The Next Waco?


PDA






oldfart
September 17, 2004, 02:07 PM
From FreeRepublic.com....


An FBI agent shot an acquaintance of a border watch group member while trying to serve an arrest warrant, FBI officials said Thursday.

The shooting happened about 11:15 p.m. Wednesday in a grocery store parking lot in Douglas along the southeastern Arizona border with Mexico.

According to the FBI, the agent was trying to serve an arrest warrant on Casey Nethercott of Douglas. Nethercott is a known member of Ranch Rescue, a group that works to protect private property along the southern U.S. border.

Ranch Rescue and several other unauthorized groups have been patrolling along the border looking for illegal immigrants, raising concerns among migrants rights groups about potential abuses.

At the time, Nethercott was with 22-year-old Kalen Riddle, also of Douglas.

Charlene Thornton, special agent in charge of the Phoenix FBI office, said that "actions taken by Nethercott and Riddle led one of the FBI agents to fire his weapon."

The FBI would not elaborate and said it won't release the name of the agent who fired the shot, in keeping with FBI policy.

Riddle was airlifted to a Tucson hospital, but FBI officials did not know his condition.

Nethercott was arrested Wednesday and is in federal custody. An FBI spokeswoman confirmed agents searched Nethercott's Douglas ranch on Thursday afternoon.

The warrant the FBI was trying to serve alleges that Nethercott threatened Border Patrol agents.

According to the warrant, Nethercott refused to pull over for Border Patrol agents on Aug. 31. After a slow-speed chase, the warrant said that Nethercott entered "a compound in Douglas occupied by members of Ranch Rescue." Riddle was identified as one of the people there.

Agents said the Ranch Rescue members were heavily armed and had night vision equipment.

After Border Patrol agents yelled for Nethercott to show his hands, the affidavit says Nethercott refused, and responded:

"I'm going to take care of this myself, we're going to have a shootout."

The affidavit does not say how the standoff ended.

There was no listing for Riddle in Douglas. A phone message left Thursday at a residence listed for Nethercott was not returned.

Nethercott, 37, has a criminal record. He was convicted of assault with a firearm in California and was on parole when he joined Ranch Rescue.

In June, he was also found guilty by a Texas jury of felony firearm possession. The jury was deadlocked on a second charge that accused Nethercott of pistol-whipping an illegal immigrant near a Texas ranch.

Douglas rancher Roger Barnett, who is not part of Ranch Rescue, supports the measures Nethercott took to stop illegal immigration.

He compared the shooting of Riddle to Branch Davidians, who fought federal agents in Waco, Texas.

"Citizens have to get out and protect themselves," Barnett said. "And this is what it leads to."


Bold emphasis is mine but who else sees a similarity here? Does anyone see a good ending here? Can we expect more of these situations in the future?

If you enjoyed reading about "The Next Waco?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
El Tejon
September 17, 2004, 02:18 PM
Just wave some Ding Dongs or Twinkies at the compound. That usually gets the "last best hope for freedom" types attention.:D

Ozendorph
September 17, 2004, 02:25 PM
I admit to being ignorant of many of the facts regarding both these cases (the one enumerated here and the Waco debacle), but it sounds as though the FBI agent had cause to arrest Nethercott, a multiple-felon and violent criminal. In the case of Waco, it's my understanding that the ATF acted solely on suspicion of weapons violations and there was no history of crime attributed to the group. In light of that point, I fail to see much of a connection between the two cases.

Woud you say that's accurate, or am I way off?

stevelyn
September 17, 2004, 02:33 PM
The govt has been looking for a way to force a confrontation with RR since they've been successfully interdicting smugglers and illegal border crossers. All on private property at the request of property owners.

Cacique500
September 17, 2004, 02:49 PM
Nethercott, 37, has a criminal record. He was convicted of assault with a firearm in California and was on parole when he joined Ranch Rescue.

In June, he was also found guilty by a Texas jury of felony firearm possession. The jury was deadlocked on a second charge that accused Nethercott of pistol-whipping an illegal immigrant near a Texas ranch.

I see some problems with these guys anyway...not the shining examples of responsible gun ownership we need.

CentralTexas
September 17, 2004, 02:56 PM
King George would be proud. Since when do citizens need authorization to hangout on private property and make citizens arrests? As far as Twinkies go, they seem to have more backbone and principles than some of the spongecakes here...
CT

sendec
September 17, 2004, 03:12 PM
Always nice to see a public servant give someone exactly what they ask for. And y'all think we dont care. Whaddya mean another Waco? More nutballs burying school buses and using balls of hay as cover? Hiding behind kids? Day after day of pseudo religious blather?

Rules of Thumb - when a law officer flips on the blues, pull over. Dont commit felonies. When you request a gunfight, you might just get one. Dont do something that would cause your farm to be referred to as a compound.

2nd Amendment
September 17, 2004, 03:21 PM
Translation: Be a good sheep. Don't do or say or own anything that might go against the wishes of the Masters. Never question what is right or wrong, simply accept what you're told. And remember, if it wears a uniform or claims to represent a government it is smarter/faster/wiser/better than you.

:barf:

longeyes
September 17, 2004, 03:38 PM
Ranch Rescue, flawed or not, exists for only one reason: the U.S. Government will not do the job it is supposed to do--for American citizens. I

Erich
September 17, 2004, 03:43 PM
2nd Amendment, you forgot:

"Ein Befehl, is ein Befehl"!

:(

Cosmoline
September 17, 2004, 03:44 PM
Do I think this guy and his group are trouble? Yes
Would I want them patrolling my land? No
Do I object to others inviting them in? No
Do I think the feds are wasting time going after them? Yes

If a private group can enforce US laws better than the feds, the feds get nervous about it. It's their rice bowl, and they don't like anyone else eating their rice.

But frankly, I'd be more supportive of this outfit if they targetted the real problem--lazy, vile Americans who hire the illegals. Want to have some effective vigillante action? Pose as a migrant on a street corner. When some yuppie pulls up and barks out "DOS!" hop in the truck. When he orders you to fix his garden for $2 an hour, work like a dog for him. When the day is done, politely serve him with the suit papers you have on hand for violating about five dozen state and local wage and hour laws, insurance requirements and tax laws. Cross copy all relevant state and local agencies. Do that enough and you won't need anyone patroling the border.

TheDutchman
September 17, 2004, 03:58 PM
Felons have rights like the 2nd amendment. News to me I though he lost his right to bear arms after being convicted of two felonies. Also someone on paroles can be stopped and questioned at anytime. I am all for them to protect there land , but this guy just looks likes a bad apple looking for trouble.

Waitone
September 17, 2004, 05:00 PM
I'll be willing to bet the identified FBI type is the victim of multiple reamings out. Waco cost the federales big time. Agency grandstanding is no longer vogue.

The last, I will repeat for emphasis, the last thing the federales want is any stoopid event to occur on the border in general and related to immigration specifically. The media performed a do-it-yourself lobotomy and now is perfectly stupid about what is going on down there.

At the start of the campaign I said the democrats had 3 issues against Bush. Job arbitrage in foreign countries. Iraq war aftermath screwups. Third is immigration. Kerry and Co fumbled one and two badly and right on que Time Mag does a cover story on the criminal alien invasion on the southern border. I don't know how both parties will shut down the Time story but they have two. What is happening on the border is explosive. The federales will do anything to make any problem go away and that includes suppression of gun fights between locals and Mexican drug runners or perhaps Arab infiltrators.

That said, ranch rescue does not need felons carrying its water.

Old Dog
September 17, 2004, 05:30 PM
Ever notice how media reports always say, when reporting on folks that have encounters at their own homes with law enforcement, that the groups always live in "compounds?"

Probably a desert ranch-style home with a shed or old barn, detached garage and a gate across the driveway ...

Jon Coppenbarger
September 17, 2004, 05:32 PM
I just hate it when someone just does not tell all and just blames that guy for not pulling over and after the previous incounters with the same Hog county leo's.

Do you all remember just a couple of years ago when that same police force arrested Two guys after they were hired by a local rancher to protect his ranch after not being able to get help from the local cops and feds. Yap they took a couple of guys and held them a few days and then released them. Two folks were arrested for that even with eye witnesses that said what those tresspasser were saying was a lie.

Does any body remembr how all that went or do you just remeber the headlines and did not care enough to see what was happening on your borders.
Ok quiz What happened to the two ranch rescue guys that were arrested?
Go ahead look it up instead of just going off and saying they should be locked up. I can also say the man would not of arrested them if they were not guilty as we all know the branch davidians were guilty I think they had a trial or something din't they and then burned them.

Hey guess what That name Nethercott was the same name of the guy that was arrested back a few years ago?
Now what do you think the chance were that they are or were trying to get him again?

I wonder?
kinda sounds a little like ruby ridge, cops drum up charges claim all kinds of stuff, make up lies in the press to make them selfs look great and that guy the scum of the earth. He wants protection so he retreats to safety and then they shoot some of them later.

only part of the story we are missing is the one from ranch rescue.
Lets here the whole story instead of the one in the paper.

I still believe as a american you have a right to a jury of your peers and not what ever the locals or feds have to say.

Wildalaska
September 17, 2004, 05:35 PM
To quote the learned sage and gun zenmeister, Tamara-san:

"Lord, protect me from my allies" TM

WildnotadversetoborrowingAlaska

Old Dog
September 17, 2004, 05:43 PM
Is it just me, or do I detect a distinct lack of confidence in our law enforcement agencies on this forum? Sheesh.

I don't think the individual agencies with law enforcement and border security responsibilities down there are the problem ... the problem is is at a much higher level of government and directly stems from the federal government's unwillingness to address the situation.

It seems to me that a lot of folks want desperately to believe that there are a bunch of loose cannon agencies and officers out there just trying to provoke confrontations ... as if that would justify what seems to be a common thread here that the government and all its minions really don't want us to have or use guns ...

Waitone
September 17, 2004, 05:56 PM
Just for clarification of my position.

Waco was clearly grandstanding by the bATFE. When it went total FUBAR, big brudder, the FBI, was called in to clean it up. By that time civilian leadership in the form of Clinton, Clinton, and Reno got involved and demanded the situation end, right effin' now. The civilians provided the stimulus for the stupidity that followed.

The charlie foxtrot on the border is clearly civilian policy makers refusing to enforce the law. The grunts crawling through the dirt are doing what they are allowed to do. My guess they are far more livid than I about the situation because they see the memos and talk to the supers. I do not think the grunts are the source of the problem. I assign that responsiblity squarely on Bush's shoulders. He will pay the price if we have a terrorist hit because of his refusal to enforce the law.

My only complaint is I wish more of the grunts would go to media without attribution and sing the story. Some have but by and large they stay quiet.

Jon Coppenbarger
September 17, 2004, 06:02 PM
Slow speed chase= fbi warrent= shoot bystander who was with him= what trafic laws was the border patrol trying to enforce, I did not know they were part of the highway patrol and it did not seem to me that anything in the story said they broke any border patrol laws so why were they being pulled over?

Did they regonize him? what did he do? was there another complaint against him? come on lets start at the beginning what caused them to try and pull him over?

If it was a illegal they would of arrested him and then released him on a promise he would show up for court, Yeah right.

Did that lady show a weapon? I did not see that on the news, did you and if you did let us know please!
Maybe she had one of those baby weapons in her hand like weaver did?
that was justification enough back then!

Art Eatman
September 17, 2004, 06:36 PM
From what I've read oveer the last half-dozen years or so, LEO attitudes about defending one's own ranch along the border varies with the local Sheriff's views. Some are hostile to what they see at threats to their authority; others seem to be cooperative.

