If I walk into my house and there's strangers there, I'm shooting first, asking questions later. Thank god for castle doctrine

I unironically agree.

We must walk LA, NYC, and SF off from the rest of civilization and let them all eat their own. Literally.

So you aren't at risk of getting free home remodeling work?

Keep dreaming

Based on what exactly? Trump's other failures?

Puerto Rico, Healthcare, His Government shutdown etc etc etc

Wow I'd say you have Trump's cock down your throat, but that tiny thing probably couldn't make it pass your two front teeth

You're the one sperging out because I pointed out the fact that Trump is a failure.

Kys bitchboi

wow imagine supporting trump in 2018. Idk if there can be a clearer diagnosis for retardation than that

You, sir, deserve a brick

/u/wha_why do you typically defend others who break the law (ie shoplifters, petty thieves, carjackers)? Why is this any different? In my state, if someone came home to a bunch of guys in their house ripping shit up, they would be well within their right to shoot to kill.

lol you would kill two workers who were told to tear up the carpet?

You need sharp knives to cut carpet you dumbass.

You're going to prison one day, my man.

When cornered illegals act out, they lash out irrationally (like feral animals).

keep yourself safe

Pretty harsh there man. All I did was tell you to stay safe and you wish me dead?

Most manslaughter DUIs are from citizens.

I have a safe hidden under my floor, so yes

Sure you would tough guy.

I have a CDL specifically for situations such as this. If I had 60 feet in between me and a knife wielder, I might hesitate but any closer and I'm not being jumped

In your fantasy, you want to kill two guys who are replacing your carpet?

Pretty proud that you can do all that from a mobility scooter

Not a pasta. I just assume you're a fat old man who probably belongs in /r/CBTS_Stream

> be a drama poster

> not know what pasta is

how fuckin retarded are you

Anyone who takes my property better be ready to defend it with their life

This is your life on constant fear. Shit's pretty sad, bro.

Step in my house

I don't stick my dick in crazy.

r/iamverybadass

/u/wha_why do you typically defend others who break the law (ie shoplifters, petty thieves, carjackers)?

In Anglo-American law, there is a difference between a civil infraction and a crime. That may not sound like an important nuance, but you are reading /r/legaladvice at the top link. The intricacies of Anglo-American law matter there. It isn't a popcorn/political subreddit.

Why is this any different?

If the workers were illegal and we have no information to say they were or weren't, they most likely overstayed a visa. That is a civil infraction not a criminal offense. It is still unlawful and unwise to overstay a visa, but it is different.

In my state, if someone came home to a bunch of guys in their house ripping shit up, they would be well within their right to shoot to kill.

That sounds like a good way to face a wrongful death lawsuit or even jail. The easiest way to think about stand your ground or similar law is self defense. It just gives you more flexibility around self defense.

If you come back to an unoccupied home with a marked commercial vehicle in the driveway and workmen in the house, pull a gun, and start shooting at the workmen, you may go to jail for murder or attempted murder. You can't advance into the property weapon drawn. That isn't self defense anymore.

In Anglo-American law

What? It's Michigan law. And, as well, overarching federal law

That sounds like a good way to face a wrongful death lawsuit or even jail.

Google "castle doctrine"

If you come back to an unoccupied home with a marked commercial vehicle in the driveway and workmen in the house, pull a gun, and start shooting at the workmen, you may go to jail for murder or attempted murder. You can't advance into the property weapon drawn. That isn't self defense anymore.

We just had a spree of burglaries where I live where guys were posing as "movers" (and had "branded" vans) to break into houses. I think I'll take my day in court.

What? It's Michigan law. And, as well, overarching federal law

Common Law also known as Anglo-American Law is how we refer to our system of law. Michigan law as well as US federal law is based on Common Law or Anglo-American law. That is the type of subreddit you are reading at the top link. It is legal advice. Not a political or popcorn subreddit meant for entertainment.

Google "castle doctrine"

If you have a point to make, do so. Castle Doctrine, Stand Your Ground, and all the rest are all based off the concept of self defense. They give you flexibility and coverage for actions taken in self defense. That is all.

I think I'll take my day in court.

If you return home to find someone in your unoccupied home, pull a gun, advance onto the property, and begin firing when you could have safely called police, you will see a court and the inside of a prison. It is only self defense when your life or the lives of others are in immediate danger or you have the reasonable belief that they are in danger. At that point, you can only use the minimum level of force necessary to remove the threat.

