http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,490084,00.html
In my opinion, he should be added to the Border Patrol payroll as an independent contractor.
In my opinion, he should be added to the Border Patrol payroll as an independent contractor.
Arizona rancher sued by criminals
- Thread starter scooter
- Start date
Violator79
Take a Hit, Spunker!
They have no case on the grounds that they are Illegal aliens and they were on private property.
this is just sensationalist muck-racking that makes fox news such a disrespected tabloid amongst people that actually think about things instead of just swallowing attempts to incite a knee-jerk reaction out of them. And it works because at the end of the day all this BS accomplishes nothing but higher viewership (read: more add revenue) for the broadcasters.
as V79 said, there is really zero legal justification for this, and it's a total joke.
But let's talk seriously about the border here, because no one ever seems to want to actually think about rational pragmatic issues, they just want a quick fix band aid that will never happen.
here's how we can stop illegal immigration- set up a human chain all along the border, all 1,900 miles of it with 24/7, 365 guardianship. I'm not too sure of the exact numbers here, but it would take more people than the current population of the US states along the border, including, ironically enough all of the resident illegal aliens.That is the only way to effectively control every foot of the border, without that people are going to have places that they can slip through.
we can add on more ludicrous scenarios here, but what it boils down to is that as long as people have a reason to illegally come here, they are going to find a way to do that.
Our current effort, which amounts to basically random physical patrols, and a greater emphasis on information services to identify illegals once they are already here, is about as effective as you can get without substantially decreasing the personal freedoms that the citizens enjoy as their rights.
another thing to take into consideration is the motivations of the immigrant themselves. Fox viewers seem to lack that distinction, and not understand effective research management based on prioritizing activities.
You have the largest number of people that are workers and don't wish to do anything different from legal immigrants other than go through the necessary trouble of membership process. The vast majority of them don't constituent much of a problem at all really, compared to greater issues domestically.
Then you have human smugglers, people that exploit immigrants into what is basically indentured servitude. Because of the nature of their business, they pose some threat to national security. The next major group is drug smugglers, who are the most dangerous. These groups operate mainly back and forth across the border, and are not looking for long time residency. What that means is that putting border focus on the first group of immigrants is not going to be effective at stopping them (because they don't want to hang around the border) and will distract away from catching the people that are a real potential danger. If you add on top of that citizens engaging in potentially violent confrontations with border-crossers, then you will see these two groups becoming increasingly more violent against citizens and law enforcement, which helps nothing.
the smallest group is criminals that are feeling from prosecution and they are potentially violent as well, and may be apprehended at the border, but they also don't want to hang around, they want to go north and blend in and not deal with bureaucracy unlike your typical worker. they are the hardest to catch and require more creative and traditional investigation techniques coupled with international cooperation.
as V79 said, there is really zero legal justification for this, and it's a total joke.
But let's talk seriously about the border here, because no one ever seems to want to actually think about rational pragmatic issues, they just want a quick fix band aid that will never happen.
here's how we can stop illegal immigration- set up a human chain all along the border, all 1,900 miles of it with 24/7, 365 guardianship. I'm not too sure of the exact numbers here, but it would take more people than the current population of the US states along the border, including, ironically enough all of the resident illegal aliens.That is the only way to effectively control every foot of the border, without that people are going to have places that they can slip through.
we can add on more ludicrous scenarios here, but what it boils down to is that as long as people have a reason to illegally come here, they are going to find a way to do that.
Our current effort, which amounts to basically random physical patrols, and a greater emphasis on information services to identify illegals once they are already here, is about as effective as you can get without substantially decreasing the personal freedoms that the citizens enjoy as their rights.
another thing to take into consideration is the motivations of the immigrant themselves. Fox viewers seem to lack that distinction, and not understand effective research management based on prioritizing activities.
You have the largest number of people that are workers and don't wish to do anything different from legal immigrants other than go through the necessary trouble of membership process. The vast majority of them don't constituent much of a problem at all really, compared to greater issues domestically.
