Assuming that you do not object to the towing company getting paid for towing, and further assuming that you do not think the property owner/business operator should be on the hook for the charges, who SHOULD be? Obviously the emotional reaction is that the victim should not get this bill, but how does the gov make that happen?

Does the group sending the bill, which is not the cops or the mayor office, but some groups that gets invoices from XYZ towing company, and by statute/ordinance/law has to invoice the owners individually and severally for those charges. Should this group also initiate an investigation to find why the car was there, and what happened to the owners? How much would this investigation cost? Is it reasonable to expect this level of investigation? Is it reasonable to lay this at the feet of the government? The tow truck driver probably had a good idea what happened, as they were at the scene, should they have eaten the cost?

It’s part of a larger frustration: Radley’s work in documenting police abuses is very welcome and necessary, but every once in a while I feel as though it’s a constant barrage of things done wrong, with very little, or no, acknowledgment of what’s done right, what’s valuable and helpful and essential. It can feed into the increasingly prevalent sentiment among champions of the private sector that public sector workers are always corrupt, bloated, and leech-like. And that is simply not the case.

A better analogy is if everyone operated under the assumption that auto-repair shops were always honest and helpful. But if you pay attention you notice that many auto-repair shops are frequently disingenuous and rude. You then make a blog pointing out as many bad auto-repair shops as you can find. Then when you mock the common belief in the universal integrity of auto-repair shops some wise ass comes along and declares that you think “we should do away with repair shops altogether”. Even though you have never advocated this, nor would any reasonable person imply as such from your posts on the subject.

You know, this conclusion — or the reverse that’s implied by the sarcasm — isn’t warranted.

If I may be permitted to indulge in an analogy, it’s as though you got scammed by an auto repair shop and decided that that meant that you should never go to a repair shop, and in fact we should do away with repair shops altogether.

I could just as easily say that the state is at fault for one, not flipping the bill and then have the attacker reimburse the state or two, telling Zuccala to bill the attacker themselves.

Nothing is free, and if both the sociopath and the primary victim’s names are on the title, well, welcome to the world of debt collection – it ain’t pretty nowheres.

The problem in this case is that the police did not let her know to expect this and how to get it paid. well that’s one of the problems.

The proper function of a restraining order obtained by X against Y is to put Y on notice that if Y seeks out X, and X shoots Y, the shooting will be considered self-defense, and thus if Y does not wish to get shot he should avoid X.

Conservatism is a rationale for selfishness. And all too often libertarianism is an excuse for being a conservative.

I’m not saying that it’s OK to bill her. I’m just saying that it’s probably not an intentional, callous act.

Well, then.

http://myfloridalegal.com/pages.nsf/main/a13e1518920d0de685256cc6004bd490!OpenDocument

yes in a perfect world there would be no charges assessed at all.