Scupper, plenty of non-Canadian nationals cross over the Canada/U/.S. border illegally. We used to even see Yugoslavs and various Middle Easterners do it near Detroit. Back then, it was because Canada had more liberal visitor visa and asylum granting policies than the U.S., but I left the DOJ in 1994, and I understand the Canadians have tightened up things considerably since then.
And back to asylum for a second…if they’re caught on U.S. soil, theoretically they’re supposed to have the opportunity to request a formal hearing before an asylum officer, and if denied there, before an Immigration Judge (with all attendant rights of appeal that that implies). In practice, however, some are railroaded into agreeing to be deported, either because they’re not fully aware of their rights, or because INS says they’ll hold them in detention until the asylum case is decided.
My understanding of the statistics may be incorrect, but I was under the impression they were talking about original nationality, not the nation the immigrant happened to be in before entering the U.S.
At any rate, I’m not trying to suggest we have some kind of Canadian immigration crisis. I merely noted the previous poster’s seeming dismissal of Canada out of hand as a contributor of illegal aliens, when, in fact, it’s in the top 5.
The attitude seems to be that if someone is illegally in the U.S., it’s okay as long as they’re white, or that such immigrants do not exist. Not true, though a proportionally understandable mistake.
But it’s easy to point at the difference in immigrant populations and say Mexicans or Central Americans are the problem when one doesn’t take into consideration the pressures that provide impetus for people to emigrate from their homeland. After all, Canada doesn’t suffer from endemic poverty, civil warfare, or hopelessly corrupt government institutions (that I’m aware of, anyway).
Yes, but…there’s a slight difference between shooting a snake and threatening to shoot a human being. :rolleyes:
Yes, carrying a loaded weapon on your property is legal, but (a) Barnett isn’t on “his” property, he’s on someone else’s property, namely, the property belonging to the People of the State of Arizona. And (b) carrying a weapon is different from pointing it at someone, or otherwise brandishing it at him.
Nope, sorry, you are abolutely 100% wrong on that. It is not merely a question of semantics. Vigilantes by definition operate outside the law. A vigilante is a person who has decided for himself that the law is inadequate and so he goes out and makes his own law.
Security guys are hired, legally, to do legal work. What legal work would there be for an armed security team on Barnett’s leased property? None. Because his lease specificially prohibits him from a breach of peace, and security guys brandishing guns at human beings would constitute a breach of the peace.
So, you’re saying that because he hasn’t been put in jail, that means that his “thousands of citizens arrests” are legal? Um, before he can be put in jail for a breach of peace, he has to be caught at it, by someone who’s standing there watching and who is willing to press charges and testify against him. How many illegals are going to go down to the county sheriff and fill out a complaint? Let alone come back in 6 months or so and testify?
You actually think that just because this issue hasn’t gotten media attention, that there hasn’t been a huge public outcry, that that must mean that this is all legal? Geez.
How about the sexual abuse of boys by Catholic priests? That, too, received very little media attention for years, and there was no huge public outcry, not until just recently. If, previous to the last year or so, the sexual abuse of a boy of your acquaintance by a priest had come to your attention, would you also have said, “This has been going on for many years with public knowledge that it is happening, and nothing has been done. So is the entire Massachusetts judicial system gone to hell or are these people operating within the law?” No, of course not, because the sexual abuse of children is obviously illegal, and so is vigilante justice.
I have to say that every time I hear this, it’s the cruelest thing I have ever heard anybody say on the subject of illegal immigration. “Hey, they wanna come here to the Land of Opportunity, they have to be prepared to take their chances of being killed in the process.” Geez. It ain’t bad enough they’re taking chances of being locked in a railroad car and dying, or of dying of thirst in the desert, or of having their “coyote” abscond with their life savings, abandoning them to the BP? They also have to run the risk of being killed by some redneck John Wayne wannabe with an IQ lower than his gun’s caliber and the script from Red River playing in his head? Geez, that’s depressing.
