r/CaughtMyEye • u/detectiverobert • 20h ago

A middle school custodian was suspended and later resigned after secretly living above the school auditorium for six months. He furnished the space with beds, furniture, and a mini-fridge, and had his four children stay with him on weekends because he had nowhere else to go.

Post image
• Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

•

u/ffuca 18h ago

Or they would have massive legal liability and people are shitty

•

u/SleepingDragonSmiles 17h ago

Get outta here reality!

•

u/Aleashed 13h ago

He had a dream… and the guy above you squashed it

•

u/Upper-Reveal3667 16h ago

It’s a shame he’s poor or the legality of it wouldn’t have been an issue.

•

u/ffuca 16h ago

If he wasn’t poor he wouldn’t be there in the first place so not sure what your point is. The legality does not change depending on the person anyway.

•

u/jmatlock21 16h ago

Laws that have fines as punishments only apply to those who can’t afford to pay the fine. At this point, everyone has heard the story of Jeff Bezos’s hedge wall that is taller than city statutes allow but he pays the fine because he’s rich and he can. So you would be incorrect when you say that legality does not change based on the class of the person in question.

•

u/zouss 15h ago

The legality doesn't change. What Bezos is doing is still illegal. But he's able to pay the consequence of breaking the law since he's rich

•

u/DrFigSecret 14h ago

So what you're saying is that laws have no consequences if you're rich?

Sounds like the law IS different based on the person.

•

u/ffuca 14h ago

No, the consequence is the fine. And it applies to him. Don’t confuse two issues.

•

u/zouss 14h ago

There is a consequence. He has to pay a fine. But since he's rich, he doesn't care and keeps doing it. But the consequence is the same for everyone. Which you could argue is unfair, I heard in some Scandinavian countries they make fines proportional to income and I think that's a smart way to address this issue

•

u/omgFWTbear 13h ago

And if he was too poor to pay the fine, what would happen to him?

You’re not looking at all the dominos. If Bezos, for whatever reason, did what the subject did, he’d tie the whole thing up in years of motions that the school system could not afford to contest.

C’mon dude, look holistically. This is not a controversial idea, that functionally the law has nuances for some, and functionally life ending outcomes for most… and if you think losing a job / a short stint in jail isn’t life ending, let’s just go to what percentage of Americans are a mere one paycheck from destitution.

•

u/zouss 13h ago

Again, I'm not arguing that being rich can't help people break the law. They can pay fines and post bail and get the best lawyers available to fight their charges. Of course they have an advantage over a poor dude whose life would be completely destroyed for doing the same thing. But that doesn't change the fact the law applies to the rich and poor, and rich people who do something illegal are still breaking the law, regardless of how consequential the penalties are for them

•

u/omgFWTbear 12h ago

No, you used the magic word - consequences. If they can make the penalties inconsequential as you basically admit, then the law is consequential to one set, and inconsequential to the other.

That isn’t “caviar is off the menu for the poor,” that’s “groceries don’t exist for the poor.”

→ More replies (0)

•

u/Dobber16 10h ago

Ignoring the nuance doesn’t make you seem more intelligent or right. There’s a difference between equal treatment & equitable treatment. If you’re pretending to not know the difference, that’s dumb. If you don’t know the difference, i can excuse the ignorance ig

•

u/East_Insurance_1037 15h ago

Illegality is supposed to be “you can’t do this”. This is a specific example of, “yes I can”. The money loophole turns something you shouldn’t be able to do into something you can

•

u/zouss 14h ago

Legality is the state or quality of being in conformity with the law, and illegality is the opposite. For the legality to change for rich people, there would need to be a clause saying "if your income/wealth is above x, you are allowed to do this." The fact rich people can break a law and pay off the fine and keep doing it again and again has not changed the legality of their action. It's just that the penalty for breaking the law is minor so they can get away with it

•

u/Bamarado84 14h ago

You missed their entire point.

•

u/zouss 14h ago

No I get what they're trying to say. But it's not accurate to say that the legality of an action has changed because someone is able to pay the fine and keep doing it. What they're doing is still illegal

•

u/IndyPFL 14h ago

You're being pedantic for the sake of appeasing billionaires that don't even care that you exist. Stop it.

→ More replies (0)

•

u/Bamarado84 14h ago

Except illegal only means something if you can’t pay. Words are just words with no actions. The rich get to traffic and abuse children. Poor people get put in jail for sleeping on the streets. You aren’t a serious person.

→ More replies (0)

•

u/HispanicAtTheDisko 14h ago

You just proved their point that it is in fact legal for them to do so.

•

u/zouss 14h ago

If it were legal for him to do so, he wouldn't need to pay a fine at all. The fact he has to pay the fine proves it's illegal

•

u/cyborgsnowflake 12h ago

Laws are laws because people have decided that the effects of doing x are bad. If you have enough money to turn doing x is bad into doing x is good because it makes a ton of money than there isn't any reason to have the law anymore other than some abstract notions that may not override real needs the money can solve. Thats just the way it is.

•

u/New_Classroom7456 11h ago

Yea that isn’t true. It is taller than city statues normally allow but they got an approved extension rather than paying a fine. It’s crazy how often you find people regurgitating bullshit and never verify anything. 

•

u/fresh_peetz 15h ago

Buddy, nobody is going to be able to live inside a school regardless of whether they can afford to pay the fines.

•

u/omgFWTbear 13h ago

Yeah, no rich person has to tied up any misbehavior in court motions for years that they’ve frustrated any attempt to prevent them from just doing what they want.

/s

•

u/WZAWZDB13 14h ago

Thinking legality does not change depending on the person is insanely naive.

