Bail Bondsmen Shoot and Kill Mother

[Jeff Higgins]

Gun-wielding mother fatally shot by bail bondsman going after her son | KOMO

In a nutshell, here we have three bail bondsmen who entered a private home to apprehend a 30 year old man who had skipped out on a $50,000 bond over a DUI arrest. The mother challenges the fact that they do not have a warrant, retrieves a gun, and is shot and killed by one of these guys as she was unzipping its case.

I know bail bondsmen in Washington have the right to "arrest" their clients that skip out. I do not believe, however, they have the right to trespass on private property, much less enter a private home, without the same kind of warrants required of a police officer. I don't believe, either, that any judge would even have the authority to issue such warrants to be served by private citizens.

In other words, it appears to me that these three bails bondsmen were on the property illegally and had entered the home illegally. Under these circumstances, I'm thinking the shooter needs to be charged with no less than aggravated first degree murder and his partners need to be charged as accessories.

Discuss...

[GH85Carrera]

Bounty hunters have a different set of rules or laws to follow and in some states can go where no cop can. It will all come down to the lawyers.

[Jeff Higgins]

So, are you saying that in some states they are actually less accountable than the police? Wow.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

So, are you saying that in some states they are actually less accountable than the police? Wow.

Oh God, yes. They just about have diplomatic immunity. They can do all kinds of things cops couldn't even think of doing, even back in the old days. What's more, it's not real hard to become a Bail Enforcement or Fugitive Recovery Agent and they're pretty much regulated by professional orgs, not real laws. I don't know how this will shake out in WA, but in AZ, it'd be a civil suit at most.

[MikeSid]

I don't see an aggravated murder 1 charge. There is no aggravating circumstance.
But they most certainly should be charged with murder 2. They will claim self-defense and if the shooter is smart he'd take a deal and plead to manslaughter and serve 5-7.

[Dantilla]

If someone is pointing a gun, whether it be at a police officer, bounty hunter or private citizen, one has the right to defend themselves.

Not sure they should be charged with murder, but for sure at least trespassing, and hopefully the prosecutor can find some more serious charges.
To prosecute Aggravated First Degree Murder would require proof that the bondsmen planned on killing before the incident. Maybe second degree manslaughter?

I've learned that we do not have the complete story by reading a tidbit from the local news sleuths.
Glad I'm not responsible for figuring out the legal details based on incomplete information.

[URY914]

Wait..........this is not in Florida?

[jyl]

I don't know how they entered the house, but it may well have been perfectly legal. They had a warrant for the son's arrest, he was in the house, normally police (or, I think, bondsmen) may enter the suspect's residence to arrest him and may enter another's residence if they are in hot pursuit of the suspect. So if they had reasonable grounds to believe the son was living there, they could enter under the warrant; if they knocked on the door to talk to the mother and the son opened the door, they could enter as hot pursuit. Facts are unclear but I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that the bondsmen weren't lawfully in the house.

I also don't know how serious and imminent the threat from the mother was. She was holding a gun, perhaps in the process of drawing it or aiming it, unclear what she was saying ("I'm going to kill you all"?).

A bondsman has the right to use deadly force to defend himself from an armed attacker, just like you and I do. Was this a reasonable exercise of that right?. I don't know. And neither do you.

The mother would, perhaps, not have pulled a gun on uniformed police officers arresting her son. But she chose to do so on bondsmen serving an arrest warrant on her son. Her fatal mistake.

[widebody911]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

So, are you saying that in some states they are actually less accountable than the police?

So instead of cops, why not just cut out the messy bureaucracy in the middle and use bounty hunters?

[Porchdog]

Originally Posted by widebody911

So instead of cops, why not just cut out the messy bureaucracy in the middle and use bounty hunters?

You need to get the perp to sign that bail contract up front.....

[Jeff Higgins]

These three did not have a warrant, at least per the article (the dead mother challenged them on that, and the other son stated as much as well). I don't believe private citizens can obtain warrants, much less serve them.

