Landlord Shoots and Kills Two Fleeing Tenants Over Concerns About Living Conditions

Tragedy has struck Hamilton. On Saturday, May 27, a 57-year-old landlord killed a couple who lived in the basement of his building. They ran from the man, who shot and killed them using firearms registered to the address. Hamilton Police arrived at the scene after reports of the gunfire were called in. They then had a standoff with the man, who barricaded himself in the home. He shot at police, they returned fire, and the resulting exchange killed him.

That’s the story with the facts as we know them. A landlord shot and killed two of his tenants, who were 30 years younger than him (the man was 28 and the woman was 27), barricaded himself inside his home, fired at police, then was killed by police gunfire. The motives are vague at best. Hamilton Police Service’s Major Crime Unit Det. Sgt. Steve Berezniuk told CP24 that the “incident” arose from “disagreement surrounding issues within the house.” He also told Global News something similar, stating “there was a disagreement in relation to the condition of the home.”

This story is horrific and traumatizing. Much can be said about the landlord/tenant relationship in this country, under a capitalist system, which exploits tenants and uses the threat of homelessness to extract wealth from their labour. This type of violence is systemic, but it lays in the background. Rarely does it manifest in such a grotesque tragedy such as this.

But this dynamic is also reflected in our news media’s coverage. The famous “exonerative police voice” used in cop shootings is now being deployed in this instance when a landlord has killed his tenants.

Let’s run through the gambit. The aforementioned CP24 coverage wrote their headline “Two tenants, landlord dead following dispute in Stoney Creek, SIU investigating.” The headline for the Global News piece reads “Double homicide in east Hamilton connected with landlord, tenants.” The Canadian Press copy published in the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail each have unique headlines that downplay the landlord’s role. The Star is slightly better, and vaguely gestures to the attacker. They wrote the couple were “shot dead while fleeing landlord-tenant dispute.” The Globe and Mail simply reports that the double homicide “involves landlord and tenants.” The only article I’ve found so far that addresses the killings directly is CTV News, publishing a piece by CP24 web writer Joanna Lavoie. “Engaged couple shot dead fleeing landlord.” Even this case does not directly address the killing to the landlord.

The content of these articles isn’t much better. The closest the CP24 piece comes to describing how the tenants were killed reads “a 57-year-old man, believed to be responsible for the murder of two people, is dead.” Global News wrote the dispute “is believed to have led to the shooting death of two people.” CTV wrote they were shot dead “attempting to flee their attacker,” explaining that this happened “after a disagreement surrounding issues within the house.” The Canadian Press copy used in the Star and the Globe and Mail state the man barricaded himself in the house “after the couple died.”

The couple did not simply “die.” It was not simply an “attacker” who killed them. It’s not a double-homicide “connected” with a landlord and tenants.

Based on all this information, here’s what we can safely assume. The landlord took legally owned and registered guns, killed two tenants who had attempted to flee, then barricaded himself in the home and fired at police. The “dispute” in question was concerns about the state of the house the tenants were renting from him. From all available evidence, it appears this man killed his tenants for pointing out their living situation did not meet acceptable standards.

Th word “dispute” does a lot of work to obfuscate what truly happened, as well. What purpose does phrasing this as a “dispute” serve when these are the facts of the situation? A dispute is an argument that, without the details to explore further, puts both parties on relatively equal footing. These outlets may as well have published that a “Clash erupted in a Hamilton housing incident.” This was an aggressive, fatal attack by a landlord on his tenants. Yet the news media reporting on this tip-toes around that fact, and refused to publish the facts as we have them in a clearly communicated manner.

Another layer to this grotesque reporting has been to focus on the specific economic and social situation this couple was in. The Hamilton Spectator isn’t the only outlet doing this, but their article stresses Bereziuk’s quote on the tenants being “truly innocent victims.” The article waits until the fifth paragraph to actually point out that the killer was their landlord, and has many of the other issues explored here. But their social status gets particular focus. They were “hardworking people.” The CTV piece further quotes Bereziuk who said “these are not people that this should happen to, they're not involved in any level of criminality or lifestyle that may lead to an incident like this.”

These people were shot and killed by their landlord and one of the first responses is to breathe a sigh of relief that they’re worthy of our sorrow. Truly despicable reporting.

This type of reporting is not new, and is famously used in news reporting on police shootings. But its use here is indicative of the power relations that dominate capitalist society. The reporting on this tragedy takes great pains to downplay the coercively economic relationship between a landlord and their tenant. This couple lived underneath a man who felt it right to shoot and kill them as they fleed in terror. Landlords across this country have evicted people and put economic pressure on them to work themselves harder and harder or face living on the streets. In both situations, violence is used against those who were living under an exploitative thumb.

This is not the only element of the story, but it is a crucial part. The tragedy is being reported in such a way to downplay a terrifying reality in this country. These people were tenants to a man with disproportionate control over their housing. They were evidently killed for expressing concerns about their living situation. This is, at best, reluctantly addressed, and, at worst, intentionally muddied. This couple are victims of an individually violent landlord, but they’re also victims of a systemically violent housing system. When the news media reports incidents like this, they reveal what purpose their framing serves.

There’s nothing I can write that will ease the pain of their loss to their families, their community, or to those who live under equally dangerous conditions. Their deaths are felt by all of us, and those who obfuscate the realities that lead to their killings deserve nothing but scorn.