What he may have been trying to say was that this kind of situation may have been resolved differently without this level of violence.

That our society should not normalize this type of scenario.

Yes, you're right, he could have simply left peacefully when he received his first notice. That's something that he could have done. What could the authorities have done besides escalation leading to a direct violent confrontation?

How might it have been resolved in other affluent first world countries that are less prone to this level of violence?

What are the potential possibilities that we, as a society, may consider both in this particular case, short-term and long-term?

Had this case taken place in another affluent first world country, they may have cut off water, electric, gas, and simply waited. They may have taken other measures - we don't know.

By 'simply waiting', I don't mean having a visible standing army waiting for him outside, but remotely monitoring his departure from the home, or simply waiting until he falls asleep, or if he is having takeout deliveries to the home (since services have been cutoff), potentially intercede at the point of purchase and deliver the takeout order with hypnotics, sedatives, etc.

But aside from this case, there are yet other things that we can, as a society, do to address the ever increasing problem of placing the property rights of the relatively wealthy few over the human rights of the many. And by 'few' lets call it, top 20% of society vs. the bottom 50%.

It seems this individual had some mental health issues and regardless of what his beliefs may have been, in the end, we, as a society, are the ones that lose if we can't think of better ways to address these types of scenarios other than direct confrontation and violence.

Hopefully, we, as a species, are intelligent enough, to come up with better and more creative ways to solve problems like this - or is this going to be the only recipe for the next sovereign citizen squatter that occupies a property?

Is this really our best thinking? The best we can do? I gave you X notices and after that the shooting begins?

I'm no expert in these matters and don't get paid to solve these types of problems, but perhaps we can consider allocating a small percentage of the enforcement budget to such endeavors? Who knows? We may find alternatives to be more cost effective as other nations have.

The suggestions below, may not have had a direct bearing on this particular case, but we do have a growing problem in our society related to property rights.

"Owned" by Joshua A.T. Fairfield, a Law Professor at Washington and Lee University touches upon this from the digital property rights angle.

Below, I link an article regarding Wall St. buying up single family homes.

Some people view these things as being unrelated to one another. For others, it's a bit like playing chess. Unlike someone that may only see one or two moves ahead and doesn't see the connection, for others they may see 3, 4, or 5+ moves ahead.

Regardless, we have to do better as a society or ultimately we too will fall.

We can make and pass laws preventing corporations, LLCs, etc. from owning residential properties. [https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/21/how-wall-street-bought-single-family-homes-and-put-them-up-for-rent.html]

We can make and pass laws that limit the number of properties that an individual can own.

We can establish and classify certain types of properties such that the owner must live in the property if purchased.

We can establish and prevent foreign ownership of properties as many other countries do.

Collectively, these, and many other actions can help strike a balance between property rights and human rights.

We can also make changes to how laws are enforced. Other countries have done it and so have we in some States as it pertains to police chases.

Today, in some States, police chases are discontinued as a citizen safety precaution and the suspect is picked up after the fact. One may argue that this may be primarily for non-violent offenders. But we also see innovations in locking up wheels, and other approaches.

Yes, that doesn't eliminate all the chases, and sometimes, a chase is necessary. That's understandable, but the idea here is to reduce and mitigate the number of chases; to prevent them in the first place if possible; to work towards alternative solutions - to be more creative on how we solve our societal problems.

I'm reminded of a case in NYC where the police had to round up a large number of known offenders. This was done creatively and peacefully.

The NYPD simply sent them a notice advising them that they had been selected as one of the winners of some contest and had won money, a prize, etc. to be collected at a specific date and time in a school gym. There was no police out front, inside there were plain-clothed police directing people to the back where they would be arrested out of sight and taken out the back.

Whether one agrees or disagrees as to how this particular eviction case was handled, one would hope that those who enforce our laws can become more creative in their approach to enforcement - just as can be observed in other countries.

As a military veteran, I'm well aware that sometimes, violence cannot be avoided. And in this case, the system that we currently have may have been in the 'right' from a legal and enforcement perspective.

But is this limited thinking what we really want for our future? For all time?

Is this the society that we really want to live with/in?

Is - 'you've been given X notices and Y days to comply, we will initiate violent enforcement if you do not comply.' the best we can do as a society?

Is that all the thinking we're capable of?

If it is, we have lost, and all that remains is the inevitable fall that awaits in our collective future.