Then you have human smugglers, people that exploit immigrants into what is basically indentured servitude. Because of the nature of their business, they pose some threat to national security. The next major group is drug smugglers, who are the most dangerous. These groups operate mainly back and forth across the border, and are not looking for long time residency. What that means is that putting border focus on the first group of immigrants is not going to be effective at stopping them (because they don't want to hang around the border) and will distract away from catching the people that are a real potential danger. If you add on top of that citizens engaging in potentially violent confrontations with border-crossers, then you will see these two groups becoming increasingly more violent against citizens and law enforcement, which helps nothing.
the smallest group is criminals that are feeling from prosecution and they are potentially violent as well, and may be apprehended at the border, but they also don't want to hang around, they want to go north and blend in and not deal with bureaucracy unlike your typical worker. they are the hardest to catch and require more creative and traditional investigation techniques coupled with international cooperation.
Civil rights? Says who?
Illegal immigrants don't have civil rights. That being said, it doesn't provide justification for citizens to commit illegal acts, and they can still be tried for breaking the law of their own land that they are held under, even if it involves a foreign national.
(last time I checked merely threatening trespassers on your property is A-OK, no matter who they are.)
PS. My advice to this guy is to either get over it, or move somewhere else if he doesn't want this sort of thing to happen. As I said, hostile confrontation is just going to end up putting him in a bad situation that he may not be able to get out of.
Will E Worm
Conspiracy...
This is not their country. They don't have rights.
On the other hand, this guy is a citizen and has every right to defend himself and his land in his country from foreign invaders. :hatsoff:
I agree.
It is his land, he is a legal citizen. He can shoot illegal foreign invaders on his property.
Get over it and move? Hello, Stalin? :tongue:
It is his property. They are illegal and he has every right to be upset and shoot to kill.
Illegal immigrants and civil rights.
:dunno:
:dunno:
Facetious
Moderated
One single pre-shopped, sympathetic to the illegal alien cause, judge.
What makes ya think they don't have civil rights? The constitution does not make a distinction between citizens and non citizens when it comes to such things.
That said all this talk of basically anything and everything goes when it comes to control of illegal immigration is why the extremists on the anti immigration side are and have been losing credibility.While a large percentage of americans want illegal immigration to be reduced and halted most are also not willing to see people shot or threatened with violence eithier or denied rights the constitution affords all people.I don't know where ya get this idea you can threaten people with guns for trespassing.If the neighbors kids ball rolls on your lawn ,should a 45 be pulled on him when he goes to get it? If it is the person brandishing the weapon will be in trouble I bet.
Yes you have a right to defend yourself against people who are deemed to be actually threating your life or property like trying to rob your house this judge is saying and almost all would ,just walking on your land is not a situation which allows you to become a vigilante and pull guns and hold them with a threat of you will use deadly force if they move.
I want to see what the courts say. This could be huge, I mean overtly huge when applied to anything (i.e. State trespassing laws, right to self defense, definition of Civil Rights for foreigners).
For what Friday posted...
Civil Rights is one of those things that's a blanket statement for everyone in the states. I mean would you have separate bathrooms for visitors from France/Germany/Canada (bad example-but an idea of we're talking about)? Also, just think about this simple rule, treat others like you want to be treated. Meaning, if you were 6 (a young kid), would you like to see the business end of a 1911 45ACP, or have someone say get off my lawn? Now forward that to your current age... what would you say now?
The only people that should have right to deadly force should be these people, in list of precedence.
US Military
Police
Citizen in direct threat of imminent danger (ie rape, murder, hostage)
The reasoning, US Military knows how to handle deadly force and when to use it, it's what we do, all over the world. Police know deadly force, and when to use it, and apply it to urban areas. Citizens, might not have the best training, and trust me, adrenaline messes you up. Same goes with feeling nervous or scared. Also, why would you preform a "Citizens Arrest" with a shotgun (mass casualty producing weapon) and a dog (witch can be portrayed as an attack dog). The year they messed up his ranch was 1998, year of incident was 2004, don't think it would apply...
My :2 cents: build a 32 Million dollar fence, and save the lawsuit
For what Friday posted...
Civil Rights is one of those things that's a blanket statement for everyone in the states. I mean would you have separate bathrooms for visitors from France/Germany/Canada (bad example-but an idea of we're talking about)? Also, just think about this simple rule, treat others like you want to be treated. Meaning, if you were 6 (a young kid), would you like to see the business end of a 1911 45ACP, or have someone say get off my lawn? Now forward that to your current age... what would you say now?
The only people that should have right to deadly force should be these people, in list of precedence.
