Holding someone at gunpoint for Police?


PDA






usmarine0352_2005
February 9, 2009, 08:47 PM
.

What's his chance of winning this?


Isn't holding someone at gunpoint considered "kidnapping"? (Even though he was holding them for police, they weren't allowed to leave.)



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,490084,00.html


Arizona Rancher Who Stopped Illegal Immigrants at Border Now Fighting $32 Million Lawsuit

Monday, February 09, 2009

An Arizona man who has waged a 10-year campaign to stop a flood of illegal immigrants from crossing his property is being sued by 16 Mexican nationals — seeking $32 million in damages — who accuse him of conspiring to violate their civil rights when he stopped them at gunpoint on his ranch on the U.S.-Mexico border, the Washington Times reported Monday.

The rancher, Roger Barnett, 64, began rounding up illegal immigrants in 1998 and turning them over to the U.S. Border Patrol after they destroyed his property, killed his calves and broke into his home, the newspaper reported.

The lawsuit is based on a March 7, 2004, incident in a dry wash on the 22,000-acre ranch, when he approached a group of illegal immigrants while carrying a gun and accompanied by a large dog.

Attorneys for the immigrants — five women and 11 men who were trying to cross illegally into the United States — have accused Barnett of holding the group captive at gunpoint, threatening to turn his dog loose on them and saying he would shoot anyone who tried to escape.

His Cross Rail Ranch near Douglas, Ariz., is known by federal and county law enforcement authorities as "the avenue of choice" for immigrants seeking to enter the United States illegally, the newspaper reports.


.

If you enjoyed reading about "Holding someone at gunpoint for Police?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
MachIVshooter
February 9, 2009, 08:50 PM
Citizens arrest. If only a few more folks had his fortitude.

Anything else I'd say on this matter isn't very high road, so I'll leave it at that.

mljdeckard
February 9, 2009, 08:51 PM
If it's in a federal court, it will be tougher. In a local court, he might stand a chance.

mgkdrgn
February 9, 2009, 08:51 PM
They can sue him because they don't like the way he parts his hair ... doesn't mean they will collect anything.

Travis Bickle
February 9, 2009, 09:14 PM
Isn't holding someone at gunpoint considered "kidnapping"?

Arizona law explicitly allows one to make a citizen's arrest for any felony or for a misdemeanor which disturbs the public peace, provided that the arrestor personally witnessed the offense occurring.

Trespassing is usually a misdemeanor in Arizona, and I have no idea whether or not it is considered to disturb the public peace.

In any case, kidnapping is usually a state criminal matter and this case is a federal civil case, so it may have little or no bearing that Barnett was not in violation of the state criminal code. Note that Barnett is not being sued for kidnapping, but for "conspiring to violate their civil rights," whatever the frick that means.

Rezin
February 9, 2009, 09:19 PM
I hope he comes out scott-free........... In that situation, *I* think he did what needed to be done.....

X-Rap
February 9, 2009, 09:20 PM
Sadly they would also probably win if they didn't like the way he parted his hair.
We have gone a long way in giving up our countrys sovereignty and our own personal rights and case history could be a flip of the coin in similar cases.

Jeff White
February 9, 2009, 09:20 PM
The first post about immigration policy and this thread is done. You will confine the discussion to what constitutes a citizen's arrest in Arizona and if and under what circumstances one can take someone into custody and hold them for the police.

I have never seen a citizen's arrest law that afforded the citizen the same civil tort protection as a peace officer has under the law.

psyopspec
February 9, 2009, 09:22 PM
How does an ILLEGAL have CIVIL rights in the united states?

Not to say the system isn't horribly abused, but legal or illegal, EVERYONE has CIVIL rights. Philosophically speaking, the COTUS and BOR just identifies that which is inherent to human existence.

WardenWolf
February 9, 2009, 09:38 PM
They'll never win this one in an Arizona court. I guarantee that. Arizona is highly anti-illegal.

One thing society needs to wake up and realize is that illegal immigrants are, on their face, dishonest. They're here ILLEGALLY, after all, and are trying to steal something they have not earned while pretending (lying) that they belong here. It should go like this, "Okay, you're here illegally. Your actions in coming here illegally have already established that you're a pathological liar. You'll be handed over to ICE for deportation. Next!"

X-Rap
February 9, 2009, 09:44 PM
As you say Jeff I don't believe that he will have success unless he can show he was in danger, then he will need to show that the danger remained present if the trespassers left his presence.

