This counter-investigation has concluded the homes evicted were occupied in an effort to secure safer shelter. In the words of the evicted, the homes were "a better chance of survival." Evidence to the contrary does not support a claim that the homes were occupied to "victimize" the property owner, as stated by the Portland Police Bureau's weak investigation. The police make an injurious leap when referring to occupying as a form "victimizing" of the property owner. The elitist investigation was written to the advantage of capital, and victimizes and criminalizes the squatting. This mis-information would blame all those affected by the accumulation of capital, assisting the interests of property-owners at the expense of the houseless. Shelter is necessary for survival and needs no permission. Yet survival, unpermitted, is called the victimization of the rich. That is the downside-up perspective of Portland Police Bureau.
The counter-investigation has also noted that the motivation to "victimize" a property owner is highly unlikely and poorly constructed. Multiple properties titled to the owner mentioned in the police press release proved accessible, unmanaged and vacant. Their research in the search for shelter is not motivated by a "larger, organized effort to victimize an elderly property owner," but by a larger, more human, effort to survive. The drive to survive is larger than a mortgage, larger than a house, larger than bankruptcy, greater than a prison cell. Owners and squatters alike are occupiers from the perspective of the barren home. Should the police pressure on idle property accumulation and speculations on shelter maintain their grip on survival, something likely volcanic will occur and move mountains of unmanageable property into anti-capitalist action.