You can't empty the clip into the burglars as they lay bleeding on your floor. You can't follow them outside and down the street firing at them. You don't have a license to commit murder.

The correct thing to do when you find a strange commercial vehicle in your driveway or people in your home is to call the police. Don't do anything batman would do. That is a good way to get locked up in prison or die.

I have a legal right in this state to defend my home from unlawful entry. If I enter my house and see a bunch of dudes with knives, I'm not going to jail by killing them. I told you to google castle doctrine for a reason, young blood

If I enter my house and see a bunch of dudes with knives, I'm not going to jail by killing them.

I understand why you feel that you should be able to do this, but the specific facts of the situation matter. If you are a gun owner that intends to protect their property in this way, I encourage you to post to /r/legaladvice or consult with a licensed attorney in your area before taking any action. Acting improperly could result in a lawsuit or jail time.

Each State is different, but let's look at limitations of the Castle Doctrine.

Let's start with, "What is Castle Doctrine?"

In a more general sense, however, the basis of the law is that a person has no duty to retreat and can defend themselves in their own home (or – depending on the jurisdiction – any other location where they have a right to be) from someone who either attacks them in their home or forcibly enters.

It is specific to this point as well:

In other words, just as in other situations, there has to be a real, substantial threat or at least intentional forced entry.

So, let's say your door is unlocked, someone walks in, and stands there. Can you shoot them dead?

A person who walks into an open door on the other hand, even if they have no right to be there may be another matter because they didn’t technically force their way in. Mere trespassing alone is also not a justification to shoot a person, even under some form of castle doctrine law.

No.

In fact, a forced entry or attempted one may not serve as justification alone – take the case of one David Petterson

Petterson retrieved his handgun and shot at the three men as they attempted to flee, hitting one – one Nicholas Embertson – who later died from the wound.

Petterson was arrested on Jan. 28, for negligent discharge of a firearm and is facing second-degree manslaughter charges. In this instance, while there was an attempted forced entry, the burglars were trying to flee.

There are additional very important limitations to Castle Doctrine:

Another instance where the Castle Doctrine’s protections didn’t apply was the Byron David Smith case from 2012.

Two burglars broke into his house in Nov. 2012, in Little Falls, Minn., whilst Smith was in the basement.

Smith was convicted of two counts of first-degree and second-degree murder each, and likely won’t leave prison alive. Minnesota has a Castle Doctrine law, and at the time Smith would have been cleared after the initial shots.

The two intruders forcibly broke in, that much is clear, but both were disabled after they were shot at the top of the stairs. The shots that followed weren’t defensive; the burglars were executed, which there is no legal justification for. Audio and video of the incident, recorded by Smith’s security system, all but cemented the punitive nature of the follow-up shots, as did his statements to police.

It concludes:

Plenty of other examples exist where the mere presence of an intruder was not justification enough to shoot them.

In the link at the top in /r/legaladvice, the front door to the home was unlocked. The commercial vehicle was clearly marked. The house was empty with no one home.

To be clear, they might not even be guilty of criminal trespass so long as they reasonably believed they were authorized to be there.

Shooting first and asking questions later works great in the movies and /r/iamverybadass. In the real world, it gets you sued or put in prison. I have a lot of respect for gun owners and the idea that when seconds count the police are only minutes away. Know the law. It is important.

Dead illegals can't sue me. I'm pretty sure I know the law as a CHL holder better than some rando larping as a lawyer

Dead illegals can't sue me.

The wives or children left behind would be able to. They have damages from the loss of primary bread winner that could add up to hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars. At the very least, you would be hiring a lawyer at hundreds of dollars per hour to defend you against the lawsuit. That will be very expensive and often requires some payment up front.

I'm pretty sure I know the law

You shouldn't take my word for it or the liberal gun hating website I linked to running these type of articles:

Lefty Journalists: Free Speech For Me But Not For Thee

Leaked Assange Messages Pour Cold Water On One Trump Collusion Theory

You should speak to a lawyer. If you ever need a defense, you need to know who to call immediately after it happens. Consultations are usually free and you can get a referral from your local bar association. An hour of your time could save you tens of thousands of dollars and years of your life.

