Detain Illegal aliens=go to jail!

Status
Not open for further replies.
i've said it several times on this board and got challenged by 2nd Amendment on this. i even offered to pay him $100 if he could successfully deport someone without getting himself in hot water. he turned down my bet. i even offered to increase the ante but he declined again. however, as the bet goes, if he loses, he had to pay me.
Click to expand...

What you said, if IIRC, was that one could not legally detain an illegal, not "deport them". Slight difference there. And since I don't know any Illegals, nor know where to find any, AND since I viewed the entire thing as humorous, I simply asked the local PD what they would do to me. Their answer I have already posted. Since the discussion was what the cops would do, and since the local PD who would be the ones I would be dealing with have told me what they would do that was pretty much the end of the issue as you presented it.

Now if you would like to continue your fixation you come on up and find me some Illegals and we'll go ahead and see what happens.
 
US Should Annex Sonora Mexico

Maybe the US should just annex the upper portion of Sonora Mexico, from Arizona to the Sea of Cortez (reverse the invasion, as it were), then all of the immigrants could be allowed to settle there. Then, maybe, it could become it's own state - maybe it's own nation. And no more illegal immigrants... right?

It was just a thought....

Anyway, as for Patrick Haab, local news here in the Valley of the Sun says Haab didn't react until the "immigrants" attempted to assult him. Only then did he present his weapon - in self defense. At least, that's what he had to say today.
 
There was a couple of letters to the editer in the Arizona Republic paper today supporting this young man. Hope he gets out if it.
 
Anyway, as for Patrick Haab, local news here in the Valley of the Sun says Haab didn't react until the "immigrants" attempted to assult him. Only then did he present his weapon - in self defense. At least, that's what he had to say today.
Click to expand...

Ah, ah-hah!!

Good find David, so it's possibly worse than a plant. They might have hooked themselves a patsy to further their political agenda again. Take note of this Spreadfire.

I am guessing we aren't getting the whole truth. I wonder how this would have turned out if he didn't have a gun?
 
most of these postings just go to show how out of touch alot of THR board members are with what the rest of America sees as "reasonable." alot of you guys would never win a court case, legal proceeding, or an argument, for that matter, outside of the confines of a very pro-2nd Amendment group. and then you wonder why mainstream America thinks gun owners are weird?

and beerslurpy, you are the most anti-cop, anti-law, anti-minority, and anti-authority person i have yet to see on this board. you state it's okay to for private citizens to shoot SUSPECTED illegal aliens (not even proven) but you don't think most actions by cops on gun owners actually committing crimes is justified. pull your head out. one of these days these postings are going to come and bite you in the rear end. like the day you shoot someone who happens to be a minority and they come and find out you're posting anti-minority messages on the internet advocating the senseless killings of them? remember your IP is recorded and THR must respond to a subpoena duces tecum should the authorities want it. fellow gun owners or not, THR isn't going to cover your rear end against LE. not everyone here is anti-LE like you.


Risasi wrote:
"Yeah, our Constitution. Which these illegals either fall under or they don't. They can't have 2nd amendment rights and NOT have the right to also carry arms. For example. That makes no sense."
Illegal aliens ARE protected under the U.S. Constitution if on U.S. soil. are you inferring they have no freedom of speech, freedom from excessive bail, no right to a fair and speedy trial, no right not to be enslaved, etc? it's been decided by the courts that illegal aliens inside the U.S. are guaranteed these rights. so you are right, they do have 2nd Amendment rights. the same ones you have.

Risasi continued:
"If you swapped Sudan with Mexico, sure I would be suspicious of a group of them coming together out of the brush. Heck, I'd be suspicious of a bunch of whites coming out of the bushes together. You gotta watch those city parks and rest stops. Heck at least keep your kids in the car."
Okay, so you maintain this is legal grounds to point a gun at someone?

Risasi continued:
"Then again, the report may have been flat out WRONG, he may simply have drawn and not pointed it."
that is still a violation....ever heard of the crime of "brandishing?"

