> It only says that if I'm renting to you and I find out that you're cooking meth I should evict you; not that I should refuse to rent to you because I heard you've cooked meth.
How are you distinguishing between those two things, "I find out that you're cooking meth" and "I heard you've cooked meth"? They appear to be the same thing. The tense doesn't get you anywhere because unless you only have to evict the person at the very second you catch them in the act, any such eviction has to be based on historical behavior. And under the silly instantaneous interpretation the eviction would only be necessary for so long as the criminality is ongoing -- you must evict but as soon as the criminal is finished with crime for the day (or claims to be) then he can move right back in? That would be nonsense.
Maybe your point is that "finding out" requires more evidence than "hearing" -- which really gets to the heart of it, doesn't it? Private parties aren't judges. They don't have all the evidence, they don't have a perfect (or for that matter even remotely accurate) knowledge of the law, they're biased and prejudiced and are highly likely to be heavy handed when the alternative is to have to fight somebody else's fight. It's imposing the duty to enforce the law on people with no capacity or inclination to do it properly.
How are you distinguishing between those two things, "I find out that you're cooking meth" and "I heard you've cooked meth"? They appear to be the same thing. The tense doesn't get you anywhere because unless you only have to evict the person at the very second you catch them in the act, any such eviction has to be based on historical behavior. And under the silly instantaneous interpretation the eviction would only be necessary for so long as the criminality is ongoing -- you must evict but as soon as the criminal is finished with crime for the day (or claims to be) then he can move right back in? That would be nonsense.
Maybe your point is that "finding out" requires more evidence than "hearing" -- which really gets to the heart of it, doesn't it? Private parties aren't judges. They don't have all the evidence, they don't have a perfect (or for that matter even remotely accurate) knowledge of the law, they're biased and prejudiced and are highly likely to be heavy handed when the alternative is to have to fight somebody else's fight. It's imposing the duty to enforce the law on people with no capacity or inclination to do it properly.