16 illegals sue Arizona rancher

[CARLHAYDEN]

Let's see here. I don't know the details of this case, but I don't think this should automatically be thrown out so please allow me to play devil's advocate here.

First off, everyone, remember that crossing the border "illegally" is not, in itself, a crime. You don't get arrested for it, you don't go to jail for it. When you get caught, you get taken back across the border by immigration agents that act in their function as customs enforcement officials, not officers of the law.

Regardless, committing a crime does not automatically eliminate someone's civil rights anyway. Due process still exists, convicted criminals can still successfully sue police officers for mistreatment. What these people were doing on the guy's property is entirely irrelevant to the case at hand.

Also, this may be arguable by some, but an American isn't entitled to basic human rights because they're an American, but because they are a human, and in this amazing country we aim to treat all humans with basic rights given to them by God. An illegal alien doesn't have all their rights forfeit just by not being an American.

Having made that preface, the facts of the case definitely warrant some sort of action. Sixteen people are trespassing, and are caught by the landowner- there's nothing wrong with that. Threatening to shoot them, making acts of intimidation and violence, holding them extralegally- these are valid points of legal contention.

I'm not saying the sixteen are in the right at all. But I see no reason why extraneous factors about this case don't warrant a trial. Yes, the damages they seek are really excessive- but such is the legal system.

That's really all that needs saying, I think.

PS- Good to see you back, States

BK,

You made a number of assertions which need correction.

First, illegally entering the United States IS a crime, and some persons doing so are being prosecuted, convicted and serving time.

Second, yes, the status of the accusers IS relevant in evaluating the veracity of the accusations.  You really should examine the Rules of Evidence.

Third, I don't know what you are referring to about "holding them extralegally," as a 'citizens arrest' is certainly legal, and holding a prisoner until law enforcement personnel can arrive to incarcerate them is certainly legal.

Finally, you are wise to be suspicious on the facts as illegals have been coached to always claim they were apprehended in a group.  The belief is that if several of them tell the same lie, it will have some credibility.  However, in a number of cases where this has been alledged, both forensic evidence and cameras have proven they were lying.

[CARLHAYDEN]

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.

[CARLHAYDEN]

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:

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.