WotC may have sent the Pinkertons to a magic leakers home. Update: WotC confirms it and has a response.

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Nobody here is a juror at a trial currently, but ok, let’s look at both sides objectively.
One side is a private citizen and it’s accusing the other, a mega corp, of employing contractors that did something that is either a very morally suspect action or a crime.
The mega corp is flatly denying the accusation without adding much info. Basically the corp version of “nah fam I dinnae do it”.

Whatever really happened, the end result of the event was that the uninvited contractors walked away of a private citizen’s house with his property in their bags.
Yeah I think that, unless more info comes out, I’m going to believe the accuser for the time being.

Would you have believed WoTC if their statement included their version of events? For example, if they said, "This is not what happened. What actually happened is that Pinkerton agents knocked on the door and asked for Mr. Cannon. They waited outside. When Mr. Cannon came to the door they were let in by Mr. and Mrs. Cannon."
Would you believe the WoTC statement?

 

[Olrox17]

To be blunt, I find it a bit frightening/disappointing/alarming that there are human beings that choose to act as you are doing right now: to pre-judge, based on previous preconceptions rather than the facts at hand.

But...

I do understand your concern re: a private citizen's property leaving their premises after coercion from another private citizen.

I mean, if you do understand my concern as you properly explained at the end of your post, then what is the beginning of your post about?
People make informed guesses all the time, it's not frightening/disappointing/alarming. Someone in the field of philosophy could even say that objectivity doesn't exist, and all we have are subjective viewpoints, informed or otherwise.

I think you're misapplying correct legal principles (innocence until proven guilt, favor rei, etc) and applying them to regular public conversation. If a side says A, and the other side says B, it's completely fine to analyze their respective assertions and decide for yourself that one side is more likely to be lying than the other, as long as one keeps an open mind in case more info emerges.

Would you have believed WoTC if their statement included their version of events? For example, if they said, "This is not what happened. What actually happened is that Pinkerton agents knocked on the door and asked for Mr. Cannon. They waited outside. When Mr. Cannon came to the door they were let in by Mr. and Mrs. Cannon."
Would you believe the WoTC statement?

Engaging in detail does make a story more relevant in my eyes, yes. Especially because the more detailed a narration is, the more easily disproven it becomes if it's a bunch of lies. By going in detail while being untruthful, you're more likely to get caught in a lie later, so liars often try to avoid saying too much.

 

[cranberry]

What does someone who stuck their foot in your door to stop it from closing get charged with? (It feels like there should be something if they don't immediately take it out when you ask.) Would an armed person with their foot in the door who doesn't leave have potentially legally lethal implications in some states based on their particular castle doctrine laws?

Where I live, "stand your ground" laws would allow the homeowner to use lethal force in that situation.

 

[Bedrockgames]

What does someone who stuck their foot in your door to stop it from closing get charged with? (It feels like there should be something if they don't immediately take it out when you ask.) Would an armed person with their foot in the door who doesn't leave have potentially legally lethal implications in some states based on their particular castle doctrine laws?

I don't know but that is a really stupid thing to do if you don't have the legal authority to do it (and not saying that was done here, as the story is developing). Where I live, my first thought would be it is a home invasion because that's something you hear about a lot (and it isn't uncommon for people to knock or ring the bell, claim to be there for a legitimate reason, then force their way in or hit the person in the head with a hammer and enter the house or apartment. I don't know what they could be charged with though if it were an attempt to force entry into a home or to stop the door from being shut without other bad intent. I would imagine they could get charged with something though (you can get charged for shoving someone, for grabbing them, even for using just words if it makes people feel under threat. I don think where I live (Massachusetts) I don't know how the castle doctrine works. I know outside the home, you have a duty to retreat. I don't know something in your home changes that, but I don't know the legal parameters of what someone can do (I am not a gun owner and don't really know much about guns or gun laws).

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

I mean, if you do understand my concern as you properly explained at the end of your post, then what is the beginning of your post about?
People make informed guesses all the time, it's not frightening/disappointing/alarming. Someone in the field of philosophy could even say that objectivity doesn't exist, and all we have are subjective viewpoints, informed or otherwise.

The beginning of my post is about your position in this argument. You make assumptions whose basis is your predisposition rather than what you can rely on factually has happened.

Yes, humans do these things. This fact doesn't make it any less disappointing.

I think you're misapplying correct legal principles (innocence until proven guilt, favor rei, etc) and applying them to regular public conversation. If a side says A, and the other side says B, it's completely fine to analyze their respective assertions and decide for yourself that one side is more likely to be lying than the other, as long as one keeps an open mind in case more info emerges.

Why is regular public conversation excluded from principles that are built on fairness? To me, that is a very odd stance to take.

I do respect your calm and reasoned response though. I am happy to hear more from your side of the fence, despite the fact that I have no idea how anything you say would sway me. But... there is a non-zero possibility that you can sway me. See how applying fairness in public conversation works?

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Where I live, "stand your ground" laws would allow the homeowner to use lethal force in that situation.

I highly doubt that's the case.

 

[Ryujin]

I highly doubt that's the case.

It would be an interesting legal argument. Pinkerton agents are routinely armed, in the US. This would mean you have an armed trespasser, on your property, who is essentially forcing entry. In a place like Florida or Texas, given past cases involving Castle Doctrine, I could see it flying there.

 

[cranberry]

I highly doubt that's the case.

My state isn't included in the "reasonable person" standard. In practice, the courts almost always rule in favor of the homeowner. After all, it's the homeowner's word against a dead person who can't tell their side of the story....

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

It would be an interesting legal argument. Pinkerton agents are routinely armed, in the US. This would mean you have an armed trespasser, on your property, who is essentially forcing entry. In a place like Florida or Texas, given past cases involving Castle Doctrine, I could see it flying there.

The problem here is that we don't know if there was forced entry.

Overall, though, it's a pretty sad way of looking at the world. The fraction of the world that thinks that there is a public safety concern that needs to be addressed by a Castle Doctrine is not large enough to be consequential. But they do think the way they do for a reason. I can't imagine what that reason is, but it's worth asking.

 

[Ryujin]

The problem here is that we don't know if there was forced entry.

Overall, though, it's a pretty sad way of looking at the world. The fraction of the world that thinks that there is a public safety concern that needs to be addressed by a Castle Doctrine is not large enough to be consequential. But they do think the way they do for a reason. I can't imagine what that reason is, but it's worth asking.

My comment is predicated on the foot in the door statement being true. There's a reason why "police auditors" and Constitutional Law folks say to not even open the door for police, when they come knocking. The concept of foot-in-the-door is apparently rather murky, depending upon your (American) jurisdiction and applicable case law, even when actual police are involved.