ROFL okay dude

In the video Don't Talk to Cops, a professor of criminal defense law and a police officer with decades of experience give a two part lecture on why you would want a lawyer at the scene instead of speaking to the police directly. They provide numerous specific examples and real world scenarios to reinforce the need for representation. It should be required viewing for gun owners in many states.

ROFL okay dude

I understand you aren't taking any of this seriously, but I hope some good still comes out of it. Be safe.

Stop LARPing as a lawyer.

Good luck out there. You're going to need it.

Son, I'm 67 years old. I've done well so far

Why call the police? Just make the company pay for new carpet install to include moving them to a hotel until the job is finished. If she calls the police then no one wins.

They didn't break in you illiterate retard. They came home to the guys tearing up the carpet. It isn't "breaking" into a house that is unlocked.

Damn, you really are retarded. Being somewhere without permission is trespassing.

You’re both wrong which allows me to be smugly superior

You can’t break into a house that isn’t locked. Trespassing is the word we use for that. The issue isn’t whether or not they “broke in” or not, it’s the fact that these strange people are in your house lebowskiing you

(1) Any person who breaks and enters or enters without breaking, any dwelling, house, tent, hotel, office, store, shop, warehouse, barn, granary, factory or other building, boat, ship, railroad car or structure used or kept for public or private use, or any private apartment therein, or any cottage, clubhouse, boat house, hunting or fishing lodge, garage or the out-buildings belonging thereto, any ice shanty with a value of $100.00 or more, or any other structure, whether occupied or unoccupied, without first obtaining permission to enter from the owner or occupant, agent, or person having immediate control thereof, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

literally the text of the michigan Breaking and Entering law

Any person who breaks and enters or enters without breaking

There is a reason why that is in there.

that is not true

You don't have to have locks. A closed door counts.

Okay, still though, the more pressing issue is the men in her house, not wether or not they broke in

naw it's still breaking and entering)/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-750-115)

(1) Any person who breaks and enters or enters without breaking, any dwelling, house, tent, hotel, office, store, shop, warehouse, barn, granary, factory or other building, boat, ship, railroad car or structure used or kept for public or private use, or any private apartment therein, or any cottage, clubhouse, boat house, hunting or fishing lodge, garage or the out-buildings belonging thereto, any ice shanty with a value of $100.00 or more, or any other structure, whether occupied or unoccupied, without first obtaining permission to enter from the owner or occupant, agent, or person having immediate control thereof, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

guilty of a misdemeanor

the horror

There is a 0% chance that the carpet company run by people who are so incompetent that they can't even get the address right will replace the carpet for free, much less pay for a hotel. If she calls the police then society wins by having one less crew of morons vandalizing innocent people's homes.

I don't get why people hate illegals. I fucking love them. My uncle lived in a Florida trailer park that was like 70% illegals and they were the nicest people in the world.

You'd be walking down the street and they'd come up and offer you a plate of food and all kinds of shit.

There was a shady element too, of course, but most of them were great people.

I remember once, and I swear to god this happened, I saw one of them pull 5-6 dead Iguanas out of a trunk. To this day I have no idea what he was doing with them.

But it's not a few of them that have nothing to offer. All of them work, for the most part. They have no other choice, they have no access to government programs and would die if they didn't work.

I've never met an unemployed illegal immigrant. Every single one of them busted their ass.

And I believe Alabama passed draconian immigration laws and were pretty much forced to roll them back because of the economic damage the laws were doing.

https://cber.cba.ua.edu/New%20AL%20Immigration%20Law%20-%20Costs%20and%20Benefits.pdf

Potential economic benefits of the law include saving funds used to provide public benefits to illegal immigrants; increased safety for citizens and legal residents; more business, employment, and education opportunities; and ensuring the integrity of various governmental programs and services. The law’s economic costs include the spending on its implementation, enforcement, and defense in court; increased costs and inconveniences for citizens, other legal residents, and businesses; fewer economic development opportunities; and the economic impact of reduced aggregate demand as some illegal immigrants leave and therefore no longer earn and spend income in the state. Assuming that the law causes 40,000-80,000 unauthorized immigrant workers who earn $15,000-35,000 a year to leave the state, the resulting decline in aggregate demand would have annual economic and fiscal impacts of reductions of about (i) 70,000- 140,000 jobs with $1.2-5.8 billion in earnings, (ii) $2.3-10.8 billion in Alabama GDP or 1.3-6.2 percent of the state’s $172.6 billion GDP in 2010, (iii) $56.7-264.5 million in state income and sales tax collections, and (iv) $20.0-93.1 million in local sales tax collections. The law is wellintentioned but just one cost component, the impact of the reduction in aggregate demand that the law causes, shows that the law will be costly to the state even without considering other costs.

