Probably most likely not…
They have now. Looks like there may be charges filed after all.
I’m trying to find a case where a repo man was arrested for taking the wrong car and coming up blank.
As pointed out in my thread on pirate towers, even when caught committing GTA and illegally destroying a person’s car no charges were filed so I doubt you’d find anything.
But my (unfortunate) experience with repo men is that they triple check everything and are very careful with personal items.
Just pay the lady the damn $18K already, willya? Is it really worth this?
There will be no convictions, unless facts emerge that substantially change the story we’ve heard so far.
The new article does clear up some questions from earlier in the thread. The police report said, “Mrs. Barnett had not been living there at that residence due to a divorce, therefore no one was living there and that she returned to start moving her stuff back inside.” That might explain why the utilities were off and the neighbors reported the house was empty.
No, getting sued is.
Then I don’t really understand what you’re getting at here:
The intent issue only applies to a criminal prosecution. The civil action will proceed on a negligence basis, which doesn’t require intent.
Since intent has been alleged in this thread to be a necessity for charging someone with a crime, rather than merely opening the door to seeking civil damages, I should note this case:
I seriously doubt that the babysitter intended for that dog to bite the child. I seriously doubt that anyone’s alleged such intent.
And yes, I know there’s a pretty big difference in scale here, but different crimes carry different potential sentences to deal with differences in severity of crimes.
Not “a crime”. Not every possible crime. Trespassing. The crime of trespassing is one that requires intent.
All the laws about ignoring signs and whatnot are not Gotchas, they are there to establish intent. You open a gate with a “no trespassing” sign on it, and walk onto property that’s not yours, you trespassed, because you knew it wasn’t your property, and you knew you weren’t welcome. You ask the guy on the other side if it’s OK to come in, and he says “yes” you didn’t trespass, even if he’s just a random trespasser himself. You still walked right past the sign, but without intent, it isn’t a crime.
As fascinating as the debate of is vs should with respect to the law is, I thought I’d chime in that the “unlocked” defense actually works against them. Bank foreclosed houses that are being prepped for sale have lockboxes on the door. An unlocked door is a red flag that they were in the wrong house.
That’s very nice of the former occupants, to put a lockbox on the door before they vacate their homes. Frankly, if I lost my home to a bank foreclosure, I don’t believe I would be so generous.
Intent is not always necessary to charge someone with a crime, but a specified mental state, whether “knowingly” , “recklessly” or “negligently” usually is. Few crimes are strict liability. The crime of endangering the life or health of a child in Illinois is defined as
The babysitter doesn’t need to intend that the dog bite the child to be guilty, but she does need to knowingly permit the child’s life to be endangered- for example, by leaving the child alone in a room with a dog that had a history of biting. She would not be guilty if someone else let the dog into the room after she had left the child there (although that person might be) nor would she be guilty if a stray dog ran into the house when someone was leaving and then attacked the child or if she had taken the child to a park and the attack happened there.
I believe the lockbox would be put there by the bank’s realtor, which likely wouldn’t have been done in this case because the house wasn’t cleaned out yet. At this point if the DA is still investigating then we’ll have to leave it in their hands (as if we could make a difference anyway). It’s probably not worth a criminal charge, the important thing should be compensation for the homeowner, so perhaps the lingering threat of criminal prosecution would be helpful in that regard.
Per this site: the Vinton County prosecutor has declined to pursue any criminal charges
There is also new information about the case coming from a police report. Apparently when the home owner first contacted the police, she reported that someone had cleaned her house and mowed her lawn and she didn’t report anything missing. After the investigation, an officer told her what happened and she laughed about it and about having the lawn mowed and house cleaned. She then never contacted the police again about stuff being taken.
So then:
…is not accurate.
“Nikki Bailey’s house In Logan, W.Va., has been paid for since 1988, so she was rightly flabbergasted when she came home to find a truck backed up to her door and the driver told her she was being foreclosed on. Even more disheartening: Aside from a couple of sticks of furniture on the truck, the rest of her possessions had already been hauled off to the dump, or so she was told. That included diplomas, pictures, clothes and the rest of her furniture. Turns out the repo men were at the right address (39 Godby) but at a street in the wrong town, 10 miles away”
The repo company isn’t saying what bank was involved (if any?).
In that case, the prosecutors said that criminal charges were unlikely.
Wonder if the repo company made an effort to recover her stuff.