Bye Bye 4th amendment!!

[jbombelli]

No, the bottom line was that the woman wasn't harboring a fugitive. They came in anyway. So that's just fine and dandy?

And did they get into trouble? If the bail agents got in trouble for this, you have your answer. If they did not, you have your answer.

Don't you?


I'm done arguing about this. The fact is... bail enforcement agents have certain authorities granted to them under the law. You can argue about it until you're blue in the face, and it won't change that fact. You want to change it? Talk to the legislature.

Bounty hunters don't have to read anybody their miranda rights. Evidence they seize, even illegally, can be used in court. They can transport fugitives across state lines without any extradition proceedings. Bounty hunters can use "all reasonable force" to affect their arrest, including deadly force, if necessary to protect themselves.

Bounty hunters are PROXIES for the state, so the state gives some powers because of that. They're not EMPLOYED BY the state, so they don't have to follow the same rules as the police.


Read Taylor v. Taintor.

 

[dburkhead]

He's not a state actor because he's not employed by the state. He may derive his authority from the law, and he may be helping the system by grabbing fugitives off the street, but that doesn't make him an agent of the government.

The term for that is "sophistry." The State creates a class of people who have special powers, granted by the State, in order to do an end-run around the protections most of us are supposed to have against

He works for the bondsman, an insurance agent, who put himself financially on the line to guarantee the subject will appear for his court date. Paying 10% of the bond to the bail enforcement agents is a lot cheaper than paying 100% of the bond to the court.

As far as fighting them? You really need to understand that you are NOT allowed to use deadly force TO PROTECT A FUGITIVE FROM JUSTICE from being rearrested. You simply aren't.

Am I allowed to use deadly force against someone kicking in the door of my house or otherwise forcing entry who is not a sworn officer of the law serving a warrant?

Or is it your contention that Bounty Hunters never make mistakes? Or do I now have to make sure that not only are the people kicking in my door not uniformed police, but also that Mr. Mullet Head in Mufti is not a bounty hunter instead of some Gang Banger looking to finance his next fix?

That doesn't change just because he's in your house. If the bail enforcement agents see him in your house, and come in, and you open fire, YOU WILL go to prison for a very, very long time. If you're lucky enough to live.

And if there isn't a fugitive from justice in my home, then I want them in prison for the home invasion. And if there is a gun battle and I am killed in the process, I want them spending a nice long stretch for Felony Murder.

And I really don't care if they saw somebody they thought was the fugitive from justice. If they're going to break into my house, damage my property, threaten me and mine, then they'd better be absolutely sure--sure enough that they're willing to court very long prison sentences if they're wrong.

You see, many of those guys aren't stupid like Dog the Mullet. Some of them are serious, and professional. Some of them are ex-cops and ex-military. My old friends took the job, and their safety, very seriously. They didn't carry pepper spray; they carried shotguns and wore body armor, and there was usually 3-4 of them. So if you opened fire and hit one... the other three would kill you in a heartbeat. Then where would you be? Dead over a fugitive.

The thing is, I'm not stupid either. If I really were harboring a fugitive, I'd have a lot more than just my P3AT to back it up.

But I wouldn't do that. The only reason they would be breaking down my door is if the mistakenly thought their was a fugitive in there. And I, since I wouldn't actually be harboring a fugitive, would have no reason to expect that the folk breaking in are actually "legal" bounty hunters instead of a criminal gang.

And you cannot possibly tell me with a straight face that there is no risk of that. Even the police, with the need of Probable Cause and Warrants and all that have been known, from time to time, to break into the wrong person's home (bad tip, misinterpreted evidence, or just plain getting the address wrong) and hurting or even killing folk who are guilty of nothing more serious than maybe some unpaid parking tickets.

If the law does not recognize that, then so much the worse for the law.

You can mince all you want about what the smart thing would have been to do... the fact remains they were (and may still be, maybe not, I don't know...) able to do that if they knew their guy was in your house. If you don't like it... don't harbor fugitives. That's the bottom line. If you're not in the habit of harboring fugitives from justice in your house, you really don't have to worry about it.

So you really are saying with a straight face that mistakes never happen. Folk who aren't harboring fugitives never have their houses broken into by bounty hunters who are just mistaken.

As far as specifically what statutes give them their authority... I don't know off-hand since I myself was never involved in it. I'm only telling you what I was told by both the bail bondsman and the enforcement agents when I was considering entering that line of work 20 years ago.

Oh, I'm quite sure there are laws on the books that allow them to do just that--just like there were once laws on the books that required the apprehension and return of slaves to their "owners"--even if the escaped slave was found in a "free" state. My disbelief wasn't that the laws existed. My disbelief was that anybody with a serious love of Freedom and respect for the actual content of the Constitution could actually attempt to defend those laws.

It may be the law. That doesn't make it right.

 

[jbombelli]

The term for that is "sophistry." The State creates a class of people who have special powers, granted by the State, in order to do an end-run around the protections most of us are supposed to have against

The term is actually "proxy."

