Larry Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 (Although, I do admit: I wonder how he got his kidnap victim out of Mexico? Tell the Federales that he was smuggling Mexicans?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjcdaman Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 We wanted to be able to order you folks to hand over your citizens for trial in a foreign court, but we didn't really mean that the same rules applied to Americans. I mean, we said it did, but we really didn't mean it. What we really meant was that our citizens can do whatever they want in your country, and you can't do a thing about it." Was that what you meant? Hey Homer, this CONVICTED SICK **** was an American. Was he not? EDIT: We (Dog) are the criminals in their country. :doh: LEFTY!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
praise_gibbs Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Hope you won't mind the appropriation of your style (since critiquing style seems to be popular in this thread), but, No, he ****ing wasn't. Breaking the law isn't his job. (News flash: It isn't the cop's job, either.) I do mind you ****!!!! If Mexico (or the US) wants to have a law that says "anybody's allowed to do anything they want, and ignore any law they feel like, as long as they're effing with somebody who isn't popular" then they can pass a law that says so. The crime occured in the UNITED STATES. Not in Mexico. GW Bush can go to another country and have his men do the same thing that Dog did.. only with a greater outcome. Maybe a tiny stretch there but, it has the same principle if you think about it. When does the law stop and when does it start? We already know, by way of our own corrupted legal system, that not all laws are enforced in it's entirety with everyone. Some people get off with a slap of the wrist while others are being locked up for a damned misdemeanor. **** happens. I could understand your argument if all laws were just and carried out properly and on a consistent basis but, they aren't. I would hope that you would not be blindly hoping that they are. Until that happens, then the rule is "break the law, do the time". How about follow the law and for everyone and not with who you see fit. (I'm starting to wonder, here. I wonder how many of the folks who are claiming that there's something immoral about Mexico prosecuting a kidnapper (or the US prosecuting a border patrol officer for assault with a deadly weapon) because "that law shouldn't count, because breaking the law is part of their jobs", have also claimed, with equal black-and-white vehemence, that "it doesn't matter if illegal immigrants just came to the US to try to get a job, the law's the law, and that's it, we should kill 'em.") The illegal immigrants are on our soil and taken our government benefits. If they want to come here legally.. then I would welcome them with open arms. But, even then.. You earn EVERYTHING that you get. Sure, that is not always the case with everyone but, the majority do earn what they get. Enough of this giving **** away just to make the alien happy and want to spend a happy life on our soil. They are stealing from you.. why aren't you pissed about that? Explain the differences, folks: Why is it, when an illegal immigrant comes to the US to mow lawns, then "the law's the law", and it doesn't matter why he did it. But when the border patrol shoots somebody in the back, or when a private, self-appointed vigilante commits a kidnapping, the rule is "who cares what laws he broke, look at the other guy"? It doesn't matter why he did it because he did that **** illegally. If they can not follow the LAW and follow the steps to get a citizenship then WE, the USA, should want nothing to do with them. They aren't shooting at will and Dog didn't just pick on some schmuck for **** and giggles.. they broke the law and they are doing the time. All is fair and just in this USofA. "In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith, becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming, in every facet, an American and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American People." ~President Theodore Roosevelt, 1907 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamingwolf Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 (Although, I do admit: I wonder how he got his kidnap victim out of Mexico? Tell the Federales that he was smuggling Mexicans?) mainly cause he never kidnapped him like you have been continously misrepresenting to make Dog sound as evil as you can. He detained luster and never left the country, he called the FBI and the mexican police arrested him cause they dont allow bounty hunters in mexico and thus it was an illegal detention. He embarrassed the mexican police cause he achieved what they never even tried to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blondie Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Why is it, when an illegal immigrant comes to the US to mow lawns, then "the law's the law", and it doesn't matter why he did it. But when the border patrol shoots somebody in the back, or when a private, self-appointed vigilante commits a kidnapping, the rule is "who cares what laws he broke, look at the other guy"? Actually, bounty hunters are not self appointed. There are laws governing them http://www.americanbailcoalition.com/new_html/Bounty%20Hunter%20Laws.htm http://www.americanbailcoalition.com/new_html/compendium.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamingwolf Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Actually, bounty hunters are not self appointed.There are laws governing them http://www.americanbailcoalition.com/new_html/Bounty%20Hunter%20Laws.htm http://www.americanbailcoalition.com/new_html/compendium.htm larry was making that point to make people view Dog as a bad guy, Im sure he knows bounty hunters are legit here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 The crime occured in the UNITED STATES. The crime (kidnapping) occurred in Mexico. A private American traveled to Mexico for the premeditated purpose of committing multiple felonies. He committed those felonies, then fled the country. And a bunch of people seem to think that if they yell "But the other guy . . . " often enough, loud enough, and abusively enough, then that fact will just go away. GW Bush can go to another country and have his men do the same thing that Dog did.. only with a greater outcome. No, he can't. Unless you're talking about that pesky thing called "a war". And is that supposed to be some kind of defense? Do I have the right to go to Mexico, hire a hooker, and kill her (for example), because "well, George Bush could