Legal notices, repo men and harassment.

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Don't take this the wrong way, but I still can't figure out how you didn't get out of the bathroom in time after hearing that going on at your front door. Honest to god (and I've been in plenty of hairy situations before), I would have been there with a gun in my hand and half a log hanging out of my a*s if I thought there was some sort of danger to my wife and/or child. She definitely would have been laid out prone on my front walkway when my brothers in blue showed up a few minutes later.

LOL

Honestly, from the first sound of a raised voice to when I got out there was about 10-20 seconds. It all happened really fast.
 
Good to hear you've got a badass on your side. You know now that if she sets foot back on your property, she is doing so with no good intent, and can react appropriately.
 
Haven't seen hide nor hair from the repo b**ch. I think SWMBO's mamabear act might have scared her off. We were able to get a copy of her business license from the other repo man and sent her a cease and desist letter, certified mail, just to make things clear she's not welcome back here.
 
Good to see so many willing to take responsibility for their safety and the safety of their families. colt 1911 cocked and locked here. Cheshre sorry to hear you had this happen. had a large group of men here one night. Ran em off once. second time they pounded on my back door at 3 AM... I answered with a hand full of COLT. 15 guys surrounding my house looking for my son after he beat one of em up for slapping a girl around. Shoulda seen the face of the one in front when he was looking down that barrel. I still get a chuckle out of it whenever I think about it !
 
Good to hear you've got a badass on your side. You know now that if she sets foot back on your property, she is doing so with no good intent, and can react appropriately.

So you can shoot her? You all are nuts.
 
Every state with a castle doctrine or make my day law requires more than mere bad intent, and it usually is not phrased "bad intent," on part of the criminal in defense of dwelling, and usually, in defense of self. It also requires the victim, in many instances, to retreat.

You know now that if she sets foot back on your property, she is doing so with no good intent, and can react appropriately.

i promptly chamber a 3" 1 1/8oz slug and he got the hint.


If you mean "react appropriately" in terms of what every other person here is parroting "lock n loaded," get real. Even if this were the wild west, you would be charged with common law purposeful/malicious murder, duly tried, convicted and sentenced to death by hanging. Deadly force is for real threats, not a harassing repo hag. If she is worth your lifetime in prison, well . . . . thinking responsibly, she is not . . .
 
I'm armed in case she becomes a direct threat to my family. While she made threats last time, she didn't go so far as expanding on it or acting on them. I know well what I'd be justified to do and when. First step if she shows up is to reach for my cell, not my gun.

That said, she's already demonstrated that she isn't going to follow the law in doing her job and is more than willing to use threats and intimidation to get her way so I feel I should expect anything from her and be prepared for whatever she may do.
 
So you can shoot her? You all are nuts.

Nobody's getting shot unless they become a direct threat. Not being prepared for such a situation would be "nuts."

If you mean "react appropriately" in terms of what every other person here is parroting "lock n loaded," get real. Even if this were the wild west, you would be charged with common law purposeful/malicious murder, duly tried, convicted and sentenced to death by hanging. Deadly force is for real threats, not a harassing repo hag. If she is worth your lifetime in prison, well . . . . thinking responsibly, she is not . . .

Reacting appropriately depends on the threat level. If she comes back with any sort of physical confrontation, forces her way into the house, or brandishes a weapon, she's leaving feet first. Putting a person's family in imminent danger has to be dealt with immediately.

If she comes back spouting a bunch of BS, I think a door in the face, a video, and the phone is an obvious solution.

As far as what you'd be "charged with" you would need to be in a state with an Attorney General that will try to fabricate charges when a person defends himself, or has an existing BS legal precedent/law for charging a person acting in self defense. Nobody's implying that popping everybody who walks onto your property is a good plan - the obvious (though perhaps understated) condition here for making a stain out of the ***** is that she present a direct physical threat. If she comes back, there's an excellent chance, considering her previous interactions with the OP's wife, that she DOES intend to become a physical threat. Not being prepared for this would be a terrible and perhaps fatal error for the OP.

ETA: I think the moral of the story here is that nobody really expects her to come back with a machete and go all medieval on the dude. BUT - being ready for such is the responsible thing to do. People go crazy all the time - if it's her day to draw that ticket and she's knocking on MY front door, I just want to make sure I'm ready. Is it going to happen? Not bloody likely. But if it does, why not be prepared to handle it as needed?

ETA #2: 36 of 50 states carry no "Duty to retreat" clause in practice. Thirty-one of those have established Castle Doctrine Law, and several beyond the 36 are swaying toward the logical side of the spectrum. This was just something I wanted to look up, so I figured I'd throw it in since I did. =)
 
Nobody's getting shot unless they become a direct threat. Not being prepared for such a situation would be "nuts."

ETA #2: 36 of 50 states carry no "Duty to retreat" clause in practice. Thirty-one of those have established Castle Doctrine Law, and several beyond the 36 are swaying toward the logical side of the spectrum. This was just something I wanted to look up, so I figured I'd throw it in since I did. =)


I am in total agreement with you; I think acting appropriately in accordance with the circumstances in many cases justifies deadly force. So does the case law in many jurisdictions. However, some states and many judges are into judicial activism, and by activism, I mean socialist/liberal holdings that would not be favorable for deadly force even in defense of others (family).

I just wanted to put it out there that your actions in your state will be interpreted with state case law that may or may not be dispositive for castle doctrine and duty to retreat. 36 states have no duty to retreat, but that means 14 probably do have some duty to retreat.

As far as what you'd be "charged with" you would need to be in a state with an Attorney General that will try to fabricate charges when a person defends himself, or has an existing BS legal precedent/law for charging a person acting in self defense.

I will only point out that the AG in most states has no real interest in charging you with anything, primarily because that has been delegated to municipalities via home rule statutes or similar authority. So most of the time, and 99% of the time, you are being charged by a county or municipal prosecutor aka "district attorney." While the AG has the sole authority to render opinions on how state law would be interpreted, the AG does not have the authority to invade the decisions of a duly elected/appointed and sworn prosecutor. They will decide what to charge you with and if they will charge you.

AG's have much different roles these days, with interstate compacts, sovereign issues with native americans, fighting the feds, fighting asian carp, etc. The last AG opinion I read was by Jennifer Granholm, now lame duck gov of Michigan, regarding the possession of a handgun while hunting, opining that it had to be non-concealed if no license was held by the person to do so.

As for it being BS . . . I do not agree. There exists truth in most convictions and the case law of the state needs careful and slow interpretation to avoid a miscarriage of law. We are seeing absurd regulations on the people's rights to bear arms being eroded, but baby steps are appropriate.
 
Just don't answer the door next time she comes. She'll get super pissed probably but she can't do anything.

She's just a bully. Just ignore her.
 
Back
Top