So claims that the only reason you're so rabidly against them is because they "broke the law" don't seem to make much sense. All credible empirical research shows they're a net gain to the federal government.

I suspect race and delusions of "white genocide" play a bigger role than anything else.

I fucking love them.

More power to you. I don't like illegals because they makes it harder for legal immigrants like me.

How do illegals make it harder for you?>

Some of them parade around just calling themselves immigrants blurs the line between legal and illegal immigrants. I don't want to get confused with those lots.

Also, I don't want to get confused by those illegal immigrants who are just here to pop babies and leech on our resources, since I happen to share the same ethnicity as them.

Lastly, them getting more support than the legal immigrants feels like a slap in the face as they are portrayed as innocent and brave, despite blatantly breaking the law, while we waited our turn to come here.

Some of them parade around just calling themselves immigrants blurs the line between legal and illegal immigrants. I don't want to get confused with those lots.

What? This is absurd, and seems to be something you just came up with on the spot because you were light on actual reasons.

Also, I don't want to get confused with those illegal immigrants who are just here to pop babies and leech on our resources, since I happen to share the same ethnicity as them.

Well, considering illegals are actually a net gain to the federal government, it doesn't seem like they're leeching.

Lastly, them getting more support than the legal immigrants feels like a slap in the face as they are portrayed as innocent and brave, despite blatantly breaking the law, while we waited our turn to come here.

In what universe do illegal immigrants get more support than legal immigrants? How does this even make sense to you?

and seems to be something you just came up with on the spot because you were light on actual reasons.

I don't know. You tell me. Legal immigrants don't get deported for no reason. If they are afraid of getting deported, chances are they are illegal.

considering illegals are actually a net gain to the federal government, it doesn't seem like they're leeching.

Net gain for the federal doesn't mean it would be a gain for local.

In what universe do illegal immigrants get more support than legal immigrants?

DNC rally in 2016 got a child of a illegal immigrant on the stage. I think that is support.

It shouldn't make sense, but that is what it is.

I don't know. You tell me.

Where in this article is your argument supported?

Net gain for the federal doesn't mean it would be a gain for local.

They're a net gain across the board, tbh.

http://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2016/1/27/the-effects-of-immigration-on-the-united-states-economy

DNC rally in 2016 got a child of a illegal immigrant on the stage. I think that is support.

Uh.. The only way your argument would make sense is if they were anti-legal immigration.

To be clear here, the DNC supports both legal and illegal immigrants. And I'm going to let you in on a little secret here.

The GOP isn't so rabidly anti-illegal immigration because they just want people to come here legally. That's a smokescreen, all the people you see screeching about "illegal immigrants" and citing economic reasons are bullshit artists. The real reason they're so against them is because they subscribe to the myth of white genocide. They want less immigrants in the country period, legal or illegal.

There's enough research pointing to this fact.

Where in this article is your argument supported?

It calls those illegal immigrants just "immigrant," which is what I was saying. It blurs the line. I would like that distinction there.

They're a net gain across the board, tbh.

Okay, I'll take your word for it.

To be clear here, the DNC supports both legal and illegal immigrants.

Yeah, and I have problem with them supporting illegal immigrants. They should not be supported.

The GOP

I don't give a crap about GOP. They can rot in hell for all I care. Not an argument.

It calls those illegal immigrants just "immigrant," which is what I was saying. It blurs the line. I would like that distinction there.

But you said they were giving you a bad name. How is them marching giving you a bad name?

Yeah, and I have problem with them supporting illegal immigrants. They should not be supported.

You've given no valid reason for why they shouldn't be. And your argument was that illegal immigrants got more support than legal immigrants.

Now you're flipping the argument to "illegal immigrants should not be supported."

I don't give a crap about GOP. They can rot in hell for all I care. Not an argument.

Yeah, it is an argument. Because you're repeating misinformed nativist rhetoric they've been spamming for years.

I'm not interested in causing a mini-recession because illegals hurt your feelings.

How is them marching giving you a bad name?