invade their country, so I don't have to follow their laws"? When does the law stop and when does it start? We already know, by way of our own corrupted legal system, that not all laws are enforced in it's entirety with everyone. Some people get off with a slap of the wrist while others are being locked up for a damned misdemeanor. **** happens. I could understand your argument if all laws were just and carried out properly and on a consistent basis but, that aren't. I would hope that you would not be blindly hoping that they are. 1) So, is that supposed to be a defense? "Sometimes people get away with crime, therefore it's OK if I commit one?" 2) Yeah, sometimes various justice systems decide to make exceptions in special cases. But I think Mexico has the right for them to decide whether this particular case is one of them. (Just as the US has the right to make those decisions in our country.) How about follow the law and for everyone and not with who you see fit. That's exactly what I'm saying. The illegal immigrants are on our soil and taken our government benefits. If they want to come here legally.. then I would welcome them with open arms. But, even then.. You earn EVERYTHING that you get. Sure, that is not always the case with everyone but, the majority do earn what they get. Enough of this giving **** away just to make the alien happy and want to spend a happy life on our soil. They are stealing from you.. why aren't you pissed about that?It doesn't matter why he did it because he did that **** illegally. If they can not follow the LAW and follow the steps to get a citizenship then WE, the USA, should want nothing to do with them. They aren't shooting at will and Dog didn't just pick on some schmuck for **** and giggles.. they broke the law and they are doing the time. All is fair and just in this USofA. "In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith, becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming, in every facet, an American and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American People." ~President Theodore Roosevelt, 1907 A really long-winded answer that completely dodges the question: Why is it when a Mexican breaks American law, for what some claim is a good (or at least, non-criminal) purpose, then "the law's the law". But when other people break the law (In this guy's case, knowingly and with premeditation) then it's "But the other guy . . " or "It's his job!"? How come in one case, The Law is sacred and almighty, but in the other cases it's "yeah, but . . . "? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 mainly cause he never kidnapped him like you have been continously misrepresenting to make Dog sound as evil as you can. He detained luster and never left the country, he called the FBI and the mexican police arrested him cause they dont allow bounty hunters in mexico and thus it was an illegal detention. He embarrassed the mexican police cause he achieved what they never even tried to do. Thanks for the information. OK, so the crime he's accused of is, I assume, a lesser crime? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamingwolf Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 yes a lesser crime, according to DjTj's post probably resulting only in a couple hundered dollar fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 larry was making that point to make people view Dog as a bad guy, Im sure he knows bounty hunters are legit here. As I understand it, yeah, there's a long-standing tradition in the US that our justice system pretty much ignores crimes committed by bounty hunters in this country. (At least as long as the only people who get hurt are fugatives.) (And I don't necessarily disagree with that tradition. Yeah, I'd rather that work got done by cops. But I'm willing to say that the current system seems to work OK.) I'm just pointing out that just because the US wouldn't have prosecuted him if he'd done the same things here, doesn't mean he's immune from Mexican law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
praise_gibbs Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 The crime (kidnapping) occurred in Mexico. A private American traveled to Mexico for the premeditated purpose of committing multiple felonies. He committed those felonies, then fled the country. He held him all the while making phone calls to collect the perv. Yeah.. THE HUMANITY!! Dog should be hanged. And a bunch of people seem to think that if they yell "But the other guy . . . " often enough, loud enough, and abusively enough, then that fact will just go away. .... I like sandwiches. No, he can't. He did Unless you're talking about that pesky thing called "a war". What is different. If Dog called it a war would it have been different? And is that supposed to be some kind of defense? Nope. No defense at all. Just stating the principle. Do I have the right to go to Mexico, hire a hooker, and kill her (for example), because "well, George Bush could invade their country, so I don't have to follow their laws"? You can not kill anyone unless it is self-defense. And even then you will still be charged with something. Unless.. you are how do you say it.. "mentally unstable?" So, you are saying that it happened so that is all that matters and two wrong do not make a right.. Gotcha. 1) So, is that supposed to be a defense? "Sometimes people get away with crime, therefore it's OK if I commit one?" No. It just shows how unjust laws are. The same laws that you are protecting like your security blanket. 2) Yeah, sometimes various justice systems decide to make exceptions in special cases. But I think Mexico has the right for them to decide whether this particular case is one of them. (Just as the US has the right to make those decisions in our country.) So it is only the law when they say it is? Laws can change just for the fun of it? But, they are still supposed to be followed even though they can be finagled? Laws should be followed but, if they can not be justfully carried out.. what are you supposed to be following? The actual Law or do you have to plan it out how they can screw you? That's exactly what I'm saying. You didn't say that starting 10 lines above this though. A really long-winded answer that completely dodges the question: I respectfully diagree. Or are the laws here changing again? Why is it when a Mexican breaks American law, for what some claim is a good (or at least, non-criminal) purpose, then "the law's the law". But when other people break the law (In this guy's case, knowingly and with premeditation) then it's "But the other guy . . " or "It's his job!"