Certainly it would be a "sit down, we need to talk" issue and is definitely a trust problem, eg /why/ she did so. But I don't think it is a "Here's your key, get the hell out" problem.

That is, she did this while drunk and clearly not at full capacity. This is certainly not a justification or excuse, however I would think it would point to deeper questions like: Does this person get drunk often, do they regularly make poor decisions like this while drunk, was this behavior/tendencyu known to you and if so why do you trust them enough to live together [as obviously it took very little time for a major issue to arise], and why do you allow them root access to your machine, &c.

Didn't she have your *** kicked by some gang bangers too? (Re: myspace bulletin.)

Yes she did. When I told her to get out she told these guys outside that I tried to rape her. I went outside for some air and they jumped me.

Come to think of it, that's probably what she told the officers to warrant the hand cuffs.

There's 900 things we're not getting the whole truth about here, I know it.

Off topic, but this is why women shouldn't be allowed in office. Not until men have something on par with "RAPE! RAAPE! RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPE!"

That ****'s just not fair.

Wow. Just Wow.

Did her mom get scared and say, "You're moving with your auntie and uncle in Bel-Air."?

And this is precisely why you shouldn't be allowed in office.

Let's put it this way. If there was any truth to her claim, would I be sitting here right now having this discussion? I did not rape her or attempt to rape her. If I had, she would have pressed charges and I would be in prison. She's already demonstrated she's not afraid to have me detained by police officers, why wouldn't she press charges if I had done anything wrong? This is the whole truth here, ladies and gentlemen. It was a really quick break up that is being dragged out longer than it needs to, and I am being humiliated as a result.

Oh, and the term the officers used to enter my place was Civil Standbye. She went that route because there's no evidence or truth to her claims against me and she knows it.

Zully can't run for office. He has a pot conviction.

Yes, Mort, as I was being 100% serious and was not illustrating a point that all a woman has to do is claim she was raped, and then all holy hell is rained down upon an individual when the claim may or may not have a shred of evidence. Yes, we need to follow up on such claims. But when the claims are unfounded... what then? No harm, no foul? I don't think so.

And Vinny, no. I don't have a marijuana conviction. I was charged with possession, and the charge was later dropped upon my guilty plea to an OUI. And if that were to keep me out of office, how'd our cokehead leader get to where he is today?

don't forget alcoholic

This girl sounds ****ing crazy, and it sounds like she never got he *** kicked on the playground for being a manipulative smartmouth *****.

http://www.fostercity.org/FAQs/civilstandby.cfm

They weren't acting as a Civil Standbye. They broke into your home with out a warrant. Civil Standbyes are supposed to simply there to prevent one party from assaulting another and to help arbitrate if that is requested. They aren't allowed to decide who gets what, that's for courts.

More importantly, when did zully change his name? I would've raped his face earlier if I'd know he was in this thread!

/me RAPES FACE

I forgot to mention one of the best parts:

As I was sitting prisoner on my couch waiting for her to finish gathering her possessions I asked the officer if I could verify what she was taking and he said "that's my job, she gave me a list and she is taking only those things."

I asked how that was fair that she could make a list with potentially anything on it and be entitled to take it all, and he straight up said "You're right, it's not fair. My job isn't to decide what's fair."

And I said "I feel like I'm getting the short end of the stick here," and he said "You are, now you have the right to remain silent, I suggest you use it."

Aw, snap. Did you forget to tell us about the robot ninjas that fought crime in the past alongside Robin Hood, too?

They like it double if the town in question is good and christian.

As opposed to all that bad justice you get?

I'm pretty sure Obi's right, actually. I don't believe they can demand to enter your home as part of a civil standby.

This may be my unprofessional, unqualified *** talking, but...

This is seven shades of ****ed up.

**** the police

I doubt the ACLU would take the case. The cops were escorting a woman into a dwelling she cohabitated with you to retrieve her belongings. It just isn't a worhty case.

Sorry, man, but I think you're just going to have to suck up the "Stupid Tax" and learn from your mistakes.

I'm with Wookie. But you should still have a lawyer tell you that and not a green internet forum.

Judges issue protection orders. Police have no authority in that regard.



It sounds like a restraining/protective order...maybe Cali has some wacky laws, but that doesn't sound legal.



Police don't enforce civil matters. Up here, that's the Sheriff's job - and it would be accompanied by a court order. Now, if it's her residence as well, that complicates things..that'd be something I'd let a supervisor make a decision on.

I don't think you'll have much of a case at this point. The cops basically intimidated you and abused their power to make you give up some extremely important and powerful rights by allowing them entry to the home without a warrant - which, it sounds like they could've gotten if your ex had reported the goods stolen anyways. That's what cops do.

It seems like the best move would've been to just give her her stuff back, and report the Wii/other stuff stolen if she didn't return it immediately. You really didn't have the right to hold her stuff as collateral.

Live and learn, and don't for a second think that cops ever have your best interests at heart when they act. They're doing a job and most of the time, won't really give a crap about your personal situation.