As we have already established, their leased property rights to forbid trespass also forbid them to commit a breach of the peace while forbidding that trespass, which rounding up illegals up at gunpoint constitutes. Are you just not paying attention, or what?
Those carry priveledges extend to property that you lease (at least in CA) you can have that loaded gun on your hip on property you lease as well. I seriously dobt arizona is more restrictive than CA.
They are not making their own “law” if law enforcement/border patrol could catch all of these people they would. As is they are doing the border patrol a favor.
According to this POV he has no right to enforce tresspass. That someone can stroll onto his legally leased property and refuse to leave and he can’t do anything about it? Sorry gotta call bullshit there. You constantly insist that this is public land, while its leased to him it is effectively his land. I live in one of the most PC pansy ass states in the union on stuff like this and it would never fly here.
If local law enforcement is aware of his actions and has failed to enforce laws concerning “breach of peace”. Then apparently his actions do not justify prosecution. Nor does his lease hold criminal authority over him. If he was breaching the peace in the eyes of whatever legislative body holds authority over his lease they can claim he is in breach of his lease contract and strip him of the leased land. His lease has zero to do with criminal charges.
It has gotten media attention didn’t I cite an episode of 48 hours…from 1995. Google hits are there. Info is available its just not real good PR to glorify a group of people that are breaking the law. We have rap music for that.
Nice strawman, unfortunately this is a whole nuther can o worms. Arizona law enforcement knows exactly what this guy is doing, the preists were supressing reports of abuse by policy. The abuse of trust and authority in this tragic situation is an atrocity rarely equaled in history. I disklike organized religion to start with, dont get me started, my wife is catholic.
Hmm well lets see googling about I found 4-5 cases of dead immigrants at the hands of ranchers over several years. 4-5 out of 2.7 million a year! Holy cow, its more likely you will be killed driving to the store and back than killed by a rancher if you are an illegal immigrant. How much exaggeration do we want to go for here.
I have been listening, don’t confuse civil contract constraints with criminal arrest process. If he wants to risk losing his lease that is his choice, just as many of these people choose to tresspass on his property.
Under criminal law he is justified in rounding up tresspassers and handing them over to the authorities. If they feel excessive force was used in their capture they can make their complaint right then and there, I’m sure they have deputies that speak spanish. As a criminal charge it would be heard relatively quickly, probably in a matter of weeks (ranchers have a right to a speedy trial too).
As a civil matter it could take years to strip him of his lease even when and if he was found to be in breach. So for all intents and purposes what he is doing is criminally legal but could endanger his lease.
*13-407. Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises
A. A person or his agent in lawful possession or control of premises is justified in threatening to use deadly physical force or in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent that a reasonable person would believe it immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon the premises.
B. A person may use deadly physical force under subsection A only in the defense of himself or third persons as described in sections 13-405 and 13-406.
C. In this section, “premises” means any real property and any structure, movable or immovable, permanent or temporary, adapted for both human residence and lodging whether occupied or not.*
Here is the statute on criminal trespassing:
*13-1504. Criminal trespass in the first degree; classification
A. A person commits criminal trespass in the first degree by knowingly:
Entering or remaining unlawfully in or on a residential structure or in a fenced residential yard; or
Entering any residential yard and, without lawful authority, looking into the residential structure thereon in reckless disregard of infringing on the inhabitant’s right of privacy.
Entering unlawfully on real property subject to a valid mineral claim or lease with the intent to hold, work, take or explore for minerals on such claim or lease.
Entering or remaining unlawfully on the property of another and burning, defacing, mutilating or otherwise desecrating a religious symbol or other religious property of another without the express permission of the owner of the property.
