Yeah - That's the latest little theory going around on the liberal sites (like Quora and Reddit) highly populated by over-educated liberal “authorities”: The rioters (er, peaceful protesters) were standing on HOA ground, not “private property” and so the rioters (er, pieces of protesters) were on “community ground” and so could be rioting and threatening all they want.
Problem with that theory:
The couple literally, legally, owned at least part of that “HOA property” outright.
Under state squatter’s right law, open and hostile (legal term) use of property for sufficient time (7 years?) renders the lot’s title to the squatters. The couple likely paid property taxes, mowed it, excluded public use at times, etc for enough years, and has been in court asserting their right to the parcel. Court has not decided yet, but being lawyers they wouldn’t be there if case wasn’t solid; I assume ownership begins when criteria are fulfilled, not when court signs title (else prior owner would react to court filing by evicting squatters and declaring “see they’re not squatting any more so it’s not theirs”).
Continuing prosecution for the incident would have
- claimed “castle doctrine” as armed & threatening trespassers on couple’s property
- parcel claimed as theirs per squatter’s right
- stalled title case dragged in for compelled ruling
- evidence tampering noted
- couple wins title
- retroactive ownership means mob violently trespassed
- castle doctrine law applies in plain wording, couple wins
- prosecutor charged with evidence tampering
- prosecutor loses
- mob subject to prosecution
- couple presses charges on mob
- dozens of criminal cases arise
- drawn out cases vs BLM et al
- couple sites for assorted damages
Upshot: couple wins core case, couple wins property title case, prosecutor incarcerated, city spends much on mob prosecution, jurisdictions cross political allies, couple gets windfall $.
Easier to drop the case.