They were trespassing and, having entered without permission, they were technically "breaking and entering". As such, they were committing a crime (or two) and the homeowner had every right to defend her son. I thought (and I may very well be wrong) that if anyone dies while you are committing a violent crime, it's pretty much an automatic aggravated murder one charge. Not to mention piling on a few bonuses for having used a firearm.

These people were not police, they were strangers in a private residence with no right to be there.

[MikeSid]

In a lot of jurisdictions, at least since 1973, Bondsman can lawfully enter a home where the Principal resides in order to arrest based on default in the surety contract. There is likely nothing unlawful about these bondsman entering the house and them doing so probably wouldn't even support a 1983 claim for violation of civil rights.

But once in the house, the mother "went and retrieved a gun that was in a case". She was shot, when "she began to unzip the case." Now it's pretty hard to second guess what was probably unfolding pretty quickly, but if the physical evidence shows a dead 60 year old woman and a gun still inside an unzipped case, I say the shooter is going to have a difficult time establishing an imminent threat of grave bodily harm necessary to establish self-defense. They simply didn't have the training to physically disarm her prior to her getting the gun out, so they took the easy option of simply tazing and shooting her.

I think the bondsmen were in the premises lawfully. But it's clear he shot her, and without justification. Therefore a Murder 2 charge that will end up as a Manslaughter conviction.

But that's just my guess based on that single article, which leaves a fair bit of the facts unstated.

[GWN7]

They didn't need a arrest warrant. The original warrant was in effect when he failed to show up in court.

Info on bondsmans rights.

The Bondsman's Right to Arrest

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by GWN7

They didn't need a arrest warrant. The original warrant was in effect when he failed to show up in court.

Info on bondsmans rights.

The Bondsman's Right to Arrest

That's pretty definitive stuff, and clears it up nicely. In brief, accepting a bail bond from a bail bondsman pretty much surrenders yourself to the bondsman to do with as he pleases. It sounds like you forfeit all rights to him. I'm fine with that.

So, in forfeiting all of your rights, you have clearly given the bail bondsman free and clear access to your home and property. Does that mean, however, that the bondsman has free and clear access to trespass onto anyone's property or break into anyone's home where he suspects you may be?

In this case, the bail bondsmen violated someone else's home and property - the suspect's parents. The mother ostensibly had a restraining order to keep her son away from her, so he should not have been there in the first place. Shouldn't the bail bondsmen have had to present some sort of evidence that the suspect was there, have it vetted before a judge, and perhaps a warrant issued to the police to go round him up? Can bail bondsmen just go anywhere they damn well please, break into any home they damn well please, as long as they "think" their suspect may be there? Someone please tell me that ain't so, here in America...

[sc_rufctr]

Originally Posted by GWN7

They didn't need a arrest warrant. The original warrant was in effect when he failed to show up in court.

Info on bondsmans rights.

The Bondsman's Right to Arrest

From the link....

"When bail is given, the principal is regarded as delivered to the custody of his sureties. Their dominion is a continuance of the original imprisonment. Whenever they choose to do so, they may seize him and deliver him up in their discharge, and if that cannot be done at once, they may imprison him until it can be done. They may exercise their rights in person or by agent. They may pursue him into another state; may arrest him on the Sabbath; and if necessary, may break and enter his house for that purpose.The seizure is not made by virtue of new process. None is needed. It is likened to the rearrest, by the sheriff, of an escaping prisoner." (Emphasis Added.)

But it wasn't his house.

[jyl]

I didn't read that the bondsmen "broke in" to the house. Where do you see that?

We don't know how the bondsmen entered the house. They have every right to go to any house and knock on the door. Maybe the son opened the door, realized he'd been found, and surrendered, permitting them to enter and take custody of him.

Remember that any occupant of a house can give consent to a police entry and search; doesn't have to be the house's legal owner. That's in a police context, but it likely applies to bondsmen. http://m.policemag.com/article/741/point-of-law

In fact, I think it is generally applicable. If I come to your door, knock, and your guest allows me to enter, then I have not trespassed. You as the actual owner of the house can revoke that consent, and I'd have to leave, but if I'm a bondsman, I can take my fugitive with me.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by jyl

I didn't read that the bondsmen "broke in" to the house. Where do you see that?

