16 illegals sue Arizona rancher
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:22:42 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  16 illegals sue Arizona rancher
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]
Author Topic: 16 illegals sue Arizona rancher  (Read 9684 times)
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: April 22, 2010, 03:31:08 AM »

I meant that on a moral point of view, both the rancher's and the illegal's attitude could be justified. As for law, they both broke it.

I'm not aware of any law that was broken per se by the rancer, to be honest
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,959
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: April 22, 2010, 03:34:23 AM »

I meant that on a moral point of view, both the rancher's and the illegal's attitude could be justified. As for law, they both broke it.

I'm not aware of any law that was broken per se by the rancer, to be honest

You think it is legal to hold people captive at gunpoint ? And before you can say it, it isn't a citizen arrest, since as BK explained entering in the USA illegally isn't a crime.
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: April 22, 2010, 03:38:20 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wikipedia
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,959
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: April 22, 2010, 03:49:00 AM »

Ok, fair enough. So I guess that now the case will mainly concern the law which authorizes citizen arrest, and its precise modalities. Since USA are supposed to be a State of Right, I hope there are precise rules on this domain, and that you can't just hold someone captive as you want.
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: April 22, 2010, 03:54:15 AM »

Ok, fair enough. So I guess that now the case will mainly concern the law which authorizes citizen arrest, and its precise modalities. Since USA are supposed to be a State of Right, I hope there are precise rules on this domain, and that you can't just hold someone captive as you want.

You know I'm not sure about Arizona's regulations on citizen arrests....and it might be further complicated by the fact that immigration laws are federal rather than state issues....but let's be real here: This man has had so many negative and threatening experiences through contact with illegal immigrants....

Doesn't it seem logical and proper that he be allowed to do what is necessary to protect his property and feel safe?
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,959
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: April 22, 2010, 04:07:14 AM »

Ok, fair enough. So I guess that now the case will mainly concern the law which authorizes citizen arrest, and its precise modalities. Since USA are supposed to be a State of Right, I hope there are precise rules on this domain, and that you can't just hold someone captive as you want.

You know I'm not sure about Arizona's regulations on citizen arrests....and it might be further complicated by the fact that immigration laws are federal rather than state issues....but let's be real here: This man has had so many negative and threatening experiences through contact with illegal immigrants....

Doesn't it seem logical and proper that he be allowed to do what is necessary to protect his property and feel safe?

It does. Exactly like it seems logical and proper that the illegals find unfair to be held captive by a guy who represents nobody except himself. As I said, both can be justified, but the law only should determine the judgement.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: April 22, 2010, 04:48:04 AM »

Ok, fair enough. So I guess that now the case will mainly concern the law which authorizes citizen arrest, and its precise modalities. Since USA are supposed to be a State of Right, I hope there are precise rules on this domain, and that you can't just hold someone captive as you want.

You know I'm not sure about Arizona's regulations on citizen arrests....and it might be further complicated by the fact that immigration laws are federal rather than state issues....but let's be real here: This man has had so many negative and threatening experiences through contact with illegal immigrants....

Doesn't it seem logical and proper that he be allowed to do what is necessary to protect his property and feel safe?

It does. Exactly like it seems logical and proper that the illegals find unfair to be held captive by a guy who represents nobody except himself. As I said, both can be justified, but the law only should determine the judgement.

Antonio, I will cite a couple of statutes for you which control this matter:

A.R.S.13-3889. Method of arrest by private person

A private person when making an arrest shall inform the person to be arrested of the intention to arrest him and the cause of the arrest, unless he is then engaged in the commission of an offense, or is pursued immediately after its commission or after an escape, or flees or forcibly resists before the person making the arrest has opportunity so to inform him, or when the giving of such information will imperil the arrest.

A.R.S. 13-1503. Criminal trespass in the second degree; classification

A. A person commits criminal trespass in the second degree by knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully in or on any nonresidential structure or in any fenced commercial yard.
B. Criminal trespass in the second degree is a class 2 misdemeanor.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,959
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: April 22, 2010, 05:53:02 AM »

Shocked Oh damn...
Logged
Mesu
Rookie
**
Posts: 117


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: April 22, 2010, 06:10:54 AM »

See, he's tried that.  It doesn't work.  They still litter his property with trash and human poop, breaking into his home and killing his livestock.  He's been doing this since 1998.  He even put a convenient faucet on a water tank of his so they'd stop breaking it trying to get to the water, still they trash his land.

