Woman Destroys Her New Car After Repo Man Wouldn't Let Her Car Go

[svauto-erotic855]

Some people think the 2nd should be abolished, some think the 1st needs to be gone, some think alcohol should be illegal, some think all drugs should be legal. It doesn't matter what they think since the majority and federal law rules. You as a citizen have to abide by those laws.

I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with the law, I think you're stupid, but that is your right. Just like it's the right of every other moron to enter an insane contract that sets them up to fail.

You putting your own opinion above every else as a juror though, that I have a serious problem with. You have an obligation to be unbiased as a juror.

I agree with your first statement.

No Juror has an obligation to be unbiased. Jury nullification is a critical part of our legal system that the government has been trying to stamp out for 120 years. (Edit: Going on 168 years since the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act) Why do you think the government is quietly trying to reduce the number of jurors to 6 and make a move for professional juries?

There is a loop hole that they haven't been able to close despite forcing jurors to swear to an un-constitutional oath and jury charge.

[svauto-erotic855]

I can take a pretty good guess as to your political leanings.

Bet you can't even come close.

[dsrtuckteezy]

All of that could have been avoided if the lazy bitch would make her car payment instead of blowing her money on nails and weave

This, all day long.

youve shown your hand. youre entirely too pragmatic to agree with a statement like this. youve lost all respect...

[Strychnine]

Your opinion of what the law should be is irrelevant, it's what the law is.

You would think...

Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty" despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged. The jury in effect nullifies a law that it believes is either immoral or wrongly applied to the defendant whose fate they are charged with deciding.

[smrr1]

You say you support it being done by government, so the deputies are volunteers? They don't get a pay check? Oh they do. Ok so they are doing it for profit too.

[BP]

On another note had it not been destroyed during a repo it was only a matter of time before it was abandoned at a shop with a burned up CVT. Pretty sure that's what that clicking/grinding noise was.

[Chili]

I get what you're saying SVO, and can see where you're coming from. I'm not sure I agree 100%, but I do think there is a lot of potential for abuse by creditors, recovery companies, and outside collections agencies. I worked in 'Financial Services' for just over 10 years, and did see examples of businesses gaming the system, lying to customers, and even breaking the law and violating terms of their own contracts.

Speaking of Financial Services, I know from the lender side they always preferred to be considered a Financial Services company over a Bank, mainly because banking regulations are more stringent, and they could get away with more if they weren't being looked at as closely as a bank is.

At the same time, I've seen just as shady of stuff being done at most major companies (outside of financial services / banking) that I have worked for. Corporate America is ripe with greed, laziness, and the desire to fuck over consumers while pretending you're helping them.

So at the end of the day, forcing a company to dot all of their 'i's and cross all of their 't's by compelling them to get a court order before putting someone out for repo wouldn't be the worst thing. The second part of that, requiring all repos be done by constables or other court officers, just isn't pragmatic IMO. I will say, that's mostly from a 'cost to taxpayers' perspective. So as long as the finance company were required to reimburse the court for the cost of the service, I'm back to being ok with it.

From a logical standpoint, I also tend to agree with SVO as to the owner vs lienholder distinction. I know we all have heard the jokes like "oh, you think you own your car, well stop making payments and see what happens". But I think a lot of people now accept that as fact, and believe it's ok. I think a lot of people miss is that it can be taken as 'commentary' on our current state. The owner is the owner and irrespective of them agreeing to the terms of the contract, knowingly allowing that remedy, I still think that a court should have to sign off on it, somehow.

As it is, if the lender violates the law, their own contract, or even if they just made an honest mistake, they still have the car and most likely will liquidate it before a court ever hears a claim. To me that's akin to allowing lenders to go straight to your bank, present their contract and say: "see, he owes me money, I'm here to seize his account and collect what I'm owed".. All the while, we're all supposed to just take the lender at face value, and assume that they are doing everything correctly. If not, the consumer's only protection is to incur further damages (aside from already being relieved of their legal property), by having to pony up a retainer for a lawyer and secure other means of transportation in the mean-time.

[svauto-erotic855]

You say you support it being done by government, so the deputies are volunteers? They don't get a pay check? Oh they do. Ok so they are doing it for profit too.

The government doesn't function like a business by operating for a profit and there are some things that are an appropriate function for government to be involved in.

[Chili]

You say you support it being done by government, so the deputies are volunteers? They don't get a pay check? Oh they do. Ok so they are doing it for profit too.

Having a job and getting paid for it isn't the same as a 'For Profit' designation in this context, I hope you realize that.

The distinction is here is that the repo company, just like most businesses in the us, will see a direct financial benefit from their misdeeds, therefore have some incentive to fuck people over. Constables (or their deputies), short of simply 'keeping their job', don't have that same financial motivation and are less likely to be corrupted by financial gain. That is supported by the fact that Constables are elected. In theory, at least.

That's my main problem with SVO's argument, they're very theoretical and I don't think that they would actually work in practice.

I also don't share the same level of disgust and disdain, at least not for everyone involved. There are definitely some shady people / entities out there though.

[svauto-erotic855]

That's my main problem with SVO's argument, they're very theoretical and I don't think that they would actually work in practice.

All laws are theoretical and it is up to the individual or corporations to comply with them.

[smrr1]

Having a job and getting paid for it isn't the same as a 'For Profit' designation in this context, I hope you realize that.

The distinction is here is that the repo company, just like most businesses in the us, will see a direct financial benefit from their misdeeds, therefore have some incentive to fuck people over. Constables (or their deputies), short of simply 'keeping their job', don't have that same financial motivation and are less likely to be corrupted by financial gain. That is supported by the fact that Constables are elected. In theory, at least.

That's my main problem with SVO's argument, they're very theoretical and I don't think that they would actually work in practice.

I also don't share the same level of disgust and disdain, at least not for everyone involved. There are definitely some shady people / entities out there though.

I do get it. Just saying there is still money involved and a paycheck. At the end of the day it is a job for both a repo person and a deputy. Neither deserve to die for their employment.

[Chili]

I do get it. Just saying there is still money involved and a paycheck. At the end of the day it is a job for both a repo person and a deputy. Neither deserve to die for their employment.

Of course they don't deserve to die, nor did I suggest anything remotely close to that. Kind of a random thing to throw in at the end..

[smrr1]

Of course they don't deserve to die, nor did I suggest anything remotely close to that. Kind of a random thing to throw in at the end..

Not suggesting you did. Svo did.

[JC316]

You would think...

Nullification usually only applies to special circumstances, takes more than one juror and is different than having your mind made up before the trial even starts.

[Gasser64]

I know we all have heard the jokes like "oh, you think you own your car, well stop making payments and see what happens". But I think a lot of people now accept that as fact, and believe it's ok.

I think that the only counter point that needs to be made in regards to that is:

"Is this your signature right here, sir?"

"... yes but..."

"You're fucked".

If you do not wish for your car to be repo'd, then simply don't sign on the dotted line. They can't repossess a car you don't even have. Go and get some other, lesser car that you can afford. And thus they will never be coming for. Because the payments are low enough that its really no big deal to be able to make them each month.

If there was some kind of error and the car got repossessed by accident, make it the law that the finance company who made the error, has to pay them 10x the value of the vehicle. Whether they were done paying the vehicle off or not. And they have 10 days to make it happen or it goes to 100x and the police will come and make it happen for you. That should take care of any errors, and if any errors are made, its less like something bad happening to someone, and more like winning the lottery.