The most hostility seems to come when outsiders come in to assist a rancher. Pressure on sheriffs also comes from pro-alien groups, and often the local newspaper editors take the pro-alien stance. (IMO, these editors are the same sorts as those who support gun control--again, from what I've read.)

The Border Patrol agents, under the law, can stop anybody, any time, to check citizenship or possible smuggling of aliens or drugs. I don't know if the agents in this instance knew Nethercott by sight. In my area, we have a lot of trainees, and they are moved around a lot. I rarely recognize the agents I see; "Newbies" to the area, commonly.

Nethercott's south Texas arrest, from what I read in the papers, sounded phony, and I'm willing to believe the accusers lied. But, I don't know.

Compound? Yeah, almost every working ranch I've ever seen could be so-styled by a city-boy newspaper reporter. After all, you have separate fences around the house and yard, the main corral and barns, as well as other holding pens and sheds. (Bah! City folks! :))

So, we need more time to get the full story--as usual...

Art

Drjones
September 17, 2004, 06:53 PM
King George would be proud. Since when do citizens need authorization to hangout on private property and make citizens arrests? As far as Twinkies go, they seem to have more backbone and principles than some of the spongecakes here...
CT


VERY well said.....(Emphasis mine.)

Tamara
September 17, 2004, 06:55 PM
VERY well said.....(Emphasis mine.)

What are you doing?

Drjones
September 17, 2004, 07:10 PM
What are you doing?


I don't know that the spongecakes here could handle the truth. ;)


:D :D :D

goalie
September 17, 2004, 07:18 PM
Always nice to see a public servant give someone exactly what they ask for. And y'all think we dont care. Whaddya mean another Waco? More nutballs burying school buses and using balls of hay as cover? Hiding behind kids? Day after day of pseudo religious blather?

Rules of Thumb - when a law officer flips on the blues, pull over. Dont commit felonies. When you request a gunfight, you might just get one. Dont do something that would cause your farm to be referred to as a compound.

If you did your job, they would have no reason to exist. What are YOU doing to ensure that the government you work for enforces the integrity of it's borders? Or do you just call people who do your job, and do it better, and do it for free to boot, nutballs?

Wildalaska
September 17, 2004, 07:26 PM
Its time to bash LE again yippeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

WildcaniplaytooAlaska

lostone1413
September 17, 2004, 07:46 PM
Living in Arizona I for one support Ranch Rescue. . The paper keeps out how many times they have stopped drugs form getting into this country or how much property they destroy. If people from any other country then Mexico came in here like that we would look at it as an invasion and an act of war. If you look at the border patrol or the police or FBI to protect you and your rights you will be in for a shock! Somebody has to do something are goverment has showin us they don't care. As far as Waco if they could get most of them in Ranch Rescue together another Waco bet on it!

longrifleman
September 17, 2004, 08:02 PM
The charlie foxtrot on the border is clearly civilian policy makers refusing to enforce the law. The grunts crawling through the dirt are doing what they are allowed to do. My guess they are far more livid than I about the situation because they see the memos and talk to the supers. I do not think the grunts are the source of the problem. I assign that responsiblity squarely on Bush's shoulders. He will pay the price if we have a terrorist hit because of his refusal to enforce the law.


Hitting nail (almost) squarely on head. The problem pre-dates Bush, although he is the chief law-enforcement ossifer NOW.

One thing that troubles me greatly is the almost total lack of respect for private property that the media and, unfortunately, most LEO's seem to be showing. These illegals are breaking the law by being on the private property uninvited. They are lucky they aren't being shot on sight. If this isn't fixed it may very well come to that point. That will be a disaster for everybody for obvious reasons.



Nethercott's south Texas arrest, from what I read in the papers, sounded phony, and I'm willing to believe the accusers lied. But, I don't know.

I read about the arrests at the time and came to the same conclusion about the accusations being a set-up. I would be interested to find out more about the Cali stuff.

One thing to keep in mind with anyone challenging the authority of the govt and any arrests they may have. There is no better way for the govt to destroy the credibility of their "problems" than to gin up some charges and feed the info to the all too willing press. Since anyone challenging the govt is probably on the edge legally it is easy to do. The effectiveness is obvious from the previous posts of Cacque500 and Ozendorph.

Ozendorph
September 17, 2004, 08:16 PM
The effectiveness is obvious from the previous posts of Cacque500 and Ozendorph.

Hey, I was asking a question. If you (or anyone) has good reason to believe the charges are phoney, please share. I don't take the Fed's word as gospel, nor am I quick to buy into random anti-gov theories. If you have evidence relative to the case, throw it out there. :)

Wildalaska
September 17, 2004, 08:52 PM
I don't take the Fed's word as gospel, nor am I quick to buy into random anti-gov theories. If you have evidence relative to the case, throw it out there.

Thats BS ya aint supposed to let facts get in the way of a good old anti govt tirade!!!!!!!

WilddownwithjbtsAlaska

one-shot-one
September 17, 2004, 09:26 PM
i don't have a problem with a group like rr existing but they may want to screen their membership better and if your a member and "get framed" maybe you should drop out for the greater good of the group. like it or not ifyou want to win the media war you got to stay as "clean" as possible.

sendec
September 17, 2004, 09:36 PM
There are plenty of bad guys out there, the government does'nt need to make work for itself by "ginning up" charges.

RR's stopped a lot of drugs, huh? Um, what happens to all those drugs they stop? Felons on the team starts to make sense.

Spent some time in AZ this summer, about 75 miles from the boarder. Stayed near the entrance to a Border Patrol Post, or whatever they call'em. Noticed a constant, continuous stream of BP vehicles in and out, usually with some souls on board, in the rigs into which I could see. I might recommend that you actually talk to some BP guys, they do not complain that they have nothing to do.

So what'll it be, more JBTs, viglantes or narco-terrorists? Take your pick, I am guessing you wont like whatever you choose.

Michigander
September 17, 2004, 09:50 PM
Hardly!

As others have pointed out, the similarities are very few and the differences almost endless.

Hint for "unauthorized groups": Do not allow members who are felons.

Standing Wolf
September 17, 2004, 10:08 PM
The federal government is far more concerned about people who are keeping an eye on the supposed "borders" than the millions upon millions of illegal aliens who infect our nation like cancer.

Disgusting!

Old Dog
September 18, 2004, 12:04 AM
Do you really believe that, Standing Wolf?

joe sixpack
September 18, 2004, 12:25 AM
It is a sign of our conflicted borders "policy".
On the one hand the gov't is not doing it's job.
On the other hand it doesn't want John Q. to know that it isn't
doing it's job. And, as the gov't has lot of hands, the third would be making sure no one else does the job either.

cheers, ab

Jon Coppenbarger
September 18, 2004, 12:54 AM
Lets see if I get this right do not hire felon's what was he convicted of I think it was the same thing he was arrested for last year ., Now I wonder how easy it is to get a gun convection against soemone in CA.?
I also would like to find out about the conviction in Ca..
Do you know about the trial that ended in june for this guy?

Lets see he had a hung jury and they would not retry him AS I understand it on the charge he beat the guy up.
Man it made headlines when they arrested him I remember it on every news chanel and I live in CO.
How many news chanels nation wide also told you he did not get convicted, I must of missed that broadcast?
But you want to know the funny part , they found him guilty for using a gun in the crime.
How do you covict someone that did not do the crime as per all of the witnesses but convit him of having a gun.

I think it came down to they had to get him on something din't they and its real funny how within two months they just happen to try to pull him over and you are right the feds OWN you and you better pull over RIGHT now or else we will have you or shoot your women and children.

Waco= dead women and children
ruby ridge= dead women and children
now hogg county in a food store they shoot down a women. they had reason to ? Was she armed and did she threaten them. I want to know?

dON'T YOU

They arressted him for threatening a pb agent?
I wonder if their story is different than the folks at the COMPOUND!
I hope there was alot of witnesses at the food store. So anybody in the area let is know what is happening.
Thank you

Tamara
September 18, 2004, 01:00 AM
I don't know that the spongecakes here could handle the truth. ;)

Try us.

Being all non-spongecakelike yourself, we can safely assume that:

1) Your dues to the NRA, GOA, JPFO, and CRPA are all paid up.
2) That you have attended a protest or two in the last couple months.
3) That you have written and/or called all your federal, state, and local Elected Things in the last couple of months.
4) That you have actively participated in the election campaigns of pro-gun candidates recently, handing out flyers, posting signs, answering phones, et cetera.
5) That you have donated money to the election funds of pro-gun candidates.

You've done all this, right? I mean, obviously, this is all chump change stuff that would prove that you have the mettle to stand in the door when the ballot box failed, and in the meantime would qualify you to type bold words calling everyone else on the forum a "spongecake" for not participating in the process as much as you, right? :scrutiny:

tyme
September 18, 2004, 01:06 AM
Nethercott, 37, has a criminal record. He was convicted of assault with a firearm in California and was on parole when he joined Ranch Rescue.
Before deciding that this guy isn't worth the air he breathes, consider that it's possible that "assault with a firearm" in CA means that he tried to stop a violent crime in progress, maybe without a ccw.

It's speculation either way, but a violent crime conviction doesn't always mean someone's a bad person.

Michigander
September 18, 2004, 01:32 AM
A convicted felon is a convicted felon, by definition.

As many are fond of saying on this board, if you don't like the law, get it changed!

Whether or not you, I, Joe Blow, or whoever agrees that a particular crime is a crime in the first place or a felony in the second place, the law that is on the books and the law he was found violating are still the law.

Myself, I think convicted felons, after doing their time (including parole or probation, which I do not like) should be allowed to own and carry firearms. But that is not the law in most places, constitutional or not.

2nd Amendment
September 18, 2004, 01:34 AM
Sure it does, Tyme. That way it's much easier to blindly defend fedgov and yell "Cop-Bashing!". :rolleyes:

DMF
September 18, 2004, 01:56 AM
But that is not the law in most places It's not the law in all places, because the prohibition on felons possessing firearms is federal. 18USC922(g)

Coronach
September 18, 2004, 02:39 AM
Sure it does, Tyme. That way it's much easier to blindly defend fedgov and yell "Cop-Bashing!".As oppsed to, say, blindly yelling "JBT!" when the cops kill someone who owns a gun and belongs to a group you support?

I mean, heck. The guy belongs to the NRA and he owns a gun! This is obviously jack booted thuggery in action.

No, the far more intelligent position is to wait for the facts, see what happened, and then decide if what happened was proper, or not.

Newsflash: not all LEO shoots are good shoots.

Newsflash: not all people who own guns are good guys.

Of course, I can only think of a few times when the (collective) readership of THR was able to restrain the old knee-jerk reflex long enough to let the actual truth come out- the threads all got drowned in rhetoric and locked prior to this point, with a few exceptions.


It seems like he was given every opportunity to end the situation peacefully. "What we have heah is...failure to communicate."

Sounds like he got what he wanted.


Natch, I'll reserve judgement until the facts are in.

As to this lovely bit of spleen:Translation: Be a good sheep. Don't do or say or own anything that might go against the wishes of the Masters. Never question what is right or wrong, simply accept what you're told. And remember, if it wears a uniform or claims to represent a government it is smarter/faster/wiser/better than you.I dunno about all that, but in this instance it did seem to be the better shot.

