>> Pointing is one thing, pulling the trigger opens up a whole new issue.
This is really dumb. Anyone who uses firearms will tell you not to ever point a firearm at someone unless you intend to fire. If you point a firearm at a person it is assumed you intend to fire and lethal force can be used against you. It is a good way to get yourself killed. Not to mention that firearms ocassionally do discharge by accident.
december, there is no debate. If you don’t like what the government is doing then you can vote and you can petition and you can complain but you cannot take the law into your own hands. What’s so difficult to understand about that?
You cannot go out armed and chase drug dealers out of your neighborhood. You cannot go into your neighbor’s yard and demolish the structure he built without a permit. The most you can do is notify the authorities. Because otherwise you end lup like in Afghanistan.
And BTW, you can look at it from the other side: the guy who built the structure without a permit maybe applied for it and got no answer because the government is overwhelmed and lacks resources. The immigrant may have applied for the visa and the INS is not resolving it as they should as Eva Luna says in this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=151537
Nobody is entitled to usurg the functions of the government unless you want to end up in chaos. And I get tired of repeating the same things over and over while you ignore everything that has been posted and just post the same stupid questions. We’re on the fourth page. Please read the thread and address what has been said and stop repeating the same question you asked in the OP.
Agreed, that there is no debate here. Vigilanteeism is bad, period.
So we’ve come full circle then, right back to where we started: They have the right to enforce trespass on their leased lands–as long as they don’t commit a breach of the peace.
I don’t think that the debate has really followed that particular question. If it had the debate would have revolved around the “damage” that illegal immigrants cause, whether vigilantes patrolling the border would have any affect on illegal immigration rates and if the resulting benefits (if any) from reduced immigration would more then offset the con’s of said vigilante force. So far there has been only passing mention regarding what the impact has been of illegal immigrants, minimal actual evidence as to what effect the vigilantes are having and no weighing of the results based on those findings.
However, I’ll take you at your word that “which bad idea is better” is what the “true” debate is. A group of 50 vigilantes patrolling the border won’t make an iota of difference (relatively speaking) on the illegal immigration rate. Their lack of numbers will ensure that they remain impotent to make any real difference on that rate. If they (the vigilantes) use unnecessary force they will be answerable to the law just like anyone else. To that extent it’s really a non issue. For purposes of this debate I will assume that what we’re really talking about is widespread vigilanteism in this manner. Say thousands of vigilantes. I think it’s a highly unlikely scenario. If there were this many civilians prepared to run around the border with guns I’m fairly sure that popular opinion would ensure much better funding, equipment, training and increased manpower for the INS. But, for arguments sake, I’ll posit an INS with the same level of resources as it has today but with a majority of the U.S. citizenry upset enough about the situation that even a small fraction of their number equates to thousands of patrolling vigilantes. Is this what we’re really talking about december?
Grim
I agree with you Grim. However, fifty vigilantes could have meaning behond their number. Posters have already observed that it sets a bad example. OTOH their action might help goad the government to devote more resources, and solve this problem in an appropriate and legal manner.
december: However, fifty vigilantes could have meaning behond their number. Posters have already observed that it sets a bad example. OTOH their action might help goad the government to devote more resources, and solve this problem in an appropriate and legal manner.
:rolleyes: Oh goody. When I finally crack under the strain and buy an AK-47 and go around blowing away all the thoughtless assholes who illegally park at bus stops, it will be a comfort to me as they haul me away to recall that december would approve of my “goading the government to devote more resources” to solving this problem.
And I also dislike the lazy bums who violate municipal ordinances requiring them to shovel their sidewalks. Watch yourselves, folks: you never know where the Pedestrian Power Vigilante Team may strike next.
Cite?
december, you’re not telling me I managed to whoosh you with that?! It was sarcasm, dear.
>> OTOH their action might help goad the government to devote more resources, and solve this problem in an appropriate and legal manner.
december continues to ignore everything that has been said and continues to play dumb.
So vigilantes on SE DC are a good idea because they might help goad the government to devote more resources, and solve the drug dealing problem in an appropriate and legal manner.??
How about the INS not processing visas in a timely manner? I guess setting up an outfit to provide counterfeit visas to those who can’t get them in time from the INS might help goad the government to devote more resources, and solve this problem in an appropriate and legal manner.??
This has to be the dumbest proposal to come down the pike in a long time.
Can they commit a breach of the peace at all if they are not within a community and the nearest neighbors are miles away?
We covered this.
If the illegals are willing to report the breach of peace to the sheriff, then yes, it counts. The breach of peace exists in the minds of the observers, and if one of the observers thinks that it was in fact a breach of peace, and cares to report it to the authorities, then it will be investigated.
But obviously the illegals ain’t gonna say nuttin’.
The one thing in this thread that I have not seen yet is which of the for immigration folks who have raised their hands and are sponsoring an Mexican. Is there any individual personal private money / time / jobs where their mouths are?
:: this in not a declaration of my stance on immigration, just a question of who is willing to let their ox be used. ::
What’s that got to do with anything? You cannot support a position unless you spend money on it? That is ludicrous. And whetre should the money go? To the anti-vigilante fund? It’s called the govenment and people pay taxes whether they like it or not. That’s the correct way to support your country and government is to pay taxes, not to go out there and play cowboys with guns.
Yeah, like, hanh? We can only post in support of immigration if we’re actually employing an immigrant?
If that’s gonna be your criterion, Gus, I doubt whether a single person in this thread has a dog in this fight. May as well shut it down… :rolleyes:
Escalation of force…if you charge me ,and I pull a gun, then you back off, nobody has to get hurt. There is a huge difference between brandish and firing. Pointing is advertising your willingness to use deadly force in a very clear way. Spare me the basic “goes off by accident” stuff. Guns go off because someone pulls the trigger. I also have 5 years on and off competing in IPSC handgun matches (stock class C). I am very familiar with safe gun handling thankyouverymuch.
>> if you charge me
I don’t know how to say this once again so that you will understand it. This thread is not about defending yourself if you are attacked and nobody has suggested you do not have a right to defend yourself… This thread is about people who go out armed looking for other people who have no interest in attacking them and who just want to get away from the armed assholes who think they are saving the country.
You are just contrapting scenarios which would justify the vigilantes.
The head of the fire academy I graduated from, Mike Collins, who was also my EMT teacher and someone who after 4 years of on and off training contact thought of as more a personal hero than a teacher was killed by a drunk illegal alien who had been in the country for 2 weeks and had been deported 4 times before. He worked with our local fire depts in some way shape or form for 33 years and then went to teaching tomorrows firefighters for another 6. He was 59.
No but it very much is about ability to enforce trespass and or citizens arrest. In this case becomes the legal difference between vigilante and victim. IF the ranchers have the right to enforce tresspass (which IMHO they do) they are legally the victim of that crime. They can patrol their property and or ask/pay people to do so. The ranchers have no more or less legal authority to detain someone than a paid professional security force.
I said it in this post and I’ll say it again. What you are doing is disgusting. Why would something wrong done by person A reflect on any other person but himself? Would you do the same thing if the person who did it was black or Italian or from Cleveland? So now a reason to keep them Mexicans out is that they drive drunk and kill people? This is truly despicable.