B. Criminal trespass in the first degree is a class 6 felony if it is committed by entering or remaining unlawfully in or on a residential structure or committed pursuant to subsection A, paragraph 4. Criminal trespass in the first degree is a class 1 misdemeanor if it is committed by entering or remaining unlawfully in a fenced residential yard or committed pursuant to subsection A, paragraph 2 or 3.*
Here is another definition of trespass:
“Trespassing” is a legal term that can refer to a wide variety of offenses against a person or against property. In this tape, we are going to talk only about “trespassing” as it relates to going onto someone’s land without consent.
Technically, a person violates the law against trespassing by knowingly going onto someone else’s land without consent. “Knowledge” may be inferred when the owner (or the owner’s representative) tells the trespasser not to go on the land or when the land is fenced in a manner that suggests that intruders should stay out or there is a “no trespassing” sign in an obvious place.
A trespasser will probably not be prosecuted if the land was open to the public when the trespasser originally entered the land and the trespasser’s conduct did not substantially interfere with the owner’s use of the property and the trespasser left on request.*
“Matt Klump was indicted on Dec. 5 by a Grand Jury in Cochise County on three counts of aggravated assault, a class-three felony. He has been accused of, “On or about the 24th day of October, 1997, Matthew Klump committed an aggravated assault upon Charles Wells, using a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument, to wit: a pistol…” The other two counts have Shafer and Johnson named as victims.”
This article also tells of problems the rancher had in the past for access violations.
In the great majority of situations, it is best to call local law enforcement. However, let’s think about where these ranches are located. Many are 20 miles or more from the nearest town with a police force, so thereby are under the jurisdiction of the county sheriff. Let’s take the example of Cochise County, where Douglas is located. The county has an area of 6,215 square miles, and is roughly a square 79 miles on each side. The Ranch Rescue website posted earlier said the Cochise County Sheriff’s Department has 54 officers, so let’s say that perhaps 18 are out on patrol at any one time. That’s 18 officers covering an area larger than Connecticut. And the roads to these ranches aren’t exactly in the greatest condition either – many times, the last 5 miles to the ranch is on a winding dirt road which can only be traversed by truck or 4 wheel drive in the rain. I would imagine that the response times for the police out there aren’t exactly what they are in a municipality. That would make a citizen’s arrest almost a necessity, and it appears (IANAL, and I might be misreading this badly) that it’s justifiable to do so if one crosses your fenced property, and I would imagine that most of the property of these ranchers is fenced.
Would it be considered a breach of peace if nobody is around to be disturbed? The nearest neighbors are quite possibly 3-5 miles away.
Actually, just to note, drachillix, that’s sadly sometimes the legal law enforcementthat does that.
Would you mind posting some links to your cites on arizona penal code …I would like to review them further, thank you.
Sounds like the Klumps still got off pretty easy, most likely they were only cited because they pitched an attitude at the sherriff and fish & game guys. If they played nice they probably could have avoided getting cited themselves or at least a reduced charge. This scenario also entails people who are more familiar with our legal system and still chose to roust people out of bed at gunpoint.
Also for DDG benefit. A citizens arrest does not need to entail use of lethal force. A gun on your hip, although it allows lethal force to be used if needed to defend oneself does not allow use of lethal force in obtaining arrest.
If however a group of 3 or more people (under CA law as I understand it) try to force their way past the rancher that group of 3 could constitute lethal force even unarmed. Disagreements and misunderstandings involving armed people rarely come out well for unarmed people. If a group of people challenge a rancher on his tresspass too exuberantly they just might find themselves dead. He can be held accountable by our court system for killing someone. Unfortunately honor is a thin cloak against the chill of a grave. Justified in being there…maybe, the courts will decide that. The person is still dead.
Arguing with people who carry guns is never wise. Especially when they have a shovel and 22,000 acres to hide your body in.
>> If the U.S. army will not patrol and protect our borders, then it is up to our citizens to do so.
It is difficult to improve on the conciseness of this statement. So much ignorance packed into so few words. Amazing. Someone needs to read this thread, specifically to learn why (a) it is a bad idea for the army to be doing police and administrative work, and (b) why it is a bad idea to have untrained, unauthorised, armed people going around enforcing their view of the laws.