What you are saying is it doesn't prevent future illegal immigrants(not the same people who are suing him) from entering his property. This much different from saying it wouldn't work on people who see him calling the police.


What is he to do?  And why is the onus on him anyway, he isn't the one initiating these activities.  Shouldn't the onus be on the ones breaking the law initially? 

I hope you're not saying he should be immune for anything he does to people who broke the
law initially(and I am glad the jury didn't think so either(unfortunately some people think that way(sometimes only when it involves illegal immigrants))).

I know it's hard to see the land owning white guy with a gun as a victim so he simply must be guilty of something, but come on, you can see past these prejudices if you try hard enough.

Where do you get the impression that someone can't see a white gun with a gun as a victim
when they recognize that he can call the police?

If someone couldn't see a white guy with a gun as a victim they would be saying things
like this:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

No one says that kind of stuff.

I know it's complicated, if it wasn't complicated we wouldn't even know about it.  But we're still left with what should the land owning white guy do?  The govt isn't helping him.  The people breaking the law and ruining his sh**t ain't helping him.  Being sued by well funded lawyers isn't helping him (nor does it help past, current or future illegals).  You telling him he shouldn't hold a gun on them isn't helping him.  What is he to do?  You might not like his actions, but if you (or anybody else) can't come up with something better for him to do then your bitching about his actions don't really hold much water.  (and neither does his water tank because some illegals just broke it again)


A lot of people in inner cities don't always get help from law enforcement. It isn't good but that doesn't mean they aren't able to create victims. Also his actions haven't even stopped people from entering his property illegally.

I know of something that would help him with this problem but he would probably be against
it.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,079
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: April 22, 2010, 06:18:07 AM »

I hope you're not saying he should be immune for anything he does to people who broke the
law initially(and I am glad the jury didn't think so either(unfortunately some people think that way(sometimes only when it involves illegal immigrants))).
I'm not saying that at all, I know others did.  No, he can't do anything he wants to them.  Yes, they still have rights, just not very many.  In the same you or I wouldn't have very many if we were doing the exact same thing.  He (the rancher) does have a right to protect his property.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
You going to keep it a secret?  If you've got an answer to this problem I'm sure everybody would like to hear it.  (and if it's selling his land, you better have a buyer in mind or you're still just pissing in the wind)
Logged
Mesu
Rookie
**
Posts: 117


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: April 22, 2010, 10:52:51 AM »
« Edited: April 23, 2010, 02:36:46 AM by Mesu »

I hope you're not saying he should be immune for anything he does to people who broke the
law initially(and I am glad the jury didn't think so either(unfortunately some people think that way(sometimes only when it involves illegal immigrants))).
I'm not saying that at all, I know others did.  No, he can't do anything he wants to them.  Yes, they still have rights, just not very many.  In the same you or I wouldn't have very many if we were doing the exact same thing.  He (the rancher) does have a right to protect his property.

Not doing the things that he was found liable for doesn't need to conflict with protecting his property.

You going to keep it a secret?  If you've got an answer to this problem I'm sure everybody would like to hear it.  (and if it's selling his land, you better have a buyer in mind or you're still just pissing in the wind)

I was talking about helping him in general with changes to immigration policy. For example removing income, and English proficiency requirements(also remove limits on the total number of people we let in each year(and if that's considered too extreme why not simply increase the amount of people we let in and adjust the income requirements to accurately reflect the situation)) then most the people who came here illegally wouldn't choose that. And if less people cross illegally then less people would cross Mr. Burnett's property.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,079
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: April 22, 2010, 12:28:10 PM »

I agree 100%.  If we need more labor (which I don't understand what with unemployment rates as they are) we should let as many temporary workers in as we need.
Logged
Bacon King
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,822
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.63, S: -9.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: April 22, 2010, 03:41:49 PM »

Carl, States, Franzl, thanks for informing me of some things I didn't know.

Still, we have a group of sixteen people who were placed under citizen's arrest for committing a single Class II misdemeanor each. This was within the rancher's rights, as I'm pretty sure trespassing is "amounting to a breach of the peace" for the purposes of Arizona state law 13-3884.1. The fact that these sixteen also committed a federal misdemeanor by crossing the border not at an official customs station is irrelevant because the rancher did not directly witness it and thus has no ability to make an arrest for it as a private person under Arizona law (see cited law above).

