Another fine example that embodies everything that's wrong with this country

[jamie2112]

I worse than that. Over 9 out of 10 don't have valid insurance. No insurance, no license.

How does that even happen? That is really crazy.......

 

[gmichael]

I was thinking the same thing; set up robot sentry guns, like in Aliens. But I wouldn't want to shoot any defenseless animals. How could you set up the guns to be able to distinguish between a person and a deer?

Would any dear be able to climb the other walls?

 

[mperfct]

Would any dear be able to climb the other walls?

I think deer can leap fences over 8' tall. Pretty crazy.

 

[gmichael]

I think deer can leap fences over 8' tall. Pretty crazy.

Better make'em 10 feet then.

 

[jonnythan]

You can't just hold people at gunpoint and threaten to murder them.

That's illegal, even if the people are illegal immigrants.

 

[gmichael]

You can't just hold people at gunpoint and threaten to murder them.

That's illegal, even if the people are illegal immigrants.

I've had a farmers point shotguns at me just for driving my motorcycle on their land. It was pretty common when crossing through apple orchards. Why would illegals have more rights than me?

 

[jonnythan]

I've had a farmers point shotguns at me just for driving my motorcycle on their land. It was pretty common when crossing through apple orchards. Why would illegals have more rights than me?

This guy didn't just point a gun.

If that farmer had held you at gunpoint, threatened to let his dog eat you, threatened to shoot you in the back if you tried to run, and held you there against your will for a period of time just for being on land that he owns, you could have sued him too. And you probably would have won.

You simply can't take people prisoner at gunpoint just for being on your land whether they came there from Mexico or Idaho.

 

[mperfct]

You simply can't take people prisoner at gunpoint just for being on your land whether they came there from Mexico or Idaho.

I think the difference is that the people from Idaho didn't break any laws. Also Arizona also passed the Castle Doctrine in Spring of 2006, which allows for enforcement of trespassing.

Link to AZ Bill: http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/47leg/2r/laws/0199.htm

 

[jonnythan]

I think the difference is that the people from Idaho didn't break any laws. I don't know what the laws on trespassing are (as far as how far you can enforce it), but I think it would be similar.

Still doesn't matter. If you see a guy kick a baby, you can't hold him at gunpoint and threaten to murder him if he tries to run away. That's against the law. If there's a guy on your million-acre ranch, you can't hold him prisoner at gunpoint and threaten to murder him if he runs away.

 

[mperfct]

Still doesn't matter. If you see a guy kick a baby, you can't hold him at gunpoint and threaten to murder him if he tries to run away. That's against the law. If there's a guy on your million-acre ranch, you can't hold him prisoner at gunpoint and threaten to murder him if he runs away.

Sorry, I looked into it further and found more argument against your point.

Your second point above may be true, but states that have adopted the Castle Doctrine, such as Arizona, you can shoot first if you feel yourself, family or property are endangered by a trespassing party.

 

[jonnythan]

Sorry, I looked into it further and found more argument against your point.

Your second point above may be true, but states that have adopted the Castle Doctrine, such as Arizona, you can shoot first if you feel yourself, family or property are endangered by a trespassing party.

I don't see how that even applies. He didn't shoot, and he didn't feel threatened. These people were unarmed and passing through his apparently very large and empty property. He was actively patrolling for them.

The castle doctrines don't allow you to take people prisoner.

 

[MatthewB.]

I'm amazed the farmer hasnt killed anybody by now, cause if I owned property that everyday people kept putting dirty diapers, drugs, glass bottles, feces and trash every single day, I'd have lost it by now and would just be keeping a tally of how many idiots I'd have shot by now. This farmer has every right to protect his property from vandalism and crime of any nature and he has the right to use reasonable force if needed. Well since the current law enforcement isn't helping him out, he's left to use his dogs and his rifle and I would be doing what he's doing and scaring the bejeesus out of any criminal on my property. He has no idea who is a drug runner and carrying weapons and has a right to assume that anybody he comes across is somebody dangerous. All I know is that if I was on that jury, I would let the farmer go and impose a big hefty fine against the illegals for criminal activity of a persons property.