I’ll say it once again, the fact that you don’t like what the government is doing or the way it is doing it does not grant you any authorization to go out armed and usurp the role of the government. At least not in a civilised country.
Bad comparison. I will start out saying that the military are not best suited for peacekeeping and that peacekeeping efforts often include police, not just military. When you train the military for peacekeeping you lose combat readiness. As has been eloquently said, the role of the military is to break things and kill people. That is what they train to do best. Keeping civil order and studying the intricacies of immigration law is not their forte. In fact, it has been shown that the forces of other countries, which are less combat-ready and effective, have been more effective at peacekeeping that the US forces.
At any rate, peacekeepers are needed in places where there is a virtual state of civil war and no local government or authorities capable of keeping order. In such a situation, some imposed military order will be better than no order at all. But peacekeepers are concerned with preventing fighting, not with solving administrative issues like who is entitled to live where. When the USA is in such a state, then I will think the army is a good option. For now I believe the USA has a civil government capable of taking care of things effectively.
I don’t know how you could deduce that the Klumps got off “pretty easy” unless you read a different article. Aggravated assault sounds pretty serious.
Matt Klump was indicted on Dec. 5 by a Grand Jury in Cochise County on three counts of aggravated assault, a class-three felony. He has been accused of, “On or about the 24th day of October, 1997, Matthew Klump committed an aggravated assault upon Charles Wells, using a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument, to wit: a pistol…” The other two counts have Shafer and Johnson named as victims.*
How can you assume that the Klumps really know all that much about the legal system when the guy kept demanding payment for “his” deer that were killed. Sounds like the dude isn’t too sharp in the uptakes to me.
The article makes it quite plain that threatening people with physical harm for trespass can get someone in serious trouble.
Drachillix, you obviously have a big blank spot, or a blindfold on, where the definition, indeed, the whole concept of “vigilantes” is concerned.
This is complete and utter bullshit. Sorry you don’t seem to be able to grasp the basic principle here.
For the last time–according to the Law, one is not permitted to say, “Well, the Law isn’t working, therefore I will make my own Law.” How hard do you need to be hit over the head with this in order for the concept to penetrate? Are you being deliberately obtuse? I don’t get it. A child of six could grasp this. Why don’t you?
OTOH, you posted this:
So, you’re saying, “There has been no big public outcry because the media don’t want to publicize people who are doing something illegal?” So you do admit that the vigilantes are doing something illegal? So you’re being deliberately obfuscatory, then, in pretending not to understand that it’s illegal?
And, of course, that’s the reason we have heard very little about Enron, or the Washington Snipers, or the Catholic Church child abuse sex scandal, because the media doesn’t want to glorify people that are breaking the law. :rolleyes:
Anyway…
If the cops in your town have a historically slow response time when answering 911 calls from your particular neighborhood, you are NOT allowed to say, as you pull into your driveway and observe a burglary in progress in your living room, “Well, the cops aren’t going to get here in time to catch these guys, so I will just shoot them myself.” And if you go ahead and shoot the burglars yourself, instead of calling 911 from your cell phone, or from a neighbor’s house, you are NOT “doing the cops a favor”, you are actually creating MORE work for them, and looking like a clueless dumbass in the bargain. “Oh, goodie,” the cops think, “Another citizen who thinks he can do our job better than we can.”
I have not the slightest doubt that the BP guys feel the same way. Do you think they really appreciate having to drive out there and pick up batches of illegals? Do you think they don’t ask themselves, “How long before Barnett actually kills someone and the shit hits the fan?” Because, inevitably, there are going to be people who will blame the INS and the BP for the illegal’s death. “If they’d been doing their job, Barnett wouldn’t have had to shoot that guy!” Do you think the BP looks forward to hearing that?