Jeff White
February 9, 2009, 10:17 PM
Trespassing is a misdemeanor in Arizona, but I have no idea whether or not it is considered to disturb the public peace.

I haven't seen the Arizona statute but I doubt that trespass on a ranch out in the middle of nowhere would be considered a breach of the public peace.

In any case, kidnapping is usually a state criminal matter and this case is a federal civil case, so it may have little or no bearing that Barnett was not in violation of the state criminal code.

Kidnapping is a federal offense, it has been since the Lindberg kidnapping in the 30s. But I don't think kidnapping would apply. Here we have a state law against "Unlawful Restraint". If Arizona has a similar law, that might apply. People violate state and federal criminal codes all the time and aren't charged for it. That isn't anything unusual.

The thing to be aware of if you are going to detain someone against their will for the police is that while your actions may have been legal under the law that permits a citizen's arrest, you don't have any civil tort protection. The law grants peace officers and other public officials protection from civil action for legal actions they take in the course of their duties. Private citizens have no such protection. Even if your detention of a person was legal and permitted under the criminal code, you have no protection against any civil claims that may arise from those actions. If the person you detained wants to sue you for mental and emotional stress and a lifetime of treatment for PTSD because looking into the barrel of your gun made the detainee feel he was staring into the gates of hell and is now traumatized for life, and a jury decides to buy off on that, guess what? If the jury wants you to pay a few million in punitive damages so you never put anyone through that again, then guess what.

That's just one reason why it's often not the best idea to make a citizen's arrest.

cbrgator
February 9, 2009, 10:22 PM
Isn't holding someone at gunpoint considered "kidnapping"? (Even though he was holding them for police, they weren't allowed to leave.)

No, this would not be kidnapping. If anything, it would be false imprisonment. As far as who will win, there are too may unknowns to make an educated guess. I don't know what rights illegal immigrants are entitled to in Arizona nor what laws govern citizen's encounters with them.

Travis Bickle
February 9, 2009, 10:35 PM
Kidnapping is a federal offense

Kidnapping is only a federal offense in certain rare circumstances, and none of those apply here:

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01034.htm

The thing to be aware of if you are going to detain someone against their will for the police is that while your actions may have been legal under the law that permits a citizen's arrest, you don't have any civil tort protection. The law grants peace officers and other public officials protection from civil action for legal actions they take in the course of their duties. Private citizens have no such protection. Even if your detention of a person was legal and permitted under the criminal code, you have no protection against any civil claims that may arise from those actions. If the person you detained wants to sue you for mental and emotional stress and a lifetime of treatment for PTSD because looking into the barrel of your gun made the detainee feel he was staring into the gates of hell and is now traumatized for life, and a jury decides to buy off on that, guess what? If the jury wants you to pay a few million in punitive damages so you never put anyone through that again, then guess what.

In Arizona state law bars anyone from suing for injuries sustained as a result of committing a criminal offense. However, in most cases, I still think a citizen's arrest is a lot more trouble than it's worth and it's better to let the cops handle it.

The bottom line is that even if Barnett didn't do anything illegal, it was still stupid and a whole lot more trouble than it was worth.

Jeff White
February 9, 2009, 11:07 PM
In Arizona state law bars anyone from suing for injuries sustained as a result of committing a criminal offense.

Is trespassing a criminal offense in Arizona? Or does it take certain circumstances to make it one? There is always a way to be sued. All it takes is convincing the judge that the person you want to sue committed such misconduct that he shouldn't be protected by the law and the suit goes forward. Or there is the federal court option that was used here. I think too many people take too much comfort from laws that supposedly protect them from lawsuits. The NYC suit against all those gun dealers didn't go away after the Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act was passed. All they had to do was find a judge who'd admit it. We should remember that example.

FRANK D
February 9, 2009, 11:17 PM
What they are trying to do is hit him in the pocket. Even if its just for legal costs with the hopes that he will leave them alone in the future.

TexasRifleman
February 9, 2009, 11:21 PM
You are all talking about any potential CRIMINAL laws he might have broken. It's clear the state doesn't think he has or he would have been arrested a long time ago. Or maybe they just decided to ignore it.

Regardless, this is a civil suit, and he's likely to lose. Don't really see how he can win. The burden of proof is so much lower in civil matters.