? How come in one case, The Law is sacred and almighty, but in the other cases it's "yeah, but . . . "? What mexican bounty hunter crossed on American soil to capture a known and convicted rapist? I'd love to read this story. In fact I'd buy the book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjcdaman Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 What mexican bounty hunter crossed on American soil to capture a known and convicted rapist? This is the answer to this whole mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamingwolf Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 As I understand it, yeah, there's a long-standing tradition in the US that our justice system pretty much ignores crimes committed by bounty hunters in this country. (At least as long as the only people who get hurt are fugatives.) (And I don't necessarily disagree with that tradition. Yeah, I'd rather that work got done by cops. But I'm willing to say that the current system seems to work OK.) I'm just pointing out that just because the US wouldn't have prosecuted him if he'd done the same things here, doesn't mean he's immune from Mexican law. the cops dont have the time, resources, or order to go out and actively find bail jumpers. They have already investigated and arrested the guy, it was the court and lawyers that finagled the guy into a position to run and now its there problem. Unless of course the police run across him in their normal duties. The US would probably prosecute a foreign bounty hunter illegally detaining someone here if they caught him, the difference here is we have many institutions in place that actively seek fugitives. Mexico does not. Mexico would have never produce Luster, even if some cops had caught him when they found out he was wanted they would have just upped the cost of letting him go that is if they even were able to identify him. So basically what we have here is an international incident where an industrious American went into Mexico and showed that a single American is greater than the entire national law enforcement of Mexico and they want some vengence. The left in this country is supporting this vegence by mexico only cause the right wants Dog to go free. Whats really weird about this rift is as DjTj points out, if mexico doesnt hammer him its only a little fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Larry... how would you feel if it was your wife that was the rape victim? Nobody is saying that what Dog did was legal. We're just saying it's an effed up situation that the Mexican gov wants him extradited. ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Bad decision by Dog but for all the right reasons. Lots of productive illegals in this country, but it still doesnt change the fact that they are illegal. Lots of unproductive Americans in this country, but it doesnt change that fact that they are legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.A.C.O.L.B. Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Bounty hunters, for the most part, are pieces of ****. As far as Dog goes, from what I've seen, he's a decent guy. It's kinda crazy that he only did two years for murder but whatever. I respect that he was able to straighten his life out and be successful. Just goes to show you that not all criminals are evil people and blah blah blah. In this case though he still broke the law. The punishment shouldn't be that serious. I hope it all works out for him. BTW Family Bonds on HBO >>>>> Dog the Bounty Hunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamingwolf Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 If they are as you say lets remove their service, and not issue bail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxiumone Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Maybe they can extradite all the Mexican criminals who are illegally in the United States. that would make sense but we only punish US citizens in this country not the Illegal criminals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DOOG Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Chapman is an excellent large breed..highly reccomended.....ooopppps...wrong thread. :logo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius81 Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Wow, this Larry dude has a twisted view of reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 If I were President Bush I would tell Mexico to come and get him. We will not deliver him until you get all of these illegal fock out of America. . Damn straight. I don't see why we should honor their law over ours. The man was wanted for serious crimes committed in America, and Dog went and got him. I say we should give him a parade and let Mexico know that we value our citizens, we don't want to see them raped and killed, and we will not give over those who enforce our laws and bring murderers of our citizens to trial. then sit back and see what they have to say. Then tell them to F off again. Come and get him. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 What mexican bounty hunter crossed on American soil to capture a known and convicted rapist? I'd love to read this story. In fact I'd buy the book. The big giant difference is that if they did need to cross into America to capture an American who had raped and killed a Mexican citizen, all Mexican law would have to do is contact us, and our law enforcement and government would likely assist in the capture. Extradition, who knows, but assuming they catch him the guy would not get away with it one way or the other. He'd be tried, be it here or there. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 If they are as you say lets remove their service, and not issue bail. Unfortunately, there's that pesky Constitution thing. (It keeps getting in the way, but don't worry, we've pretty much defeated it except for a few die-hard extremist militias.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 The big giant difference is that if they did need to cross into America to capture an American who had raped and killed a Mexican citizen, all Mexican law would have to do is contact us, and our law enforcement and government would likely assist in the capture. Unless, of course, the criminal who broke Mexican law and fled to the US was popular[/u], or if he broke a law we disagreed with. Then, we'd sit back and see what they have to say. Then tell them to F off again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 if mexico won't extradite fugitives to america, why should we extradite for them. why the **** should we extradite a man that extradited a very bad man BECAUSE mexico refuses to extradite? **** mexico. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.