Thus passes another Warrior Prince. :rolleyes:

Mike

2nd Amendment
September 18, 2004, 02:53 AM
I'd be much more amenable to the idea of waiting for the "whole story" if instances of overly agressive LEO were not on the increase. If the militarization of police was not on the increase. If LE "leadership" did not sit on TV spouting ignorant anti-gun and knee-jerk rhetoric. if certain members of this board did not so often go over the top in defense of every action an LEO makes, no matter how absurd. If I did not get to personally see the ever more gung-ho activities of certain local LE...

There is a basic mistrust of LE and their government/political bosses today and it is becoming well earned.

Coronach
September 18, 2004, 03:12 AM
Actually, I'll dispute one of the foundations of your premise.I'd be much more amenable to the idea of waiting for the "whole story" if instances of overly agressive LEO were not on the increase.Have you ever talked to an 'old timer' LEO? Ever read some of the older books written by cops? 'Back in the day' cops could, and did, get away with a lot more than what they can now. I'm not saying our current situation is ideal, nor will I turn a blind eye to real problems when the occur, but lets not pretend for an instant that the police are more aggressive now than they were in the past. Break bad on a cop 'back in the day' and you would be lucky if your actions merely earned you a trip to jail by way of the local ER- the other option was the morgue. And no one would bat an eye, especially if you happened to be of less than lilly-white complexion.

There were a lot of good cops back then. There were some bad ones, too. And they had a lot more latitude and discretion. No one talked about it then. They talk about it a lot now, freely and openly. Any wonder why we percieve things as we do?

That said, I think we get upset that the cops are now enforcing laws that didn;t exist years ago, and thus they come across as draconian. Well, the cops do enforce the laws that the elected critters promulgate. If the elected critters make a law you do not like (CCW restrictions, the AWB, WoD), its not productive to get angry with the cops. Change the leaders, change the law. Note that the ATF is really wailing and gnashing its teeth that it can't go after people for bayo lugs now?

Wait...its not.

But DiFi sure is.

Mike

2nd Amendment
September 18, 2004, 03:34 AM
Analysis on a purely local level...

In this town in the past twenty five years our police force has doubled in size. We have more than twice as many cars. They are armed with everything up to M16's. We have our own sniper, by golly! The town has a population of 6000...just like it did 25 years ago.

20 years ago a bar fight got the brawlers a knock on the head and a nite in jail. Today they are in the street cuffed and looking at felony raps. A kid driving home tipsy got a ride to the cop shop and a phone call to his parents. Today he's looking at a felony wrap. A traffic stop then got you a guy you knew shaking his head at your ignorance. Today it may(and has) get you three patrol cars with at least two weapons drawn by guys in ninja suits.

We never heard of a no-knock and yet people still got busted regularly for drugs. We never needed a "sniper". So far we still haven't. Then a traffic stop in a parking lot where people already were got an audience and a laughing cop. Now it gets me a 21 year old punk shouting in my face because I didn't get far enough away(too bad he didn't say anything about it beforehand). Bad thing to do to a member of the Chamber...the mayor didn't appreciate the mindnite phone call...neither did the spittle-spraying kid cop.

They are increasingly agressive. Yes the old cops did things we would not accept today. But the new ones do things, because they are told they are the sole thing holding society together and are a notch above the "rabble", that are often worse because they are supported officially in their actions and we are expected to accept it. Because they are the authority.

In the past it was a function of a few bad cops and a less "tolerant" society towards "differences". Today it is increasingly a function of the institutionalization of the idea of "us vs them" and the ever-expanding power of government in every facet of people's lives.

I didn't say it was perfect "back then". I'm saying it's worse now because the abuses are not centered in bad cops but in an entire operational mind-set of power and control and "authority". That and, as you say, a plethora of absurd laws designed to control every aspect of behavior if someone cares to use them. And yes, that comes from the top down. But the interaction the average Joe has with it is at that local police level. Thus your first reaction is going to be there, not to some largely faceless parasite at the federal level.

Jon Coppenbarger
September 18, 2004, 08:59 AM
AMEN

Thank you

wingman
September 18, 2004, 09:54 AM
The Southwest is a disaster and the government seems not to care,
prop 200 I believe would help hold back funding for illegals, right now the
average taxpayer cost is $2400 a year. Mr McCain wants to defeat 200
although most of the people in AZ want it.








McCain seeking ways to help defeat Prop. 200
By Mike Sunnucks
The Business Journal (Phoenix, AZ), September 15, 2004

U.S. Sen. John McCain will meet with opponents of a controversial immigration ballot question in the coming days to see how he can help defeat the measure.

McCain will sit down with those opposed to the Protect Arizona Now/Propostion 200, which will be on the November ballot.

PAN looks to curtail illegal immigration into the state requiring those seeking public welfare benefits to prove they are eligible for such services and those seeking to votes to prove they are U.S. citizens.

The measure also requires state agencies to report illegal aliens to federal authorities and those state workers who do not do that face criminal sanctions.

McCain, the rest of the state's congressional contingent, Gov. Janet Napolitano and the Arizona Chamber of Commerce are among those opposed to PAN. They contend that border security and immigration are not state issues. Critics also worry that if PAN passes it will stall federal guest worker and immigration reforms next year.

McCain said Wednesday he will soon meet with PAN opponents to see what role he can play in the effort against Prop. 200. Former attorney general Grant Woods, lobbyist Steve Roman and state chamber officials are leading the effort against PAN.

Napolitano and Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon also worry that if PAN passes, government agencies and office will have to hire extra staff and dedicate time and resources to proving the citizenship of those seeking services.

PAN director Kathy McKee disputes those assertions, saying the welfare benefits portion of PAN is reinforcing the need to prove eligibility and will not impact all government service and offices not covered under state welfare and public benefits rules.

McCain stressed Wednesday that he understands frustrations within the state regarding border security and continues to press the federal government and Congress to focus more on the matter. The senior senator is a powerful political force with moderate and independent voters.

Polls show a majority of Arizona voters supporting PAN. Supporters include conservative State Reps. Eddie Farnsworth, Russell Pearce and Andy Biggs and state Sen. Thayer Verschoor and Jack Harper.

Valley car dealer Rusty Childress and the Washington D.C-based Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) also back PAN.

The state chamber has been meeting with national pro-immigration business advocates, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on the matter.

Arizona Congressman Jeff Flake and Jim Kolbe and McCain are also sponsors of federal guest worker program to license Mexican immigrant workers and provide undocumented aliens already working the U.S. a path towards citizenship.















:mad:

R.H. Lee
September 18, 2004, 10:26 AM
McCain will sit down with those opposed to the Protect Arizona Now/Propostion 200, which will be on the November ballot.

PAN looks to curtail illegal immigration into the state requiring those seeking public welfare benefits to prove they are eligible for such services and those seeking to votes to prove they are U.S. citizens.

The measure also requires state agencies to report illegal aliens to federal authorities and those state workers who do not do that face criminal sanctions. Why would any reasonable mind oppose this? Is it not illegal for illegal immigrants to receive welfare benefits or to vote? Is is not illegal for employers to hire illegal immigrants?

McCain, the rest of the state's congressional contingent, Gov. Janet Napolitano and the Arizona Chamber of Commerce are among those opposed to PAN. Translation: Business wants the cheap labor. Makes no difference that it is a violation of law. The state legislature is a willing lapdog in a conspiracy to violate the law.

They contend that border security and immigration are not state issues.
Great. Except there's no federal initiative process. How do the people of AZ compel the feds to enforce existing law regarding illegal immigration?

Critics also worry that if PAN passes it will stall federal guest worker and immigration reforms next year. Napolitano and Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon also worry that if PAN passes, government agencies and office will have to hire extra staff and dedicate time and resources to proving the citizenship of those seeking services. Weak excuses.

McCain stressed Wednesday that he understands frustrations within the state regarding border security and continues to press the federal government and Congress to focus more on the matter. What? He just now realizes it's a problem? This statement really frosts me. It is more equivocation and pap. :fire:

I hope the people of AZ are able to pass the proposition and that some "judge" does not strike it down-as usually happens here in California after the people have spoken.

sendec
September 18, 2004, 10:40 AM
Is bad?

So you dont want the BP agents and the state, county and locals on the border to have airships, remote sensors, humvees, nvg and such? Or military support?

R.H. Lee
September 18, 2004, 10:50 AM
So you dont want the BP agents and the state, county and locals on the border to have airships, remote sensors, humvees, nvg and such? Or military support? These resources are purchased at public expense for the purpose of enforcing immigration law. These resources should not be used by law enforcement for the purpose of achieving some agenda of their political masters.

BeLikeTrey
September 18, 2004, 10:58 AM
maybe they could use them?

The Real Mad Max
September 18, 2004, 11:04 AM
Bold emphasis is mine but who else sees a similarity here? Does anyone see a good ending here? Can we expect more of these situations in the future?

No.

What I see is another dumbass doing the wrong thing at the wrong time against the wrong dude. He shouldn't be suprised that the medicine he received didn't taste so good.

Devonai
September 18, 2004, 11:05 AM
I've only read Ranch Rescue's web site, but it wouldn't surprise me if they put out a press release condemning Nethercott and Riddle and claiming they never knew about Nethercott's record. If they do not, any positive recognition they've built up (whether it be in the community or beyond) goes straight down the toilet.

spartacus2002
September 18, 2004, 11:10 AM
Militarization
Is bad?

So you dont want the BP agents and the state, county and locals on the border to have airships, remote sensors, humvees, nvg and such? Or military support?


Militarization of equipment is distinctly different from militarization of mindset.

DMF
September 18, 2004, 12:08 PM
Militarization of equipment is distinctly different from militarization of mindset. I agree with that statement.

However, I don't agree with the spirit in which you wrote it. The equipment that LE agencies use may sometimes have some commonality with military equipment, yet the mindset does not.

When a SWAT team meats gun fire, they don't toss in a bunch of fragmentary grenades as they back out, and they don't call in artillery or TacAir to level the place. A military mindset would be, "We were fired on - kill them all." The LE mindset is, "Control the situation, attempt to resolve the situation with as little violence as possible, and only use deadly force if necessary."

This isn't just a hypothetical. We discussed a situation, on THR, a few weeks ago, where officers were serving a knock and announce warrant on a child porn trafficker. The subject of the warrant shot two officers killing one, and wounding another. Now if that were a military op, it would have been resolved quickly with tremendous firepower to kill the person inside. However, LE did the right thing by resolving the situation, and minimizing additional violence. Even though one of their guys had just been killed, they still got the guy out unhurt. Definitely NOT a military mindset.

Old Dog
September 18, 2004, 12:13 PM
But the new ones do things, because they are told they are the sole thing holding society together and are a notch above the "rabble", that are often worse because they are supported officially in their actions and we are expected to accept it. Because they are the authority.

Give me a break ...

stevelyn
September 18, 2004, 12:17 PM
If you want to learn more about Ranch Rescue you can hear it from the horse's mouth. GOA's Larry Pratt interviewed Jack Foote founder of RR on "Live Fire" You can listen to the archived broadcast by going to the GOA website and following the link to the archives.
A month later he also interviewed Chris Simcox of Civil Homeland Defense, whose organization conducts similar activities, but is permanently located in Douglas(?) AZ. Folow the same links to listen to the archived broadcast.
Soldier of Fortune magazine also did a three part story on Ranch Rescue last year. One of their reporters volunteered for duty with RR in exchange for being able to tell the story. His first night out they intercepted a group of illegals smuggling 250 lbs. of marijuana.
I don't remember which issues they were published in, but I'll search through my stack and post the information later.
Bottom line is if the federal goobermint would do the job we pay them for organizations like RR and CHD wouldn't be necessary and ranchers wouldn't have to worry so much about the security and safeguarding of their property.