Am I allowed to use deadly force against someone kicking in the door of my house or otherwise forcing entry who is not a sworn officer of the law serving a warrant?

Or is it your contention that Bounty Hunters never make mistakes? Or do I now have to make sure that not only are the people kicking in my door not uniformed police, but also that Mr. Mullet Head in Mufti is not a bounty hunter instead of some Gang Banger looking to finance his next fix?

And if there isn't a fugitive from justice in my home, then I want them in prison for the home invasion. And if there is a gun battle and I am killed in the process, I want them spending a nice long stretch for Felony Murder.

And I really don't care if they saw somebody they thought was the fugitive from justice. If they're going to break into my house, damage my property, threaten me and mine, then they'd better be absolutely sure--sure enough that they're willing to court very long prison sentences if they're wrong.

I'm not saying mistakes never happen. The people I used to know did everything they could to make sure they were right, and erred on the side of caution. They would have to have reason to believe he was there, and then actually see the guy there.

Bounty hunters have gotten in trouble for screwing up. Feel free to do everything you can to bust them to oblivion. They have been sued in civil court as well, for screwing up.

The thing is, I'm not stupid either. If I really were harboring a fugitive, I'd have a lot more than just my P3AT to back it up.

But I wouldn't do that. The only reason they would be breaking down my door is if the mistakenly thought their was a fugitive in there. And I, since I wouldn't actually be harboring a fugitive, would have no reason to expect that the folk breaking in are actually "legal" bounty hunters instead of a criminal gang.

And you cannot possibly tell me with a straight face that there is no risk of that. Even the police, with the need of Probable Cause and Warrants and all that have been known, from time to time, to break into the wrong person's home (bad tip, misinterpreted evidence, or just plain getting the address wrong) and hurting or even killing folk who are guilty of nothing more serious than maybe some unpaid parking tickets.

Nobody is going to pay several recovery agents to arrest a guy on outstanding tickets. It's generally felons on bond. Carjackers, armed robbers, murderers, child molesters, etc. People looking at misdemeanors don't have large enough bonds to make it worth the recovery agent's time and effort. And again, feel free to pursue them in court.

If the law does not recognize that, then so much the worse for the law.

So you really are saying with a straight face that mistakes never happen. Folk who aren't harboring fugitives never have their houses broken into by bounty hunters who are just mistaken.

Again, I'm not saying mistakes never happen. Bounty hunters have gotten in trouble for screwing up. Feel free to do everything you can to bust them to oblivion. They have been sued in civil court as well, for screwing up.

Oh, I'm quite sure there are laws on the books that allow them to do just that--just like there were once laws on the books that required the apprehension and return of slaves to their "owners"--even if the escaped slave was found in a "free" state. My disbelief wasn't that the laws existed. My disbelief was that anybody with a serious love of Freedom and respect for the actual content of the Constitution could actually attempt to defend those laws.

It may be the law. That doesn't make it right.

Since when is the law always right?


And don't misunderstand... I'm not sitting here taking their side, and I'm not making a judgment as to what's right or wrong. I'm just saying how it is (or was 20 years ago).

And just to clarify MY own, personal viewpoint...

If anybody kicks in my door, I'm assuming it's a home invasion since neither the police, nor bounty hunters, have any reason to be here. And I have, literally 2 feet away, an AK underfolder with a 75-rd. drum. I'm sure you can see where I'm going with that...

And with that... I'm done with this thread. It's been a long day and this thread makes me tired.

 

[dburkhead]

Originally Posted by dburkhead
The term for that is "sophistry." The State creates a class of people who have special powers, granted by the State, in order to do an end-run around the protections most of us are supposed to have against

The term is actually "proxy."

I will give benefit of the doubt and presume you misunderstood. The term for the folk being used to do the end run around the Constitution is "proxy." The term for the argument that makes it acceptable for the State to delegate their authority, without also assigning the responsibility--such as adherence to the 4th Amendment--to go with it, is "sophistry."

Am I allowed to use deadly force against someone kicking in the door of my house or otherwise forcing entry who is not a sworn officer of the law serving a warrant?

Or is it your contention that Bounty Hunters never make mistakes? Or do I now have to make sure that not only are the people kicking in my door not uniformed police, but also that Mr. Mullet Head in Mufti is not a bounty hunter instead of some Gang Banger looking to finance his next fix?

And if there isn't a fugitive from justice in my home, then I want them in prison for the home invasion. And if there is a gun battle and I am killed in the process, I want them spending a nice long stretch for Felony Murder.

And I really don't care if they saw somebody they thought was the fugitive from justice. If they're going to break into my house, damage my property, threaten me and mine, then they'd better be absolutely sure--sure enough that they're willing to court very long prison sentences if they're wrong.

I'm not saying mistakes never happen. Bounty hunters have gotten in trouble for screwing up. Feel free to do everything you can to bust them to oblivion. They have been sued in civil court as well, for screwing up.