You didn't look very hard. From the article:

"I'm thinking they kicked in her door and she had a legal right to protect her property under the constitution of America," said Patrick New, one of the victim's other sons.

Originally Posted by jyl

We don't know how the bondsmen entered the house. They have every right to go to any house and knock on the door. Maybe the son opened the door, realized he'd been found, and surrendered, permitting them to enter and take custody of him.

We have what the other son said about it.

Originally Posted by jyl

Remember that any occupant of a house can give consent to a police entry and search; doesn't have to be the house's legal owner. That's in a police context, but it likely applies to bondsmen. Third Party Consent Searches - Article - POLICE Magazine

In fact, I think it is generally applicable. If I come to your door, knock, and your guest allows me to enter, then I have not trespassed. You as the actual owner of the house can revoke that consent, and I'd have to leave, but if I'm a bondsman, I can take my fugitive with me.

Awful lot of conjecture laced throughout your entire post.

Again, from the article:

However, the fugitive's 60-year-old mother, who was also in the home, went and retrieved a gun that was inside a case, and was telling the bondsmen to leave the house as they needed a warrant.

The article does say he did not resist. Nowhere does it say who "answered the door", leaving us with the only account being the other son's. It would make no sense for the fugitive son to "answer the door", especially since he was under a restraining order to stay away from his mom. No, I think it's reasonable to assume that if anyone "answered the door", it was one of the legal residents - mom or dad - and they would not have allowed these three into the house, leading to their forcible entry, while armed, into a home not owned by their suspect.

[Red88Carrera]

When you decide to play with fire, you accept the fact that you may get burned. If others allow you to play with fire, they accept the fact that they may get burned.

[john70t]

Originally Posted by GWN7

They didn't need a arrest warrant. The original warrant was in effect when he failed to show up in court.

Thank you, but NO.

A bail company should be a third party company.
A private contract agreement on paper.
'I lend you a dollar but you don't pay it back.'
Not wall street.
Money owed. Someone who invested money into something which didn't pan out.
A civic matter.

Should be settled and negotiated in a court of law and government. Due process.

A buck hired armed bail bondsman enters the scene.
Private individual.
Breaking into a 3rd party home.
Another citizen is killed with full rights to their own property.
Innocent grandma in this case.

PARF.

[jyl]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

You didn't look very hard. From the article:

"I'm thinking they kicked in her door and she had a legal right to protect her property under the constitution of America," said Patrick New, one of the victim's other sons.




We have what the other son said about it.



Awful lot of conjecture laced throughout your entire post.

Again, from the article:

However, the fugitive's 60-year-old mother, who was also in the home, went and retrieved a gun that was inside a case, and was telling the bondsmen to leave the house as they needed a warrant.

The article does say he did not resist. Nowhere does it say who "answered the door", leaving us with the only account being the other son's. It would make no sense for the fugitive son to "answer the door", especially since he was under a restraining order to stay away from his mom. No, I think it's reasonable to assume that if anyone "answered the door", it was one of the legal residents - mom or dad - and they would not have allowed these three into the house, leading to their forcible entry, while armed, into a home not owned by their suspect.

The other son's statement is clearly speculation: "I'm thinking they . . ." There's no indication that son was even present at the time.

Your statement that the bondsmen "broke in" is based on nothing. Remember the old saying about "when you ASSume"? There is simply no information available to us about how the bondsmen entered the house.

The fugitive was wanted for DUI and violating a protective order, not a violent crime. It isn't unreasonable that he might not resist being apprehended, and the articles say he didn't resist. And as for who answered the door . . . some people are just incredibly stupid, you know, and jumping bail for a DUI and then going to the second place anyone would look - might just indicate that this is one of those people.

Is that conjecture?. Yes, and so is your scenario. But you're the one who is jumping to conclusions about what happened and who is certain, based on almost no actual information, about exactly what degree of murder the bondsmen committed. My point is that we do not, in fact, know enough to say if they, or she, or anyone, did anything wrong at all.