Edit to add: Ranch Rescue series run in April, May and June 2003 issues of Soldier of Fortune.

lostone1413
September 18, 2004, 02:07 PM
RileyMc you hit the nail on the head! That is why we need Ranch Rescue. If you go near the border here in Arizona unless it is an illegal or a mexican you will see darn few say anything bad against Ranch Rescue. As far as him being a felon when they shot him anyone really think are goverment isn't above setting someone up. If you think it couldn't happen read about Waco or Ruby Ridge or the Cage units in the Chicago area. Maybe the illegal search up in Wisconsin.

Old Dog
September 18, 2004, 02:22 PM
As far as him being a felon when they shot him anyone really think are goverment isn't above setting someone up.

Someone's been watching too many Oliver Stone movies or old episodes of "The X-Files."

As though our law enforcement minions of the big bad government have so much time on their hands that they sit around dreaming up plots to go after all these small-time criminals ...

I have nothing against groups like Ranch Rescue; for all I know, they are performing a valuable service down there and have the support of most of the locals. But I also know that if a law enforcement agency is targeting a solo operator, they have a pretty extensive chain of command to go through to justify that effort -- and in the wake of Ruby Ridge and Waco (which no one in federal law enforcement circles will deny was pure cluster****), the oversight is incredible. Sure, there may be a handful of "rogue" cops or feds out there going it alone in the Wyatt Earp mode and doing their own thing, but to suggest organized government involvement is pretty silly.

lostone1413
September 18, 2004, 02:32 PM
I guess you would look at it as being silly depending on what side of the badge you are on. Read like www.keepand bear arms.com or www.amren.com They reprint stories from all around the country and world. You even see what paper it was printed in. Soon you will see things like this are not uncommon at all. Watco Ruby Ridgy not a goverment setup? Give me a break

2nd Amendment
September 18, 2004, 02:35 PM
Give me a break ...

That is the kind of response I'll never understand. If you have nothing to say then why say something so pointless? I don't have to give you a break. You need to educate yourself. These are the kind of things drummed into the heads of young cops at academies and training seminars. That they are a "New Class". A "Cut Above". That society hinges on them for its very existence. That "average people" can't control themselves without the constant sword of LE over their heads to maintain "discipline". It leads to the kind of attitude that is increasingly alienating police from the Citizenry to whome they SHOULD answer at all times.

If you are unaware of this sort of "indoctrination" then I'd suggest you get out and learn somethingn and save the empty and meaningless attempts at witticism for someone who cares.

Old Dog
September 18, 2004, 02:45 PM
Have you been through a police academy? Where? Have you talked at length with instructors at a police academy? Reviewed the syllabus and curriculum at your regional academy? Do you have close friends and/or family who are police officers?

I have, in fact, educated myself (and been educated by others) on these matters. And, by the way, I wasn't attempting to be witty.

Coronach
September 18, 2004, 02:49 PM
Gee.

I must have missed those classes.

I'll assume that you have not gone through LEO training (based upon your current and past comments). I'll also assume that you will ignore the statements of those who have gone through LEO training (based upon your current and past comments) in favor of your own opinion, formed by your limited experiences (obvioulsy negative ones, I'll allow) and media exposure- which has always highlighted the exceptions rather than the rule, for gun-toters on both sides of the badge.

While I'll freely admit that there are some yahoos on my side of the badge doing everything to widen the chasm between citizens and cops, I'll note that you, personally, are doing a whole lot of shovelling as well.

Mike

Old Dog
September 18, 2004, 02:52 PM
Coronach, thank you! You said everything I forgot to say.

2nd Amendment
September 18, 2004, 04:05 PM
Sorry, Dog, but the answer to your question is a general yes. Remember, never underestimate your enemy.

Coronach, before responding to you I need a link that I simply can not find, yet. But I can say do yourself a favor...never assume anything. You'll be generally wrong...except about my dismissing the statements of those who claim to be LEO on a message board on the internet. At least if those statements disagree with people I know in the real world I'll dismiss them. My comments above are based on their words, primarily, but there's a link(two really), that I need before I even try to pursue this farther.

Old Dog
September 18, 2004, 05:07 PM
2A, we're enemies? Sorry to hear that ... I thought we were simply disagreeing ...

sendec
September 18, 2004, 05:22 PM
2A, you need to go to school. Really, go study the history of police management in the United States. Your arguments are at least 50 years out of date if not more. Paramilitary police management went the way of the hippy back in the 60's. Now just like hippies, I am sure there are still a few old school coppers around. But to make the generalization that modern American police agencies are becoming more military does'nt jibe with reality. I can only say that there is no research that supports your assertion.

I am a police academy administrator. Your version of reality does'nt coincide with anything I see or do on a daily basis.

2nd Amendment
September 18, 2004, 06:05 PM
Dog, a turn of phrase...

Sendec, YOU are the primary member here that I think of when knee-jerk defense of LE antics comes up in discussion. And I LOVE people telling me things I should do. Last time someone did that I went through and gave him a detailed list. I'm still waiting to hear back on what HE did or does "for the cause".

Your claim of militarization, I am certain, refers to the military style command structure of as late as the mid-70's, where an order was an order to be obeyed and personal initiative was discouraged if not outright forbidden. Yeah, it's been replaced(and it never even existed "everywhere"). That's not the topic here. The topic is visible militarization. Not how the cops deal with each other "in-house" but how they deal with the people. How they present themselves. How force is applied, etc. And how they are guided while becoming cops. That's the point about how they are told today they are the glue of society. Not even so much shepherds as zoo-keepers.

That doesn't sound familar to you? Well I'll keep my opinions of that to myself. The links I wanted were from a couple different sources, one of them familar to many here, that confirmed this sort of thing from people who are directly involved. Fortunately for some I can't find the info again or they might have to restate what coincides with what. But hey, it's a big 'net and I still got all day...

DMF
September 18, 2004, 06:42 PM
Well I went through my LE training with the feds, who are much villified here, and I'm sure many feel have the most militarized approach to LE.

However, I was never told I was the "glue of society." I would have fallen down laughing if anyone in LE ever said that to me, whether in training or out on the job. I was never told I was better than anyone else, or that I was the "New Class" or a "Cut Above." Quite the opposite, there were frequent reminders that the badge and credentials didn't make us better than anyone else, and to avoid that kind of thinking.

I was repeatedly reminded that I had to respect the rights of everyone, including the guy that just tried to fight and kill me when it came time to arrest him. I was repeatedly reminded that I was there to uphold the law, protect everyone's rights, ESPECIALLY the accused. It was emphasized that I had to bend over backwards to make sure I did everything the right way, maintain professionalism, and to only use the minimum amount of force necessary in cases where force was required.

Those of us that had a military background, were repeatedly reminded that we had to be sure we had the proper mindset about the job, and not to have a military mindset. Imagine that, instructors actually discouraging a military style mindset to LE. However, I'm sure you don't believe that to be true. It's true, but it doesn't fit your preconcieved notion, or some BS that you claim is proof, from some link you can't find.

Oh, sendec, Coronach, Old Dog,and I are so "fortunate" you can't find those links. :rolleyes:

Also, I will say the rank structure BS you are projecting onto sendec's comments is pure BS. Most LE agencies still maintain the same traditional rank structure, and courtesies to senior officers. However, what has changed is in fact the mindset in LE. That is what sendec was referring to with the hippie comparison.

I know you won't believe it, but that is what is going on. However, I'm sure you have a friend who has a friend who became a cop, and he will confirm all your theories, and he is the one good cop trying to change things from the inside. Something like that, because that is always how it works, people claim to have a friend or friend of a friend in LE, who is the one good guy working for change, while exposing the conspiracy within LE. :rolleyes: :barf:

mercedesrules
September 18, 2004, 07:31 PM
His first night out they intercepted a group of illegals smuggling 250 lbs. of marijuana.

Ranch Rescue won't get my sympathy if they are also wannabe drug warriors. Protecting private property and arresting "smugglers" are opposites. They are a mixed-up group.

On the one hand they are saying, "Don't come onto this man's land." and on the other they are saying, "Gimme what's in that suitcase." :scrutiny:

sendec
September 18, 2004, 07:45 PM
looking for links how about reading some of the works of Robert Peel, August Vollmer, and O.W. Wilson? They set the foundation for the profession of law enforcement within the London Metropolitan Police and the Berkley Reform movement.

Some of us do this for a living - we 'think" about how policing can be done better. Then we do "research"....

Oh, never mind, it's not reality, only the net.......

joe sixpack
September 18, 2004, 11:16 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
His first night out they intercepted a group of illegals smuggling 250 lbs. of marijuana.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by MR:

Ranch Rescue won't get my sympathy if they are also wannabe drug warriors. Protecting private property and arresting "smugglers" are opposites. They are a mixed-up group.

On the one hand they are saying, "Don't come onto this man's land." and on the other they are saying, "Gimme what's in that suitcase."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So they should've let the illegals go cause they were smuggling dope?

The following is an excerpt from the recent Time magazine article on illegal
immigration. I've only copied the section here dealing with the ranchers
and towns next to the border that details their problems:

++++++
Living in the War Zone
When the crowds cross the ranches along and near the border, they discard backpacks, empty Gatorade and water bottles and soiled clothes. They turn the land into a vast latrine, leaving behind revolting mounds of personal refuse and enough discarded plastic bags to stock a Wal-Mart. Night after night, they cut fences intended to hold in cattle and horses. Cows that eat the bags must often be killed because the plastic becomes lodged between the first and second stomachs. The immigrants steal vehicles and saddles. They poison dogs to quiet them. The illegal traffic is so heavy that some ranchers, because of the disruptions and noise, get very little sleep at night.

John Ladd Jr., a thoughtful, soft-spoken rancher just outside Bisbee, gives new meaning to the word stoic. He is forced to work the equivalent of several weeks a year to repair, as best he can, all the damage done to his property by never-ending swarms of illegal aliens. "Patience is my forte," he says, "but it's getting lower." The 14,000-acre Ladd ranch, in his mother's family since the 1800s, is right on the border. Ladd and his wife and three sons as well as his father and mother have their homes there. The largely flat, scrub-covered piece of real estate, with its occasional groves of cottonwoods, spiny mesquite and clumps of sacaton grass and desert broom, seems to offer few places to hide. But the land is laced with arroyos in which scores of people can disappear from view. Ditches provide trails from the border to Highway 92, a distance of about three miles. That is the route that Ladd says 200 to 300 illegals take every night as they enter the U.S. They punch holes in the barbed-wire border fence and then tear up the many fences intended to separate the breeding cattle—Brahmin, Angus and Hereford—that divide the Ladd land.

Ladd doesn't blame the border patrol, most of whose officers, he says, are doing all they can under the circumstances. Indeed, apprehensions of illegals in Arizona have soared from 9% of the nation's total in 1993 to 51% this year. "I have real heartache for the agents who are really working," he says. "They track down the [smugglers], and the judges let them off, and they get a free trip back to Mexico, where they can start all over." The border-patrol agents, Ladd feels, "are responsible guys in a hypocritical bureaucracy."
Border crossing at the Ladd ranch is so flagrant that sometimes the illegals arrive by taxi. A dirt road parallels the border fence and the Ladd property for several miles, in full view of border-patrol electronic lookout posts that ceased functioning long ago. When drivers reach an appropriate location, passengers pile out and run through one of the many holes in the fence and make their way across the ranch.