DocZinn wrote:
"Okay, maybe there's some detailed legal definition of "reasonable suspicion," but in plain ol' English that qualifies."
So you're saying this is enough reason to point a gun at someone?

beerslurpy wrote:
"We shouldnt be punishing american citizens for trying to help uphold the law, especially if they are obviously going out of their way to avoid shooting people."
we should be punishing stupid people for pointing guns without reason. this is what constitutes a civilized society. going out of your way to avoid shooting someone also means not pointing a gun at someone without valid reason. you can't shoot someone accidentally if the gun is holstered and put away.

Risasi continued:
"I would call that reasonable suspicion, and probable cause for a reaction"

No court in the U.S. would.

I'm sure there are a few that would. One thing that does come to mind though is he is not a cop. But I would expect him to act like one. And he did. I hold him to a higher standard, because he has sworn to defend and uphold the Constitution. As for what US courts think, I don't really care."
Name one court that would. he is not a cop, he is a soldier off-duty, without his unit, and not acting on behalf of the U.S. military. he isn't on base, in uniform, or acting within the scope of his employment. in essence, he is an armed citizen. he didn't act like a cop because a cop wouldn't have pointed a gun at them for no reason like he did. also cops take an oath to uphold the Constitution too..in case you did not know. as far as the U.S. courts think, you'd better care. they are the ones that will prosecute you should you be accused of wrongdoing which in your opinion is "right."

2nd Amendment wrote:
"What you said, if IIRC, was that one could not legally detain an illegal, not "deport them". Slight difference there."
what i said was you could not legally citizen arrest them AND have your small town deputies from Indiana, who are also misquoting the law, actually have them deported. the department you talked to has no authority to deport them. they have to turn them in to the INS and in turn the INS would have to deport them if they had enough reason to. some citizen running around like a mall ninja citizen-arresting suspected illegal immigrants with NO PROBABLE CAUSE is an invalid arrest. thus they would never be deported. and you woulld face civil and criminal penalties for violating people's rights for unlawful arrests. you said you can't find one in your area? evidently Indiana is too far away from the Mexican border. maybe you should start looking for an illegal Canadian immigrant instead. or are they too hard to find too? because they look like YOU so they are okay? my bet still stands. obviously you can't put your wallet where your beliefs are. prove me wrong. ill up the ante to a brand new Bushmaster AR-15 if you can prove me wrong. however if you prove yourself wrong, in addition to your lawyers fees and court trials, you would owe me a brand new Bushmaster AR-15. somehow i dont even think you would be enticed by this.....
 
As much as I understand the motives behind the soldiers actions and agree that our borders need to be controlled I cannot condone his actions. I happen to be a "swarthy" american lol and have easily been mistaken for a variety of hispanic backgrounds as well as being mistaken for arab. If I was out there with some friends hiking or whatever and someone pulled a gun on me there would have been a mess to say the least. While I agree with many who have posted that we do have a problem with illegal not undocumented aliens this is not really the issue here. We have someone who overstepped the bounds of law and should be punished though I will agree I hope they go lightly on him because he was doing it with the right intent at heart.
 
"Anyway, as for Patrick Haab, local news here in the Valley of the Sun says Haab didn't react until the "immigrants" attempted to assult him. Only then did he present his weapon - in self defense. At least, that's what he had to say today."

that would be his obvious defense. but what about the 2nd guy who he suppsedly gave a firearm to, but left the scene? how did the police get a call to respond? if he had a car but they didn't why didnt he get into his car and leave the scene?

there is much more to this story. this doesn't spell out self-defense. he could have provoked them, he could have shouted racial slurs, or something else. besides, isn't it illegal for a CCW holder to go around provoking disturbances? if you go around provoking fights while armed with a CCW you should be arrested and have your CCW revoked.

the mere fact that he stopped to question them about their immigration status was provoking a confrontation. and when they confronted him, he could have drawn his weapon, retreated to his car, and left the scene.

i still dont know about this 2nd guy and him telling another guy to hold them at gunpoint too......that sounds really weird for a "self-defense" defense.
 
i still dont know about this 2nd guy and him telling another guy to hold them at gunpoint too......that sounds really weird for a "self-defense" defense.
Click to expand...

And since, as you said, there's probably much more to this story you're now as guilty of grabbing at shadows as everyone defending the guy. Nice.

