Skip to main content

View Diary: It keeps happening: Faceless Bank's Repo Contractor hauls all of W Va. Woman's possessions to dump (279 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  not ignorance but "mistake of fact." (3+ / 0-)
    •  Isn't there also an intent issue here? (4+ / 0-)

      While the situation is tragic, and the victim should be fully compensated, the bank and its agent didn't have the intent to steal the property. Isn't that a necessary element for a criminal complaint?

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 05:38:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  no one's home and it's legal to break in? (4+ / 0-)

        i find that hard to believe. i don't care what your intentions are... even police need a warrant to bust in (at least back in the day)

        again, this is another example of why we MUST get back into local politics... national politics will not solve these events.

        and the more of these events we endure, the more enslaved we become.

        “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” Buckminster Fuller

        by pfiore8 on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 05:49:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  If you have a belief that you have authority (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Lefty Coaster, VClib, Pi Li

          to enter, it's not a crime.

          Let's say you live in an row apartment where they all look a like.  You go down a hall of 50 doors and its dark and you stop at the wrong door -- but you don't KNOW it's the wrong door.  You put your key in and (because, unknown to you, you live at the NEXT door) it doesn't work.  You get frustrated and kick the door in.  

          That is NOT criminal breaking and entering.  The person who lives there can make you pay for the damage you caused, but you likely won't be charged with a crime.

          Let's say that you realize your mistake, and -- leaving the door broken and unlocked -- you go to your door, put your key in and go inside. Someone comes to the other apartment, sees that door ajar, goes in and robs the place.  The homeowner might well sue YOU for what that robber took -- and the robber is guilty of burglary.  You, on the other hand, probably have not committed a crime.  You did something WRONG, but it's a civil wrong, not a criminal wrong.

          •  You may want to rethink that absurd notion (0+ / 0-)
            •  You are wrong. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              VClib, Pi Li

              Being intoxicated makes all the difference.  Lots of states have laws that make it so if being drunk -- rather than being mistaken or careless - is what causes you to do something wrong, THAT is a crime.  There's no "carelessness" or "mistake" here.  The implication is that, if he were sober, he would have recognized that this is not his home.  The only reason this happened is because he was drunk, NOT because of an accident, or a mistake.

              When you are drunk and do something you shouldn't, you generally can't claim that that it was an "accident" or a "mistake" or "negligence" that caused you to the wrong thing.  It was the intoxication that caused you to do the wrong thing.  Intoxication under our system of laws is considered intentional -- getting intoxicated is not an accident or negligence.  

              And look what he was charged with -- criminal trespass, and public drunkenness.  

              Here's the legal definition of criminal trespass:  

              A person is guilty of criminal trespass if he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling or premises, or if he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building or upon real property which is fenced or enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders. A person commits criminal trespass who, knowing he does not have the owner’s effective consent to do so, enters or remains on property, or a portion thereof. Laws vary by state, so local laws must be consulted to determine applicable requirements. It is a defense to the crime to show that an element of the crime, such as knowingly entering or remaining without authorization, is lacking. An attempted criminal trespass requires that a defendant act with the intent to commit criminal trespass, and his conduct must constitute a substantial step toward committing the aggravated criminal trespass.
              You can't say, the reason I didn't "know" I did not have consent is that I was drunk.  If you would have known you had no consent if you were sober, that's no defense.

              On the other hand, if you have "effective permission" (like foreclosure) to enter house 1, and you make a mistake and go into house 2 THINKING it was house 1 (like you got the address wrong) that's not done knowingly.  You can be sued, but generally it's not a crime you go to jail for.  

      •  I do believe so. (8+ / 0-)

        However, the law should stipulate that in such circumstances of repossession of property - which the bank has reason to believe it has legal right - the contents of that property remain the possession of the indvidual(s) who lived at that property and that the bank therefore has an obligation to maintain the contents in the condition in which they were found for a certain time frame.  That would mitigate much of the damage in the event of mistakes.

        "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

        by newfie on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 05:56:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (151)
  • Community (59)
  • Baltimore (38)
  • Civil Rights (37)
  • Bernie Sanders (33)
  • Elections (29)
  • Culture (29)
  • Economy (27)
  • Law (25)
  • Texas (23)
  • Rescued (21)
  • 2016 (21)
  • Environment (19)
  • Labor (19)
  • Hillary Clinton (18)
  • Education (18)
  • Freddie Gray (17)
  • Politics (17)
  • Racism (17)
  • Barack Obama (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site