need houses, people do. Banks just love hoarding stuff.
If the state offered free basic housing, maybe we could allow capitalism to be more brutal. But the main reason the state isnt offering free housing(at least not to the extend it used to), is because of capitalism.
Now add the fact that the greek economy literally collapsed and everyone was unemployed, you can see why protecting the primary residence was so crucial in order to maintain social stability. But they dont care, now they are putting people's houses out on auctions. But not without resistance and resistance is working. And the banks know this, so they are more "willing" to negotiate.
Only in the land of the free, where everyone has guns(in order to oppose a TyRAniCaL gOvERmEnT), noone resists somehow. Individualism has brainrotted the americans to an extreme level. What would happen if your entire neighborhood came to your help? What would the cops do? Shoot everyone?
Well, maybe in the US they would. But in normal countries, a cop shooting anyone is almost certainly going to lead to the collapse of the government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008\_Greek\_riots
A society that refuses to provide everyone with shelter and food, while it can afford it, is not a society that needs to continue existing.
I don't know how things work in Greece, but in the US the process of mortgage foreclosure and eviction takes way more time than evicting a renter who is no longer paying rent. In other words, the bank is already willing to wait longer than a landlord for a delinquent occupant to resume payments.
After foreclosure a bank does the exact same thing as a landlord: they look for a new occupant, i.e. offer housing to someone who needs it.
Banks most certainly do not "hoard" the property. In fact, banks are usually far more impatient than private individuals who want to sell their homes. The unwillingness of banks to hold real estate is another reason why they end up selling it at a discount.
Why? I can think of a thousand reasons one should lose their primary residence. Including serious and violent crime (prison), criminal proceeds (gang property), serious damage to a rental or social housing, restraining orders, sex offender registry, refusal to repay a home loan, and refusal to pay taxes. We all have to pay tax so we can pay for social services. If you don’t want to pay for social services you can move to a country which doesn’t support the poor. You can also vote for parties which strip social services. You don’t have the option to just stop paying your taxes.
Some of these are VERY different than others.
Is a society that deprives people their primary residence, a society that worth paying taxes? Because let's be real, 99.9% of the time that someone loses their home, it is because people cant afford to pay the bank. And almost always is because they are unemployed.
And you are ok with this? I dont understand this "omg, you have to pay the bank no matter what, otherwise it is a moral failure, so you deserve to lose your home". I wrote a relevant reply here
https://kbin.social/m/news@lemmy.world/t/375186/Pittsburgh-active-shooter-What-we-know-about-the-suspect-William#entry-comment-1881269
You're attacking the concept of loans. Banks wouldn't offer loans if they couldn't claw back their investment for non-payment. If you want to eliminate loans then the people hit hardest will be those without capital.
Yes, because we all know the tax laws are the paragon of fairness. What’s better $1,200 from an older person or 1.2 million from a 35 yo financier? The reason you jump to superficial explanations is because you are ignorant.
Ignorance is calling another user ignorant for simply acknowledging the consequences of the man's actions and stating that he did not believe the violence was justified.
If you want to have your argument taken seriously, maybe you should try not to insult the person you are attempting to persuade...
Plese show me where I said it was "the" reason.
I'll wait.
He was a sovereign citizen nutjob that stopped paying his mortgage. It sucks that an LLC bought it but that is coincidental to the story. If a nice family with 2 kids and a van bought the house they would also have evicted him.
An LLC bought a house in America for $25,000 in 2023. That's a big problem.
And seeing as you didn't seem to pay attention the first time I will say it again ... this is not a justification, but it is a reason.
That's like saying "This broken iPhone 13 sold on eBay for only $80. That's a big problem."
An LLC paid $25K because the bank owning the home was willing to sell it for $25K. And that's not because the bank hated money. If someone else had been willing to pay more then it would have sold for more. That's how foreclosure auctions work.
Foreclosed homes generally sell for a lot less because the occupant often causes a legal and physical mess and most home buyers are not interested in dealing with it.
Ofcoarse it went cheap. It had a crazy gunman living in it. Only LLCs would ever dare to buy a house like that. Would you bid on a house where the old owner will definitely come back and murder your family?
Why does it say "active shooter" then says he was killed?
Sounds pretty inactive to me
The term is not descriptive. "Active shooter" is someone being active in mass shootings.
The "active" part of the label seems like gunspeak. What's an inactive shooter anyway.
I suppose it makes sense for the people called to the scene, but it's not descriptive for what has already happened or who it was, though it is used like that.
It was a live breaking story and things changed after it was first published.
But why "active" in the first place. Is it just trying to sound tacticool? You don't say active driver or active toddler
Because “active” tells you the shooter is still out there and to be cautious. When the article was first written, it was an active shooter situation.
When the article was written it was a shooter situation, exactly the same
Tacticool journalism 🤮🤢
Just like burglarized Vs burgled
Wouldn't "burglarized" mean "turned into a burglary"? Like if you were trespassing, then decided to steal something, your presence there was burglarized.
It also suggests the existence of burglarism
I heard about this earlier: It doesn't sound like he was an active shooter at all. It sounds like he had his home stolen by a shady corporation and fought the police, dying trying to save his home.
Dumb to get into a gun fight for sure, but how exactly was this guy an "active shooter"? Am I missing something here?
He was killed by other active shooters who turned up in their active shooter uniforms.
How are there absolute potatoes in this thread defending this dude?
By this account he was an insane, anti-government nutjob, who fell for something citizen scams.
Oh, is it because he's anti government and shot it out with police over a tax lien foreclosure?