BTW, is there some implication in your post that because the views here may be out of step with the largely ignorant (and often illiterate) masses that comprise Suburbia these views are wrong? If not then it's really meaningless whether they are out of step or not. If you define "wrong" by opinion polls, being "in step", then it's still meaningless unless you accept the idea the majority knows best. If you define it by current interpretations of the law, how else would you suggest achieving change in those interpretations? IOW, your actual "point" would be...?
 
Also FYI, here is the actual quote from you(including your choice of emoticon at the end) to which I made my humorous inquiry and which you have now chosen to drag across at least two threads:

don't take my word for it. go out RIGHT NOW and arrest the first guy you think is an illegal alien. then call 911 and see what the cops do. :D
Click to expand...
Found here: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=133666&page=2&pp=25

I see nothing about deportation or INS or any of the other claims you are now making. So how about doing yourself and everyone else a favor and A) Don't change the issue after you've made it and B) Don't belabor a point you either failed to make properly or thought more of later and C) Go back and check your own quotes if in doubt.

EDIT: Oh, one last thing, will you honor the latest aspect of your fixation based on the actual initial statement you made and not your reinterpretation of it? If so you might as well box up that AR(I like Bushys) and send it on because I have a local yokel(knows I am going to get smacked for that) standing over my shoulder wanting to know if he gets to shoot the thing cause he knows what's going to happen. Since you didn't mention anything about potential later events in the comment that inspired all this the question IS answered.

Unless you'd like to modify the statement...again...
 
2nd Amendment,

reference the link you provided above and go to page three where i specifically wrote:

"tell you what. be successful, as in, provide me with a police report stating:

1. you were the complainant
2. you were the arresting citizen
3. the local LE took the guy into custody
4. INS physically deported him"

that's the conditions of my bet which for some reason you don't seem to understand.

you wrote:
"I see nothing about deportation or INS or any of the other claims you are now making.
That is because you failed to read the entire thread, where you can't say you didn't see this because you posted replies to this response. it appears you have selective memory. it's there on page three, go ahead and take a look if you don't believe me. somehow you forgot that deportation requires the INS not your local uninformed sheriff's office. are they really going to drive your little prisoner in an Indiana squad car to Mexico? what a waste of gasoline.

"So how about doing yourself and everyone else a favor and A) Don't change the issue after you've made it"
i haven't, you just have had difficulties reading it. i can't help it if you have reading comprehension difficulties.

"and B) Don't belabor a point you either failed to make properly or thought more of later and"
it's been made properly, you just don't seem to agree with it or understand it.

"C) Go back and check your own quotes if in doubt."
i did, you obviously didn't. :rolleyes:

"EDIT: Oh, one last thing, will you honor the latest aspect of your fixation based on the actual initial statement you made and not your reinterpretation of it? If so you might as well box up that AR(I like Bushys) and send it on because I have a local yokel(knows I am going to get smacked for that) standing over my shoulder wanting to know if he gets to shoot the thing cause he knows what's going to happen. Since you didn't mention anything about potential later events in the comment that inspired all this the question IS answered.

Unless you'd like to modify the statement...again..."

since you never took me up on my bet i'm free to modify the conditions of my bet so long as you don't jump on it and accept it. if you don't believe it then my original bet was for $100 so i can't bet an AR-15. the rules apply across the board, not when they favor YOU. wake up dude.

evidently you failed to read the entire post. my bet still stands. want to take me up on it? yes or no. no beating around the bush, those were my original conditions. yes or no? better box up your rifle. if you want to do the bet both of us send a rifle to an impartial FFL and if you win you get both rifles back and i pay shipping and any FFL charges. Conversely, if you don't win, i get your rifle and my rifle and you pay shipping charges for both rifles to me.

sound good? you have until midnight tonight to make up your mind. then go buy a new Bushmaster rifle. from the day you send the rifle to the impartial FFL, you've got one week to go get your illegal alien.
 
Last edited:
Risasi,

read the bottom of the article:

"He said he acted in self-defense, thinking the men were going to tackle him as they got within about 10 feet."

"At the rest stop, a man with a backpack walked passed him to a vehicle parked two spaces from his own, and six men with backpacks "rushed me," Haab said."

