What if Joe buys three or four other $200K houses for disadvantaged families, but ones who would probably be good neighbors? With $300 million after taxes, he can easily afford it, and now he has a pattern of helping (presumably) deserving families by giving them houses. One misfire? Hell, everyone falls victim to poor judgment every now and then.
ETA: Not that anyone actually deserves to be given a house outright; that’s just how Joe puts it if he’s asked about it.
Of course. My view of the OP is:
The OP acknowledges #1 by specifying #2. So while it seems certain that Joe would be questioned about the sale, the only way he’s held liable is by actively fighting the hypothetical.
I think there is also the question as to whether or not what Joe did was illegal in the first place.
And, short of Joe explicitly making a condition of moving there that they had to harass their neighbors, I don’t think any crime is being committed.
Let’s say that Joe does all this, but, in the new environment, the family flourishes and becomes model neighbors and citizens. Do you still feel that Joe committed a crime?
Note that the OP doesn’t stop at “harassment,” but specifies that the Dogwhistles are “violent, thieving, brutal, crackhead criminals,” and further specifies that Joe’s wish is for them to “terrorize [the] neighborhood.” That’s not simple harassment.
I don’t think Joe needs to know the specific crimes that will be committed. If I come to you all wild-eyed and muttering about how “they’re going to get it” and you loan me a gun, a car, and some cash, does it matter that you didn’t know precisely what I had in mind if I go and do something terrible with your aid?
I think so, yes. From our position as omniscient narrators, we know Joe’s motive and state of mind. We know that he is purposefully orchestrating a scenario which will facilitate criminal activities. Mens rea can be all but impossible to prove in court absent concrete action, but in this thread we don’t have to prove it. We know, categorically, that Joe is acting with the intent to cause harm to life and property. This seems to push him past the standard for gross negligence.
Let’s take a big pivot. Say I know of a barber named Sweeney Todd. I’ve heard a rumor that some of Sweeney Todd’s customers go missing and have put two and two together. I set up a charity to provide haircuts and shaves to the downtrodden in that neighborhood. My intent, kept secret and to myself, is the murder of these people.
I don’t force anybody to go to any particular barber. I don’t speak to anybody directly, and certainly not to the Barber of Fleet Street. But a number of ‘undesirables’ go missing.
Acknowledging that I am fully insulated from legal liability due to my cleverness, have I nevertheless committed a crime? What if none of them go missing? Are the concrete actions I’ve taken to turn homeless people into meat pies only a crime if I’m successful?
You can ignore the “I sold my house for $10” part by making the sale say $250K or whatever, financed by yourself, and just never get paid. It has the added bonus of you looking like another victim. “Not only did the Dogwhistles turn that fine house into a meth lab and let the Hells Angels live there, they never paid me!”
Yes. In general, landlords have an obligation not to allow unsafe conditions or illegal conduct on their property. The landlord could be forced to evict them.
And in the not hypothetical this is based on, the real person has already told pkbites his nefarious plan. You think he’s never going to brag to anyone about his brilliant lottery-fueled vengeance?
pkbites takes all the fun out of the hypothetical. In case of every crime or tort, the answer is always that the person is not guilty/liable if there is no evidence.
What’s the crime, though?
What if the lottery win went the other way? Dogwhistle wins $250,000 in the lottery, and instead of smoking it decides to buy a house in a nice suburb. Joe is selling because he hates his neighbors and just wants to get out, and the Dogwhistles show up with a cash offer and no need for inspection (because they don’t know any better), so they’re the new owners. Maybe Joe is even pleased that these people are likely to make things real bad for the neighbors he hates.
What if Joe got several offers, but takes the one from Dogwhistle just because he thinks they’ll mess up the neighborhood?
Has the same crime been committed as in the original OP?
This one I’m dismissing.
Remember, I am a LEO. When sent to a call like this, unless I suspect these are home invaders or squatters how someone came to live in whatever housing doesn’t enter the equation. This is a middle class home in a middle class neighborhood, not Bel Aire.
Ever been to West Allis, Wisconsin, east of 60th Street? Middle class housing but I swear the show Shameless could have taken place there.
Who cares? Joe can afford a better team of lawyers. Bleed the old asshole neighbors dry with legal fees on top of all the other inhumanity.
I’m taking notes, by the way. Now, just need to hit the lottery…
Ah, Stallis! I never lived there but I sure lived near there.
C’mere once and see a typical neighborhood there east of 60th.
I gotta tell yah, this could be the next Eddie Murphy movie.
Gotta tell you, “Joe” and I had some good laughs over his diabolical plans. He was so pissed at his neighbors.
Getting back on topic, I see zero way that someone who merely gives criminals a place to live, is in any legal way liable for any crimes they commit. That would lead to all kinds of legal absurdities.
IANAL, of course, but I don’t see what law Joe would be breaking. From here,
As long as Joe is smart enough to not tell his co-workers, who in turn post this on random message boards, then it would be really hard to prove anything.
I don’t know that even if his plan were to be discovered if it were to be considered a crime. He isn’t enticing the lowlifes to actually commit crime. All he is doing is giving them a place to live which is close to these people’s homes. If they go on to commit crimes, that doesn’t seem to be to rise to the level of aiding and abetting.
Now if he were to provide a list of times when the people weren’t in their homes, or who had how much cash hidden under their mattresses, that may be different.
IANA lawyer but was married to one for 30+ years.
For Joe to avoid being guilty of criminal conspiracy he’d have to be very careful to avoid saying anything to the lowlifes that even leans towards Joe wanting crimes to happen or against whom.
The act of selling the house to the lowlifes for a below-market price could certainly be argued to be the “overt act” required by many state statutes defining criminal conspiracy. Whether any particular judge or jury would buy that part is IMO unknowable.
So avoiding the other essential element of criminal conspiracy, namely forming & communicating a joint plan, is the circuit breaker Joe needs to ensure stays intact to ensure he’s gonna skate.
Didn’t more or less the same thing happen to Palm Beach, Florida, when Trump bought Mar-A-Lago?
Can we learn anything from that?
