Bozo the bounty hunter

[SMS]

It's a non-solveable problem until we as a society decide to value the occupations that deal with safety and education.

Michael Brown

...and until we as a society are more prepared to take care of ourselves. Asking a dispatcher for permission to get a gun, protect yourself, or whatever puts unnecessary burden on the dispatcher. Know your laws, have a plan, take whatever action you need to take and report it to the authorities as necessary.

It isn't the dispatcher's fault that the lady chose to pick up a phone before she picked up a gun.

 

[kd5rjz]

The dispatcher did exactly as she was trained to do.

The call takers are the lowest and newest dispatchers and are generally $9/hour employees, so they have to give them some non-negotiable direction regarding what to tell a caller about firearms.

The issue is that there has to be balance between the homeowner's safety from intruders and the risk of getting shot by responding officers.

To ask the $9/hour employee to be able to distinguish between the two is more than we can expect.

It's a non-solveable problem until we as a society decide to value the occupations that deal with safety and education.

Michael Brown

I would hope most of us here would wait until after we had located a pistol to locate a phone.

 

[TheMcs]

 

[68mustang]

A bondsman was involved and not arrested according to the report. The news said that he claimed he "didn't know they had warrants".

So perhaps it was like you said. Perhaps it was different. I just want to know the details and which bondsman it was. If he's innocent of any wrongdoing, then they shouldn't be hiding him.

If you were in the bondsmans situation and didn't do anything wrong would you want your name all over the news?

 

[HMFIC]

If you were in the bondsmans situation and didn't do anything wrong would you want your name all over the news?

That's not really up to him now is it? He was involved somehow and the news said that he claimed he didn't know that these two "agents" didn't have warrants. Who said he didn't do anything wrong?

I just want to know the specifics on the story from that perspective. I'm troubled by the fact that these two rats thought they had some authority to break into someones home.

 

[inactive]

If you were in the bondsmans situation and didn't do anything wrong would you want your name all over the news?

Considering that our news media (particularly The (j)Oklahoman) needlessly puts names and addresses of victims (ie, those that use firearms in self-defense) in their reports, I find it a double standard that they would do this to protect the name of a bondsman, if in fact this is the reason for the omission.

 

[inactive]

You can be 100% certain that the sergeant who arrived wasn't happy about it either......

The problem is that Oklahoma law requires "intent to commit a crime" after the entry in order to charge a suspect with 1st or 2nd Degree Burglary.

The bounty hunters were wrong and the homeowner certainly would have been within her rights to use deadly force, but without intent to commit a crime once inside, it is indeed a misdemeanor B&E which is dealt with via citation.

I don't like it and felt that 1st Degree Burglary would be more appropriate but until the citizens of Oklahoma elect me to the legislature, intent to commit a crime once inside will be required to meet the standard for burglary.

You can also be 100% certain that the same sergeant told the victim that she needs to have her gun where she can access it and to acquire the means to protect herself before calling 911.

Michael Brown

To expand on what you described, some "agents" can face more severe charges, depending on the events that occur in their botched recovery:

http://www.news9.com/story/15277622/bounty-boys-charged-for-entering-wrong-midwest-city-home

That isn't to day that the Tulsa event is deserving of more severe charges, as the circumstances were most undoubtedly different. I just want to point out (same as you do) that the charges are entirely dependent on that event that occur and the statutes we have relevant to those events.

 

[Michael Brown]

To expand on what you described, some "agents" can face more severe charges, depending on the events that occur in their botched recovery:

http://www.news9.com/story/15277622/bounty-boys-charged-for-entering-wrong-midwest-city-home

That isn't to day that the Tulsa event is deserving of more severe charges, as the circumstances were most undoubtedly different. I just want to point out (same as you do) that the charges are entirely dependent on that event that occur and the statutes we have relevant to those events.

The Midwest City case is different and will likely result in burglary charges based upon the subsequent crimes that occurred after the unlawful entry.

My position is NOT that the Tulsa scenario is kosher in any way, shape or form. It should be a felony and it should be a burglary IF the statute were written better. However it isn't and police officers aren't going to enforce what the laws SHOULD be.

Michael Brown

 

[inactive]

The Midwest City case is different and will likely result in burglary charges based upon the subsequent crimes that occurred after the unlawful entry.

My position is NOT that the Tulsa scenario is kosher in any way, shape or form. It should be a felony and it should be a burglary IF the statute were written better. However it isn't and police officers aren't going to enforce what the laws SHOULD be.

Michael Brown

Agreed, and I didn't by any means to put words in your or anyone else's mouth. Just wanted to point out another example that the charges are based on statute and the actions that occurred. In the MWC example, more severe actions afforded more severe charges; my intent was not to compare it directly to the Tulsa occurrence and I apologize if that was how it reads (it's often hard to tell how others interpret what we write and intend on the internet).