Okay, he can round them up, but under the law he isn’t allowed to use physical force to do so. If he’s got a gun on his hip, it has to stay on his hip. The minute he takes it off his hip and points it at them, that’s “physical force”. Even holding a rifle loosely in his arms constitutes an implied threat and “physical force”. It has nothing to do with whether Arizona is an “open carry” state or not. If you’re ordering someone to do something, and you’re holding a gun, it’s an implied threat.
So what is he supposed to use–harsh language?
The Arizona statutes (thank you, CBEscapee) put the kibosh, permanently, on any possible legal grounds for Barnett keeping Mexicans off his leased property at gunpoint, or of rounding them up to take them into town and hand them over to the BP. He is allowed to use physical force against them only if they’re on residential property (which they aren’t), or if he feels his life is in danger (which obviously it isn’t), or if they’re on land which he leased for mineral rights and they’re there with picks and shovels, looking to steal minerals (irrelevant), or if they’re there to desecrate a religious symbol (ditto irrelevant).
You know, it occurs to me that maybe you should go find some cites for how legal this all is, supposedly. If it’s legal, shouldn’t there be news articles out there saying, “It’s legal for Barnett to round up illegals at gunpoint”? I haven’t seen a single one. On the contrary, all I’ve seen are articles saying how ILLEGAL it is.
Boy, do you EVER have a totally naive viewpoint here. It’s like talking to a freshman in high school. You’re joking, right? You forgot to include a winking smilie or something?
Geez. Let’s see now, a bunch of non-English speaking illegals are “rounded up” by a gun-toting vigilante, who they know perfectly well is operating outside the law. They are intimidated into submission–they will be ecstatic if God will only allow them to get back in one piece to the relative safety, and sanity, of the BP checkpoint. So, what, you think when they get back to town to the Sheriff’s department, while they’re sitting there waiting for the BP to come get them, they should pipe up with, “Sheriff, deseamos quejarnos de que Sr. Barnett utilizó la fuerza excesiva en nuestra captura. Él agitó un arma en nuestras caras y pensamos que él iba a matarnos. En nuestra opinión, esto constituye una abertura de la paz, y quisiéramos ver que él procesara.”
And then what do you think is going to happen? Is the Sheriff going to say, “¡Eso es terrible! Estoy apesadumbrado de oír eso. Permita que le ayude a completar una queja, y veremos que procesan a Sr. Barnett al grado más completo de la ley.”
And then when the BP shows up, I suppose you think they’re gonna say, “Oh, sure, we can wait on deporting these guys until their complaint is sorted out.”
If you really think that this is what would happen–that if only those chicken-livered illegals could muster up the goombahs to complain, then this problem would go away, so it’s all the fault of the chicken-livered illegals for not complaining–then you truly are living in some kind of La La Land. In real life, what happens is that the complainant has his goombahs briskly kicked, and when the Sheriff says, “¿Usted tiene más quejas?” the complainant can only gasp, “no…”
This whole thing is about “intimidation”. Can’t you grasp that? The illegals sure do, which is why they haven’t complained. Have you yourself never been intimidated, by a bully, by a mugger, by someone at Wal-Mart who gave you the finger and a dirty look as he edged you out for that parking space? You posted this:
–so you must grasp part of it, but maybe you only grasp it from the perspective of the guy with the gun. Try putting yourself in the shoes of the other guy.
This also bears all the marks of someone who is living in La La Land. “Weeks”? What planet are you from? And I don’t mean that as a flame, I’m truly astonished that anyone over the age of about 19 who isn’t living in a cave could think that any kind of trial, whether criminal or civil, could be wrapped up in a matter of weeks. It just doesn’t work like that, babe.
Um, no, sorry, all it would take is for it not to be renewed in 2005. He fills out the form to renew it, and if even one other person has filled out an application for his lease, this is what happens–
If I were in charge of strategy, I’d get somebody to fill out an application for Barnett’s 2005 lease in 2004. Then, what happens next is:
If there is more than one applicant for a grazing lease, the Arizona State Land Department then decides who should receive the lease.