I don't think he was wrong personally, but this is going to be very expensive.

wyocarp
February 10, 2009, 12:01 AM
who accuse him of conspiring to violate their civil rights

That's news to me. I didn't think they had any legal rights.

alaskanativeson
February 10, 2009, 12:37 AM
My original post was not appropriate for THR.

cbrgator
February 10, 2009, 12:38 AM
....

MovedWest
February 10, 2009, 12:56 AM
Is trespassing a criminal offense in Arizona?

who accuse him of conspiring to violate their civil rights when he stopped them at gunpoint on his ranch on the U.S.-Mexico border, the Washington Times reported Monday.

If his ranch is up against the Mexico/US border, coming into his property would've been the criminal offense. At that point they will not be able to sue for damages.

began rounding up illegal immigrants in 1998 and turning them over to the U.S. Border Patrol after they destroyed his property, killed his calves and broke into his home

This type of behavior is definitely disturbing the peace, but admittedly these people were not noted as having done any of the above. The court may have leniency on him based on prior episodes though.

Either way you slice it, a citizen's arrest is asking for it.

-MW

Maintainer
February 10, 2009, 12:59 AM
"The bottom line is that even if Barnett didn't do anything illegal, it was still stupid and a whole lot more trouble than it was worth."


Its one thing to hold a couple of kids gunpoint for cutting across your back yard at night (my own reference) but this is a all together different matter. He has substantial case history to point to of theft, property damage, etc. Not to mention Arizona's Castle Doctrine. Which should be enough, but then this is a civil matter.

It's a sad state of affairs that this beautiful country has fallen into.

limpingbear
February 10, 2009, 01:23 AM
If these people were handed over to INS and were then deported how are they able to sue him in the u.s.? What kind of attorney would take this kind of case? Doesn't the fact that the mexican nationals in crossing the border illegally and trespassing on this guys property forfiet thier right to sue?

Sorry if it sounds like a rant, but i'm just ticked that something like this is allowed to happen.

Jeff White
February 10, 2009, 01:52 AM
He has substantial case history to point to of theft, property damage, etc. Not to mention Arizona's Castle Doctrine.

Does Arizona's Castle Doctrine extend to fences and stock tanks?

Travis Bickle
February 10, 2009, 01:55 AM
Is trespassing a criminal offense in Arizona?

Trespassing is by definition a criminal offense.

Or does it take certain circumstances to make it one?

In Arizona, a person must be first be given reasonable notice that they are trespassing. This means either posting your land in accordance with state law, or ordering a person or persons to leave and not come back.

We don't know, but I'm guessing Barnett isn't stupid and had his land posted before he pulled this stunt.

Not to mention Arizona's Castle Doctrine.

Arizona's castle law applies to housebreakers, not trespassers. You may use the threat of lethal force against trespassers, but not lethal force itself. If you ever shoot someone who's trespassing on your land, and said person did not pose an imminent threat to life or limb, you'll be in deep trouble.

Travis Bickle
February 10, 2009, 01:57 AM
Does Arizona's Castle Doctrine extend to fences and stock tanks?

Arizona's castle law applies to housebreakers. You may not use lethal force to protect property outside your house.

BCRider
February 10, 2009, 02:37 AM
What gets me is the amount of the suit. Did he really cause $32M worth of lost wages and personal injury to this group?

It just emphasizes what I've always said. Canada and the US have a legal system but it's sure not a justice system......

kd7nqb
February 10, 2009, 03:02 AM
I am not an attorney but I can assure you that I know how I would vote if I were on that jury. Dont think the illegals stand much of a chance but who knows courts are crazy things.


There is a larger question here as well. If somebody breaks down my door and then as I confront them with a gun suddently has a come to Jesus moment and says "Oh sorry I was just leaving" they dont get to leave. I can assure you that they will be sitting on the couch waiting for the PD to arrive. Since Oregon has castle doctrine the law would allow me to shoot as soon as the door gets kicked in so I would hope that a peaceful detainer even with a weapon would be just fine.

expvideo
February 10, 2009, 09:18 AM
Arizona's castle law applies to housebreakers. You may not use lethal force to protect property outside your house.
It wasn't a use of force. It was a display of force. How big of an ethical difference there is between the two depends on your point of view, but to me there is a huge difference between holding someone at gunpoint and shooting them.

That being said, I can understand him stopping them from crossing his land. I can understand him displaying force to do so. And personally I can understand that he wanted to hold them for immigration. But holding them against their will as a citizen's arrest is a risky proposition.