These gaps present their own special problem. On the other side are Mexican ranches whose cattle wander onto Ladd's. "I'm up to 215 Mexican cows that I've put back into Mexico," he says. "I've got a dual-citizen friend—he's Mexican and American—works on this side for Phelps Dodge [Mining Co.], but he's got a ranch over at the San Jose Mountain. So I call him, and then he calls the Mexican cattle inspector. Then that guy meets me at the border and then coordinates the cows getting back to the rightful owners in Mexico." Ladd acknowledges that his do-it-yourself cattle diplomacy is "breaking both countries' laws." How so? "[In] the United States, you're supposed to quarantine any Mexican cattle for 30 days, and they test them for disease and everything else. What the problem is, there isn't enough cattle inspectors to do that, and then they don't have a holding corral anymore to do that."

Why does he spend so much time returning strays? So his counterparts in Mexico will return the favor because some of his cattle amble across the border through the same holes. "The whole reason that I started doing this for the Mexican ranchers was to show 'em, 'Yeah, I'm honest. I'm going to give you yours back, so you give me mine.' And it's worked. But the whole story is that I've spent money on long-distance and talked to everybody from the Boundary Commission to USDA to border patrol to customs and everybody else, and I said, 'You need to do something with your international fence.'" He's still waiting.

While the Department of Homeland Security seemingly lacks the money to secure the border, it does have money to spend in quixotic ways. In a $13 million experimental program started in July, the border patrol will not just drop illegal Mexican aliens at the border but actually fly them, at taxpayer expense, into the heart of Mexico. The theory is that it will discourage them from making the trek north again. But as one illegal, a Dallas construction worker who was among the 138 aboard the first flight, told a Los Angeles Times reporter, "I will be going back in 15 days. I need to work. The jobs in Mexico don't pay anything."

The plight of Jim Dickson, a hospital administrator in Bisbee, is summed up with one image. It's an ambulance that pulls into tiny Copper Queen Community Hospital and discharges illegal aliens injured in an auto accident. The border-patrol officers—on orders from Washington—have refused to take them onto the hospital property after taking them into custody. Instead, the officers have called an ambulance for the injured. If the officers were to arrive at the hospital to make their drop-off, then the border patrol (make that the U.S. government) would be responsible for paying the medical bill. And that's something the Federal Government (make that Congress) will not do. Instead, the government stiffs Dickson, 56, the genial CEO of the Copper Queen, a hospital that dates back to the turn of the previous century, when Bisbee was the largest town between San Diego and St. Louis, Mo.

Dickson and his community hospital symbolize much of what has gone wrong with the immigration policies of the U.S. and Mexico—"the irresponsibility," as Dickson puts it politely, of both governments. He figures he has another three years, maybe a little longer, before he might be forced to shut down the hospital. "We used to have 250 emergency-room visits a month. Now it's 500," says Dickson. They range from a lone man or woman rescued in the desert, suffering from dehydration or a heart attack, to multiple victims injured when vans jammed with 20 or more illegals crash during high-speed chases. Along the way the hospital is seeing more and more tuberculosis, AIDS and hepatitis. "We don't have to do disaster drills like other hospitals," Dickson says. "We have enough real disasters every year."

Unlike big governments, small community hospitals cannot run deficits forever. The Copper Queen's shortfall from treating illegal aliens grows each year. This year it will be about $450,000, bringing the total for the past few years to $1.4 million. With each money-losing year, a tiny piece of the 14-bed hospital dies. When that happens, the entire community suffers. Dickson's most agonizing decision came when he was forced to shutter the long-term-care unit. "It was the only place the elderly could go," he says. "If someone had dementia, we had a room for them." But no more. Now if people who spent their life in Bisbee need elder care, they must leave the area. "The more free care we give," Dickson says, "the more we have to ration what's left."

Dickson emphasizes that not all the free care is going to illegal aliens passing through on their way to other states. About half goes to Mexicans who use the Copper Queen as their personal emergency-care facility. In effect, the hospital, which performs general surgery, has become the trauma center for that stretch of northern Mexico. If an ambulance pulls up to the border-crossing point near Bisbee and announces "compassionate entry," the border patrol waves it through, and the Copper Queen is compelled to treat the patient. It is one more program that Congress mandates but does not pay for. "If you make me treat someone," says Dickson, "then you need to pay me. You can't have unfunded mandates in a small hospital." Although the Medicare drug act that passed last year provides for modest payments to hospitals that treat illegal aliens, Dickson says there is a catch that the U.S. government has yet to figure out. "How do I document an undocumented alien? How am I going to prove I rendered that care? They have no Social Security number, no driver's license."

The limits of compassion are also being tested on the Tohono O'odham Nation. About twice the size of Delaware, the tribe's reservation shares 65 miles of border with Mexico. Like the residents of the small Arizona towns just to the east, the Native Americans, many of whom live without running water and electricity, are overwhelmed. The Nation's hospital is often packed with migrants who become dehydrated while crossing the scorching desert, where summertime temperatures reach upwards of 110 degrees. The undermanned tribal police force helps the border patrol round up as many as 1,500 illegals a day. "If this were happening in any other city or part of the country," says Vivian Juan-Saunders, Tohono O'odham chairwoman, "it would be considered a crisis."

Yet the highest levels of the U.S. and Mexican governments have orchestrated this situation as a kind of dance: Mexico sends its poor north to take jobs illegally, and the U.S. arrests enough of the border crossers to create the illusion that it is enforcing the immigration laws while allowing the great majority to get through. Local lawmen like Jim Elkins and Larry Dever have learned the dance firsthand, and their towns and counties have to pay for it.

Elkins has been the police chief in Bisbee for 12 years, on the force for 30. Dever has been the sheriff of Cochise County—which includes Bisbee and encompasses an area almost the size of Connecticut and Rhode Island, with 84 miles along the Mexican border—for eight years and a deputy before that for 20 years. The two lawmen handle the same kinds of citizen demands made on local law-enforcement agencies everywhere—from murder to drugs to reports of abandoned cats. But never have they seen the likes of today's work, in which their time is monopolized by relentless reports of alien groups making their way through the area. The entries from Bisbee police logs speak for themselves, these a sampling from Friday, May 7:

9:05 a.m.: "[Caller] advised UDAs [undocumented aliens] on foot, west [of] high school on dirt road. At least 10 in area. U.S. border patrol advised of same. 38 UDAs turned over to U.S. border patrol."

4:31 p.m.: "[Officer] located three UDAs walking on Arizona and Congdon. All three turned over to USBP [U.S. border patrol] Naco."

4:32 p.m.: "[Officer] copied a report of a silver-in-color van loaded with approximately 30 UDAs left Warren. Later copied vehicle went disabled at mile post 345 on Highway 80. Thirty to 35 UDAs were located with vehicle. UDAs turned over to U.S. border patrol."

7:52 p.m.: "[Officer] located a group of UDAs in the area [of Blackknob and Minder streets]. Fifteen UDAs turned over to BP."

10:02 p.m.: "Reported a group of UDAs gathering on the bridge on Blackknob at Minder. Officers located six UDAs. TOT [turned over to] USBP."

On and on it goes. "Every day we deal with this," says Elkins. "People don't feel safe. The smugglers are dangerous people ... I find it hard to believe we can get 80 to 100 people in our neighborhoods. They come across in droves." Transporting them requires fleets of stolen cars, which explains why Arizona ranks No. 1 in cars stolen per capita, with 56,000 ripped off last year. "This is a lot of work for us. We're a small department," says Elkins, who has 15 officers. "So much of our time is spent on federal issues. We should be getting money for this [from the Federal Government]. But we don't."

The kinds of crime found in most communities are interwoven with the illegal-alien traffic on the border. "Our methamphetamine problem is alarming," Elkins tells TIME. "The last three homicides here were related to meth. Kids doing meth will take a load of udas to Tucson or Phoenix for a couple of hundred dollars." Sheriff Dever says more than a quarter of his budget "is spent on illegal-immigration activities," and he points to the ripple effect through the criminal-justice system: "The illegal aliens can't make bond, so they spend more time in jail. They're indigent, so they get a public defender. If they have health problems, they have to be treated."

Dever feels overrun and doesn't mind who knows it. He relates a story about a recent visit by a television crew that arrived in his office and asked whether he was aware that a group of presumably illegal aliens was camped out in a drainage ditch next to the sheriff's headquarters. Sensing a story, the crew wondered if he was embarrassed by the aliens' presence. A plainspoken man, Dever said he was not the least bit embarrassed. Their presence, he said, illustrated quite pointedly just how pervasive the problem was.
The people who probably should be a little embarrassed are the folks up the road at Fort Huachuca, Ariz., home of the U.S. Army's top-secret Intelligence Center. The facility, which trains and equips military-intelligence professionals assigned around the world, also happens to be a thoroughfare for illegal aliens and drug smugglers, with mountains on the base providing a safe haven.

Using some of the same routes as the people smugglers, the drug runners are well armed, equipped with high-tech surveillance equipment and don't hesitate to use their weapons. That's what happened earlier this year, when law-enforcement officers and Mexican drug runners engaged in a fire fight at the border in front of a detachment of Marines just back from Iraq, who were installing a steel fence to prevent illegal aliens from driving through the flimsy barbed wire. The Marines, unarmed, watched placidly. None were injured.
The situation across southern Arizona has spun so far out of control that many on the border believe a day of reckoning is fast approaching, when an incident—an accidental shooting, multiple auto fatalities, a confrontation between drug and people smugglers—will touch off a higher level of violence. And the nightmare scenario: some resident frustrated by the Federal Government's refusal to halt the onslaught will begin shooting the border crossers on his or her property. As a rancher summed up the situation: "If the law can't protect you, what do you do?" Everyone, it seems, is armed, including nurses at the local hospital, who carry sidearms on their way to work out of fear for their safety
++++++++++++++
The rest of the article can be found here:
http://www.kfi640.com/time_dooropen.html

cheers, ab

joe sixpack
September 18, 2004, 11:58 PM
MR: also as regards to the "criminal" illegal aliens (drug smugglers,
murderers etc.) please see the following, again excerpted from
the Time magazine article:

Why Alien Criminals Are at Large in the U.S.
Perhaps the most alarming aspect of having 15 million illegals at large in society is Congress's failure to insist that federal agencies separate those who pose a threat from those who don't. The open borders, for example, allow illegals to come into the country, commit crimes and return home with little fear of arrest or punishment. From Oct. 1, 2003, until July 20, 2004, the border patrol's Tucson sector stopped 9,051 persons crossing into the country illegally who had criminal records in the U.S., meaning they committed crimes here, returned to Mexico, then were trying to re-enter the country. Among them: 378 with active warrants for their arrest. In one week, said border-patrol spokeswoman Andrea Zortman, there were two with outstanding "warrants for homicide."

And those were just the illegals the border patrol determined had arrest records. Most go undetected. Reason: the border patrol's electronic fingerprint-identification system, which allows officers to determine how many times an alien has been caught sneaking into the U.S., has only a limited amount of criminal-background data. The FBI maintains a separate electronic fingerprint-identification system that covers everyone ever charged with a crime. In true bureaucratic fashion, the two computer systems do not talk to each other. In the 1990s, the two agencies were directed to integrate their systems. They are still working at it. The most optimistic completion date is 2008. Until then, illegals picked up at the border may have any number of criminal charges pending, but the arresting officers will never know and will allow the intruders to return home.