The mere fact that someone can pay an expensive lawyer and someone else can’t ensures that one person won’t face consequences for the same - and often far more egregious - illegal behavior

•

u/ffuca 14h ago

The law, and therefore legality, applies to everyone. The law does not say: does not apply to rich people. Whether they can afford a legal defense does not change the law.

•

u/WZAWZDB13 14h ago

It doesnt change the law, but it does change how the law is applied. So while in theory legality does not change, in practice it depends strongly on who commits the behavior.

•

u/ffuca 14h ago

Correct

•

u/WZAWZDB13 14h ago

Ah it was semantics? What a pointless distraction from the actual point being made then.

•

u/ffuca 13h ago

I’m not an idiot. I just think people shouldn’t say “it’s legal for rich people to break the law”

•

u/omgFWTbear 13h ago

If they can continue living their life without substantial control from the state, and others cannot, then what distinction are you actually making?

→ More replies (0)

•

u/SN27A1 14h ago

👏👏

•

u/Subject_Telephone_56 15h ago

What wealthy person squats?

•

u/omgFWTbear 13h ago

Oh man, you ready for a whole thing on water rights? Or how most rich people got “their” land in the first place?

•

u/Subject_Telephone_56 13h ago

Ok yes, let’s have a completely separate conversation about a different topic.

•

u/omgFWTbear 12h ago

No, we are talking about wealthy people squatting. Read again, maybe slower so you get it right the second time.

•

u/Subject_Telephone_56 10h ago

I know what you’re saying, but it’s a different conversation. This is a homeless squatting situation, not theft. Wealthy people do not squat out of survival. Jesus.

•

u/Benkosayswhat 10h ago

Homeless squatting hurts the wealthy (the state).

Wealthy squatting often hurts the poor (dispossess them of land and is able to use an expensive legal system to formalize title)

•

u/PositiveEndolphins 10h ago

water rights

•

u/GngrbredGentrifktion 5h ago

Billionaires. Forcing data centers on everyone's cities and neighborhoods.😁 You're welcome.

•

u/Low-Car-6331 16h ago

If he wasn't poor, the charges probably wouldn't have been dropped.

•

u/TheOneTonWanton 16h ago

If he wasn't poor he wouldn't have been living in the fucking school. Nobody just chooses to do that.

•

u/EdinMiami 15h ago

Trespass requires you be told you are not allowed on the property. A janitor, even one who stays after hours, has expressed permission to be on site.

•

u/Low-Car-6331 14h ago

Not necessarily.

New York for example, doesn't require a person be told if a reasonable person could figure out they are suppose to be there. This is why in many states, if you hope a fence, you are legally trespassing, as a closed off fenced area is clearly an area that the public isn't welcome to enter.

In this particular case though, New York (where this happened) has a provision that changes it from an infraction to a criminal charge if certain buildings are involved (like a school).

NYS § 140.05 (infraction trespass) and § 140.10 (third degree criminal trespass)

(there is also second degree and first degree trespass which is what you are probably thinking of)

•

u/13thmurder 16h ago

Laws are shitty. But laws are made by people, so...

•

u/Electronic-Stick-161 12h ago

Live in caretakers are everywhere.. this is a stupid take.

•

u/Lunar-opal 8h ago

Ok but they didn’t need to fire him he was there because he had no other place to go, and clearly don’t pay a living wage

•

u/SuperCruisePanther 3h ago

Just write a contract. Legal liability goes away.

•

u/mojizus 16h ago

Just further proof most people on this site live in a fantasy land, you’re absolutely right.

•

u/ffuca 16h ago

It’s the same as when they say to renovate a dilapidated shopping mall to be apartments for homeless people

•

u/Fit-Database1134 16h ago

For real. That's a massive no no. No you cannot sleep and bathe yourself above my learning children.

•

u/Badass_Bunny 16h ago

Wait, why do you have an issue with that part? I get school avoiding liability, but your comment I don't get.

•

u/Common-Bend-2093 16h ago

Yeah, the kids would obviously not be there when he’s sleeping lol he works there

•

u/Fit-Database1134 16h ago

That isn't the point. Kids Are at schools sr all hours. He has access to all parts of the school at all times? Where he can put camera or whatever else he wants to do. Humans are monsters never trust them.

•

u/wherethefuckismyvape 16h ago

Is this something that happened here, or is this a scary fantasy the news media has put into your head for you?

•

u/sylvanwhisper 16h ago

This take is monstrous, actually. Or maybe just very dumb. Any adult could (and have) place cameras at any time. You don't need after hours access to do so. You're making baseless assumptions about this man for no reason.

•

u/Pittsbirds 15h ago

Kids Are at schools sr all hours

??? No they're not lmao. It's a middle school, your kid isn't going to be there at midnight

•

u/Tonaia 15h ago

...which he could have easily done during his shift anyway if he were that kind of person. That ultimate access is why it's so critical for schools to hire good, honest people in the first place. We know the workings of the security system, we know the layout of everything because we are moving about the building, and have far less oversight than you would believe. 

•

u/MrJasmine 16h ago

He’s the custodian he already has access to the whole school idioti

•

u/Fit-Database1134 13h ago

So let's give him more unsupervised access? You guys can't be serious. Pedophiles run the world let's not make it easy for them.

•

u/hellion1965 12h ago

The fact YOU went to possible child molestation says more about YOU then the man in the story. 

Maybe THINK before you write. It will cut down on possible misunderstandings about your mindset.

•

u/Fit-Database1134 9h ago

Lol if you say so

•

u/Fit-Database1134 16h ago

Humans are monsters