namelesstavern.net

From Associated Press:

AP) The city council has rejected a measure allowing unmarried couples with multiple children to live together, and the mayor said those who fall into that category could soon face eviction.

Olivia Shelltrack and Fondrey Loving were denied an occupancy permit after moving into a home in this St. Louis suburb because they have three children and are not married.

The town's planning and zoning commission proposed a change in the law, but the measure was rejected Tuesday by the city council in a 5-3 vote.

"I'm just shocked," Shelltrack said. "I really thought this would all be over, and we could go on with our lives."

The current ordinance prohibits more than three people from living together unless they are related by "blood, marriage or adoption." The defeated measure would have changed the definition of a family to include unmarried couples with two or more children.

Mayor Norman McCourt declined to be interviewed but said in a statement that those who do not meet the town's definition of family could soon face eviction.

Black Jack's special counsel, Sheldon Stock, declined to say whether the city will seek to remove Loving and Shelltrack from their home.

That's bullshit. My boyfriend's landlord won't let me spend the night because it's not a Christian thing to do. Whose business is it. What about the big houses at college where 8 girls live together and split the rent? People worrying to much about how other people live there lives. And technically, they are related.

The Kizzy wrote:That's bullshit. My boyfriend's landlord won't let me spend the night because it's not a Christian thing to do. Whose business is it

if it's his building, it seems kinda like it is his business~

Its against the law here.

what is? for him to set ground rules for his own building?

Keep forgetting you are rom Canada. I am not going to argue with you. THe law states that you can not forbid an unmarried couple from living together, etc etc. Basically, what you do in private you do in private. Period. end of story. Thats like telling a gay man, he can't rent your house because you dont believe in butt sex.

The Kizzy wrote:Keep forgetting you are rom Canada. I am not going to argue with you. THe law states that you can not forbid an unmarried couple from living together, etc etc. Basically, what you do in private you do in private. Period. end of story. Thats like telling a gay man, he can't rent your house because you dont believe in butt sex.

that's why canada rules, the only laws that exist here are:

1) My house, my rules
2) Must be in visual range of the vehicle to call shotgun
3) You can not complain about the brand of free beer in a friend's refrigerator. You may gripe about the temperature of said beer however

Occupancy permit? What kind of BS is that?

The Kizzy wrote:Keep forgetting you are rom Canada. I am not going to argue with you. THe law states that you can not forbid an unmarried couple from living together, etc etc. Basically, what you do in private you do in private. Period. end of story. Thats like telling a gay man, he can't rent your house because you dont believe in butt sex.

Actually Kiz. It's a private property thing. You can be shot on site if you've been warned not to trespass on his privte property and he can set up any ground rules he likes which are only limited to the leasing agreement your boyfriend signed. Have your boyfriend read his lease over. If he's paying rent and the landlord says you can't stay over, your boyfriend can pull the contract out and say otherwise.

HE has, and still no good. He gets extremely cheap rent because he does all of her lawn maintenance and honey do's. She is 90 years old.

Let her join in np.

The Kizzy wrote:HE has, and still no good. He gets extremely cheap rent because he does all of her lawn maintenance and honey do's. She is 90 years old.

Her property, her rules. Uncool but thats the way it is, and should be.

He can move if he doesn't like it, or just lie and say he got married.

I'm buying a house, actually going to look at one now.

Move to Dallas. FW is too far away and the whole town smells like cow's ass.

I'd sell you my house in Coppell, but, er, its claimed already.

It's a private property thing. You can be shot on site if you've been warned not to trespass on his privte property

Only if the trespasser steps foot inside the house.

Quote:
It's a private property thing. You can be shot on site if you've been warned not to trespass on his privte property


Only if the trespasser steps foot inside the house.

This is a state by state issue. In some states, trespassers may be shot for trespassing although it is a rare occurence and still may not keep the shooter from facing manslaughter charges.

In other states, such as Florida, "castle" laws are in effect which allow home owners to protect themselves and their property with deadly force against anyone inside their home, without having to prove they were in fear of life or limb.

In some states however, if you were to shoot someone in your house, you may have to prove that you were in danger of life or limb, meaning the assailant was armed with a gun, or a knife and was within 21 feet, or that you had no way to escape. Otherwise you may even be charged with murder, and if the crook lives he could come back and sue you for damages. Even though he was in your house. Where your kids sleep.

Otherwise you may even be charged with murder, and if the crook lives he could come back and sue you for damages. Even though he was in your house. Where your kids sleep.

That's why you shoot to kill. "No officer, he started coming after me again, that's why I blew his head off."

Except when the police interview you you don't say "I shot to kill" you phrase it as "I shot to stop." Shooting to kill and shooting to stop are both shooting at center mass/central nervous group, one simply sounds better in court. Especially in blue states.

Bullshit, if there's someone in my house, and I think that me and mine are in danger, shooting to kill is the only phrase I'd use. Court doesn't really matter. Odds are if you're a contributing member of society the police will rule it self defence and you'll never see court. Oh, and that huge kitchen knife I'll put in his hand before the cops get there won't hurt either.

/shrug

It all depends on where you live. If you're secure in that sop (as you rightfully should be) then fine. In other places, you'll lose. As much as it bothers me, even on my land in my home and endangering my family what I do is going to face consequences ruled out by other people who weren't there. Covering your ears and closing your eyes and going "nah nah nah nah" isn't going to change the fact that you need to know what the laws are in your area of residence, and plan accordingly.

I live on the edge of civilization in northern Canada, in a town filled with Crack heads. Sadly, my skin color alone puts me above suspicion.

I know, I was being general for other's information. You're probably safe. Until Canada bans all your guns. Then you'll have to crossbow intruders.

Minrott wrote:In other states, such as Florida, "castle" laws are in effect which allow home owners to protect themselves and their property with deadly force against anyone inside their home, without having to prove they were in fear of life or limb.

We have that law in Oklahoma but it's referred to as the "Make my day" law. They recently passed an addition to this law in OK where you can use deadly force if you are in danger of your life even away from your home.

As it should be.