In any event, the numbers suggest that tens of thousands of criminals, quite possibly hundreds of thousands, treat the southern border as a revolving door to crimes of opportunity. The situation is so out of control that of the 400,000 illegal aliens who have been ordered to be deported, 80,000 have criminal records—and the agency in charge, the Homeland Security Department, does not have a clue as to the whereabouts of any of them, criminal or noncriminal, including those from countries that support terrorism.
What's more, those figures are growing. Every day, prisons across the U.S. release alien convicts who have completed their court-ordered sentences. In many cases, the INS has filed detainers, meaning the prisons are obliged to hold the individuals until they can be picked up by immigration agents and returned to their native countries. But state law-enforcement authorities are not permitted to keep prisoners beyond their original sentence. When Homeland Security agents fail to show up promptly, which is often, the alien convicts are released back into the community. In addition to all these, at least 4 million people who arrived in the U.S. legally on work, tourist or education visas have decided to ignore immigration laws and stay permanently. Again, Homeland Security does not have the slightest idea where these visa scofflaws are.

The government's record in dealing with the 400,000 people it has ordered to be deported is dismal. A sampling of cases last year by the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General (OIG) found that of illegal aliens from countries supporting terrorism who had been ordered to be deported, only 6% of those not already in custody were actually removed. Of 114 Iranians with final orders for removal, just 11 could be found and were deported. Of 67 Sudanese with final-removal orders, only one was deported. And of 46 Iraqis with final-removal orders, only four were sent packing. All the rest, presumably, were living with impunity somewhere in the U.S.

Those statistics tell only part of the story. Most people charged with an immigration-law violation do not even bother to show up for a court hearing. Imagine for a moment a majority of people charged with a crime in state or federal courts flouting the indictment or charge and refusing to appear in court. They would be swiftly arrested.

But immigration law marches to a different drummer. Most illegals, including those with arrest records, are not jailed while awaiting a hearing. That's because Congress has failed to appropriate enough money to build sufficient holding facilities. Rather, the immigrants are released on their promise to return. They don't. And the odds are they won't be found. The OIG investigation revealed that of 204 aliens ordered to be removed in absentia, only 14 were eventually located and shipped out.

The situation is even worse when it comes to those aliens whose requests for asylum are rejected and who are ordered to be deported. The OIG study found that only 3% of those seeking asylum who were ordered removed were ultimately located and deported. That pattern, like failed immigration-law enforcement across the board, bodes well for potential terrorists. In the 1990s, half a dozen aliens applied for asylum before committing terrorist acts. Among them: Ahmad Ajaj and Ramzi Yousef, who entered the country in 1991 and 1992, respectively, seeking asylum. According to the OIG, Ajaj left the U.S. and returned in 1992 with a phony passport. He was convicted of passport fraud. Yousef completed the required paperwork and was given a date for his asylum hearing. In the meantime, in 1993, the two men helped commit the first World Trade Center attack, for which they were convicted and imprisoned. At the time, Yousef's application for asylum was still pending.


So what does the failed immigration system mean for ordinary people? Just ask Sister Helen Lynn Chaska. Actually, you can't. You will have to ask her family and friends.
It's the waning days of summer in 2002 in Klamath Falls, Ore., a city of about 19,000 on the eastern edge of the Cascade Mountains. Two nuns who belonged to the Order of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in Bellevue, Wash., had made one of their periodic trips to Klamath Falls to carry out missionary work. As they had in the past, Sister Helena Maria (her church name), 53, and Sister Mary Louise, 52, checked into a Best Western motel. On Saturday, Aug. 31, they spent the evening proselytizing and selling religious items outside an Albertsons supermarket.

After returning to the motel, the two set out on their ritual prayer walk shortly after midnight. They were dressed in the blue habits they always wore as they walked on a darkened bike path behind the motel, reciting their rosaries. As they reached the midway point in their prayers and turned back toward the motel, they heard a bicycle coming up behind them. A Hispanic male in his 30s or 40s got off, grabbed both women and began kissing them. The more they resisted, the angrier he became. He finally punched Sister Mary Louise in the right eye so hard that she fell and hit her head on a rock, leaving her dazed. While holding Sister Helena Maria so tightly by the rosary knotted around her neck that she gasped for breath, he raped her first and then raped and sodomized Sister Mary Louise and raped Sister Helena Maria a second time. The man pulled the veil over Sister Mary Louise, told her not to move or he would kill her, climbed back on his MTB Super Crown bike and pedaled off. Sister Helena Maria was dead. The rosary had been wound so tightly, its marks were embedded in her neck.

Later that day, police tracked a suspect to another motel, where they began questioning him. He gave his name as Jesus Franco Flores, which turned out to be one of many names he used. In the end, he confessed to beating and raping both nuns. He was not supposed to be in the U.S.; he had been deported at least three times. By his account, his unlawful entries into the U.S. began in 1986 at the age of 17. Under the name Victor Manuel Batres-Martinez, which may have been his legal name, he found his way to Oregon, where he was arrested for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. His sentence to a juvenile facility was suspended, with the understanding that the INS would deport him. The agency did so and in May 1987 granted him a voluntary return to Mexico, with a notation on government records that "subject has many good productive years ahead of him."
Assuming he went as the INS promised, he didn't stay long. In September that year, he was arrested and convicted of theft and shoplifting in Wenatchee, Wash., under the name Manuel Martinez. Two months later, he was convicted of felony sales of marijuana and hashish in Los Angeles and sent to jail for 60 days. In March 1988 he was arrested in Los Angeles, once for robbery, once for possession of a controlled substance. Another possession arrest followed in April. In August he was arrested in Los Angeles for robbery. In December he was sent to prison in California for second-degree robbery and kidnapping. While there, he was treated for what was deemed to be "a significant psychiatric disorder."
In January 1992, after his release, the INS sent him back to Mexico by way of Nogales, Ariz. Six months later, he was back again, spotted by border-patrol officers as he attempted to come back into the U.S. near El Paso, Texas. When agents tried to stop him, he ran into rush-hour traffic on Interstate 10, "narrowly avoiding collision with several cars," according to immigration records. He subsequently was arrested, that time under the name Mateo Jimenez, and ordered to be returned to Mexico. It didn't stick. In November he was arrested by Portland, Ore., police for possession and delivery of a controlled substance. He never showed up for court appearances.

On two occasions in January 2002, border-patrol agents again apprehended him as he tried to re-enter the U.S. Both times they returned him to Mexico. If the border patrol's electronic fingerprint-identification system had been in synch with the FBI's, the agents would have discovered Batres-Martinez's extensive criminal record. Given his prior deportations, Batres-Martinez could have been charged with re-entry after deportation, a felony that carries a substantial prison sentence. In any event, Batres-Martinez told police in Klamath Falls that he entered the U.S. on Aug. 11, 2002, that time coming through New Mexico. He said he hopped a freight train for San Bernardino, Calif., and looked for work, without success, from Los Angeles to Stockton. When he heard that he might have better luck in Portland, he hopped another train but got mixed up in a freight yard and ended up in Klamath Falls.

To avoid the death penalty, Batres-Martinez pleaded guilty to the murder of Sister Helena Maria, attempted aggravated murder of Sister Mary Louise and rape of both nuns. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

As for U.S. immigration authorities, they were characteristically ineffectual. On Sept. 5, four days after the murder, the INS faxed an immigration detainer to the Klamath County jail, concerning Maximiliano Silerio Esparza, also known as Victor Batres-Martinez: "You are advised that the action below has been taken by the Immigration and Naturalization Service concerning the above-named inmate of your institution: Investigation has been initiated to determine whether this person is subject to removal from the United States."
Both political parties and their candidates pay lip service to controlling the borders. But neither President Bush nor Senator Kerry supports a system that would end the incentives for border crossers by cracking down on the employers of illegals. T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, a labor organization that represents 10,000 border-patrol employees, believes the solution is obvious. The U.S. government, he says, should "issue a single document that's counterfeit proof, that has an embedded photograph, that says this person has a right to work in the U.S. And that document is the Social Security card. It's not a national ID card. It's a card that you have to carry when you apply for a job and only then. The employers run it through a scanner, and they get an answer in short order that says, Yes, you may hire, or No, you may not. That would cut off 98% of all the traffic across the border. With your work force of 10,000 border-patrol agents, you actually could control the borders."

But Bonner doesn't see that happening anytime soon because of pressure from corporate America. And all the available legislative evidence of the past quarter-century supports that view. "All the politicians—it doesn't matter which side of the aisle you're on—rely heavily on the donations from Big Business," he says, "and Big Business likes this system [of cheap illegal labor]. Unfortunately, in the post-9/11 world, this system puts us in jeopardy."
In the 9/11 commission's final report, now on the best-seller lists, the panel of investigators took note of the immigration breakdown in general, saying that "two systemic weaknesses came together in our border system's inability to contribute to an effective defense against the 9/11 attacks: a lack of well-developed counterterrorism measures as a part of border security and an immigration system not able to deliver on its basic commitments, much less support counterterrorism. These weaknesses have been reduced but are far from being overcome."

Folks on the border who must deal daily with the throngs of illegals are not optimistic that the Federal Government will change its ways. As Cochise County Sheriff Dever dryly observes, "People in Washington get up in the morning, their laundry is done, their floors are cleaned, their meals are cooked. Guess who's doing that?"

2nd Amendment
September 19, 2004, 12:09 AM
Well, I can't find the links I wanted so I simply give up.

But, the more I read the more that seems OK. I just don't care enough anymore to argue some things. The old indignation flares up for a while and then it's overwhelmed by a case of "Who cares". Easier just to let the ignorant make their assumptions and continue to insist that everyone who picks away at LE is and always has been on the outside looking in. It's a matter of my increasing lack of respect for that opposition, based on comments such as "...Dont do something that would cause your farm to be referred to as a compound." and other such thoughtless crap. That and the closing of ranks everytime the rabble dare "bash LE".

*shrug* Time will tell, won't it?

Old Dog
September 19, 2004, 12:31 AM
It is good that we have citizens who want to be watchdogs over our government and its agencies. Isn't that a founding principle of our country?

It is good that we have folks out there who are suspicious of our government, its military establishment and its law enforcement agencies. It's even good that we have a liberal media (as frustrating as that is). This all keeps MOST of us doing our jobs in accordance with the higher principles which should guide us.

But 2A, just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are ignorant. I regularly disagree with many people (some are even family members) who are much better educated than I am ... and probably in most respects, a whole lot smarter. But, everyone's experience is different. Does that mean I shouldn't get pissed off when some ultra-liberal college professor tries to tell me that the government I serve and the organization I work for has totally screwed up the war on terrorism? No. But I'm not gonna call him ignorant. He's entitled to his opinion, and, in fact, he's done his research. It's just that from where he sits, his experience is a world of difference from mine ...

DMF
September 19, 2004, 01:02 AM
Easier just to let the ignorant make their assumptions and continue to insist that everyone who picks away at LE is and always has been on the outside looking in. How ironic to say that those of us who have actually been through LE training and do the job are the ignorant ones. Also, where did anyone say that everyone who criticizes LE has always "been on the outside looking in?"

Just because you don't like what others are saying doesn't mean it's automatically wrong. Also, to say that those that have done the job and been through the training are ignorant is just ridiculous. Maybe you should look up the definition of that word before throwing it around. Also, look up ironic, so you will know why I described your comment with that word.

SUE ROVR
September 19, 2004, 02:50 AM
They need to make it a felony so that you can SOS.

I am betting this alone will reduce illegal immegration to a trickle in AZ and Texas where you can use deadly force to stop a felony.

Anyone remember B-1 Bob Dornan and the fence model in the House about 10 years ago?

Matt G
September 19, 2004, 05:54 AM
2A said: That's not the topic here. The topic is visible militarization. Not how the cops deal with each other "in-house" but how they deal with the people. How they present themselves. How force is applied, etc. And how they are guided while becoming cops. That's the point about how they are told today they are the glue of society. Not even so much shepherds as zoo-keepers.