*not really trying to slander cops here, but with the trickery and intimidating tactics that cops use these days you absolutely can't be afraid to assert your rights, or they will walk over you to get what they need done.

Wisest words spoken here in this thread.

Wow, Wookie, one of us is certainly smoking something different.

Unfortunately, even if it is a gross violation of your rights, the court fees probably aren't worth the cost of your lost possessions.

Making the b****'s life troublesome, that may be worth it.

You've been ultra-mega trolled

I was on the side of hiring an ACLU lawyer until Connection Problem reminded me that you were holding the items as collateral.

I don't personally think you did anything "wrong", as in, like morally wrong... but legally I think that holding her items as collateral technically could be considered "stealing" those goods. And the fact that she was also "stealing" your Wii doesn't make holding her goods legal.

I think that it's *wrong* that she broke an agreement that you made (though with her mother) and that she involved the police where they were not needed. But that doesn't really have anything to do with the legal issues.

did I miss something? where did he say he was HOLDING it until he got his stuff back? I was thought he said he tried to make contact and arrange a date and time for an exchange.

also, they are not common law couple, 6 weeks is not long enough for that, she was not on the lease.... she basically just brought stuff over and stayed the night for 6 weeks.

If you drove to a party at a friends house and left your keys there and took a taxi home, do you call the cops because your friend worked the next day and you couldn't catch him to get your keys?

1. Did she take anything that was not her's? CD's? stereo? computer? anything important or expensive?

2. They entered your home without a warrant, but you got intimidated and let them in regardless, you gave up your right to have a warrant the second you backed down, I would have refused entry and told them to come back with a warrant or court order, as soon as they have that one foot in the door, they have right to be there and carry on with what they came for.

3. The wii's like... 200 bucks and it's a crappy system with gimmicky games anyway, no big loss, I ain't played the wii here in like... a year, not since we got bored of the "wheeee, waving a remote around is fun" thing it had going.

4. She's a *****, go to a bar get drunk pick up a chick and get laid.

[quote=First Post]

I have been speaking to her mother, and we agreed that she could have all of her stuff back if she returned the stuff she had of mine (namely, my Wii).

[/quote]

Sounds like a conditional release of her property to me. So, I am interpreting that a bit as "if and only if" but I still think that's somewhat of a fair interpretation because Darth J said it was an agreement that he worked out.

I'm not saying that I would call the police in that situation, but that I think Connection Problem is right that the strategy of making an agreement to exchange stuff might not have been effective as: "I will give you your stuff. Please give me my Wii back," and then using the law as a last resort method of getting the Wii back instead of what happened.

A lot of that is hindsight because it would seem that the agreement should have been just fine and could have been done in a cordial manner.

Oh, so now you're the ****ing lawyer? He stated they cohabitated in the dwelling. She was entitled to her property. Quite frankly his emo email to her could have scared her away from the trade he proposed. His half-assed recollection and retelling of events doesn't even pass the common sense test. As far as I can tell, only the most "the man is out to get me types" would even bite on this half-assed retelling. From my experience, when a story doesn't make sense on the surface, facts are obviously missing.



Maybe this is just one more thing he has forgot tell us.



Since none of us are lawyers nor familiar with the exact laws of his jurisdiction, we are not qualified to answer this. More than likely she was well within her rights to retrieve her property from her dwelling. The fact that he forced her to leave the dwelling, without her property, probably hurt his "cause" (if you want to call his cause blackmailing her). He never stated that she took the Wii with her when she left so I don't see how he could even claim this blackmailing legitimate.



Wow, you can defend him on everything else but then fanboy bash the game system?



More than likely the type of behavior that got him into this mess to begin with. Great advice.

You're just taking every unknown variable and assuming the wort possible scenario to prove your point. Most of your hypotheticals fail the Occam's Razor test.

The Resolution:

I cleaned my apartment from top to bottom and gathered everything of hers that remained. I then called the officer who was here last night, let him know that she did leave some of her things behind and that I am more than willing to turn them over to her. He came by, we talked about my side of the story and he was instantly receptive to what I had to say as soon as I showed him the bruises up and down my arms and the scratches and scars from her various moody fits throughout the relationship.

He advised me that I am well-within my rights to press felony charges against her for domestic violence, and that the injuries were pretty solid evidence. I told him I did not wish to press charges at this time, I just want to get on with my life and never see her or her family again. He said that she told him the exact same thing last night, and as long as we stayed out of each others' way, we can do exactly that. He did advise that I take out a restraining order against her, and I am thinking about doing exactly that.

Do it before she does.

*****es ain't **** but ho's and tricks.

Um, no, I reached my conclusion by taking his statements into account. He put himself in that situation and the fact that her property was in their dwelling are the things most heavilly influencing my opinion. I don't need any other hypothetical variables although odds are that each and every one of them would not be in his favor.

Ockham's razor is to do with the number of assumptions made by a hypothesis, not how preferable or pleasant the outcome of the hypothesis is.

In fact, there's absolutely no way you can even apply Ockham's razor to anything here.

He was just looking for an excuse to use some term he learned in school. He should be applauded for attempting to apply concepts he has learned .