 

[majorloser]

How does that even happen? That is really crazy.......

That's why those who live in South Florida pay some of the highest rates for uninsured motorist coverage. When I move out my auto insurance rates fell like a rock.

But now that you mention it, this might be why it seems that there is such a large amount of concealed weapons permits issued down there.

 

[jonnythan]

I should make it clear that I don't disagree with the farmer's actions, necessarily. When the law leaves you high and dry, sometimes you need to take things into your own hands.

But you have to deal with the consequences of your actions, too.

 

[majorloser]

I'm amazed the farmer hasnt killed anybody by now...

Instead of putting $30,000 into motion detection equipment, he should have just bought a backhoe.

 

[Matt34]

Still doesn't matter. If you see a guy kick a baby, you can't hold him at gunpoint and threaten to murder him if he tries to run away. That's against the law. If there's a guy on your million-acre ranch, you can't hold him prisoner at gunpoint and threaten to murder him if he runs away.

In Arizona you can hold someone at gun-point if they are displaying criminal intent i.e the guy kicking the baby scenerio. Now if he stops the criminal activity or runs away no you are not covered by law to open fire.

As for the rancher there are different levels of tresspassing and as such, depending on what if any charges are brought against the illegals he was within his rights to detain them untill Border patrol arrives. (Charges range from a class 1 misdemeanor to a class 6 felony depending on the type of criminal trespass. (A.R.S. 13-1501 through 1504).

 

[MatthewB.]

majorloser, I agree, I think illegals would make good fertilizer.

For some reason this farmer reminds me of "the Simpsons" Mr. Burns. "Release the hounds."

 

[itschris]

I think the point that's being missed here about the detainment part is that you're affording them the same rights as a US citizen. These illegal immigrants who are in the midst of breaking the law do not/should not fall under the same constitutional/Federal/State/Local mandates as you and I. They have no such rights... at least they shouldn't.

If someone breaks into my house or I catch them in my backyard, if for some reason I decide not to shoot them, I feel certain that I'd be within my rights to detain by gunpoint for the police to arrive. Maybe if you have a sprawling ranch, it's different, but bottom line: They're breaking the law by entering our country and they are breaking the law and violating private property by being on his ranch. Criminals engaging in criminal behavior = no rights in my head.

 

[gmichael]

This guy didn't just point a gun.

If that farmer had held you at gunpoint, threatened to let his dog eat you, threatened to shoot you in the back if you tried to run, and held you there against your will for a period of time just for being on land that he owns, you could have sued him too. And you probably would have won.

You simply can't take people prisoner at gunpoint just for being on your land whether they came there from Mexico or Idaho.

No, he just screamed, "GET OFF MY LAND!" and pulled the trigger.

 

[jonnythan]

I think the point that's being missed here about the detainment part is that you're affording them the same rights as a US citizen. These illegal immigrants who are in the midst of breaking the law do not/should not fall under the same constitutional/Federal/State/Local mandates as you and I. They have no such rights... at least they shouldn't.

Criminal statutes don't say that it's criminal to murder a US citizen. They say it's criminal to murder a person. The law applies to you and you can't violate the law with impunity just because the victim is not a citizen. If that were the case, he could just shoot each one in the head.

This isn't about the actions or status of the victims. It's about the actions of the alleged.

Matt's post is informative, and I thank him for it. Though it's unclear that the laws he refers to directly apply, but that's for the courts to sort out. I would be interested to see if there are any Arizona statutes that apply directly to detaining people for third degree tresspass. ARS 13-1502 implies that the property owner has an obligation to first request that the tresspassers leave the property.

If someone breaks into my house or I catch them in my backyard, if for some reason I decide not to shoot them, I feel certain that I'd be within my rights to detain by gunpoint for the police to arrive. Maybe if you have a sprawling ranch, it's different, but bottom line: They're breaking the law by entering our country and they are breaking the law and violating private property by being on his ranch. Criminals engaging in criminal behavior = no rights in my head.

No rights, eh? So you'd summarily execute anyone you find on your ranch?