I know a cop or two who think that "those civilians just don't understand, couldn't/wouldn't ever..."

You know what? Most cops I know smirk at that kind of cop. The rest just ignore them. There's little sense in arguing with them; they're convinced that they are above.

Here's the thing, though: they're only a tiny small fraction of the cops I know. (and as the son of a lifelong cop who works in the county I grew up in, I know a lot of cops.)

As for a growing sense of Us/Them, I'd say it's shrinking, in a lot of ways. I hear a lot of "Well back in the day, a person showed some respect to a police officer." Well, back in the day, a cop had a lot more leeway, if he wanted to arrest a disrespectful person, and then give said person a little "tuneup" on the way to the jail. I'm not saying it never happens anywhere anymore, but I've never seen it, and it's getty pretty rare. There's a reason I can't carry my dad's old sap on duty.

Classes I had to take in Academy or in-service, that I doubt were taught 35 years ago:

Community Oriented Policing
Cultural Diversity
Sexual Misconduct Awareness
Racial Profiling (that's a "Don't do it" class, not a "Do It" class. :) )

And I'll just bet that my Use Of Force classes were a touch more detailed, with a lot more push NOT to shoot, then it was in my dad's academy days. Remember, TN v. Garner hadn't come out yet-- cops could (and did) shoot at fleeing felons back then.
:what: Different times.

Is it perfect now? Heck no.

Do we have a LONG way to go? You bet.

Will some citizens ALWAYS be mad at cops when cops do their jobs. Absolutely, no matter how nice they are. How do I know? Because I made 4 traffic stops this evening. I wrote 3 warnings, and all of those drivers thought I was the nicest cop in the world. The one I wrote a ticket to? She thinks I'm a bad, bad apple, and I'm rotten to the core. [shrug] Nothing I can really do to change her mind. So I gave her the most professional, courteous demeanor I could, even while it was clear she thought I probably had dined on slaughtered kittens for breakfast. That's what just about every street cop I know does. But the chasm will always exist.

My chief, a man I really respect, would have me in his office, tearing me a new orifice if I didn't treat the citizenry with respect. And if that didn't do it, he'd send me packing. That's the way it is in just about any department you'll find, because the chief answers to the City Council, who doesn't want to hear from their constituants that the City is employeeing rude thugs.

stevelyn
September 19, 2004, 09:53 AM
Ranch Rescue won't get my sympathy if they're out there being wannabe drug warriors.

Being drug warriors was not the purpose of their job. The siezed marijuana was incidental to intercepting the illegal border crossers who just happened to be carrying it across.

I think we are in agreement on the so-called failed Drug War. But if I just rounded up a group of illegals I'm holding for authorities who've trespassed on private property and they have a load of dope on them, I'm certainly going to turn the dope over to LE when the arrive. I certainly don't want to lay claim to it. I also don't want to do anything that would bring negative light on my charitable organization.

JohnBT
September 19, 2004, 06:27 PM
Some days I think I'm in a real minority around here. I appreciate police officers. Thanks folks.

I've enjoyed the fascinating discussion of whether or not Ranch Rescue should be employing a volunteer with a conviction for kidnapping/unlawful detainment, etc. I'd have to say no, they'd be better off without him and his kind.

John

2nd Amendment
September 19, 2004, 07:25 PM
But 2A, just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are ignorant.

Did not say anyone was ignorant for disagreeing, but rather for assuming things to support their disagreement. Specifically that it is always an "us vs them" discussion. It's not, though that is the angle here. Here's you a case in point now:

How ironic to say that those of us who have actually been through LE training and do the job are the ignorant ones.

One of the very assumptions I was referring to as ignorant, which I thought I had made rather clear. But regardless, I will agree it's a matter of experience. And in the end that's a big part of why I'm just tired of arguing these topics(though I'll probably get all fired up again at sometime). People will stick with their own perceptions colored by their own experiences and those of people close to them. THAT is the ultimate "us vs them" argument.

sendec
September 19, 2004, 08:24 PM
I have no clue as to what you are trying to say, so here's a picture of a rabbit with a donut on it's head:

telewinz
September 19, 2004, 09:05 PM
We have a successful Neighborhood Watch group around here. No guns or night vision required hmm...maybe this is a new cover for militia groups! A rose by anyother name.

DMF
September 19, 2004, 09:50 PM
sendec, LMAO! Thanks.

El Tejon
September 19, 2004, 09:58 PM
sendec, that's it! Send the rabbit toward the militia boys, it then hops back with the last, best hopes for freedom in hot pursuit of the donut and they are all whisked off to the pokey. Everyone wins--the police get their man, the militia boys get their donut, and the public is rid of the militia boys.:D

2nd Amendment
September 19, 2004, 11:59 PM
I've grown rather accustomed to you finding yourself in that position, sendec. That's ok, though. Someone has to post cute, fuzzy bunny pictures. :)

Art Eatman
September 20, 2004, 02:49 AM
2A commented: "That and the closing of ranks everytime the rabble dare "bash LE"."

For all: It's not a closing of ranks. It's my fed-up-ness with the backing and forthing of "You did!" "I didn't!" kindergarten stuff.

Somebody makes a point with a rational set of reasons for an opinion, I don't care what position they take on an issue. But how many times do folks take some pre-determined, knee-jerk opinion based on sketchy info from some newspaper article? And then, later, we find out from details that they yowling and howling was unwarranted? Or an isolated instance of terminal stoopididididity? And in the meantime there are pointless squabbles and examples of rudeness and discourtesy to other members?

Danged shame you can't send Valium via PM or email...

Grump.

Art

Muzzleflash
September 20, 2004, 05:20 AM
The Weavers believed that the JOOOOOZ run the world, yet they were engaged in the Jewish-wannabe religion often referred to as "messianic israel". (possibly the ultra-fringe one with the convoluted mental gymnastics holding that true israel is actually white people from england)

Note how one of them screamed out the "sacred name" Yahweh. Of course, they addressed the god who was too holy to be referred to with pagan names such as 'lord' or 'god' with lips that also spouted obscenities in times of stress. A few nuts short of a can of planters.

Hilarious. A bunch of people who believe that we Joooooz run the world (ZOG) yet they're Jew wannabes. That makes me smile.

Shame they didn't Jonestown it. Ah well, life is never perfect.

tcsd1236
September 20, 2004, 08:48 AM
That is the kind of response I'll never understand. If you have nothing to say then why say something so pointless? I don't have to give you a break. You need to educate yourself. These are the kind of things drummed into the heads of young cops at academies and training seminars. That they are a "New Class". A "Cut Above". That society hinges on them for its very existence. That "average people" can't control themselves without the constant sword of LE over their heads to maintain "discipline". It leads to the kind of attitude that is increasingly alienating police from the Citizenry to whome they SHOULD answer at all times.
Just how many police basic schools have you sat in on that you even know what you are talking about? Building esprit d'corps, trust in your fellow officers and working as a team does not equate with telling them they are a cut above the rest of society. If thats what basic schools are doing in your mind, then military basic is guilty of the same thing.

As for the original incident, usually when the subject of no-knocks come up, people start shouting about how they should have tried to nab the guy in public when he was out and about in public. Here was a prime example of why that tactic isn't a good plan to folow.

Jon Coppenbarger
September 20, 2004, 01:27 PM
Yes I see your point as getting them in puplic is not a good ideal as they get way to many witnesses and how can you control all that many different persons stories.
They are not unlike the old saying the only wistness you want left is the one left alive to tell it. so doing it in puplic might be a bad ideal.

I liked the one with that guy in Utah you know and remember they shot him while he went to get his mail out of his mail box down by the road. Rural, no witnesses.
Yeah his family a couple of years later were the one's held up in their ranch compound for allegedly trying blow up a church or something. Can not remember to save me and oh well it really does not matter once the rabbit tape starts playing full blast day and night with those spot lights.

Just guess the govt. killing a guy that did not carry a weapon down to the end of his drive to just get his mail on his snow mobil in a winter storm was reason enough to kill him.
And then his family had no right to alegidly try to start trouble a few years later so they could get the compound treatment.

We just want to know what happened and can any of you leo's provide us the stories so we can reast assurred its right and not let our minds run a muk.

It would make no sense to just start picking out qoutes and phrases from some different folks here that already posted like soem folks did to 2A.

I went threw and found alot of little they had the rights to and he was this and that and we should support them 100%. Heh I was to do that too.

And ranch rescue not having anything to do with this guy I guess you must of all missed the part where they had a legal defense fund set up for him run by the ranch rescue folks.
Why did you say they should get rid of him and do not have anything to do with him. was that so he would not have any support.
If they are still defending him and was there as it seems for each incident other than the shooing of a female friend while shopping I think that should be there choice if he is a stand up guy or not.

tcsd1236
September 20, 2004, 01:31 PM
Yes I see your point as getting them in puplic is not a good ideal as they get way to many witnesses and how can you control all that many different persons stories.
Loosen up the tinfoil. Thats not why we don't like to arrest someone out in the open; its more hazardous to the general public.

CentralTexas
September 20, 2004, 03:59 PM
Been busy, but to reply to you Tamara-
You said-

Being all non-spongecakelike yourself, we can safely assume that:

1) Your dues to the NRA, GOA, JPFO, and CRPA are all paid up.
NRA,GOA,TSRA- Yes

2) That you have attended a protest or two in the last couple months.
I would have been alone, we don't even have anti-gun protests here anymore

3) That you have written and/or called all your federal, state, and local Elected Things in the last couple of months.
Every week for a month before the AWB as a matter of fact

4) That you have actively participated in the election campaigns of pro-gun candidates recently, handing out flyers, posting signs, answering phones, et cetera.
I give money to the Libertarians in lieu of time (being back in school) and
I talk to people every chance I get about RKBA

5) That you have donated money to the election funds of pro-gun candidates.
See above, also buy items from groups like JPFO to show others

But whether I follow your little checklist or not has nothing to do with my statement. Many on this board will just hand in their guns when the time comes. It takes guts to hang it all out or die for your beliefs. Several hundred years ago Americans did it on a regular basis, 90% of Americans aren't like that today.
CT

longrifleman
September 20, 2004, 06:46 PM
Loosen up the tinfoil. Thats not why we don't like to arrest someone out in the open; its more hazardous to the general public.

Your point is accurate for normal criminals but
'no witnesses" is accurate for politically motivated arrests. We need to know the motivations behind the arrests before deciding wether the tactics are good/bad law enforcement or JBThuggery.


There are plenty of bad guys out there, the government does'nt need to make work for itself by "ginning up" charges.

My point wasn't about framing an "inoccent" man but more along the lines of Ayn Rand's quote about having soo many laws on the books that everyone is guilty of something, and the govt can wait until it is to their best advantage to decide to arrest whoever.

Before the conspiracy nut charge is leveled (again, I think) follow this scenario: a call from someone high up in the Justice Dept to FBI Headquarters- a call from FBI in Wash. to the Special Agent in Charge of the approiate office- SAC calls in 2-6 agents who are opposed to Ranch Rescue et al for whatever reason (I can think of several) and says domestic terrorists, sic 'em. Political problems for the establishment are discredited and arrested. If they fight back and are killed so much the better. Doing it in public and shooting maybe innocent bystanders is incompentent. That is the only thing that makes me think it isn't this scenario. I hope the Fibbies aren't that stupid.

Conspiracy? No. The type of bs that govts have been doing since govt was invented? Yep. At least political dissenters and opponents of current policy aren't crucified along Pennsylvania Ave. We're making progress!