However, Arizona law requires that any "arrest by a private person" follow exactly the same standards as any other arrest. From the Arizona Revised Statutes:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would consider (from the article) that yelling obscenities, kicking someone, and yelling in Spanish at several of the women that "My dog is hungry and he's hungry for buttocks!" could possibly cross the line of "greater restraint than necessary" through excessive force and further excessive threats of force.

Again, I don't think these illegals should be handed a $30 million dollar check because their "civil rights were violated." I don't know what happened or didn't happen. But there is enough of a case for this to be brought before a jury- that is the only thing I have argued. I think it's silly to see the landslide of outrage here just because the case wasn't thrown out. Legally, the sixteen illegals simply do have grounds for a trial. I don't see how anyone, knowing the facts and accusations present, could think otherwise.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: April 23, 2010, 01:32:17 AM »

Carl, States, Franzl, thanks for informing me of some things I didn't know.

Still, we have a group of sixteen people who were placed under citizen's arrest for committing a single Class II misdemeanor each. This was within the rancher's rights, as I'm pretty sure trespassing is "amounting to a breach of the peace" for the purposes of Arizona state law 13-3884.1. The fact that these sixteen also committed a federal misdemeanor by crossing the border not at an official customs station is irrelevant because the rancher did not directly witness it and thus has no ability to make an arrest for it as a private person under Arizona law (see cited law above).

However, Arizona law requires that any "arrest by a private person" follow exactly the same standards as any other arrest. From the Arizona Revised Statutes:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would consider (from the article) that yelling obscenities, kicking someone, and yelling in Spanish at several of the women that "My dog is hungry and he's hungry for buttocks!" could possibly cross the line of "greater restraint than necessary" through excessive force and further excessive threats of force.

Again, I don't think these illegals should be handed a $30 million dollar check because their "civil rights were violated." I don't know what happened or didn't happen. But there is enough of a case for this to be brought before a jury- that is the only thing I have argued. I think it's silly to see the landslide of outrage here just because the case wasn't thrown out. Legally, the sixteen illegals simply do have grounds for a trial. I don't see how anyone, knowing the facts and accusations present, could think otherwise.

Uh, BK,

As I have previously pointed out, where the number of illegals apprehended exceeds the number of persons arresting them by a factor of four to one (or more), there is a near automatic tendency for them to alledge some version of 'police brutality.'

Fortunately, more and more law enfocement agencies are using cameras, which have disproven these allegations and forensic evidence has frequently proven specific allegations to be physically imposible.

Logged
Ameriplan
WilliamSargent
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,199
Faroe Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: June 13, 2010, 04:13:31 AM »

It's important that they represent illegal immigrants also because it would be very difficult for them to be represented otherwise.

I literally could not give a flying digestion. Man, my care level is at an all time low about their situation. If there was a prize for not caring about them, I'd win first, second, and third place.

I care as much about the rights of illegals as the rights of ants.

These trespassers on foreign soil need to be taught a lesson. Like, a 5,000 volt electric fence on the border. Yeah.
Logged
Ameriplan
WilliamSargent
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,199
Faroe Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: June 13, 2010, 04:15:26 AM »

Besides, it's not a civil right to be on someone's property illegally. They should move this trial to a legal-friendly area like Nebraska instead of getting a pro-illegal jury in the southwest.
Logged
Bacon King
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,822
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.63, S: -9.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: June 13, 2010, 09:36:18 PM »

It's important that they represent illegal immigrants also because it would be very difficult for them to be represented otherwise.

I literally could not give a flying digestion. Man, my care level is at an all time low about their situation. If there was a prize for not caring about them, I'd win first, second, and third place.

I care as much about the rights of illegals as the rights of ants.

So you're saying that basic human rights completely disappear as soon as someone crosses an imaginary line in the desert?
Logged
Ameriplan
WilliamSargent
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,199
Faroe Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: June 14, 2010, 12:39:56 AM »

It's important that they represent illegal immigrants also because it would be very difficult for them to be represented otherwise.

I literally could not give a flying digestion. Man, my care level is at an all time low about their situation. If there was a prize for not caring about them, I'd win first, second, and third place.

I care as much about the rights of illegals as the rights of ants.

So you're saying that basic human rights completely disappear as soon as someone crosses an imaginary line in the desert?

The question is who is responsible for giving those rights.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.248 seconds with 13 queries.