What would you do when bail bondsmen break into your home looking for someone who used your address?

Status
Not open for further replies.
zukiphile said:
In the criminal context, the defendant is going to authorize the agents of the bonding company to drag him out of any place at any time if he violates the terms of the bond, i.e. does anything that could cost the company a penny.
Click to expand...
Okay, so the defendant authorizes agents of the bonding company to lay hands on him, anywhere and anytime. But that still doesn't confer any right for the bail enforcement agents to enter premises not controlled by the defendant without the property owner's or agent's permission, correct?
 
But that still doesn't confer any right for the bail enforcement agents to enter premises not controlled by the defendant without the property owner's or agent's permission, correct?
Click to expand...

Right, and I write that not as anyone who knows FL law, but as a consequence of some fundamental principles, one of which you have correctly identified as privity.

If all that was needed for you and Spats to break into my house for a look around were for you two to make an agreement between the two of you, don't you think state police would have figured out how to use that as a work around where they lack the grounds for a warrant?


Unlike POs who live in a world in which many of the people against whom they act may have rights, a bondsman is going to be habituated to dealing with subjects who've signed away many of their pertinent rights. Watching the video from the incident, you might think that no one had ever before told these people to get out off the property. It's as if it hadn't occurred to them that other people might have rights.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
Okay, so the defendant authorizes agents of the bonding company to lay hands on him, anywhere and anytime. But that still doesn't confer any right for the bail enforcement agents to enter premises not controlled by the defendant without the property owner's or agent's permission, correct?
Click to expand...
Exactly. Aguila is not a party to the contract.

Further two or three biker types on his doorstep immediately puts Aguila in fear of his life, or at worst sets up an apprehensive environment which can easily lead to that should they attempt to commit the crime of breaking into his house.

It is at this point, that in the Zincwarrior household you have awakened the family demonic wiener dog. The Blood! SO MUCH BLOOOD!
 
I had one threaten to kick in my door once. I told him I would cut him in half.
Called Memphis Police and asked what I should do if he attempted the action. Their response was "shoot him."
 
Here's an article on shooting through walls without ID. That's not really our scenario. However, the article makes the point of correct ID and a warning protocol. I learned in classes that shouting out that I am armed and will shoot is appropriate at times as compared to waiting in ambush. It does depend.

So, in our scenario and video, if the person in the home had shouted:

The wanted individual is not here.
You have no right to break in.
I will defend myself with firearms if you break in.

-- Would said agents continue to futz with the door? They are in a terrible fatal funnel if they proceed. In FOF, I've 'wiped' out an entry team if they didn't know they were doing. Are these 'agents' authorized to enter using correct pieing tactics and lethal force? They would have to take the first shots.
 
The wanted individual is not here.
Click to expand...

I would not expect the bondsmen to believe the disembodied voice on the other side of the door as to the status of the individual about whom they are searching. They get told that their person isn't there all the time, just like the cops do. In short, people lie to them quite frequently.

You have no right to break in.
Click to expand...

The bondmen aren't going to take legal advice from a disembodied voice through the door. Again, they get lied to on a regular basis.

I will defend myself with firearms if you break in.

Would said agents continue to futz with the door?
Click to expand...

That is like asking if a bad guy is going to futz at the door because you warned him. Some would, some would not. It all sort of comes down to whether or not they believe you and believe you are a credible threat. This is maybe the only comment of the three that they might take seriously. Right place or wrong place, the person on the other side of the door may be armed. Of course, they may have their own contingencies for this as well, depending on how many are there. The may make entry elsewhere, the front door only being the point of invited entry and distraction.
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
Here's an article on shooting through walls without ID. That's not really our scenario. However, the article makes the point of correct ID and a warning protocol. I learned in classes that shouting out that I am armed and will shoot is appropriate at times as compared to waiting in ambush. It does depend.

So, in our scenario and video, if the person in the home had shouted:

The wanted individual is not here.
You have no right to break in.
I will defend myself with firearms if you break in.

-- Would said agents continue to futz with the door? They are in a terrible fatal funnel if they proceed. In FOF, I've 'wiped' out an entry team if they didn't know they were doing. Are these 'agents' authorized to enter using correct pieing tactics and lethal force? They would have to take the first shots.
Click to expand...
If doing that, have an open call to 911 that can hear it. This will be evidence in your favor should legal issues arise.

(I was taught something similar).
 
Double Naught Spy said:
The wanted individual is not here.
Click to expand...
I would not expect the bondsmen to believe the disembodied voice on the other side of the door as to the status of the individual about whom they are searching. They get told that their person isn't there all the time, just like the cops do. In short, people lie to them quite frequently.

