Could be. Shit imagine going to a movie. Showcase parking lot no one would even notice that shit happening in the corner.

Lol fair enough.

Yeah, what kind of weirdo would pick a girl up for a date and then park at the place they’re going?

Your take on this seems like some serious projection.

I just assumed there was some video of the kids driving that was way more outlandish than anyone expected - kind of hard to understand this outcome otherwise, or maybe he just hit a home run with the jury.

Small claims it is then. The economic reality is an attorney wouldn’t be able to charge more than a 30-40% contingency fee. So on a $5,000 DV claim, they’re looking at a max of 10 hours worth of pay, and a pretty significant chance of nothing at all, and they’re probably going to spend well over 10 hours to get there.

Because there isn’t a statutory framework for determining DV, every case has to be negotiated or tried on its merits - that’s expensive. It’s one thing to say my brand new $30,000 car has a DV of $3,000 from an accident - but if you keep it for 7-8 years the actual DV loss is closer to $300, and the value of $300 in 7 years is less than $300 today and much less than $3,000 today. So what should you get? The present value of $300? Or $3,000? Unless you routinely sell your cars when they’re a year or two old, $3,000 more than makes you whole, and that’s the remedy you’re owed. To be made whole - no more, no less.

What’s the value of the claim?

If it’s less than $2,500 just small claims it.

If it’s less than than $50,000 your probably SOL unless you want to cough up $10-$20K paying hourly - no one will take a DV claim in that range on contingency because even if you win at best they break even, and unless you’ve recognized the loss by selling the car, you’re probably not going to “win”.

If it’s over $50K in DV or you want to pay out of pocket to make a point DM me and I’ll get you a name, but you’re probably still paying out of pocket unless the DV loss element alone is $100K+.

Yawn

Cool. Incorporate, buy insurance, and get your own leads. Otherwise the only one getting robbed is this guys employer who’s paying this guy to estimate a job for himself.

8-15%? Not even close. Insurance, overhead, markup, probably doubling the cost to go through his employer for a smaller job like this. It’s also worth it.

I mean, someone who’s ethically ok with undercutting business from their employer might have some other ethical shortcomings.

Over last couple months I think a few women have been found in ponds / lakes, with minimal news shared. Burrville most recently (they IDd the person), Coventry back in Dec that they noted as suspicious, and I thought at least one or two prior.

You are completely misinterpreting this. Yes, 6% of the sale is withheld. Just like federal taxes are withheld when you get a paycheck. When you file your taxes, if you do not owe capital gains or other taxes, it will be refunded.

It’s meant to keep retirees from cashing out and leaving the state, skipping out on capital gains tax.

$85 for an Exhaust Hangar? What a rip off! I get them for free from the dry cleaner.

~ This guy, probably

Lol - no one is making bank adding $.02 to checks that average $5-8. Unless he built the POS system himself, not sure how it would be his fault even? I could see someone building one applying sales tax to each item vs the total bill which could add a cent per item depending on how prices lined up.

>I'll just continue to live here, trying to make changes here…

Good luck in the war against winter. We’re all counting on you.

Don’t tell me they’re getting late model Toyotas with no keys?

>I'll tell you what, if you weren't intending to be misleading in your "analysis" you certainly succeeded despite yourself.

You've called my post misleading three times now. With literal 0 explanation on what part of it you find misleading. Feel free to flesh out that thought a little bit. Because I'm not sure that word means what you think it means.

>I'm genuinely unsure what you thought was worthwhile about your limited discussion of RI castle doctrine under ch 8 but,

And... you're an attorney? Let me spell it out for you.

1. It's an interesting fact pattern, as most self-defense / castle doctrine defenses arise out of attacks by unknown assailants, vs. a known person with a reasonable (if unlawful) goal.
2. RI is a duty to retreat state. The shooter breached that duty.
3. There are few exceptions to that duty. § 11-8-8 outlines the exception provided by the castle doctrine.

>your comment was not expansive enough to provide the context to a layperson reader that it was simply your thoughts on a very, very limited slice of a single defense that could be raised at trial.

Unless the layperson reader read the first paragraph... Again, the opening didn't state that I was undertaking a comprehensive review of defenses available to the shooter. It also wasn't silent on the scope of review. It detailed the exact question I was looking to answer. Are you under the impression that any analysis which doesn't boil the ocean is misleading by design?

It's like you just opened a can of carrots you bought and you're getting all worked up about being misled because the carrots are a slightly different color than those on the tin. And there are no peas. You were sold carrots, you got carrots, and any angst that comes out of the transaction exists entirely within you.

>I am an attorney, I adequately understood what you were trying to say, which was also clear by my post.

Lulz

>again tho--good luck with your bad self. I won't engage with you again, sir lord of logic.

Oh no

>And that’s still skipping past that no other state has an official appetizer.

Yeah I spent so much time wondering if they could, I didn’t think if they should. You kind of got me here.

>I think you need to reconcile the fact that when you lease a property you no longer have full reign over the space.

That is not relevant here.

>Here the owner can’t consent to her b&e simply because she owns it, if the property is leased out.