"Haab and his dog chased the six to the vehicle the other man had climbed into, and at gunpoint Haab told the driver to turn off the engine, grabbed their keys from the ignition, then called 911 and yelled to another parked motorist for help.

Haab gave the second motorist a gun to hold while questioning the seven in Spanish, at which time they said "they did not have papers, they were illegal immigrants."

He then had the seven men climb out of the vehicle one-by-one and lie on the sidewalk.

Haab said either the Border Patrol or sheriff's deputies told him by phone to let the men back in the vehicle, which he did, as the second motorist returned the gun and left."

these actions are not purely self-defense. they are as far as them coming close to him and trying to "rush" him, he may be justified, but chasing them to their car at gunpoint, taking their car keys, and ordering them to the ground or to not move, is in fact, an arrest. what did he arrest them for? self defense would dictate he get his dog, get in his car, and leave. not chase the threat. that is not self-defense. whoever disagrees with this please cite a law that self-defense continues when the threat flees and you continue to give chase? :confused:
 
Next time I see Selma Hayek I will Citizen Arrest her or better yet I bet there is some Swedish Bikini models I could detain for being illegal.
 
Swedish Bikini models I could detain for being illegal.
Click to expand...


They're a pretty dangerous looking bunch- better wait for back-up. Give me a call. :evil:




If my wife answers the phone, tell her you have a rifle for sale.






On second thought, it might be safer to tell her about the models.
 
Sorry Spread, the additional stipulations you mention have nothing to do with the specific comment you made(quoted above) and my very specific reply to that comment.. I have never acknowledged those stipulations you added later and do not count them as pertinent to the discussion because they weren't a part of our interaction. You don't get to modify things along the way as you see fit and expect everyone else to just agree and go along. Sorry. You made a statement, I replied with the results of my research, such as it was. Not liking that you attempted to change the rules.

You need to learn a little about debate. Maybe that's where you get the idea people here will lose debates based on views. You're actually losing because you're just not very good at it?

Whatever, have a nice day.
 
ill take it you are not man enough to put your money where your mouth is......just as i thought. :neener:

hey its just a $800 AR-15...
 
these actions are not purely self-defense. they are as far as them coming close to him and trying to "rush" him, he may be justified, but chasing them to their car at gunpoint, taking their car keys, and ordering them to the ground or to not move, is in fact, an arrest. what did he arrest them for?
Click to expand...
How about ASSAULT! A citizen can arrest someone that the citizen observes commiting a felony.

I'd say that Haab observed a case of assault. The fact that he successfully defended himself seems to me to be irrelevant (IANAL). Once the assault was over Haab had a right to detain the assaulters using what ever force necessary to do so (at least in OK he would - assuming I haven't misinterpreted OK's citizen arrest statutes) and from the AZ statutes posted on another thread I suspect that he could there too - which is why I for one am surprised Haab is still cooling his heels in the joint. Politics probably...
 
Politics probably...
Click to expand...

My very casual observation is that the govt and most all of the folks involved in the criminal justice system think the citizen's arrest provisions shouldn't even exist. "Leave it to the profesionals."

All that deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed is soo old fashioned.
 
And part of that Constitution is to not go around pointing guns at people who you are not sure have committed a crime or not, right?
Click to expand...

There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits an individual from going around pointing guns at people. The US Constitution defines the federal government and the rights people have under that government.

The thing that makes it illegal to point guns at people is a law, in this case it would likely be a State law. Most States also provide for Citizens to arrest people they have good reason to expect are committing a crime.

You have no idea what they are up to. they may be illegal, or maybe their car broke down a few miles down the road and they're legal. for all you know they were behind a bush to take a poop. you don't know enough to make an arrest. are you saying that if you see a bunch of "coloreds" that look suspicious you can point a gun at them? sounds like a recipe for disaster. what if one of them is a legal citizen and a CCW holder? what if he shoots back? i think he'd be justified to shoot. for all he knows its an armed robbery.
Click to expand...

You're basing your assumption that he didn't have plenty of evidence that a crime was being committed on what at best is a third hand account. You're jumping to that conclusion with out facts to support it.