You have no right to break in.
Click to expand...
The bondmen aren't going to take legal advice from a disembodied voice through the door. Again, they get lied to on a regular basis.
Click to expand...
It's not (or should not be) a question of taking legal advice from a disembodied voice. Someone who is engaging in breaking into other people's houses had jolly well better know what the laws are, know whether or not the person he's after is or isn't inside the premises he wants to enter, and know who owns said premises and whether or not the person he is seeking had any right whatsoever to grant permission to enter those particular premises.

In this incident, it appears the bail enforcement agents seemed to be under the misapprehension that they have a right to enter any premises at all on no other basis than that the subject of the bond wrote an address on a piece of paper. Did they make any attempt to verify the scumbag's legal address? Did they make any attempt to verify ownership or legal tenancy of the house? Did they conduct any surveillance to confirm at least a reasonably high probability that the person they were after might actually be behind the door they were engaged in breaking through?

To my non-lawyer mind, what the bail enforcement agents thought isn't especially important. If the homeowner had opened fire, and if he were subsequently charged for having done so, I believe his defense would be subject to the "hypothetical reasonable man" standard. That is, what would a hypothetical reasonable man do in the same situation?

The situation is that multiple people claiming to be bail enforcement agents are looking for a person you [the occupant] know is not in your house, and you [the occupant] know that you have not signed any bond papers granting the guys at the door permission to enter. Knowing these things, is it reasonable for you to have fear for your safety and to use [lethal] force to defend your castle? If I were on a jury, I would have to answer in the affirmative.
 
Double Naught Spy said:
I would not expect the bondsmen to believe the disembodied voice on the other side of the door as to the status of the individual about whom they are searching. They get told that their person isn't there all the time, just like the cops do. In short, people lie to them quite frequently. . . . .
Click to expand...
This has come up a couple of times in this thread. Let me point out that they also get lied to by the defendants filling out those forms, too.
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
. . . . I learned in classes that shouting out that I am armed and will shoot is appropriate at times as compared to waiting in ambush. It does depend.

So, in our scenario and video, if the person in the home had shouted:

The wanted individual is not here.
You have no right to break in.
I will defend myself with firearms if you break in. . . . .
Click to expand...
Those would all be very reasonable things to shout. Honestly, I'd want the bondsmen to know that I was there, that I asserted that 'their guy' wasn't, and that I'm armed and prepared to defend my home.
 
I find it hard to believe that these folks want to engage in a fire fight to get the person. A prepared defender is hard to get out of a house. Quite frequently, a bad person shoots several officers coming through a door. I'm sure they are not really up on entry techniques with heavy armor (with plates), flash bangs, helmets and the like.

If the police are there and hear there will be large fire fight, they would have the responsibility to doubt that action only if the risk of rounds zipping around the neighborhood is taken into accord.

When I was a defender against officers in an exercise, we moved a large desk in front the door. Foolishly, they just came through in a rush, hit the desk and were wiped out, so to speak from semi-auto training guns. That was a lesson for them as they 'had' to clear out us as a nest of terrorists. Some jerk who skipped bail - worth running into AR-15 fire or 12 gauge. Most entries work as they are not seriously defended against. This sort of team doesn't look up to it.

Can bail bonds men or women, set up for long hostage negotiation like siege? The risk to the neighborhood would force law enforcement intervention - which would uncover their mistakes.

If there was a siege, time to get on the phone and social media to all the local news folks telling them that you are being falsely attacked.
 
Not going to share my thoughts on what I might do in this sceanrio, other than to say that if someone broke into my home at 3a, they'd first get mauled by nearly 300 lbs. worth of shepard and Rhodesian Ridgeback.

Just to be clear: if such a scenario occurred to me, my best course of action is to first call the police, correct? And to tell the would-be invaders that I'd made that call/was making that call?
 
I'd call 911 if there was any question about the legitimacy of the law enforcement outside my house. If it was clear that they were legitimate I would comply with whatever commands they gave me and wouldn't resist. There's always the court option later if they were in the wrong. There's a lot to be said for hardening you're home enough to buy a few minutes to call 911 before things get out of hand.
 
shoot first, ask questions later
my state has both castle doctrine AND stand your ground
NO ONE comes into MY house w/o asking.
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
... [Is chasing] some jerk who skipped bail - worth running into AR-15 fire or 12 gauge. Most entries work as they are not seriously defended against. This sort of team doesn't look up to it.
Click to expand...

After reading part of Glenn's post, I realized my choices are are limited to:
1) .50 Cal semi - 1st shot permanently deafens everyone in the room and porch
2) 100 year old 5 shot semi 12 GA - fun to shoot when it works
3) A variety of handguns
4) Precision 6.5 CM bolt gun

I'm thinking I need to tell the boss I need a suppressed 30 round 5.56 or .308 :D :D :D
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top