Civil court? Civil court? If they break into my house when there isn't a fugitive there then "Civil court" will be a faint comfort to my family if I'm killed defending home from what I see as a home invasion by criminals. Well, murder trials would be a faint comfort too, but maybe a few would make sure that others down the road were a bit more careful to be really, really sure before risking it.

First principle always is "protect the innocent." Catching the guilty is, IMO, a fairly distant second.

The thing is, I'm not stupid either. If I really were harboring a fugitive, I'd have a lot more than just my P3AT to back it up.

But I wouldn't do that. The only reason they would be breaking down my door is if the mistakenly thought their was a fugitive in there. And I, since I wouldn't actually be harboring a fugitive, would have no reason to expect that the folk breaking in are actually "legal" bounty hunters instead of a criminal gang.

And you cannot possibly tell me with a straight face that there is no risk of that. Even the police, with the need of Probable Cause and Warrants and all that have been known, from time to time, to break into the wrong person's home (bad tip, misinterpreted evidence, or just plain getting the address wrong) and hurting or even killing folk who are guilty of nothing more serious than maybe some unpaid parking tickets.

Nobody is going to pay several recovery agents to arrest a guy on outstanding tickets. It's generally felons on bond. Carjackers, armed robbers, murderers, child molesters, etc. People looking at misdemeanors don't have large enough bonds to make it worth the recovery agent's time and effort.

Again, I'm going to presume you misunderstood. The police serving those warrants were, supposedly, going after real felons. The people into whose homes they broke in were not the felons but innocent folk who happened to be the victims of "justice" gone awry and who paid the ultimate price for someone else's mistake.

IOW, they go to the wrong house and someone gets hurt or killed who is not the felon. It happens with the higher standard of PC and actual warrants and I really think the onus on anyone claiming it's less common with bounty hunters, or indeed even as uncommon, among bounty hunters who do not have those requirements.

If the law does not recognize that, then so much the worse for the law.

So you really are saying with a straight face that mistakes never happen. Folk who aren't harboring fugitives never have their houses broken into by bounty hunters who are just mistaken.

I'm not saying mistakes never happen. Bounty hunters have gotten in trouble for screwing up. Feel free to do everything you can to bust them to oblivion. They have been sued in civil court as well, for screwing up.

Great. The survivors get to sue. How about criminal charges for illegal entry, destruction of private property, assault, aggravated assault varous little misdemeanors and felonies like that.

If they're right and the fugitive is there, all well and good. If there isn't, I just don't see any justification for making that they thought a felon was there a "get out of jail free card."

As I said above, first priority is protect the innocent--including, perhaps especially, from people acting on behalf of the law.

Oh, I'm quite sure there are laws on the books that allow them to do just that--just like there were once laws on the books that required the apprehension and return of slaves to their "owners"--even if the escaped slave was found in a "free" state. My disbelief wasn't that the laws existed. My disbelief was that anybody with a serious love of Freedom and respect for the actual content of the Constitution could actually attempt to defend those laws.

It may be the law. That doesn't make it right.

Since when is the law always right?

The first step in getting it changed is recognizing that the law is wrong.

 

[dburkhead]

And don't misunderstand... I'm not sitting here taking their side, and I'm not making a judgment as to what's right or wrong. I'm just saying how it is (or was 20 years ago).

And just to clarify MY own, personal viewpoint...

If anybody kicks in my door, I'm assuming it's a home invasion since neither the police, nor bounty hunters, have any reason to be here. And I have, literally 2 feet away, an AK underfolder with a 75-rd. drum. I'm sure you can see where I'm going with that...

And with that... I'm done with this thread. It's been a long day and this thread makes me tired.

Ah, you edited while I was writing.

Fair enough.

Me, I've got Mossy II (the Mossberg 500 loaded with Buckshot).

 

[jbombelli]

Ah, you edited while I was writing.

Fair enough.

Me, I've got Mossy II (the Mossberg 500 loaded with Buckshot).

Like I said, I'm not saying it's right. It's just how it is.

But, so you know, since I failed to address this I think... I HAVE seen bounty hunters get charged criminally for screwing up, and I've seen them sued in civil court for screwing up. I saw a case a few years ago where the bounty hunters were using their powers to, literally, do home invasions and commit armed robberies. They got hammered pretty hard. Of course, I've read once or twice of REAL COPS doing home invasions and armed robberies, too.

That specifically is why the people I used to run with were as careful as they were. They're not ALL cowboys, and they're not ALL idiots, despite Dog the Mullet-head. Some of them are professionals, and really DO take their jobs seriously, and try to do them right. If they didn't ACTUALLY SEE the guy, they aren't coming in. They might knock and politely ask you a few questions you don't have to answer, but with the way they put them, most people will answer. As I said earlier, you'd be amazed how many people would sell out their fugitive brother for $100 or to keep mom from losing her house after she signed it over as collateral for the bond.

Have a good night/day/morning... whatever the hell it is. Damn... I have to get up in 5 hours. I is so smartlyest.


P.S... that green was horrible to read!

 

[dburkhead]

P.S... that green was horrible to read!

Revenge for the blue which I found hard to pick out from the black on this monitor.