• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Harvard Graduate Asked To Leave Apartment

Praxas said:
If there is an agreement that they not have guns in the place than she can move elsewhere or with folks that don't mind. OR she may have protections from being kicked out, I don't know. Do you know for sure?
Click to expand...

I know that I would not like living with folks that root through my bedroom's contents. Do you know if that behavior was agreed to?
 
Kal'Stang said:
It's irrelevant whether she had it unlocked or not. It's irrelevant if kids visited the place as that was her room and no one but her should be in that room. If her roommates had kids over then the roommates should make sure that the kids did not go into that room. The roommates admitted to having to search her room, and was going to continue to search the room until they found something. Which means that it was put up and not just lying around in the open willy nilly.

And if there had been an agreement in place then it would no doubt have been mentioned in the article as I'm sure the roommates would have said so as part of the reasoning to want her out. Instead they had to relying on it making them "feel uncomfortable". Also the actual landlord gave the excuse that he wanted her to leave because her roommates felt uncomfortable, if there was an agreement to not have guns then he definitely would have said something instead of using that as an excuse. Even if there was, which is doubtful due to the excuses that they used, that is no excuse to search someones room without asking first. That is a violation of her privacy and no agreement can allow that. By law a landlord must give notice that they will be entering an apartment. So, even if you considered her roommates as landlords to her they still would have had to have given notice. Something that they admit not doing.
Click to expand...

The roommates searched her room, not that landlord. There is nothing that says a tenant in an apartment can't go to another room unless it expressively says so within an agreement the ROOMATES wrote up with one another. Do you know of such an agreement? Again you are confusing Landlord and roommates. Two different legal situations here. I never said the roommates were in the right, but you DON'T KNOW for a fact she didn't lie or that it wasn't part of an agreement. You are ASSUMING and you know what that does.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I know that I would not like living with folks that root through my bedroom's contents. Do you know if that behavior was agreed to?
Click to expand...

No, I don't know which is why I said she might have protections against being kicked out.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Violation of her privacy rights for searching her room without permission.
Click to expand...

Tenants do no need permission to go into a room of an apt they rent unless they have signed an agreement with the other tenants which says they must not enter other tenants bedrooms without permission
 
Praxas said:
The roommates searched her room, not that landlord. There is nothing that says a tenant in an apartment can't go to another room unless it expressively says so within an agreement the ROOMATES wrote up with one another. Do you know of such an agreement? Again you are confusing Landlord and roommates. Two different legal situations here. I never said the roommates were in the right, but you DON'T KNOW for a fact she didn't lie or that it wasn't part of an agreement. You are ASSUMING and you know what that does.
Click to expand...

If there was an agreement then the roommates would have said something about it in their defense.

And no, I'm not confusing the two.

If the roommates were there first and searched for a roommate then they can be considered as landlords. Its called subletting. What I said took both them being considered as landlords and the actual landlord into account. Landlords MUST, by law, give at least 24 hour notice that they are going to enter a persons rented area. And even then they are limited as to what they can do when they enter.
 
Kal'Stang said:
If there was an agreement then the roommates would have said something about it in their defense.

And no, I'm not confusing the two.

If the roommates were there first and searched for a roommate then they can be considered as landlords. Its called subletting. What I said took both them being considered as landlords and the actual landlord into account. Landlords MUST, by law, give at least 24 hour notice that they are going to enter a persons rented area. And even then they are limited as to what they can do when they enter.
Click to expand...

Roommates are not subletting and they aren’t considered landlords. Show otherwise with proof they were subletting.
 
sangha said:
Tenants do no need permission to go into a room of an apt they rent unless they have signed an agreement with the other tenants which says they must not enter other tenants bedrooms without permission
Click to expand...

Doesn't mean that she can't sue. If there is a reasonable expectation of privacy then she has a valid lawsuit.
 
Kal'Stang said:
If there was an agreement then the roommates would have said something about it in their defense.
Click to expand...

That is bass ackwards

If there were an agreement amongst the tenants that they were not to enter each others rooms without permission, it would prove that they broke that agreement when they admitted they did enter her room without permission. IOW, it would be the gun owner who would be saying something about it in her defense. Since she said nothing about any agreement, it is reasonable to assume that there is no agreement

And no, I'm not confusing the two.

If the roommates were there first and searched for a roommate then they can be considered as landlords. Its called subletting. What I said took both them being considered as landlords and the actual landlord into account. Landlords MUST, by law, give at least 24 hour notice that they are going to enter a persons rented area. And even then they are limited as to what they can do when they enter.
Click to expand...

The roomates are not landlords or sub-letters.

https://freebeacon.com/issues/landlord-tells-harvard-student-move-legally-owned-guns/
When Pirnie and her father rejected Lewis's request that she move out in the middle of studying for finals, Lewis responded by saying his request "was based strictly on practical and not idealogical (sic) terms." He then warned that if the other roommates moved out Pirnie would have to pay their rent.

"If the other roommates were to move out, Leyla would need to find roommates to share the place or foot the entire $6000+ monthly rent herself," Lewis wrote in an email to Pirnie and her father. "Obviously it would be much easier for the others to stay and just fill one room (and I'm confident—were this to happen—that the remaining housemates will release Leyla from any further responsibility under the lease) and that's why I proposed what I did."
Click to expand...

