ljs Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Well the car thieves obviously didn't press charges. It's not up a person (victim if you will) to "press charges" it's up to the jurisdiciton (i.e the State vs the people)...not trying to sound like a jerk, but maybe you aren't all up on law enforcement stuff. While I do appreciate your opinion. Example, Guy hits his wife..we see she has a black eye and she tells the cops that he hit her. then she says, "I don't want him to go to jail." Well, it's not up to her. It's up to the cops to arrest him, and up to the prosecutor to file the charges. A "victim" can say all day long they don't want someone charged, or they do want someone charged. But it's not up to them, it's up to the prosecutor. Now, maybe predicto can speak to other states, but my understanding is that it works that way all over the U.S, not just in my state. In the case I cited from my own experience, there was nothing to charge the homeowner for. He had no criminial intent, so any degree of Assault would be out of the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tryfuhl Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 It's not up a person (victim if you will) to "press charges" it's up to the jurisdiciton (i.e the State vs the people)...not trying to sound like a jerk, but maybe you aren't all up on law enforcement stuff. While I do appreciate your opinion. Example, Guy hits his wife..we see she has a black eye and she tells the cops that he hit her. then she says, "I don't want him to go to jail." Well, it's not up to her. It's up to the cops to arrest him, and up to the prosecutor to file the charges. A "victim" can say all day long they don't want someone charged, or they do want someone charged. But it's not up to them, it's up to the prosecutor. Now, maybe predicto can speak to other states, but my understanding is that it works that way all over the U.S, not just in my state.In the case I cited from my own experience, there was nothing to charge the homeowner for. He had no criminial intent, so any degree of Assault would be out of the question. We're speaking about a civil case if you didn't notice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Sorry friend. You just broke the first rule of the Tailgate.No hyperbole from liberals. Even if what you said makes perfect sense (and it does) and is an entirely logical response to the post you were quoting (and it was)... people here who are mad about illegal immigration and propoerty rights are going to get up in arms and claim that you unfairly said this rancher was ACTUALLY raping and murdering illegals. Because they are justifiably outraged that you dared to disagree with them while they wax philosophically about good ideas like ripping illegals to shreds with guard dogs or shooting them on sight. You can't say anything about that. It would be rude. I hope it all clear for you now. Seriously, that guy was nuts. Where did he get the whole "raping, murdering" illegals bit from? He pulled that one out of his butt. Anyways, I think the rancher should put landmines on his property and #%^# the corpses of thems illegals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 I predict 16 illegals will own a ranch in Ariz. Par for the ****ing course Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief skin Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 They were tresspassing on his property, breaking immigration laws of our country and those criminals are in the right WTF?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Link please. I find that difficult to believe. I was advised of this before the internet was invented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted February 10, 2009 Author Share Posted February 10, 2009 I was advised of this before the internet was invented. You were advised incorrectly. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080928161401AAoJAta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljs Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 We're speaking about a civil case if you didn't notice. Well then maybe you are mistaken on the difference between a civil and criminal case...as I was responding to your post of ... It's moreso holding them captive at gunpoint. That is illegal whether they are a citizen of the United States or Zimbabwe. Then you said, Well the car thieves obviously didn't press charges. and you don't press charges civily, you sue. And in civil trial, you aren't being tried for something that is illegal, that would be a criminal trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 You were advised incorrectly.http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080928161401AAoJAta a real reliable source of legal information there......random, anonymous internet posters on answers.yahoo.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 They were tresspassing on his property, breaking immigration laws of our country and those criminals are in the right WTF?? I'm certain that any minute now, you'll show us where one single person in this thread said that "those criminals are in the right". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief skin Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 I'm certain that any minute now, you'll show us where one single person in this thread said that "those criminals are in the right". U misunderstood my statement I read the article as the judge and the F-ING lawyer were leanig toward the crimials side of incident Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 U misunderstood my statement I read the article as the judge and the F-ING lawyer were leanig toward the crimials side of incident The f-ing lawyer's job is to lean toward the criminal's side of the incident. And the only thing the Judge has said is that the criminals might win, if they can prove all of the things that they claim. That's what it takes for a judge to tell someone that he isn't allowed his day in court: The Judge would have to rule that even if he proves every single thing he claims, that he still can't win, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief skin Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 The f-ing lawyer's job is to lean toward the criminal's side of the incident. And the only thing the Judge has said is that the criminals might win, if they can prove all of the things that they claim. That's what it takes for a judge to tell someone that he isn't allowed his day in court: The Judge would have to rule that even if he proves every single thing he claims, that he still can't win, anyway. Ok Thanks just likethe F-ING dream team of lawyers that got OJ off of double murder. Judge Ito did such a stellar job in his courtroom he has not been heard of since, system works Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 I'd comment, but as we all know the only reason anyone can be opposed to Mr. Barnett's uninvited guests is bigotry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 So if you walk through my yard I can hold you at gunpoint until the police arrive? Hope so if he takes a dump on your property breaks into your home and destroy property on your land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 I'd comment, but as we all know the only reason anyone can be opposed to Mr. Barnett's uninvited guests is bigotry. That's true. He's probably a white male, and everybody knows the whole world is bigoted against them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 That's true. He's probably a white male, and everybody knows the whole world is bigoted against them. OMGZ....Blindsided by the originality! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Hope so if he takes a dump on your property breaks into your home and destroy property on your land. So, let's take a vote. All in favor of "hasn't read the thread, and therefore isn't aware that the illegals in question aren't even accused of doing any of those things"? OK, now how many in favor of "knows that the people concerned aren't accused of any of those things, but doesn't care if everybody knows that what he's saying isn't true"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Larry, I think people are just disgusted that property rights and privacy are going the way of the do-do bird. The man went over board, but he apparently lives in a very busy part of the border. Perhaps he should allow INS agents to roam his land so this doesn't happen again. It's a very frustrating situation especially for people who are against illegal immigration. It's hard to believe that people in a commission of a crime, can sue the "vigilante" that was defending his own property. It just doesn't smell right. Civil rights and liberty aside, this is akin to a burglar suing the guy that shot him in the leg while he was in the shooter's house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Larry, I think people are just disgusted that property rights and privacy are going the way of the do-do bird.The man went over board, but he apparently lives in a very busy part of the border. Perhaps he should allow INS agents to roam his land so this doesn't happen again. It's a very frustrating situation especially for people who are against illegal immigration. It's hard to believe that people in a commission of a crime, can sue the "vigilante" that was defending his own property. It just doesn't smell right. Civil rights and liberty aside, this is akin to a burglar suing the guy that shot him in the leg while he was in the shooter's house. You appear to have missed my position on this matter. Uh, the people he held at gunpoint are accused of walking across his land. That's all. Now, I assume his property is posted No Trespassing. (Since I assume the guy's not an idiot.) And walking across somebody's posted property is a crime. One which, IMO, the owner has the right to enforce. (Including, if he feels it necessary, by taking actions that are more, uh, forceful than making them wait for the cops to arrive.) But let's not try to make it sound like his heroic actions prevented an impending gang rape and multiple murders. He stopped some trespassers. Some other trespassers have committed littering and vandalism. Far as I'm concerned, if my land is posted "No Trespassing", (or, far as I'm concerned, even if it's not. Since when did it become necessary for someone to put up signs telling people not to commit crimes against them? If my car doesn't have a "no car theft" sign on it, then is it legal for somebody to steal it, because, well, I didn't post it? But that's another matter.), and somebody walks across my land, anyway, then they're committing a crime against me, and I have the right to stop them from committing further crime, and to make them wait for the cops to show up. The fact that they're illegal immigrants is completely irrelevant. They were on his land, without his permission. He is, therefore, permitted to take reasonable (and, IMO, the definition of "reasonable" should allow a wide latitude to someone who's standing on his own property) steps to stop them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 You appear to have missed my position on this matter. Far as I'm concerned, if my land is posted "No Trespassing", (or, far as I'm concerned, even if it's not. Since when did it become necessary for someone to put up signs telling people not to commit crimes against them? If my car doesn't have a "no car theft" sign on it, then is it legal for somebody to steal it, because, well, I didn't post it? But that's another matter.), and somebody walks across my land, anyway, then they're committing a crime against me, and I have the right to stop them from committing further crime, and to make them wait for the cops to show up. The fact that they're illegal immigrants is completely irrelevant. They were on his land, without his permission. He is, therefore, permitted to take reasonable (and, IMO, the definition of "reasonable" should allow a wide latitude to someone who's standing on his own property) steps to stop them. I know you share the frustration. It's a tough moral ground to stand on, that Constitution of ours. By following it, it makes us better. I've yet to find a definitive position on illegal immigration, though I do love legal immigration. I don't mind people coming here because it's the best shot they have at raising their children right. I am honored that people risk what they do just so they can work and live here. But I'm also a strong defender of property rights and in times like these, I tend to generally support more laws so illegals draw the short straw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 You may also be unaware of my position on illegal immigration. Let's just say that it used to be pretty much the only subject that Sarge and I agreed on. Sarge and I were usually the only two people who'd keep pointing out, for example, that there's no such thing as a law abiding illegal immigrant. I have a real problem with the way our society is moving towards a society in which people feel entitled to habitually break the law, whether it's immigration, our tax laws, or the speed limit. I'm simply pointing out that in this case, the rancher's actions are, IMO, completely justifiable, not because the people were illegal immigrants, but because they were trespassers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskins0756 Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Reminds me Clint Eastwood in Gran Torino. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 You may also be unaware of my position on illegal immigration. Let's just say that it used to be pretty much the only subject that Sarge and I agreed on. Sarge and I were usually the only two people who'd keep pointing out, for example, that there's no such thing as a law abiding illegal immigrant. I have a real problem with the way our society is moving towards a society in which people feel entitled to habitually break the law, whether it's immigration, our tax laws, or the speed limit. I'm simply pointing out that in this case, the rancher's actions are, IMO, completely justifiable, not because the people were illegal immigrants, but because they were trespassers. Then you and I are in agreement. I want the world to be a better place. I get what that will take. But at the same time I understand that the theory of law has been around a long time and we should probably, for our own sake, stick to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinFeathers Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Because non-citizens do have the right to sue in our courts if they were injured on American land. Let's assume that this guy actually did really bad things. Even though the illegals were trespassers, they still have the right to sue him. They may be trespassers and lawbreakers, but that doesn't mean they are no longer human beings. Just like if you went to France and some Frenchman maliciously poked you in the eye with a stale baguette and your eye fell out. You could sue in French courts, even though you are not French and he is. I have a legit question about this...I understand that non citizens have rights in other countries but does that only pertain to non-citizens who have entered the country LEGALLY? Like with a passport for vacation or a visa? Surely if I, (for some ungodly reason) illegally snuck over to france, would not expect to be treated with the same rights as some one who is legally allowed to be there? Is that really true? That illegal immigrants have the same rights as American (or whichever country's) citizens or people who are legally allowed to be in the country? For some reason that doesn't really make sense to me...I mean hi, they're sneaking into the country illegally...seems to me they've left all their rights on the south side of the border.... And anyway, if some one creeps on to my land in the middle of the night I sure as hell wouldn't hesitate to run out there with my gun and tell them to get the **** off...especially if people had been doing it previously and destroying my property... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.