What he should have done was to either let them pass and call immigration with their location and direction of travel, or maybe even follow them while in communication with immigration. Immigration will respond and stop them without him holding them at gunpoint.

Now I don't necessarily think that what he did was wrong, from an ethical standpoint, but I think that he could have stayed out of hot water by avoiding being the key player in capturing the illegal immigrants.

And for the record, I think that it is rediculous that these illegal aliens think they have a "civil right" to compromise our borders unmolested. It is a sad situation that our country is in, but I will respect Jeff White's request and keep politics out of this.

Grey_Mana
February 10, 2009, 09:29 AM
Do Arizona laws or regulations provide guidance on what the SOP is for a citizen's arrest?

What can you do if you don't have cell phone reception and the trespassers practice nonviolent resistance?

How does the reasonable person standard factor in? I would be more fearful of grievous bodily harm to myself, knowing that the people were desperate & hungry, knowing that people in similar situations in the past had carried weapons and had premeditated theft (i.e. bringing the needed tools to steal food, water & vehicles).

Kleanbore
February 10, 2009, 10:28 AM
I can assure you that they will be sitting on the couch waiting for the PD to arrive. Since Oregon has castle doctrine the law would allow me to shoot as soon as the door gets kicked in so I would hope that a peaceful detainer even with a weapon would be just fine.

This describes the citizen's arrest laws in Oregon

http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070422/OURVALLEY/703080330/-1/OURVALLEY01

So, if you want to takethe risk and think it worth doing, proceed. But don't do it based on what "you would hope."

And be careful. One may not use deadly force solely for the purpose of holding the individual:


ORS 161.255 (1) A private citizen acting on the person’s own account is justified in using physical force upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to make an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person whom the person has arrested.

ORS 161.255 (2) A private citizen is justified in using deadly physical force only when the person reasonably believes it necessary for self defense or to defend a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly force.

So, what are you going to do? Shout "stay here or I'll murder you!"?

Not for me, thanks! I do not plan on exposing myself to civil suits or physical danger when there is absolutely nothing to gain.

Shung
February 10, 2009, 10:39 AM
The bill of rights applies to everyone regardless of citizenship. That is because they are God given rights, not gifts given to us by the grace of our government. Other protections may not apply, but you are wrong about the constitution (specifically the bill of rights).

( which is a very important point to understand, regarding the 2nd... )

psyopspec
February 10, 2009, 11:27 AM
Illegals have no constitutional rights, none at all.

What I said to your previous post above (which you edited for unknown reasons) still holds as expvideo and shung have suggested. In case you didn't get to see it, I'll say it one more time as well:

Not to say the system isn't horribly abused, but legal or illegal, EVERYONE has CIVIL rights. Philosophically speaking, the COTUS and BOR just identifies that which is inherent to human existence.

X-Rap
February 10, 2009, 12:18 PM
This being a civil case, all bets are off. I'm betting that there will be a lot of (reasonable person) brought into the case. What would a resonable person think if a gun were pointed at them and dog attack was threatened. The threshold for the jury is much lower.
My bet is the ACLU and maybe Cathlic Charities are funding this prosecution and are making an example of this guy because he has deep pockets.
There was a case that went federal from AZ. that had the trial held in Tx. he lost everything.

Grey_Mana
February 10, 2009, 12:20 PM
What I said to your previous post above (which you edited for unknown reasons) still holds as expvideo and shung have suggested. In case you didn't get to see it, I'll say it one more time as well:

Not to say the system isn't horribly abused, but legal or illegal, EVERYONE has CIVIL rights. Philosophically speaking, the COTUS and BOR just identifies that which is inherent to human existence.

Wouldn't this make export restrictions unconstitutional? Didn't Col. North get into a pile of trouble, trying to extend second amendment rights to a certain group of non-US citizens?

Owen Sparks
February 10, 2009, 12:35 PM
Criminals also know you can't shoot them unless your life is in danger.
I saw a film clip of a riot once and looters had smashed out a store front and were carrying off merchandise. A policeman appeared on the scene and pointed his pistol at one of the looters and ordered him to put down the stuff he had stolen.
The looter said "Or what? You gonna shoot me for stealing? I ain't no threat to your life." knowing that the cop would not shoot, he turned his back and strolled off.

stampsm
February 10, 2009, 01:35 PM
this makes me curious about the Nevada law stating it is illegal to have a firearm if you are in the country illegally. (this is just a short synopsis of part of the law NRS 202.360 ). when the 2nd is incorporated into the states and if the constitution applies to everyone regardless of citizen status doesn't this open up the possibility to have an illegal sue to own firearms citing civil rights violations?

cassandrasdaddy
February 10, 2009, 02:21 PM
If it's in a federal court, it will be tougher. In a local court, he might stand a chance.