This isn’t how the law works. There are undoubtably other crimes and torts the owner could be charged with here. That’s irrelevant to whether or not the castle doctrine could apply to the tenant’s self defense claims. RIs castle doctrine laws limit application of that defense to B&E cases as defined in the statute.

The owner did something wrong. That something wasn’t B&E, so the castle doctrine won’t provide a defense here.

>The tenant has a right to possession and use of the space.

Right. Again, other torts and crimes, not relevant to the castle doctrine. Which is what I was writing about. Specifically.

>Also, what the LL here is doing is illegal anyways there is no what are called “self help” evictions in RI, check the Landlord Tenant Act. See 34-18-44 about self help.

That’s probably why I specifically stated that the landlord was engaged in an illegal self-help eviction. Because they’re not legal. I mean, I’m guessing that was my thought process.

>Disclaimer: I’m a lawyer but don’t really do this work, but I definitely think your reasoning that LL can just consent away b&e is dead wrong.

Disclaimer: I’d say I think that you’ve been on the wrong end of “I’m a lawyer”ing me before, but a good lawyer does not just think, they confidently assert.

Ah yes. Regulated utilities that are granted monopolies- pinnacle of the free market 🙄

I don’t think those numbers square up either, but I was definitely off.

For Longfin / Shortfin it looks like RI catches closer to 62% of the national total.

CA might fish a lot of market squid but it’s not going into Calamari.

https://dem.ri.gov/sites/g/files/xkgbur861/files/2022-08/AnnualRpt_2021.pdf

Longfin: In 2021, commercial landings totaled 23.4 million pounds, and were valued at $33.4 million, according to the NOAA Fisheries commercial fishing landings database.

Shortfin: In 2021, commercial landings of shortfin squid totaled 39 million pounds, and were valued at $19.6 million according to the NOAA Fisheries commercial fishing landings database.

I get that it’s widely available, but Point Judith is the home of like 98% of calamari squid caught on the US. It’s also grown a lot in popularity because it was a cheap and fancy protein that could be marked way up.

Which is why the opening paragraph specifically outlined that the question I was answering wasn't whether the fact pattern precluded a claim of self defense, but rather whether "there's a good answer in the books on whether or not self-defense here could presumably be lawful under the castle doctrine, even in the face of an illegal self-help eviction.

This is actually a really interesting case. Let's see if there's a good answer in the books on whether or not self-defense here could presumably be lawful under the castle doctrine, even in the face of an illegal self-help eviction.

The statute codifying the doctrine in RI is:

>§ 11-8-8. Injury or death — Defense.
>In the event that any person shall die or shall sustain a personal injury in any way or for any cause while in the commission of any criminal offense enumerated in §§ 11-8-2 — 11-8-6, it shall be rebuttably presumed as a matter of law in any civil or criminal proceeding that the owner, tenant, or occupier of the place where the offense was committed acted by reasonable means in self-defense and in the reasonable belief that the person engaged in the criminal offense was about to inflict great bodily harm or death upon that person or any other individual lawfully in the place where the criminal offense was committed. There shall be no duty on the part of an owner, tenant, or occupier to retreat from any person engaged in the commission of any criminal offense enumerated in §§ 11-8-2 — 11-8-6.

Key here - a tenant, or even a mere occupier (who presumably has an even more tenuous grasp on possession than a tenant) are protected here with a rebuttable presumption. The defense offered by a rebuttable presumption of self-defense is significant, but not absolute. Let's look to §§ 11-8-2 — 11-8-6, part of RI's B&E statutes to see if the landlord's conduct even falls under those crimes delineated in § 11-8-8. The closest I found were § 11-8-2 & § 11-8-2.2, with the latter secondary to the former, so we only need review the latter:

>§ 11-8-2. Unlawful breaking and entering of dwelling house.

>(a) Every person who shall break and enter at any time of the day or night any dwelling house or apartment, whether the dwelling house or apartment is occupied or not, or any outbuilding or garage attached to or adjoining any dwelling house, without the consent of the owner or tenant of the dwelling house, apartment, building, or garage, shall be imprisoned for not less than two (2) years and not more than ten (10) years for the first conviction, and for the second and subsequent conviction shall be imprisoned for not less than four (4) years and not more than fifteen (15) years, or fined not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or both.
The language of the statute is unambiguous, even if the intent is not. If the owner (landlord) gives consent, then it is not a crime under § 11-8-2 — 11-8-6, and the presumption of self-defense is not afforded under RI's castle doctrine.

In RI get what you bought. Sure, if you rent an illegal basement apartment your remedy is basically to leave, and that’s worse than a place where the remedy is the landlord gives you more than what you bought, protecting those who may not enter transactions with their eyes wide open.

But ultimately you get exactly what’s on the label, even if it means RI isn’t as good at protecting you from yourself. If the landlord doesn’t provide an essential service, escrow the cost of a new place or your increase in cost for takeout because your stove is busted and withhold from rent. That’s a remedy. So is a 20 day notice to cure if you’d rather leave.

As an adult I prefer contracts be enforced as if both parties were adults, but I admit the steep learning curve can be punishing.