Because I am a legal immigrant and I don't need to be associated with the illegal counterpart. I also don't want to be assumed that I support illegal immigration just because I am an immigrant myself.

your argument was

Illegal immigrant got a platform to speak and get standing ovation, while the legal one did not. I know what my argument was.

Now you're flipping the argument to "illegal immigrants should not be supported."

Well, that's a different argument.

Because you're repeating misinformed nativist rhetoric they've been spamming for years.

What, they're a problem to the society?

I'm not interested in causing a mini-recession because you have an irrational dislike of illegals.

And I'm not interested in undermining our national law and national security because you want to exploit those illegal immigrants to do menial labor, or because you've met some nice ones.

Because I am a legal immigrant and I don't need to be associated with the illegal counterpart. I also don't want to be assumed that I support illegal immigration just because I am an immigrant myself.

Ok, but you still haven't explained how any of makes anything harder for you.

Illegal immigrant got a platform to speak and get standing ovation, while the legal one did not. I know what my argument was.

In order for a legal immigrant to be on stage, legal immigrants would have to be under attack. Nobody is attacking legal immigrants, yet. So why would a legal immigrant be on the stage?

Let me reword your argument another way to show you how bad it is.

"The DNC does not support white men because they had a woman on stage at the convention."

And I'm not interested in undermining our national law and national security because you want to exploit those illegal immigrants to do menial labor, or because you've met some nice ones.

You keep clinging to "the law" because you're backed into a corner and know you can't refute anything I'm saying. Now you're claiming "national security" threat.

Say, how many illegal immigrants have done anything you'd consider a threat to "national security."

Ok, but you still haven't explained how any of this makes it harder for you.

I thought I did.

So why would a legal immigrant be on the stage?

They did put the Khan family on their stage and did pretty well. Why can't they keep it that way?

You keep clinging to "the law" because you're backed into a corner and know you can't refute anything I'm saying.

You are correct. I cannot refute to the positive stories that people have with illegal immigrants. So what?

Say, how many illegal immigrants have done anything you'd consider a threat to "national security."

Zero so far. I don't think it's going to bring down the country, but it is still a hole that should be plugged.

This actually is exactly why we have sanctuary laws.

/u/Grim-Sleeper, I'd be tempted to agree with you, except I've lived in a sanctuary city. Denver was a sanctuary city, and while I lived there, there was an undocumented Mexican that shot two cops that were providing security for a wedding. One of them died from the shooting.

Turns out that the guy that shot them had been pulled over and cited several times, a few other crimes under his belt as well, but their policy was generally hands off.

So this guy shoots two cops, flees to Mexico, and the only way that Mexico would extradite him was if the State of Colorado would take the death penalty off the table for the cop that he killed.

Yes, this situation sucks. The US regularly runs into this problem. Lots of countries refuse to extradite, if there is a chance of capital punishment. The DA can either suck it up and forgo the death penalty, or live with the fact that the guy never will get extradited. Of the US could follow the international trend and get rid of capital punishment. Most civilized countries have done so long ago (also, it's cheaper that way).

But I fail to see how sanctuary laws made any difference. If I understood your account of event correctly, they guy fled before sanctuary laws would have even taken effect.

Or maybe you are arguing that he is a hardened criminal that shouldn't be walking around. I could agree with you, if the facts are as reported. But then, that's a regular criminal justice question. It applies no matter what the citizenship or immigration status. If the guy can't be trusted in the general population, then lock him up. There are plenty of naturally born Americans who fall into exactly the same category. Either rehabilitate them effectively (not that we are particularly good at that, either), or lock them up.

I guess I should be more clear - their policy at the time is that they were not allowed to arrest any undocumented immigrants. So there were several times that this assclown should have been arrested, but wasn't, and ultimately he killed a cop when he should have been deported.

Ah, that's not normally what sanctuary laws would do. Instead, local police would treat everybody the same, but they would actively avoid finding out immigration status of any detainees. And if they accidentally discovered that they had arrested an undocumented alien, they would pretend that they didn't know and thus not inform the federal government.

I feel that this often is a good policy. Local crimes and immigration violations are two very different things. There is a good argument to be made that they should be handled separately.

Now, when you talk about ineffective local policing and law enforcement, that's an altogether different problem. And living in San Francisco, I can tell you plenty of stories about how poorly that works. But at least in this city, it isn't limited to a particular citizenship status. San Francisco universally has problems figuring out how to deal with crime ... especially with what they euphemistically call lifestyle crimes. Any petty property crime simply won't be prosecuted, as it is considered part of a legitimate lifestyle choice. <rolls eyes/>

Seems as if all major metropolitan centers go through this cycle every couple of decades. Sounds as if it is our turn right now.