They'll never win this one in an Arizona court. I guarantee that. Arizona is highly anti-illegal.


this mans already lost in court once, a jury of 11 white folks and one latino convicted him of 14 outa 15 counts. hes made a number of ill advised public statements that could lead folks to see him as a nut

Superlite27
February 10, 2009, 02:31 PM
I wonder........


Has he or his attorney thought of a COUNTERSUIT?

IMHO, this would be the ideal instance for one. He obviously has not committed a criminal act, therefore, the illegals are using the civil system to cause him a financial burden in order to retaliate. I would think countersuing would put the ball back in his court.

Since they have nothing to lose by suing, why shouldn't they?

If he countersues.....it changes the entire ballgame since he has already been cleared of criminal activity. Since they have obviously participated in criminal activity, (just by being there) if he countersues, I would think the likelyhood of them dropping the suit would be higher since NOW there would be a price for them to pay.

Let's just see how confident they are in the validity of their claim, huh?

I say countersue.

expvideo
February 10, 2009, 02:38 PM
...doesn't this open up the possibility to have an illegal sue to own firearms citing civil rights violations?
Why, yes. Yes it does.

cassandrasdaddy
February 10, 2009, 02:42 PM
his qoutes here aren't gonna help him either

A rancher since 1996, Barnett's a swaggering, silver-haired, ruddy-faced product of the desert sun whose militant reputation -— like the vigilante movement he inspired — stretches far beyond Cochise County.

"Humans, the greatest prey on earth," Roger Barnett told a reporter from London's Independent in May of 2000, six months after he was photographed for Time magazine brandishing an M-16 — and a full 16 months before Chris Simcox would leave his California kindergarten classroom to form the Arizona militia that would eventually become the Minutemen, now the best-known citizen group to carry weapons to the border in an effort to halt illegal immigration.

"A vigilante goes out, rounds up people, holds a trial and executes them. I haven't done that yet," Barnett told USA Today that same year. "But bloodshed could happen."


and then there was the unfortunate incident with the ambulance where the emts hada call the cops. he better hope that all doesn't come out in court too. the reasonable man criteria doesn't favor him.

Pushrod
February 10, 2009, 02:42 PM
How would this apply in your home? If you were to hold someone who has broken into your home at O-dark-30 at gun point until police arrived, are you setting yourself up for a civil lawsuit?

cassandrasdaddy
February 10, 2009, 02:45 PM
inside a house is an entirely different deal than installing senors and going hunting. and bragging about it

JImbothefiveth
February 10, 2009, 02:47 PM
It wasn't a use of force. It was a display of force.
There was supposedly the threat of force.

Travis Bickle
February 10, 2009, 03:31 PM
Do Arizona laws or regulations provide guidance on what the SOP is for a citizen's arrest?

That's a good question, and I don't really know the answer.

The citizen's arrest laws were written in a time before we had cellphones or probably even landlines and 911. I would imagine that there's some requirement that you take the arrested people to the police forthwith.

expvideo
February 10, 2009, 03:38 PM
It wasn't a use of force. It was a display of force.

There was supposedly the threat of force.
That is what "display of force" means.

Travis Bickle
February 10, 2009, 04:25 PM
this makes me curious about the Nevada law stating it is illegal to have a firearm if you are in the country illegally. (this is just a short synopsis of part of the law NRS 202.360 ). when the 2nd is incorporated into the states and if the constitution applies to everyone regardless of citizen status doesn't this open up the possibility to have an illegal sue to own firearms citing civil rights violations?