Then:
If nobody looks good–say the only two people who applied for the lease are my rancher, who is a novice rancher who unfortunately can’t pay a higher rent to compensate for his inexperience, and Barnett, but Barnett has been a royal PITA about the vigilante thing for the last four years and the Arizona State Land Department is fed up with it–anyway, if neither one looks good, then they put it out for bids. And the other ranchers who can then bid on it presumably didn’t have to fill out an application nine months earlier. It looks to me like they can just walk into the office and bid on it.
Then:
After they put it out for bids, if it turns out that Barnett has a preferred right of renewal in his old lease, then he has the right to match the highest bid. So I bet there are plenty of other ranchers who would jump at the opportunity to snap up a grazing lease without having to fill out the paperwork a year ahead of time. You think because they’re Barnett’s cronies that they’re gonna say, “Aw, that’s Barnett’s lease, we don’t wanna take it away from him”? I doubt it–it’s dog-eat-dog in the ranching world, just like in any other business. I’m betting there are plenty of folks who’d like to have that lease.
Nice total misunderstanding of the point.
Arizona Law Enforcement equals Catholic Church law enforcement, IOW Cardinal Bernard Law.
Arizona Law Enforcement does not equal Catholic priests.
Arizona Law Enforcement knows what the vigilantes are doing.
Catholic Church law enforcement knew what the priests were doing.
You’re saying that Arizona Law Enforcement knows what the vigilantes are doing, but that Catholic Church law enforcement didn’t know what the priests were doing, and so therefore my illustration is a “straw man”? That’s idiotic. Have you not been paying attention? The whole POINT of the sex abuse scandal is that Catholic Church Law Enforcement knew exactly what was going on, for years.
P.S. I don’t give a rat’s derriere about your personal problem with organized religion, we’re not talking about organized religion, we’re talking about the parallels between the two situations.
Which apparently you don’t see. And apparently you don’t see my point about feeling pity for the illegals, either.
Merry Christmas to you, too, Mr. Grinch. :rolleyes:
his heart was two sizes too small
Here, Mr. Grinch, this oughta make you feel better.
I was referring to the illegal immigrants not the ranchers…glorifying the plight of people who were breaking our laws before they put one foot on Barnetts property.
Maybe you don’t realize I have some background in emergency services. The last thing we want is to be needed, the last thing we want is to find out we didn’t make it in time. Every cop on this planet probably fantasizes about showing up finding a dead burglar and a homeowner with a smoking gun rather than the other way around. A huge % or law enforcement is actually managing to locate/capture the offender. If a citizen has detained the offender the job becomes easier. Closure is possible, justice can be served.
Arrest is all about intimidation, been there done that. People don’t just stick their hands out and say “cuff me” they are scared of the consequences of non-compliance. Without that our whole legal system falls apart.
Catholic Church Law Enforcement!!!
:eek:
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Oh I can hear it already
Here come the men it black* clap clap
Adam 12 Eve 26 respond for class 3 cardinal sin in progress at the Gottaho motel.
Oh look I got a heresy ticket…If I fail to appear in 21 days do I not get to go to heaven.
Boy I bet the CCLE swap some great stories at the bar after work along with the Enron Corporate Law Enfocement, and the Fashion Police.
So what is their primary job, backing up Buffy the Vampire Slayer on busy days!
You tell me I live in a fantasy land and you tell me that Catholic Church internal management has ANYTHING TO DO with our legal system…
Damn, I can’t breathe…I’m laughing so hard.
I guess I shouldnt laugh at them they might use The Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch on me…
Wasn’t there a python skit about this…something about a dead bishop on the landing…
I can’t wait to see parole board hearings in the Catholic legal system…“go forth and sin no more”
One of my co-workers is Catholic and ex-San Diego PD. HE laughed almost as hard as I did when I showed him this.
