How would you stop him and what means would you use?
You are legally allowed to use the necessary and available force in the defense of life or property. If someone is being assaulted you can use whatever force is necessary to stop the assult. If the person’s life is in danger you can use deadly force. Legally.
Life, sure, but property? If someone snatches my kid’s bike and rides away on it, and if I can’t stop her without using my pistol, am I allowed to shoot her, legally?
I know there are some property-rights wingnuts who think I am. But I thought the law generally disagreed. I thought self-defense was only a valid justification for violence if you’re defending a person against violence.
Daniel
I am only following drachillix lead on confronting injustice if you see it happening.
I should wait for drachillix’s reply on how he/she will confront the priest kicking me. 
But just to clarify: I think first I would have to be a law enforcement officer, if I have to use deadly force to stop an abusive case by vigilantes from happening.
Since I am not, I would call the authorities denouncing the abuse. Of course if I was a hunter and I was there, at the right time, seeing a family of illegals being subject to abuse . . . Well, it will depend on what abuse was before me, I sincerely would not know what to do in a case like that. Since I don’t think me or others should be faced with that choice, I am opposed to allow vigilantes to be there in the first place.
No, you’re not allowed to shoot someone to prevent him from stealing or damaging property, like “things”. You’re only allowed to shoot someone if there is a human life in danger, or when it looks like there is about to be criminal trespass taking place on the premises, and “premises” means the land and the residential buildings on it, but not the garage and not the bicycles.
Repeating the Arizona statutes from above:
BTW, Drachillix, here are my cites for whether the authorities appreciate the helpfulness of vigilante groups patrolling for illegals.
The Law Enforcement News for April 30, 2000. It doesn’t sound like they’re saying, “Hey, isn’t is wonderful that those Arizona ranchers are relieving us of some of our burden?” Quite the contrary–it’s got a tone of concern, not approval.
http://www.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/len/2000/04.30/
Border Patrol statement.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/borderpatrol050700.html
INS statement.
http://migration.ucdavis.edu/mn/archive_mn/jun_2000-02mn.html
Gee, Doris doesn’t sound very grateful for their help, does she? Neither does the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.
http://www.house.gov/reyes/pr62100.htm
So, there were official procedures set up two years ago to deal with this problem. Barnett and the other vigilantes are basically just saying “fuck you” to the United States government.
They also have vigilantes patrolling for illegal immigrants in Australia. Is the Australian government saying, “Oh, it’s marvelous that we have these people to help us”?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1437327.stm
Doesn’t look like it, huh?
Okay. If I’m reading that law correctly, you’re committing criminal trespass you enter into a residential building, or if you peek into a residential building. Right?
And if you commit criminal trespass, I can threaten to shoot you (deadly force), or I can beat the crap out of you (physical force), but I can’t shoot you – not unless I’m defending myself or my grandaddy (third person), right? I can’t shoot you for entering a residential building or for peeking into a residential building, right?
So sailor’s quote to which I was responding –
Is correct, with the two provisos that the necessary force for defending property must stop short of deadly force, and the defense of property is allowed only when that property is residential in nature, right?
Just making sure I follow.
Daniel
Daniel, I did not mean to imply you can shoot someone in defense of your property. I mean you can use reasonable force to defend your property. Reasonable and proportional to the threat. You can hold on to the bike to prevent the person from taking it. If the person assualts you, then you are allowed to defend yourself in proportion with the severety of the attack. If a very weak person assults you and you clearly have nothing to fear you cannot use deadly force. OTOH, if a big guy assaults you with a knife and you believe your life is in danger, then yes, you are allowed to use a gun if that is what it takes. You can use the same means to defend another person’s life, limb or property. The thing is that the means used have to be commensurate with the threat.
Gotcha - that makes sense.
This is mostly one of those debate threads I learn from, not one of those I contribute to – I was just trying to clarify.
Thanks!
Daniel
Apparently he didn’t until it was too late for many. Equating his station with our judicial system is laughable especially considering the abuses we saw. Their behavior was atrocious, if what they were doing was a matter of public record at the time the complaints were filed they would have ended up in a courtroom and or jail.
One of the links I quoted was from mexican nationals south of the border. If they are scared to commit the crime for fear of encountering ranchers so what. If 4-5 deaths out of millions of illegal entries creates enough fear to prevent it, fine. The worst year In my county 128 murders for 700,000 population (Or one murder per 5428 population) vs 5 murders in 2.7 million occurrances of illegal immigration (or one murder per 540,000) Its a hundred times more likely that I will be killed going about my daily business in my hometown than crossing the border illegally. 
Where is the problem? That immigrant faces greater danger walking the streets of Fresno, CA and we need to stop the ranchers? Get some priorities. You want the sherrif to go arrest the ranchers when he probably has bigger fish to fry all over his town.
Right after reminding him what an immense chance he took. Yes its work, but its work for the right reason. I had my coworker read this and his comment was that you are forgetting that the cops want to see the bad guy stopped jailed or dead is a secondary concern. If a confrontation is going to occur they pray that they will find a dead burglar not a dead homeowner. Ideally there is no confrontation.
They would be doing more work on a dead homeowner with no suspect in sight.
My dead burglar is EASIER!
Amazing how in your scenarios always reflect sympathy for the criminal. If the homeowner was injured/killed it would be more work and they are once again remended how they couldn’t be there to stop it.
The only fairy tales recurring in this thread is that the police will always be there charging in at the last second to rescue the poor defenseless unarmed citizen.
I HAVE BEEN THERE!!! Waiting for what seemed like an eternity for PD to arrive and secure a scene knowing we have someone dying on the street 400 yards away. Holding pressure on the bullet/knife wounds, getting splattered with the blood, hearing the crying and the screams, you name it. Maybe I am twisted against the criminal element because I have seen up close and personal the damage they can do. Maybe you have had the the luck to hide behind the thin blue line all your life, being on the line or in some cases ahead of it. I have no delusions about the odds or the repercussions.
Don’t lose sight of the fact that these people are committing a crime by their very presence before they encounter the ranchers. When they meet up with the ranchers they are potentially committing a second. I’m going to hunt for cites, I’m trying to do this a few sentences at a time at work.
I believe it is “in defense of real property” If someone is trying to torch your house clean shoot, stealing a bike…no.
If the “vigilante” is shooting people because they are running away I would have a problem and if need be threaten him with lethal force to stop him. Direct use of lethal force in obtaining arrest is a PD only thing he wouldn’t. Brandishing and or threatening is one thing, shooting someone who is not a threat to anyone is pretty much instant jail for non-law enforcement personell.
If he runs away, tackle him. If he charges you (a threat), shoot. If he is not scared of attacking an armed person, he is either stupid or a lethal threat himself. I personally would prefer to butt stroke with the rifle but that would depend on my perception of the person charging me.
For the preist on the street, hand to hand. If I am equipped to escalate force when the hypothetical priest does I will do so as well. I am not going to beat him up, I will use the level of force needed to subdue him safely without uneeded physical harm to him. I am not here to punish, only to try and stop the attack.
>> If he runs away, tackle him.
That’s assault. He has the right to resist and you can be charged with assault.
Okay, this is more immature-sounding bullshit. Got any kind of cite for the cops being glad when citizens shoot burglars?
Here’s mine.
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/ledgerenquirer/news/local/4450471.htm
Did the cops slap him on the back and say, “Well done!” No, they slapped him in jail.
I see that you have completely failed to comprehend my point about the paperwork generated by a homicide, choosing instead, for whatever obscure reason, to interpret it as “sympathy for the criminal”. Although you may have seen plenty of “spurting blood” out there on the “thin blue line”, :rolleyes: , you apparently didn’t have to do any of the paperwork afterwards. Congratulations.
I think it’s fair to ask you exactly what you meant by this statement:
Please tell us exactly what kind of background you have with emergency services. Are you now or have you ever been a cop, a paramedic, a firefighter, a hospital emergency room triage technician, or a dispatcher? What is your actual work experience in the field of “emergency services”, and for what length of time (months, years, etc.)?
Becuse he shot a fleeing suspect who was not a threat, he deserved to go to jail. He was not defending himself he was executing someone without due process.
Live homeowner-dead burglar scenario: All involved parties are accounted for, questions mainly revolve around justification of lethal force. Homeowner is present to question "yes officer I was in fear of my life from this stranger in my house at 3am and shot him, heres the gun, I did it. Collect some evidence as appropriate to make sure it lines up with homeowners story.
Dead homeowner-burglar gone: Go over every square inch of house looking for evidence, trying to lift prints, determining a sequence of events trying to rebuild a crime from evidence on the scene. Autopsy victim, determine manner and time of death. Categorize and go over all collected evidence or potential evidence to determine relevance if any. Maybe if the cops are lucky, the suspect has left usable prints and been printed before and can be identified. If not it gets to live in the unsolved murder files hoping new evidence may come to light or someone cross referenceing prints gets a hit on the unsolved crime and between the two determine the identity of the suspect.
Fair question, 3 years EMT, no paperwork?..ha I wish. I also graduated from a community college fire academy, if I ever move to an area where I can be a volunteer firefighter I will do so.
as part of an ambulance crew.
You are not paying attention.
We’re talking about the difference in paperwork between a simple burglary, and a homicide.
The debate is not between “Live homeowner–dead burglar” and “Dead homeowner–burglar gone”.
The debate is between “Live homeowner–dead burglar” and “Live homeowner–burglar gone.”
We are discussing whether the cops would prefer the homeowner who surprises a burglary in progress to (a) shoot the burglar or (b) retreat and call 911. My position is that the cops would prefer (b), since the paperwork generated by a simple burglary (“Live homeowner–burglar gone”) is much less than the paperwork generated by a homicide (“Live homeowner–dead burglar”).
You have introduced an irrelevancy with your third scenario, “Dead homeowner–burglar gone”.
Let us compare the two correct scenarios:
Do this step.
Do this step.
Do this step.
Do this step.
So that’s four steps that must be done for the “Live homeowner–dead burglar” scenario.
Compare and contrast with:
- Skip this step.
- Skip this step, too.
- Skip this step, too.
*Do this step.
So “Live homeowner–burglar gone” requires only one step. That’s a lot less paperwork than “Live homeowner–dead burglar”.
Your three years on an ambulance crew don’t give you any authority to speak on the subject of how much paperwork and hassle are generated by the respective crimes. Ambulance crews don’t fill out crime scene paperwork, and they don’t have to show up in court to testify in order for the prosecution to secure a conviction for the perp.
No I am ignoring your false dilemma, you refuse to acknowledge the possibility that a homeowner/rancher could defeat/repel a criminal without injury to himself.
Oh and BTW I loved your heartwarming story about the individual shot by a legitimate law enforcement officer while fleeing arrest. I slept better that night thank you. Maybe I will start telling it to my 4 year old sons as a bedtime story 
Nope but I got to spend plenty of time chatting with them on the scenes, at the hospitals, etc. I have a pretty good idea what kind of paperwork nightmare they face. Medical personell get interviewed too in violent crimes we often hear things from patients that they don’t repeat to the cops.
No you are arresting him. I don’t know if someone can be charged w/resisting citizens arrest we never asked. We were usually happy just to have them gone.
Using the appropriate amount of force needed to detain him is fine. I have done this repeatedly working security (2 years amusement park part time). Our arrests were generally trespass or assault/battery on other customers.
Three in 2002 alone http://www.njlawman.com/2002_line_of_duty_deaths.htm
http://www.nctimes.com/news/111900/kkk.html
http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/lawenfor/bpatrol/officers.htm
Well said, of course that has almost nothing to do with a vigilante that, just like an illegal, is already breaking the law, lets not forget the subject