A case like that would create a real dilemma for some liberal judge, wouldn't it? He's have to choose between jailing an illegal alien or setting a gun owner free.

easyrider6042004@yahoo.ca
February 10, 2009, 04:39 PM
A judge will usually base his decision on the merits of the case, his personal feelings should not affect his judgement. Being judge, they are allowed some wiggle room when they do their job, though.

husker
February 10, 2009, 04:40 PM
now thats funny mr. bickle and true

MachIVshooter
February 10, 2009, 05:32 PM
Criminals also know you can't shoot them unless your life is in danger.
I saw a film clip of a riot once and looters had smashed out a store front and were carrying off merchandise. A policeman appeared on the scene and pointed his pistol at one of the looters and ordered him to put down the stuff he had stolen.
The looter said "Or what? You gonna shoot me for stealing? I ain't no threat to your life." knowing that the cop would not shoot, he turned his back and strolled off.

Let's fix that:

"Criminals also know that you can't legally shoot them unless your life is in danger."

It would be ill-advised for a criminal to count the law saving his life, especially when he's already violating the law, thus proving there is nothing to prevent such action.

If this guy is forced to pay, I'd bet in the future he'll just make sure there's no one alive to sue. And I imagine other ranchers who've shared his problems will think similarly.

Cyborg
February 10, 2009, 05:56 PM
As the cops who frequent here the question is not about arrest but arrest without warrant. If you have a valid arrest warrant (or for sure in Az knowledge of an outstand warrant an the say-so of a magistrate) you can arrest anyone.

The problem is arrest WITHOUT warrant.

Here is the Az law I found at:
http://www.helplinelaw.com/law/usa-arizona/criminal%20law/arrest/arrest.php

The procedure of arrest in the state of Arizona has been provided in Arizona Revised Statute in Title No. 13.

An arrest may be made on any day and at any time of the day or night. An arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person to be arrested, or by his submission to the custody of the person making the arrest.

The arrest may be made by the following persons:

• By a Peace officer

• By Private Person


ARREST BY A PEACE OFFICER

A peace officer may arrest a person with or without a warrant. A peace officer may arrest a person without warrant if he has probable cause to believe:

A felony has been committed and probable cause to believe the person to be arrested has committed the felony.
A misdemeanor has been committed in his presence and probable cause to believe the person to be arrested has committed the offense.
The person to be arrested has been involved in a traffic accident and that such violation occurred prior to or immediately following such traffic accident.
A misdemeanor or a petty offense has been committed and probable cause to believe the person to be arrested has committed the offense.
A peace officer may stop and detain a person as is reasonably necessary to investigate an actual or suspected violation of any traffic law committed in the officer's presence and may serve a copy of the traffic complaint for any alleged civil or criminal traffic violation. A peace officer who serves a copy of the traffic complaint shall do so within a reasonable time of the alleged criminal or civil traffic violation.

ARREST BY PRIVATE PERSON

A private person may make an arrest:

When the person to be arrested has in his presence committed a misdemeanor amounting to a breach of the peace, or a felony.
When a felony has been in fact committed and he has reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed it.
AUTHORIZATION OF ARREST BY TELEPHONE OR TELEGRAM

Any magistrate may, by an endorsement under his hand upon a warrant of arrest, authorize the service of the warrant by telegraph or telephone, and thereafter a telegraphic or telephonic copy of such warrant may be sent by telegraph or telephone to one or more peace officers.

The copy shall be as effectual in the hands of any officer, and he shall proceed in the same manner under it, as though he held an original warrant issued by the magistrate making the endorsement.

METHOD OF ARREST BY OFFICER WITH WARRANT

When making an arrest with a warrant the officer shall inform the person to be arrested of the cause of the arrest and of the fact that a warrant has been issued for his arrest. However the officer need not have to inform or show cause where the offender flees or forcibly resists before the officer has opportunity so to inform him, or when the giving of such information will imperil the arrest.

The officer need not have the warrant in his possession at the time of the arrest, but after the arrest, if the person arrested so requires, the warrant shall be shown to him as soon as practicable.

METHOD OF ARREST BY OFFICER WITHOUT WARRANT

When making an arrest without a warrant, the officer shall inform the person to be arrested of his authority and the cause of the arrest, unless the person to be arrested is then engaged in the commission of an offense, or is pursued immediately after its commission or after an escape, or flees or forcibly resists before the officer has opportunity so to inform him, or when the giving of such information will imperil the arrest.

RIGHT OF OFFICER TO BREAK INTO BUILDING

An officer, in order to make an arrest either by virtue of a warrant, or when authorized to make such arrest for a felony without a warrant, may break open a door or window of any building in which the person to be arrested is or is reasonably believed to be, if the officer is refused admittance after he has announced his authority and purpose.

