Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:And what's the problem here? (Score -1) 826

Hostile intent doesn't mean you have the right to lethal force in any state. It would allow you to attack him certainly, and probably threaten him with a gun, but not to shoot him without further provocation. Which doesn't mean you wouldn't get away with it with a conservative jury and a good lawyer, but the idea of excessive force exists pretty much everywhere.

Wrong. See Castle Doctrine. And for good reason too. If I come home and find someone in my house that shouldn't be there, I'm not going to wait for them to attack me in any form or fashion.

Comment Re:Repo in AZ (Score -1) 384

Re-read my first paragraph.

Different cars lose different amounts, depending on the make/model/year. The value lost may not be a significant amount relative to the price of the car, but that's not the point. As soon as it's driven by the first owner, it is worth less than they paid for it. With cars, there are no exceptions to this.

Comment Re:Repo in AZ (Score -1) 384

If I repaid half of the money, I am still paying for it. I should get at least a partial refund.

No, because you drove/used the car. There are few things that depreciate as quickly as cars, and when someone buys a new one, as soon as it's driven off the lot it loses value. A simple trade would result in a net loss for the debtor.

What really happens in the business is that the repossessed car/house/etc. is resold or auctioned, and if the amount of money it brings is greater than the amount owed (very unlikely), than the difference is given to the person who defaulted on the loan. More often, it brings less than the amount owed and the debtor can choose to settle it there or pursue other collection efforts such as wage garnishment.

Slashdot Top Deals

"A car is just a big purse on wheels." -- Johanna Reynolds

Working...