I full well realize there is a “Judicial” branch of the Catholic church for handling serious disciplinary issues within the church but they have ZERO business determining punishment for criminal issues involving non-church personell. If a priest beats you up on the street you don’t call the freakin church to complain! You call the police.
Oh my what do I get to hear when I get arrested.
You have the right to become Catholic
If you refuse to become Catholic we just send you to hell
You have a right to have your crimes explained so if you refuse to become Catholic a Catholic will be appointed for you to explain why you are going to hell.
I don’t know how you got that impresion from DDG. I think DDG’s point is that the catholic church had the knowledge and the power to hide, move, transfer abusive priests, and it had the opportunity to defrock priests and give them to secular law enforcement agencies.
Point well taken, same will go for the vigilantes in relation to the illegals. The police (in this case border patrol) is the one to call. I knew we would get somewere with drachillix! :rolleyes:
Nobody here gives a rat’s ass how you feel about the friggin’ Catholic church, Drachillix. Got that? Keep your “issues” to yourself, or go start another thread to rant in.
By “Catholic Church Law Enforcement” I meant the Archbishop. You think he doesn’t enforce the behavior of his priests? But thank you so much for the irrelevant and stupid riff on “Catholic Church Law Enforcement”. :rolleyes:
Okay, I see what you meant about the media, but my point is still valid–you’re saying that there’s been no media outcry because the media doesn’t like to glorify lawbreakers, whereas anybody over the age of 12 who watches the news KNOWS that the media simply adores glorifying lawbreakers.
Ken Lay and Enron.
Andrea Yates.
Winona Ryder.
Puff Daddy.
The Washington Sniper. I could go on.
It was wall-to-wall coverage. Glorification reigned supreme.
The reason there has been no media outcry is simply because the illegals aren’t in a position to call up the local ABC affiliates and give interviews.
This all has to rank as the most stunningly ignorant thing I’ve heard you say yet.
You seem to think that if the cops show up to find a dead burglar and Joe Citizen with a smoking gun in his hand, they slap him on the back, congratulate him for a job well done, and go home. That’s completely retarded.
You can have had ZERO background in emergency services, or if you did, then you fer damn sure weren’t paying attention. When a cop shows up to answer a 911 call and finds a homeowner with a dead burglar and a smoking gun, he doesn’t slap Joe on the back–he groans, “Oh, geeeeeeez”, and you know why? Because cops have to testify in court, that’s why, when the case comes up, and a nice simple breaking and entering takes maybe an afternoon of his time, and then it’s OVER, it’s off his plate.
But now, thanks to Joe Citizen, the courts and the coroner and all those forensics folks are going to have to decide whether it’s murder one or self-defense or justifiable homicide or what, and then they’re going to have to decide what to do about it, and it’s going to drag on, and on, and on, through the courts system, and the cop is going to keep having coming back to testify, over and over and over again.
And the paperwork, geez. For a B & E, you fill out a form, that’s it. But for a homicide, coupled with a home invasion, the mind boggles. Joe Citizen with his peashooter and his self-righteous vigilante justice creates a veritable shitstorm of paperwork.
Time for you to bring me some cites, Drachillix. Bring me a cite that says that law enforcement welcomes either the Arizona rancher vigilantes bringing them illegals, or that the cop on the beat welcomes Joe Citizen killing burglars for him.
Betcha can’t, because both of those are just fairy tales for children.
And without some cites for you to back up your position, we’re just shooting the breeze, and frankly I’m getting a little tired of it.
In the example I gave, its over and after the fact…Father X thumped your ass and ran. If I see someone gettting their ass beat on the street I will do what I can to stop it. If someone breaks into my house I will confront them.
You are digging yourself deep uh? I noticed that you are modifying your example: you were not there to help, so I still have to call the authorities anyhow.
And if I see some vigilante hitting/shooting an illegal, just because he is trespassing in territory that might not even belong to the vigilante, I would indeed denounce the vigilante or stop him, if I had the means there and then.