You might want to go back to your legal books and determine the difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause. Reasonable suspicion is enough for a legal detention. Probable cause is enough for arrest.
Click to expand...

He may not have used the proper legal term. He still made an arguably valid point which you ignored to nitpick his language.

I don't think pointing a gun, special forces, mall ninja, MMP volunteer, or whatever, was the RIGHT thing to do.
Click to expand...

You are welcome to that opinion. However, before criticizing this person who did so, you should consider that you really don't know the whole situation.
 
Werewolf wrote:
"How about ASSAULT! A citizen can arrest someone that the citizen observes commiting a felony."
This is felonious assault? go read the penal code. simple assault is a misdemeanor. aggravated assault/ADW is a felony. that being said, assault is the "attempt coupled with present ability." it is still unclear if this is an assault. per the responding deputies it wasn't since he was arrested.

Werewolf continued:
"Once the assault was over Haab had a right to detain the assaulters using what ever force necessary to do so."
Whatever force necessary does not include excessive force. using a firearm to stop a bunch of fleeing people who at best committed a misdemeanor (and a shaky one at that) is not the proper choice. i'm surprised how many THR members can quote laws yet not know how they are applied? not specifically you Werewolf, no offense, but in general....there seems to be a prevalence on this board about quoting laws but incorrectly interpreting them.

flatrock wrote:
"There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits an individual from going around pointing guns at people. The US Constitution defines the federal government and the rights people have under that government."
Check the 4th amendment ... illegal search & seizure. pointing a gun at someone and prohibiting their movement is a de facto arrest, be it a de facto citizen's arrest. that is an illegal seizure of a person.

flatrock continued:
"You're basing your assumption that he didn't have plenty of evidence that a crime was being committed on what at best is a third hand account. You're jumping to that conclusion with out facts to support it."
im going on the news report, just as his supporters are going on the news report. it's not fair to use the news report to one side's favor and then discount it when the other side uses it. i don't have the facts, nor do you or anyone else. but based upon the news reports, this is what i can say is reasonable.

that's another prevalent reply on THR, the fact that someone "doesn't know all the facts" so they can't form an opinion. guess what...nobody on here knows the facts unless they were there. but somehow most THR board members don't seem to care about that when someone's opinion is in agreement with the "flow" of the majority of the people on here.

flatrock continued:
"He still made an arguably valid point which you ignored to nitpick his language."
his point was that seeing a bunch of hispanics emerging from a bush in the middle of the desert was probable cause to arrest? or reasonable suspicion to detain and perform your own investigation to obtain probable cause to arrest? it's not nitpicking language, it's nitpicking the fact that he had no business stopping them (if that was the story, but it turns out it is not).

flatrock continued:
"You are welcome to that opinion. However, before criticizing this person who did so, you should consider that you really don't know the whole situation."
okay, so its not ok to criticize if you don't know the whole situation, but it is ok to support him if you don't know the whole situation? i don't see you complaining about anyone's comments supporting his action. none of us know the whole situation. i suggest you start complaining about everyone's comments that either support or question his actions. :confused:
 
ill take it you are not man enough to put your money where your mouth is......just as i thought.
Click to expand...

So after trying to Spin the discussion, rephrase what you said, redefine what I said and what it was actually in reply to you now resort to the Ad Hom attack? Frankly it seems to fit pretty well with the bulk of the rest of your postings lately, as well as the kind of mindset that would even make an "internet dare", let alone pursue it over the course of days and more than one thread.

hey its just a $800 AR-15...
Click to expand...

Yes, I have several. Again, your point would be...?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Immigrants give differing accounts of capture by reservist
Replies
2
Views
346
Daemon688
D
D
  • Locked
Soldier overwhelmed by support since arrest.
Replies
7
Views
908
rock jock
R
D
  • Locked
Immigration law group posts bond for illegals detained by reservist
Replies
4
Views
372
cropcirclewalker
C
D
  • Locked
No charges for soldier who held aliens
Replies
24
Views
787
Old Fuff
O
D
  • Locked
(AZ) Protesters denounce decision not to prosecute Army Reservist
Replies
13
Views
763
gunsmith
G
Back
Top