The only way for the landlord to hold her responsible for the rent is if her name is on the lease. Since her name is on the lease, she is a tenant and not a sub-lettor
 
Praxas said:
Roommates are not subletting and they aren’t considered landlords. Show otherwise with proof they were subletting.
Click to expand...

If they were not subletting then the only agreement that matters on whether a gun is allowed or not is the agreement with the land lord. Since the landlord did not provide that as an excuse to ask her to leave then there was no agreement to such an effect.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Doesn't mean that she can't sue. If there is a reasonable expectation of privacy then she has a valid lawsuit.
Click to expand...

There is no expectation of privacy in a room that others are partially paying for.

She is not renting a room. She is sharing an apt. The ENTIRE apt

And the other tenents, like her, are paying a share of the rent for the ENTIRE apt
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
If they were not subletting then the only agreement that matters on whether a gun is allowed or not is the agreement with the land lord.
Click to expand...

Correct. Her obligation is to the landlord. She signed a lease with the landlord and, as far as we know, it says nothing about guns. That explains why she is not being evicted.

Since the landlord did not provide that as an excuse to ask her to leave then there was no agreement to such an effect.
Click to expand...

Again, correct. Apparently, the lease does not prohibit the possession of guns. Therefore, the landlord can not evict her. However, there is nothing stopping the landlord from ASKING her to leave, nothing to stop him from releasing the other tenants from paying rent if they want to leave --as he offered her if she agreed to leave-- and nothing stopping him from informing her that she would be on the hook for the entire $6k/month rent if the other tenants moved out
 
Praxas said:
The roommates searched her room, not that landlord. There is nothing that says a tenant in an apartment can't go to another room unless it expressively says so within an agreement the ROOMATES wrote up with one another. Do you know of such an agreement? Again you are confusing Landlord and roommates. Two different legal situations here. I never said the roommates were in the right, but you DON'T KNOW for a fact she didn't lie or that it wasn't part of an agreement. You are ASSUMING and you know what that does.
Click to expand...

Sounds like her roommates are scumbags, anyway. Who would want to live with someone that's going to violate your privacy like that?
 
sangha said:
That is bass ackwards

If there were an agreement amongst the tenants that they were not to enter each others rooms without permission, it would prove that they broke that agreement when they admitted they did enter her room without permission. IOW, it would be the gun owner who would be saying something about it in her defense. Since she said nothing about any agreement, it is reasonable to assume that there is no agreement



The roomates are not landlords or sub-letters.

https://freebeacon.com/issues/landlord-tells-harvard-student-move-legally-owned-guns/


The only way for the landlord to hold her responsible for the rent is if her name is on the lease. Since her name is on the lease, she is a tenant and not a sub-lettor
Click to expand...

Actually there is no need of an agreement. It's called reasonable expectation of privacy.
 
sangha said:
There is no expectation of privacy in a room that others are partially paying for.

She is not renting a room. She is sharing an apt. The ENTIRE apt

And the other tenents, like her, are paying a share of the rent for the ENTIRE apt
Click to expand...

Yes, there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Which is why a roommate may not video record in any room except the common rooms and their own rooms.
 
Praxas said:
There are always different sides to a story. If she left her firearms unlocked and accessible to her roommates, obviously she wasn't very responsible. As to whether her rights were violated or not, that depends on many things. For instance, if she didn't divulge she had unlocked firearms, then that could be on her.
Click to expand...

leave it to the alt left radicals to rush to the defense of the wrong party. go figure.

hillary bots know no shame
 
sangha said:
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in an apt you share.
Click to expand...

Really. So you are ok with someone going into another persons non shared room without permission.

Please share the case law that supports your position. I can agree there is no expectation of privacy in the shared common areas, but not for the individuals private room. Even if the room is shared, but one has a non shared space like a closet, the person should have an expectation that it is private.
 
Last edited:
mike2810 said:
Really. So you are ok with someone going into another persons non shared room without permission.
Click to expand...

There are many laws I am not OK with, but that does not mean they are not laws.

Please share the case law that supports your position. I can agree there is no expectation of privacy in the shared common areas.
Click to expand...

You have got it backwards. If you want to claim that she had a reasonable expectation of privacy, it is your burden to prove it exists.
 
biglawnmower said:
leave it to the alt left radicals to rush to the defense of the wrong party. go figure.

hillary bots know no shame
Click to expand...

Leave it to a con to not bother reading and instead just throw partisan garbage that is useless. Keep failing with your comments.
 
sangha said:
There are many laws I am not OK with, but that does not mean they are not laws.



You have got it backwards. If you want to claim that she had a reasonable expectation of privacy, it is your burden to prove it exists.
Click to expand...

I did a quick search. You can do yourself. You are wrong. Many court cases have shown that an individual room a person can expect privacy.
There are even court cases dealing with shared space, but has individual lockers. The other person has no right to the others locker.
 
mike2810 said:
I did a quick search. You can do yourself. You are wrong. Many court cases have shown that an individual room a person can expect privacy.
There are even court cases dealing with shared space, but has individual lockers. The other person has no right to the others locker.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I believe you
 
Praxas said:
Leave it to a con to not bother reading and instead just throw partisan garbage that is useless. Keep failing with your comments.
Click to expand...

at least you alt left radicals dont deny that you deliberately fight against the right to bear arms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom