That last reply was for drachillixpost.
This is stupid.
You’re comparing apples and oranges here. We’re talking about the amount of force used by vigilantes who by definition are operating outside the law. Your experiences as a legitimate security guard, and how much force you’re allowed to use as a legitimate security guard to detain someone, are completely irrelevant.
I guess this discussion’s basically over then. Clearly you are not interested in having your ignorance fought or in opening your mind to other possibilities and other ways of looking at the situation–clearly all you are interested in is repeating your position that “vigilantes are good” over and over again. So I guess you can retire with your prejudices intact.
'Night.
Not true (from the linked archive article)
I also stated previosly I was “uncarded” Internal security people are usually not required to carry any particular certifications unless they need them for weapons.
If they are only picking up people on their own property, they are not “vigilantes” they are repelling/arresting tresspassers.
The discussion just keeps going around in circles. Are they defending the borders of the country? Or are they defending their little piece of land? If they are defending the borders of the country they have no right and are clearly outside the law. If they are defending their little piece of land they better be very careful and have a very good justification. Again, I doubt the courts would sustain any forceful restraint of a person on open land when that person is just trying to leave and is no threat to anyone. Doing that when you have grazing rights is asking for trouble, and rightly so.
I agree 100%
I do not approve of non-law enforcement shooting fleeing suspects of any kind. The grey area here is “forceful”. If the level of force is in accordance with percieved threat you’re ok.
How can you feel threatened by someone who is trying to get away from you? I don’t get it. The vigilantes are going out looking for people and the people are trying to get away from them. Obviously if you are in your front yard sipping tea and people come into your yard demanding something, that’s a different situation and you can use reasonable force to defend yourself.
Looking around your 22,000 acre ranch for problems is a bad thing…shit happens, cows die, fences get damaged, salt/mineral licks get replaced, people steal cattle, people hunt on your land, etc. You can use reasonable force to detain a tresspasser. That does not mean shooting him unless he/she does present a lethal threat (weapon, large number of tresspassers, etc.)
Does the size of your yard matter all that much? What people are demanding is access to cross his property (or property he controls under lease).
Potential lethal force scenario
Farmer John finds a group of 5 people walking through his 20K acre ranch. He approches them gets in front of their intended path and demands they turn around and leave. They ignore him and proceed around him and his vehicle. He approaches one and grabs him stating his intent to make a citizens arrest for tresspass. The 4 others proceed to fight with farmer to attempt to free the person farmer has detained. At least in CA 3:1 odds can be considered lethal force 5:1 would give you a pretty good margin. Since the only way to free their friend is to assault Farmer John, and if 3:1 odds = lethal force, farmer can use lethal force to repel the assault. One on one, hand to hand, lethal force is not going to fly.
here
Bolding mine.
But that’s not a real-life scenario. In real life, a group of five illegals don’t turn on Farmer and try to beat him to death. In real life they run away. Have you got any kind of cite for what you describe ever actually happening?
I’m not convinced that’s not a plausible real life scenario DDG. People under stress have a much greater chance of behaving in an irrational manner. Yes, the scenario seems unlikely but not impossibly so. I don’t think it’s really necessary in this case to provide a cite showing that it’s happened in the past if the purpose of requesting the cite is to show that it couldn’t happen.
Grim
>> People under stress have a much greater chance of behaving in an irrational manner
So it’s a good idea to have those people armed and looking to create a stressful situation? Better let law enforcement professionals enforce the laws.
I only gave it a a hypothetical, the farmer in question would not be justified in use of lethal force if the people in question scattered and or abandoned their buddy. The fact that he can’t catch them all does not allow him to start shooting.
Great idea, so if the people would stop entering the country illegally and tresspassing where they are unwelcome, problem solved.
I do not know how many times it has been explained already but here goes again:
The ends do not justify the means. You cannot break the law to enforce another law. I find it utterly ridiculous that a bunch of rednecks with guns feel they are saving the country. The country can take care of itself without help from the redneck patrol thankyouverymuch.
In fact the country has said with its laws that it does not want vigilantes. If a bunch of assholes roam around armed and policing the countryside then it serves them right if some people resist and start shooting back. What you have then is not a civilized country, what you have is Afghanistan with local warlords and all. It is sad that some people think this is a good idea.
What law are they breaking?
Hang on a sec sailor. I didn’t say any of those things. You seem to be assuming that I hold a host of other positions relative to this thread because of this one single objection of mine. DDG asked for a cite where I didn’t really think it was necessary. The situation doesn’t seem impossibly unlikely so I don’t necessarily have to see somewhere that it happened in print for me to believe that it could happen. That is all. No more.
In fact my position is that having armed vigilantes patrolling state or federal owned lands where they have no authority or legitimate interest (as in the case of a property holder) is an extremely bad idea. It sets up a situation that is fraught with potential problems and it sets a bad precedent. Cattle farmers who are leasing grazing rights from the gub’ment, would IMHO, be well within their rights if they wished to hire a private security firm to protect their property (in this case their property would be their cattle). However it would be a bad idea for said security firm to furnish their personnel with loaded weapons. The chance of something going wrong would still be too likely. The mere presence of official looking security personnel with good communications equipment would likely be a deterrent to the vast majority of most trespassers.
I don’t know for sure but my guess is that the cost to return ratio of hiring a private security company is too low. I’d be willing to bet that the reason no one has brought up any farmers who actually do this is because the damage caused to their property by trespassers would be dwarfed by the cost of a full time, reasonably well equipped and manned private security force. Simple economics.
Of course, all this talk about the rights of property owners is really irrelevant when discussing the OP’s vigilantes since the vigilantes have no private property in this case to protect. Vigilanteism in this case is a very bad idea. Which of course is a completely different question than the impact (both good and bad) of illegal immigration on this country.
Grim
>> In fact my position is that having armed vigilantes patrolling state or federal owned lands where they have no authority or legitimate interest (as in the case of a property holder) is an extremely bad idea. It sets up a situation that is fraught with potential problems and it sets a bad precedent.
Grim_Beaker, duly noted. we agree there.
Please note: I cited earlier in the thread
A: even a group that very much opposes the ranchers (Aztlan.org) agrees they have a right to enforce trespass. They just seem to feel its too heavy handed. I have also repeatedly stated I am opposed to use of lethal force in obtaining arrest (that means shooting, not pointing/holding) Pointing is one thing, pulling the trigger opens up a whole new issue.
B: Security Guards have no more or less arrest powers than Joe Citizen. Nor do they have more or less power in the use of lethal force. Law enforcement officers DO have some additional room for lethal force. Armed security is intended as a higher level deterrent since they are better equipped for holding their ground and or surviving if presented with a lethal threat.
In fact I agree too, my contention is mainly over right to enforce tresspass. If that right is not in force then the ranchers in question are totally out of line.
Everyone would agree with this. However, letting millions of people illegally cross the border each year is also an extremely bad idea. This debate is about which bad idea is better.