The Real Mad Max
September 20, 2004, 07:16 PM
Its amazing the amount of bandwidth that is taken up here in defense of miscreants, criminals, felons and thugs...

And the offense taken towards LEOs.

An upside down world exists here.

:uhoh:

CentralTexas
September 20, 2004, 07:26 PM
"Its amazing the amount of bandwidth that is taken up here in defense of miscreants, criminals, felons and thugs..."

Almost as bad as the amount taken up with the attitude "The world is perfect ,anything that happens at the hands of officials of the govt. must have deserved it":rolleyes:
CT

confinedbythecurtain
September 20, 2004, 07:36 PM
Amen Cosmoline!

The Real Mad Max
September 20, 2004, 07:37 PM
"The world is perfect ,anything that happens at the hands of officials of the govt. must have deserved it"

Well, now, thats a leap of conclusions. But now that you mentioned it, thats probably pretty true. I'd bet the percentages hover around 98% get what they got coming.

Old Dog
September 20, 2004, 08:07 PM
Maybe we should pause a moment to summarize ...
-- Law enforcement: bad, cops in this country are taught they are a class above private citizens.
-- Government: conniving govt' employees in federal agencies have lots of time on their hands to target small-time bad guys who are probably just misunderstood do-gooders protecting our borders because the big bad government is too screwed up to do it right ...
--- Federal agents: look for every chance to mobilize all regional assets (no matter the expense) toward the target, to frame, capture or (preferably) kill (without witnesses) the aforementioned small-time suspected offender ...
--- Benefit of the doubt must always be given to the misunderstood victim of law enforcement, because he/she was undoubtedly framed prior to being murdered in cold blood with no due process.
--- Benefit of the doubt must never be given to agents of the federal government or local law enforcement, since they are taught at the academy that they are a class above private citizens and enjoy conspiring against the poor, misunderstood citizens ...
--- You are ignorant if you actually believe that most law enforcement personnel or federal government employees/agents in this country are hard-working decent people who respect the rights of private citizens.
I think this thread kinda turned into us vs. them somewhere along the line ...

The Real Mad Max
September 20, 2004, 08:11 PM
I think this thread kinda turned into us vs. them somewhere along the line ...

Yes. An unfortunate and reoccuring theme here...

longrifleman
September 20, 2004, 08:33 PM
I'd bet the percentages hover around 98% get what they got coming.

Small consolation if you are in the other 2%.

Also, the larger point isn't that most people arrested didn't do something against the law, or even something bad (not necessarily the same thing). The point is that it is possible and even easy to use the power of the law to attack political dissidents, whatever the type of challenge to the existing govt.

Most people here have expressed disagreement with the current policy on (lack of) guarding the borders. The people who run things don't care what we think. As long as it is just some grumbling we are no threat, and we will be ignored. Anyone who seriously trys to change things is a threat to the established order. Ranch Rescue et al are a visible challenge to the authority of the govt and the established order. Even without the immigration question that is enough to get them targeted for surveillance at least. If they become a serious threat they will be attacked. The LEO's probably won't like the word attacked, and I understand why. If the primary reason they are being arrested is political the word is appropriate.

Are all the people associated with Ranch Rescue going to be saints? Unlikely. That doesn't mean that the primary reason for govt interest in them isn't political.

The Real Mad Max
September 20, 2004, 08:39 PM
Small consolation if you are in the other 2%.

If you could point out a system that will give us better than 2%, then I'm all for it...

(What was that sound...I can hear a pin drop...)

longrifleman
September 20, 2004, 08:57 PM
--- You are ignorant if you actually believe that most law enforcement personnel or federal government employees/agents in this country are hard-working decent people who respect the rights of private citizens.

There is no doubt that most are. Even the agents involved in this may not be motivated by any political calculations. The people who decide who gets investigated and prosecuted absolutely will be motivated by politics.

Most LEO's take a very dim view of any type of vigilante activity and Ranch Rescue is definately in that category, so antipathy towards them is to be expected.


-- Government: conniving govt' employees in federal agencies have lots of time on their hands to target small-time bad guys who are probably just misunderstood do-gooders protecting our borders because the big bad government is too screwed up to do it right ...

The govt isn't too screwed up to do it. The unoffical policy is to NOT do it. With all due respect, if you disagree with that assessment how do you explain the well documented policy of catch and release in place now?(If I didn't know better I'd think that the Fish and Wildlife Service was in charge of immigration policy)

--- Federal agents: look for every chance to mobilize all regional assets (no matter the expense) toward the target, to frame, capture or (preferably) kill (without witnesses) the aforementioned small-time suspected offender ...

Political assisination has been common for govts throughout history. It has been very very rare in America. The best way to keep it that way is constant oversite, even if that grates on LEO's from time to time.

--- Benefit of the doubt must always be given to the misunderstood victim of law enforcement, because he/she was undoubtedly framed prior to being murdered in cold blood with no due process.

That whole innocent until proven guilty thing is such a drag ain't it.:neener:

longrifleman
September 20, 2004, 09:05 PM
If you could point out a system that will give us better than 2%, then I'm all for it...

I don't care about other systems. I live here. Perfection will never be achieved but should be the goal.

If you are the one setting in jail on a bogus charge I think your perspective on the accuracy rate might be a bit different.

Me and Joe Jim Bob are innocent but the other 98 guys in the cell block are guilty as sin so I'll do my 20 years with a smile.:p

Jon Coppenbarger
September 20, 2004, 09:43 PM
put me on a jury!
I can tell who's guilty why would they arrest him if he was not guilty?
the felon's and thugs are easy to spot as they sit at the table opisite the prosecution.

I would make the best jurer and why have a trail instead of spending all that money lets just burn them up or shoot at them with coptors and machine guns or shoot their wifes and children,

Oh wait I forgot we already do that and it must be legal instead of a trial as none of them have ever spent a day in jail for it. Or will

Muzzleflash
September 20, 2004, 09:53 PM
I'm not going to mourn the death of people that think jews are evil and run the world.

It's the #1 reason I agree with the people who want everyone in the US to be able to own any weapon up to a 155mm howitzer- when that happens, the NeoNazis and Klukkers are going to be TOAST.

:cool:

cropcirclewalker
September 20, 2004, 11:46 PM
The most profound thing in this whole thread from LEO was the rabbit with the donut on it's head.

Is that a mascot?

Are there any more pictures?

Did you get it at the academy?

:neener:

Muzzleflash
September 20, 2004, 11:55 PM
The rabbit with a pancake / waffle / belgian waffle / donut / melon helmet trend is from a few years back. These things pop up now and then on forums where the participants aren't aware of it being old.

ALL YOUR RABBIT ARE BELONG TO US.

sendec
September 21, 2004, 12:25 AM
Muzzleflash is right, there is a whole series of the poor exploited bunny. When I'm not busy teaching the candidates that they are a super-race of elitists and the proper way of disappearing political dissidents I promote rabbit porn

cropcirclewalker
September 21, 2004, 01:06 AM
somehow the picture with the pancake just doesn't have the same impact. I just cannot imagine a bunch of leos hanging out at an IHOP.

I could be wrong, Iv'e been wrong before, but donuts and the leo.......well, they just belong together.

I am currently using the original photo of the bunny with the donut on it's head as wallpaper but it's kinda small. Have you got a bigger one? or a link?

Could I have a future in law enforcement?

:p

DMF
September 21, 2004, 01:08 AM
sendec, got any pics with pastries and kittens? You know all us fed JBTs want to see the kittens. :D

Muzzleflash
September 21, 2004, 01:22 AM
I think a lot of the people in this thread are tinfoil helmet wearing nutcases...

So here's a cat who also protects his brain from mind control to keep you company.

http://www.cybersalt.org/cleanlaugh/images/cats/catmelonhead.jpg

longrifleman
September 21, 2004, 02:46 AM
I think a lot of the people in this thread are tinfoil helmet wearing nutcases...

Well, the general opinon is Reynolds Wrap is the best but I can buy Wal-Mart enough cheaper that I just put on more layers. Besides, the microscopic magical Chinese writing on it gives me SUPER KUNG-FU GRIP!
If I squint my eyes up just right it also makes me invisible. Haven't got that walking through walls thing mastered yet. I keep bumping my nose.


Did the cat drink all the Tequila that goes with that lime?

cropcirclewalker
September 21, 2004, 10:35 AM
I am not the one hoarding animal porn. And....

I threw away my tinfoil hat when they came out with Norplant, no, I mean Norstar, no, I mean Onstar, no, I mean Onplant, the little gps tracking device that they insert under the skin of your arm. Tinfoil doesn't work on that.

And further........This melon / pancake stuff is off topic.


Leos and donuts.......on topic.
Kittens with donuts.......on topic.
Any swinelike animal with donuts.....on topic.
Actually, anything with donuts.......on topic.

Cats with melons on their heads.......off topic.
:scrutiny: :uhoh:

oldfart
September 21, 2004, 02:18 PM
Lordy, six pages and umpteen different subjects. Now I know how it feels to start a campfire and see the whole forest burn up!

longrifleman
September 21, 2004, 02:56 PM
Glad I could add a little excitement to your life. Any time you need a thread hijacked just let me know.

:neener:

mephisto
September 21, 2004, 04:38 PM
How about a jackalope with marshmallows on its antlers.

The Real Mad Max
September 21, 2004, 07:32 PM
:)

WilderBill
September 21, 2004, 09:06 PM
I've been using what spare timer I have, a few minutes a day for days, to reach the end of this to comment.:confused:

If I recall there was , once, a thread about Ranch Rescue and some sort of .gov/LEO action against them or one of theirs.

I kinda lost the original story in all the BS. :scrutiny:

If Ranch Rescue or anyone else wants to do something about this whole invasion thing, I'm all for it. In fact, for all I care, they can freakin' lay land mines across the whole border.

If someone wants to stop them from doing what they can, that makes them a part of the original problem, no matter why they do it or who pays them.

Just my opinion.
What would I know, I only live in a place that had to fight to win independence from Mexico only to find that there is very little point in speaking Englist here, because no one else on the street can even begin to understand it. :(

The Real Mad Max
September 22, 2004, 07:55 PM
What would I know, I only live in a place that had to fight to win independence from Mexico only to find that there is very little point in speaking Englist here, because no one else on the street can even begin to understand it.

Or spell it? :D

atek3
October 11, 2004, 09:20 AM
Not to be a "Party Pooper" but what about Kalen Riddle? He just made "furtive movements" and is now dead, end of story? Rack up another Whack and Stack?

atek3

tcsd1236
October 11, 2004, 11:11 AM
but what about Kalen Riddle? He just made "furtive movements" and is now dead, end of story? Rack up another Whack and Stack?
From what I have read of him, he was no angel. Maybe he should have complied quickly and completely with officers instructions at the scene after Nethercott fled to the compound where Riddle was located.

Tag
October 11, 2004, 01:24 PM
I'd say the situation on our southern border throws into sharp relief how ineffectual any attempts at 'homeland security' will be.

That whole situation down there just enrages me.

:banghead: :cuss: :fire:

lostone1413
October 11, 2004, 03:55 PM
Tag you will never see the goverment try and keep the illegals out. Here they destroy are property keep the wages low and you talk to almost all the LEOs in AZ and the majority will tell you that over 50% that they arrest are illegals. The trouble is are leaders in both parties are making money on the illegals working for low wages. Then the Democraps get another bonus look at the votes they get. Don't ever think allot of them aren't voting

If you enjoyed reading about "The Next Waco?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!