I just don't understand it. Apparently, there were drugs and prostitutes in the home, but the police arrest a decent looking person who says it's his home? Why is that not a situation where they go okay, prove it, and he pulls up paperwork and such? Instead, they just arrest him. It's pretty confusing how you can literally be arrested for being physically threatened with a gun on your own property.

Technically that's the way it should be. Just because one person looks homeless and the other looks like they're headed to the country club itself doesn't indicate one is more trustworthy than the other.

That's a bit hyperbolic. Drugs are an illegal substance to possess and at least two people have fatally overdosed in this home. Information is information.

And it shouldn't "technically" be the way that it should be that a property homeowner is forcefully removed from their property.

To be clear, the police were fucking stupid in this situation, but that's not the context here. They were literally arguing that appearance should dictate police response.

That's not exactly what I said. I can see the argument about appearance discrepancies, and I concede that, but note that I didn't argue that solely. Nonetheless, information is information and there are likelihoods associated with that information. You have druggies and prostitutes with guns inside a home (that is extremely likely to be unkept) and a person claiming that they are the property owner and that the people inside are illegal squatters. I'm not sure how all of that funnels into an arrest of the property owner, which is what I was getting at.

The police can't search the home without a warrant. They just showed up at the door where one person was (presumably) inside, and the other trying to get in.

> Why is that not a situation where they go okay, prove it, and he pulls up paperwork and such

I mean... I own my house and I'm not sure I could do this on the spot. Maybe I have a copy of some paperwork somewhere? But I can understand a police officer not wanting to learn to be a lawyer on the spot.

Maybe they shouldn't arrest people then if they don't have the information required to make that determination. It takes a two minute phone call to the town offices to determine who owns a property.

Actually it's not that easy. Paperwork could be in progress for a sale, for example. Or the squatters can produce a fake lease agreement. None of that would appear in any county or city records. The courts, not the police, look at evidence and hear both sides if someone claims to own or rent a property.

Before jumping to conclusions like this try calling your town office or county assessor to find out if that's something they can actually do, accurately and with current information, over the phone, 24/7. I already know the answer. The police do not act as prosecutors, legal researchers, or judges. The law protects squatters, unfortunately I agree. The police are law enforcers, not arbitrators or title insurance researchers.

It's not what the police do. The police keep the peace and questions of property ownership are figured out later.

In this case, working backwards from the arrest (and discounting most of the presented information as coming from the source of the arrestee and unfiltered by a known yellow journalism rag), I can hypothesize that the officer was presented with a situation where one individual was clearly resident in the property, and the other individual had attempted to force entry, was arguing with the cops about owning the property inhabited by the other individual, and refused to leave. Easiest solution to that problem for the cop is to take the individual who was invading the property and give him some time in the cool-off tank overnight until everything can get resolved.

On average that's the better solution. Imagine if the police were ripping you out of your home just because some lunatic showed up on your doorstep and started ranting that they owned your house. Playing the odds of perceived circumstance is likely to arrive at the best outcome here; the scenario where the angry invader is the legitimate property owner and the person resident in the building is the squatter is the rare scenario.

Isn’t the record of who owns the home on your county assessor’s website. I can pull this info up in 1 minute.

Police have to make calls in the moment all the time, and they don't always make the best ones.

In this case, occupancy was 99% of the perceived law. One person was clearly established as resident in the property, the other one had just jumped a fence.

(Also, keep in mind that we're hearing the "drugs and prostitutes" claim from the property owner. This is the New York Post... They aren't going to fact check that claim).