US Military
Police
Citizen in direct threat of imminent danger (ie rape, murder, hostage)
The reasoning, US Military knows how to handle deadly force and when to use it, it's what we do, all over the world. Police know deadly force, and when to use it, and apply it to urban areas. Citizens, might not have the best training, and trust me, adrenaline messes you up. Same goes with feeling nervous or scared. Also, why would you preform a "Citizens Arrest" with a shotgun (mass casualty producing weapon) and a dog (witch can be portrayed as an attack dog). The year they messed up his ranch was 1998, year of incident was 2004, don't think it would apply...
My :2 cents: build a 32 Million dollar fence, and save the lawsuit
Last edited:
i hate lawers
Well, you have got a point there. It does say ALL men right at the beginning. Of course we know that this has never been applied to all people equally, even to US citizens.
That depends on the specific laws on the state. I'm not really sure what the laws on that are in AZ. Texas has a law that is almost as extreme as that. The law is in general pretty vague when it comes to such actions baring violence. It would seem that no one except for police officers are allowed to enforce the law...ah, but what about private security agencies? how can they be allowed to apprehend people? isn't that citizens arrest and vigilantism? some of them are even permitted to use guns, and strictly speaking they aren't even defending their property.
I like how "Fox" just selects the parts of the story that seem to ramp up the froth and foam of the "illegal alien haters," of which is their entire audience basically, but then they point to the Washington Post to go get the "full text" of the article. Nice journalism there...
We don't actually need any more immigration--either from Latin America or Europe or wherever. We have enough workers.
We have a disconnect between the living wage, the American unskilled worker and the corporation.
If we don't fix healthcare in the United States, in 30 years, when Gen X'rs retire, there will be a mass OUTFLOW of Americans retiring to Latin American countries and in 30 years these countries will exact revenge upon America by rounding up our wealthy retirees and forcing them to come back the U.S. to go broke....
We don't actually need any more immigration--either from Latin America or Europe or wherever. We have enough workers.
We have a disconnect between the living wage, the American unskilled worker and the corporation.
If we don't fix healthcare in the United States, in 30 years, when Gen X'rs retire, there will be a mass OUTFLOW of Americans retiring to Latin American countries and in 30 years these countries will exact revenge upon America by rounding up our wealthy retirees and forcing them to come back the U.S. to go broke....
I think your thinking of the declaration of independence with the "all men" reference.The declaration is not a legal document anyway like the constitution.The constitution and the courts since have always held all people are to be afforded rights under laws whether they be citizens or non citizens.Granted the govt has found it much easier to abuse non citizens and deny them their rights but is has also been done to citizens(like the dirty bomber or the japanease during ww2 who were interned).It really is one of those slippery slopes where if anyones rights are allowed to be violated all others rights are less secure.Today you abuse illegals or those accused of being terrorists,tommorow you abuse some other group who thought they had rights.
So according to some of you, people haven't got a visa or who haven't been approved as a legal immigrant should be treated as born and bread American citizens? :dunno:
There are often signs "of no trespassing,danger of death" in some areas, so I don't understand why is it too difficult for some people to understand this warning. The freedom of ones stops where begins the freedom of others. Freedom isn't free, there are constitutional rights and disciplinarian codes to obey, sadly illegals for a big part ignore this and don't have constitutional rights.
Also the private property is something everyone should be aware of, you don't enter in a private property when you are not authorized, otherwise it is the end of a mossberg 590 or the end of a 44 magnum that you will get as a reminder.
:dunno:There are often signs "of no trespassing,danger of death" in some areas, so I don't understand why is it too difficult for some people to understand this warning. The freedom of ones stops where begins the freedom of others. Freedom isn't free, there are constitutional rights and disciplinarian codes to obey, sadly illegals for a big part ignore this and don't have constitutional rights.
Also the private property is something everyone should be aware of, you don't enter in a private property when you are not authorized, otherwise it is the end of a mossberg 590 or the end of a 44 magnum that you will get as a reminder.
It was even worse that that
.It was the Washington "Times" they point too for the full article.The times is an extreme right wing newspaper btw for those who do not know about them.Some people just don't get it yet do they titsrocks? The republicans and their right wing friends LOST the last couple elections and are headed to political oblivion if they keep sending out the same old message of hate the newcummers,america is for english speaking whites primarily.Similar threads