DUTY OF OFFICER AFTER ARRESTING WITH WARRANT

When the arrest with warrant is made by any peace officer such officer shall without unnecessary delay take the person arrested before the magistrate who issued the warrant or, if that magistrate is absent or unable to act, before the nearest or most accessible magistrate in the same county.


ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT

A person arrested without a warrant shall without unnecessary delay be taken before the nearest or most accessible magistrate in the county in which the arrest occurs, and a complaint shall be made before the magistrate setting forth the facts, and the basis for his statement of the facts, showing the offense for which the person was arrested.

DUTY OF PRIVATE PERSON AFTER MAKING ARREST

A private person who has made an arrest shall without unnecessary delay take the person arrested before the nearest or most accessible magistrate in the county in which the arrest was made, or deliver him to a peace officer, who shall without unnecessary delay take him before such magistrate.

The private person or officer so taking the person arrested before the magistrate shall make before the magistrate a complaint, which shall set forth the facts showing the offense for which the person was arrested.

However, the officer cannot make the complaint, the private person who delivered the person arrested to the officer shall accompany the officer before the magistrate and shall make to the magistrate the complaint against the person arrested.


And I don't know about Az but in Tejas criminal tresspass is considered "offense against the public peace" and thus "A
peace officer or any other person, may, without a warrant, arrest an offender when the offense is committed in his presence or within his view, if the offense is one classed as a felony or as an offense against the public peace". Texas Code Of Criminal Procedure Art. 14.01

In Texas anyone may arrest a person for theft committed in their presence. CCP 18.16 I used 18.16 more than once working security at strip malls. Of course I waited until the shoplifter had crossed the store's threshold before I stopped them and asked them to open their bag. That served 2 purposes. 1) it demonstrated intent and 2) it got them onto my jurisdiction since I had no authority inside the store.

I am not sure that holding someone until the arrival of Law Enforcement is illegal. From what I could see of black letter Az law it looks like force is allowed to hold someone until LE arrives. But that is black letter law and I'm sure the Duke_of_doubt and other attorneys here could tell us how much the working of that law is worth.

Cyborg

mio
February 10, 2009, 06:03 PM
if a person is in the country illegealy do they have the same rights as a citizen or legal immagrant/tourist?

i would think that would be an important question.

RP88
February 10, 2009, 06:21 PM
Guantanamo suspects have due process and Habeus Corpus, and aren't supposed to be tortured. They weren't exactly legal in anything they did. I'd imagine that - under that precedent and general train of thought - that an illegal can get a lawyer and sue in the US, especially since it is apparently being done here.

Dokkalfar
February 10, 2009, 07:25 PM
i am assuming that this stems from the AZ guy who is getting sued by the illegal aliens he stopped on his ranch? in that case, its private property and i fully support the ranch owner.

if not, i dont see why holding someone for LE would be illegal, as long as they had committed an offense that would get them arrested as stated in the code above.

Macmac
February 10, 2009, 07:38 PM
I can't really make a comment because i don't understand how illegals have any rights. Seems to me if you are caught in the act of breaking the law you should be arrested, tried and fines then deported, and that what ever happens is tuff cookies to you for breaking the law.

So this deal is just simply more than I can understand with some help, probably medical...

These days what ever should make the most common sence to any fool is exactly 180 degrees to the way reality is.

I certainly have no problem with the land owner holding many people breaking the law as i used to understand it under the point of a gun, so long as he doesn't shoot for target practice and kill them all.

I hope someone will point out to me why these people have any Rights under American law.

cassandrasdaddy
February 10, 2009, 08:31 PM
If this guy is forced to pay, I'd bet in the future he'll just make sure there's no one alive to sue. And I imagine other ranchers who've shared his problems will think similarly.


hes already been forced to pay by a jury of 11 white folks and one latino

psyopspec
February 10, 2009, 10:49 PM
Wouldn't this make export restrictions unconstitutional? Didn't Col. North get into a pile of trouble, trying to extend second amendment rights to a certain group of non-US citizens?

Negative Ghostrider.

North got into a pile o' trouble for this:

U.S. funding of the Contras by appropriated funds spent by intelligence agencies had been prohibited by the Boland Amendment.

And was convicted of this:

He was indicted on sixteen felony counts and on May 4, 1989, he was initially convicted of three: accepting an illegal gratuity, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and destruction of documents (by his secretary, Fawn Hall, on his instructions).

