Its contractual between the bonding company and the person bonding. It says they can basically use whatever means necessary for recovery.Party A: The bonding company.
Party B: the bonded person.
Party C: the innocent homeowner who doesn't know that Party B (his houseguest) has a contract with Party A.
Why is Party C subject to a contract between Party A and Party B?
I think Party C has the right --- even the duty --- to blow the brains out of any Party A representative who comes crashing through his door.
The 1872 decision is stupid and should be revoked.
When I said, "whatever means", I meant whatever means concerning the bail jumper for HIS possession, in HIS house. Obviously, they can't do it in YOUR house.
I missed the reference to the 1872 decision. I just skimmed the thread.
Why on Earth are you assuming the home owner is not allowed to defend himself????
In fact, if you looked at it, the bondsman has a legal warrant to apprehend and detain until he can present he/she to a judge, their bondee ONLY. The homeowner can shoot him dead (depending on the local laws) BEFORE he sees the warrant if he decides to break down anybodys door. Or, the homeowner can shoot him dead (depending on the local laws), if the bondee is not present in the house.
Besides that, a bondee is considered "incarcerated" "out on Bond". The only difference between a jail inmate and a bondee is the bond.
This bondsman, in the posted story, is a jerk.
I'm with ya!
mc