Care to quote a law that actually does this?

Hint: You won't find any. None of the laws give any extra protections other than the protections given to everybody else. Sanctuary laws are actually extremely limited in scope

I think you just argued against your own case. Unless of course you wanted to propose that jay walking would become an arrestable offense.

I don't see any "catch and release" in what you're describing.

The US had equal protection for everybody inside its borders. Congratulations. You just signed up for being arrested for each of your petty crimes. LOL

If you're an illegal wetback it damn well better be

That isn't necessary. Mexico is a country with a lot of problems and a lot of potential. It is just mired in corruption and crime. They go from one administration to the next with nothing ever changing and crime getting worse. Sound familiar?

Take a look here: http://www.worldsrichestcountries.com/

International Monetary Fund statistics at October 2017

Mexico is 11th ahead of countries like South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Spain, and even Italy.

What if President Donald Trump is able to help Mexico? If they build the wall and stop the flow of drugs, illegal labor, and more, it will hurt the cartels and boost Mexico's economy. They have been experiencing brain drain for years. That needs to stop if they are ever going to get out of this mess.

I want cops on corners checking the paper of anyone darker than the "skin" crayola

We need to tighten background verification for employment, renting property, and accessing government services such as schools. Officers on every corner isn't efficient, but using those resources to ensure that jobs go to citizens would go a long way.

There are some factories and processing plants in South Texas where you can't work if you're white. You'll be warned away. These jobs aren't for you. If you stay, you'll get hurt or worse. That should have been stopped years ago. Now, it might be.

Ok so the law worked as intended. We now save money on deporting him

Yeah, because fuck those two cops he shot and their families. Fuck off, dude.

Maybe we need more gun control.

No, we need fucking illegal Mexican control

Wait, why are we burying the lede here?

they may just replace all the carpeting in the kitchen too.

Who the fuck has carpet in the kitchen??

Their carpet must be at least 40 years old

and they are getting it replaced for free without having to worry about depreciated value, estimates, or other bullshit like that.

My parents' house was built in the 20's and has carpeting in all the bathrooms.

That can't be a good idea

That whole sub is run by cops, don’t know why people are so stupid to use it.

How the fuck did they get in the house?

It is Northern Michigan. The door to the house was unlocked like many on the street and many others in town. Not every city is like Chicago. There are still safe cities in the US. There should be more

The workers might be undocumented putting them at risk of deportation if OP's family calls police.

u/wha_why, why the hell would you care if they are illegal or not? This is like one of those Gawker stories of someone got robbed by a Black kid and decided to drop it because the Black kid is supposedly oppressed and letting him go makes it possible for him to grow up as well-adjusted adult.

You took a single sentence out of context and replied to it. You got me.

That is why I continued my bleeding heart appeal to OP:

A business without workers cannot do the work to fix the carpet and a business shut down from lack of labor may not have income/assets to pay any judgements from a Court. That is leaving aside fines, investigations, and other problems putting them out of business before OP can get a judgement for damages.

Why won't someone think of the poor, poor money?

why the hell would you care if they are illegal or not?

I don't, but OP can't get something fixed by people who are in jail or deported. OP also can't collect a judgement against someone who is in jail or deported. tl;dr money.

I don't know about you, but I'm going on vacation at The Wall.

You're getting money from that dumb company who did its job wrongly, not the illegals that's about to get deported.

Or, you know, can have the company fix that carpet for you, then report them for using illegal immigrant workers.

You're getting money from that dumb company who did its job wrongly, not the illegals that's about to get deported.

If the owner is illegal, good luck getting it from the 'dumb company' because his family effectively becomes judgement proof when he is deported. If the 'dumb company' is put out of business because of arrests, same thing. You can't collect from someone that is broke.

Or, you know, can have the company fix that carpet for you, then report them for using illegal immigrant workers.

Try this: How to Anonymously Report Employers Hiring Undocumented Immigrants

Who puts carpet in the kitchen?

The same kind of people who put it in the bathroom

Thank you to my adoring public! I always wanted to be Internet famous. Now is my chance.

I just need a charity cause.. Remember, Wall means Wall!