More legal fiascoing followed, but it had more to do with violating things like commerce laws, public trust, and engaging in the funding of a paramilitary org which congress had expressly prohibited. Whether you think that's right or wrong is one thing (and a topic for another forum), but as I said above, the system itself ain't perfect.

Source: The almighty wikipedia.

apex
February 11, 2009, 12:39 AM
Take a look at this link...
Newpaper (http://www.citizensvoice.com/articles/2008/08/27/news/wb_voice.20080827.t.pg10.cv27cdkadluboski_s1.1905682_loc.txt)

Should this guy have had his permit to carry concealed revoked? He did not need to approach or apprehend this individual.

expvideo
February 11, 2009, 03:01 PM
I'm still shocked that people in this country illegally are given civil rights.

If a member of LEO is allowed to shoot a convicted prisoner fleeing under any circumstances... Then why can't we do the same for illegals? The man is more than me for just holding them there until the proper authorities arrived. If it were me I'd be digging 16 holes at my ranch.
Statements like that are not highroad. We don't advocate breaking the law here, and shooting illegal aliens for crossing your property would be breaking the law. Get some therapy.

hankdatank1362
February 11, 2009, 04:09 PM
I thought, legally, you immediately invalidate any right to bring forth any civil litigation if you were committing an illegal act at the time.

As in: You slip, fall and break your hip, running out of the 7-11 you just robbed: you don't get to sue for negligence. Maybe kind of a response to the burglar who hurt himself falling through a woman's skylight and successfully sued.

rainman500_0
February 11, 2009, 04:42 PM
Make him a Reserve Deputy then he is legal in every way.:)

cassandrasdaddy
February 11, 2009, 04:50 PM
he was a cop once as were his brothers the one brother got canned for beating a prisoner not sure what made him leave a calling that would have legitimized his hunting license. might be interesting to find out

Skykomish
February 11, 2009, 05:27 PM
So, this kinda goes against people on here (THR) and "Other" forums saying that your private property "RIGHTS" trumps my Constitutional Rights to CCW/Opencarry, Free Speech, etc....

If an illegal(s) can Sue this guy, and this guy gets charged criminally and loses how can this be true? Apparently Constitutional Rights apply to everyone, everywhere, not just to be used against the government, or government oppression.

Let's think logically here folks!

No matter the Bill Of Rights/Constitutional Issues, statutory laws have been applied here, by way of protecting the Unenumerated/Unalienable Rights. Common law applies here as well......

Skykomish

easyrider6042004@yahoo.ca
February 11, 2009, 06:04 PM
"A vigilante goes out, rounds up people, holds a trial and executes them. I haven't done that yet," Barnett told USA Today that same year. "But bloodshed could happen."

Firstly, I am against and do not subscribe to vigilanteism because I truly believe in the rule of law.


Nothwithstanding his big mouth, Barnett deserves the support of people who believe in doing the right thing and standing up for what they believe in.

Barnett may or may not be financially capable of defending himself, but I believe he is a good citizen and person and I am willing to contribute to a fund that will assist him. I am pledging $50.00 to start his legal assistance fund. I'd volunteer to personally help manage this fund but I do not live in the U.S., but can send the money anyways to somebody who is willing to manage this fund.

pugmug
February 11, 2009, 06:21 PM
Send me the 50 or better yet send it to the U.S. Government.They take such good care of money,lol.

Macmac
February 11, 2009, 07:10 PM
I still don't understand... How can an illegal be breaking the law and have any Rights at the same time?

He started out with no rights and crossed illegaly over the border and suddenly has rights? Still in the act of breaking the law?

That's almost like I have the rights to go rob banks because it is with in my right of the Pursuit of Happiness. If i robbed a bank and had lots of money for it i sure would be happy....

I figure the guy owned the land, it was trashed, his property was trashed and his cattle were killed just like he says. All of this was illegal and all of was done by illegals entering illegally over the border.

I'ld say they own him every dime for all the property they wrecked and the costs of labor plus his time, and not the other way around.

I just can't understand.

X-Rap
February 11, 2009, 07:18 PM
Macmac things on the border are a lot different than they are up north. If we as a country were wise we would look there and do some rapid adjustments to how we deal with those problems before they permeate through our whole country.

Jeff White
February 11, 2009, 07:58 PM
I'm tired of deleting off topic posts. you all can go somewhere else and discuss immigration. It's off topic here.

If you enjoyed reading about "Holding someone at gunpoint for Police?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!