Arresting People Over Student Loans

Posted by $ Abaco 8 years, 2 months ago to Government
2 comments | Share | Flag

A couple years ago they swat-teamed a guy who lives just south of here because his estranged wife (long gone) owned on her student loans. They guy, a father, was left cuffed on his front lawn all morning while his kids sat in a squad car (rather than going to school). They smashed in the guy's front door. I find this very interesting. I never had any student debt. I actually didn't realize you could be arrested for bad debts in America. Apparently, you can for Federal student debt. The only debt I thought could get you arrested was not paying your taxes.
SOURCE URL: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/you-probably-wont-get-arrested-over-unpaid-student-debt-but-the-government-has-other-powers-to-collect-2016-02-17


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ sjatkins 8 years, 2 months ago
    I have never heard of such a bizarre practice on any type of debt except for taxes and generally not even then.

    There is certainly zero reason to send a swat team out on such a trivial and routine matter as serving a summons or even a failure to appear arrest. This is a MUCH more serious matter, this militarization of the police and using excessive force than the question of whether one can be arrested for debt.

    Merely owning a gun does not make it justified to send out a military force over a very simple legal matter.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 8 years, 2 months ago
    We're not supposed to have debtor's prison. How can you arrest someone for a civil matter?

    The article says they were trying to compel him to come to court to answer being sued for not paying as agreed. I thought someone being sued didn't have to appear, but he would almost certainly lose. In the case of someone who owes money and can't/won't pay it but agrees he did take out the loan, there's no reason to show up because the case is only to determine if the defendant really owes the money. If he thinks someone forged his signature or the loan docs have been tampered with after he signed, he should definitely appear.

    I don't understand why they tried to compel him to appear in court. I don't understand why the defendant allegedly told them he had a gun, which when blurted out during a confrontation sounds like a threat. This story does not make sense.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo