Talon
Member
I thought about that, but sheesh.. 
It would almost seem like the government WANTED these illegals to come on in.
It would almost seem like the government WANTED these illegals to come on in.
Detain Illegal aliens=go to jail!
- Thread starter CentralTexas
- Start date
- Status
QuickDraw
Member
Wait a sec,
The article said the guy was an Army reservist,special
forces no less.Couldn't he claim he was upholding the
oath that he took,protecting from enemies foreign and domestic?
Just a thought.
QuickDraw
The article said the guy was an Army reservist,special
forces no less.Couldn't he claim he was upholding the
oath that he took,protecting from enemies foreign and domestic?
Just a thought.
QuickDraw
Good point quickdraw,
If I was on his jury (if they don't drop charges) he gets a walk from me. Isn't is legal to detain someone who breaks federal law? Its against federal law to rob a bank. Would you be arrested for stopping it? For that matter are local police prohibited from apprehending bank robbers? Or is it only Illegal Mexicans who can't be arrested/detained?
If I was on his jury (if they don't drop charges) he gets a walk from me. Isn't is legal to detain someone who breaks federal law? Its against federal law to rob a bank. Would you be arrested for stopping it? For that matter are local police prohibited from apprehending bank robbers? Or is it only Illegal Mexicans who can't be arrested/detained?
i am not accussing anybody of anything,but Shriff Behan, an earlier Arizona was in with the thugs,and it seems like i read that at one time over a third of KY sheriffs were in prison or parole for covering the pot growers, in other words are border or some of them involved in smuggling people in?
beerslurpy
member
So what cops do for a living is kidnapping now? Oh wait, there is a distinction based on whether or not the abducted is a criminal or not, and whether or not you are taking him into custody to punish him or hold him for ransom. Or were you talking about the distinction based on whether the person has a badge and a government paycheck?
If the govt wont enforce the laws, the citizens (on whose behalf the government is supposedly acting anyway) should feel free to enforce the law themselves. When a burglar climbs through my window and the cops dont come, I'm taking care of it myself. When people invade my country and the government wont do anything, why should I be held to a different standard?
Are these not the principles we swear allegiance to at ball games and graduation ceremonies? Or do government officials not take such oaths?
Deavis
Member
Hey Spreadfire, you know who to send the flexicuffs and $100 to, right? I'm sure the Sheriff will make sure he gets them after this whole thing is sorted He isn't a THR member, but he did try!
Citizen's Arrest of illegal aliens, ok? I think not! I hope it plays out well for the guy but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Citizen's Arrest of illegal aliens, ok? I think not! I hope it plays out well for the guy but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Bear Gulch
Member
Beer I am not even saying that I disagree with this guy's desires, just his execution. A lot of it is going to dependd on the Citizen Arrest laws of AZ. These differ from state to state.
The difference between him and a cop is authority to act. I would think that if he had been on AR duty he'd stand a better chance. What he did will get characterized as being precipitous. I think that he's probably a good guy doing a good thing, but if we let them they'll make us look bad.
The difference between him and a cop is authority to act. I would think that if he had been on AR duty he'd stand a better chance. What he did will get characterized as being precipitous. I think that he's probably a good guy doing a good thing, but if we let them they'll make us look bad.
beerslurpy
member
What grants police the authority to arrest without a warrant but denies that authority to civilians?
Oh wait, the consitution denies that authority to EVERYONE in Amendment 4:
"and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"
If we see something bad being done, we can intervene, just like cops.
If there is no warrant out for someone's arrest, what business does anyone have arresting him?
If there is a warrant, does the court care who carried it out? Their only interest is that the warranted person appear before the court.
If something bad is done to someone under the guise of arresting them for a crime, there is a accountability for the offending party (oh wait, I guess cops arent the same).
Or is my childish intellect missing some obvious point? Besides having unconstitutional and unfair priveliges bestowed upon them, what distinguishes civilians with badges from citizens without badges? And is this just?
Oh wait, the consitution denies that authority to EVERYONE in Amendment 4:
"and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"
If we see something bad being done, we can intervene, just like cops.
If there is no warrant out for someone's arrest, what business does anyone have arresting him?
If there is a warrant, does the court care who carried it out? Their only interest is that the warranted person appear before the court.
If something bad is done to someone under the guise of arresting them for a crime, there is a accountability for the offending party (oh wait, I guess cops arent the same).
Or is my childish intellect missing some obvious point? Besides having unconstitutional and unfair priveliges bestowed upon them, what distinguishes civilians with badges from citizens without badges? And is this just?
MikeIsaj
Member
Police officers are sworn officers of the court that also issues the warrent. Their authority comes from the court. Courts grant officers authority to make sight arrests in certain situations only, and after establishing probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed by this particular individual. That's where their power comes from. A police officer that makes a sight arrest without probable cause is going to answer to the court whose power he abused.
In Pennsylvania a citizen can make an arrest or detention based on reasonable suspicion that an individual has committed a crime. That usually involves direct observation of actions or evidence that clearly leads a reasonable person to conclude that a crime was committed by htis particular individual. Like it's been said previously, if you do that you better hope that everyone else up the line agrees with your idea of reasonable or you could be in trouble.
Unfortunatly I do not think this young patriot had the reasonable suspicion that these people were illegals. He saw them come into a rest stop, not across the border. Again I hope that Sheriff Joe and the DA exercise some discretion in prosecuting this case. There's a lot of wiggle room here. Does anyone think the illegals are going to show up for the trial? If they do it will be as detainees awaiting extadition. Do you honestly think they can convince 12 citizens beyond a doubt that this guy was wrong and should be punished.
Semper Fi!
In Pennsylvania a citizen can make an arrest or detention based on reasonable suspicion that an individual has committed a crime. That usually involves direct observation of actions or evidence that clearly leads a reasonable person to conclude that a crime was committed by htis particular individual. Like it's been said previously, if you do that you better hope that everyone else up the line agrees with your idea of reasonable or you could be in trouble.
Unfortunatly I do not think this young patriot had the reasonable suspicion that these people were illegals. He saw them come into a rest stop, not across the border. Again I hope that Sheriff Joe and the DA exercise some discretion in prosecuting this case. There's a lot of wiggle room here. Does anyone think the illegals are going to show up for the trial? If they do it will be as detainees awaiting extadition. Do you honestly think they can convince 12 citizens beyond a doubt that this guy was wrong and should be punished.
Semper Fi!
thorn726
Member
this is ridiculous. citizens arrest ? i don't think you cna be whipping out a gun in public for that, even if citizens arrest is appropriAte.
man i dunno what to think of this one. im not totally against what guy did, but it just seems a little heavy handed, and
PAPERS PLEASE??
what are we gonna come to when we are all asking for each others papers
man i dunno what to think of this one. im not totally against what guy did, but it just seems a little heavy handed, and
PAPERS PLEASE??
what are we gonna come to when we are all asking for each others papers
thorn726
Member
uh anyone else see about a million holes in that idea?????????
Spreadfire Arms
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 1,312
beerslurpy wrote:
"He should have just shot them and departed the scene. I mean, if theyre really undocumented, who will miss them?"
great advice dude. isnt there some sort of filter on this board (aka a moderator) to make sure illegal activities aren't promoted on this board?
anyway....this goes to show what happens when you misinterpret the law to believe that a non-LEO can go out and think they can arrest for an immigration violation.
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.
this just goes to show what happens when you misinterpret the meaning of "citizen arrest."
even if it is a felony, this guy had no proof whatsoever other than a group of hispanics emerging from behind a bush. that in and of itself is not evidence that they are illegal aliens. a normal, prudent person would not think this.
felony or not, that does not authorize you to present deadly force into the situation. a paper crime can be a felony (embezzlement, check fraud, credit card fraud, failing to pay income tax, etc) but that does not necessarily facilitate the pointing of a gun at someone. :banghead:
this guy clearly overreacted.
"He should have just shot them and departed the scene. I mean, if theyre really undocumented, who will miss them?"
great advice dude.
isnt there some sort of filter on this board (aka a moderator) to make sure illegal activities aren't promoted on this board?anyway....this goes to show what happens when you misinterpret the law to believe that a non-LEO can go out and think they can arrest for an immigration violation.
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.
this just goes to show what happens when you misinterpret the meaning of "citizen arrest."
even if it is a felony, this guy had no proof whatsoever other than a group of hispanics emerging from behind a bush. that in and of itself is not evidence that they are illegal aliens. a normal, prudent person would not think this.
felony or not, that does not authorize you to present deadly force into the situation. a paper crime can be a felony (embezzlement, check fraud, credit card fraud, failing to pay income tax, etc) but that does not necessarily facilitate the pointing of a gun at someone. :banghead:
this guy clearly overreacted.
CZ-100
Member
But I think those should and than maybe it would not happen as much.
Border Charge Haiku
----------------------
ACROSS THE BORDER
HAD TO STOP FOR REST
MAN WITH GUN
---------------------
ILLEGALS
DEFEND MY COUNTRY
HELP FROM US
---------------------
TERRORIST THREAT
ONLY WE ARREST
JAIL FOR YOU
---------------------
Moral:
HOT SUBJECT
STAY UP NORTH
or
SHOOT SHOVEL SHUTUP
Okay, I cheated on the last one. Just having fun with this thread.
I understand what you guys are saying about the "armed populace" just running hither thither playing Dirty Harry.
But what would I do:
In this case let's see, I'm a special forces guy, sworn to protect my country's borders, and sworn to uphold the constitution. I see several guys, of dark descent, walk into a rest stop, in the middle of a stinking desert (really, you guys living there, I'm sure it's nice ), and you are close to the border. What are you supposed to think? I would call that reasonable suspicion, and probable cause for a reaction. Although I also probably would have just used a cell phone. That is assuming I had one. If I didn't have one I am not sure what I would do.
Anyway, he was suspicious. How can you call this a "false arrest" when his suspicions were proven correct? It's not as if he used physical force, just threatened to. "Oh no!!" "He threatened to officer, call my Mommy".
Does this mean when a peace officer has probable, reasonable suspicion, and he is in the wrong he should get thrown in jail on $100,000 bond? Now if our friendly little Iraqi War Veteran had shot one or more of them he probably would have taken it too far. I say probably. What if he got rushed.
In this case though it was a "no blood, no foul" deal. Especially when he was proven right. That used to be called gut instinct. If that's is gone from a cop's lineup no wonder they have to depend upon using SWAT tactics, phasers and other assorted JBT tricks. Bring back Columbo please.
By the way; I smell a plant. This is waaay too convenient. And he's special forces. He can just disappear. Just my suspicions
----------------------
ACROSS THE BORDER
HAD TO STOP FOR REST
MAN WITH GUN
---------------------
ILLEGALS
DEFEND MY COUNTRY
HELP FROM US
---------------------
TERRORIST THREAT
ONLY WE ARREST
JAIL FOR YOU
---------------------
Moral:
HOT SUBJECT
STAY UP NORTH
or
SHOOT SHOVEL SHUTUP
Okay, I cheated on the last one. Just having fun with this thread.
I understand what you guys are saying about the "armed populace" just running hither thither playing Dirty Harry.
But what would I do:
In this case let's see, I'm a special forces guy, sworn to protect my country's borders, and sworn to uphold the constitution. I see several guys, of dark descent, walk into a rest stop, in the middle of a stinking desert (really, you guys living there, I'm sure it's nice
), and you are close to the border. What are you supposed to think? I would call that reasonable suspicion, and probable cause for a reaction. Although I also probably would have just used a cell phone. That is assuming I had one. If I didn't have one I am not sure what I would do. Anyway, he was suspicious. How can you call this a "false arrest" when his suspicions were proven correct? It's not as if he used physical force, just threatened to. "Oh no!!" "He threatened to officer, call my Mommy".
Does this mean when a peace officer has probable, reasonable suspicion, and he is in the wrong he should get thrown in jail on $100,000 bond? Now if our friendly little Iraqi War Veteran had shot one or more of them he probably would have taken it too far. I say probably. What if he got rushed.
In this case though it was a "no blood, no foul" deal. Especially when he was proven right. That used to be called gut instinct. If that's is gone from a cop's lineup no wonder they have to depend upon using SWAT tactics, phasers and other assorted JBT tricks. Bring back Columbo please.
By the way; I smell a plant. This is waaay too convenient. And he's special forces. He can just disappear. Just my suspicions
Spreadfire Arms
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 1,312
Risasi wrote:
"In this case let's see, I'm a special forces guy, sworn to protect my country's borders, and sworn to uphold the constitution."
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?
"I see several guys, of dark descent, walk into a rest stop, in the middle of a stinking desert (really, you guys living there, I'm sure it's nice ), and you are close to the border. What are you supposed to think?"
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.
"I would call that reasonable suspicion, and probable cause for a reaction."
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.
"Although I also probably would have just used a cell phone. That is assuming I had one. If I didn't have one I am not sure what I would do."
I don't think pointing a gun, special forces, mall ninja, MMP volunteer, or whatever, was the RIGHT thing to do.
"In this case let's see, I'm a special forces guy, sworn to protect my country's borders, and sworn to uphold the constitution."
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?
"I see several guys, of dark descent, walk into a rest stop, in the middle of a stinking desert (really, you guys living there, I'm sure it's nice ), and you are close to the border. What are you supposed to think?"
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.
"I would call that reasonable suspicion, and probable cause for a reaction."
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.
"Although I also probably would have just used a cell phone. That is assuming I had one. If I didn't have one I am not sure what I would do."
I don't think pointing a gun, special forces, mall ninja, MMP volunteer, or whatever, was the RIGHT thing to do.
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.
No silly, only girls go to the bathroom in groups...
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.
I thinks he is justified too, that is if he is an American Citizen. If he's an illegal then he either does or does not have Constitutional rights. You tell me, which is it?
I understand the meanings. And yes, this fellow may have overreacted by pointing a firearm if he didn't need to. Then again, the report may have been flat out WRONG, he may simply have drawn and not pointed it. I guess this we'll never really know.
Well that's all fine and well. And you don't have to agree with me. But look at it this way. They are foreigners. They ARE invading our country. We should either throw the doors wide open, or crack down. AND if we throw the doors wide open we'd better just take over all of mexico and make it our 51st state and get it done with. Otherwise we will be compromised from the inside out. (If we aren't already).
P.S. Did you see my note that I think it's a fix? I do agree he may have overreacted, and his timing is shall we say, impeccable?
Joejojoba111
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2005
- Messages
- 1,056
You have to admit that this poor soldier must be confused. I mean the president is elected as a war president because their is a war on terror, every day has a color assigned to it to alert the probability of terror attack, the bill of rights has been suspended to protect the population from the waves of suicide bombers at the doorstep - BUT DON'T TRY TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
Yea the same great law enforcement like the FBI that received tips about suspicious people taking flying lessons, or the FBI that arrested some of the 9/11 hijackers and found empty apartments with computers that only had flight simulators, but let them go.
Take the hint, you're supposed to sit still and shut up, maybe you can pull a lever and vote every 4years or so - wow freedom and democracy at work.
Yea the same great law enforcement like the FBI that received tips about suspicious people taking flying lessons, or the FBI that arrested some of the 9/11 hijackers and found empty apartments with computers that only had flight simulators, but let them go.
Take the hint, you're supposed to sit still and shut up, maybe you can pull a lever and vote every 4years or so - wow freedom and democracy at work.
MikeIsaj
Member
"I'm a special forces guy"
Irrelevent in this situation. You have sworn an oath as a member of the armed forces. You are acting as a private citizen.
"I would call that reasonable suspicion, and probable cause for a reaction"
No court in the U.S. would.
"Although I also probably would have just used a cell phone"
THAT would have been reasonable.
"How can you call this a "false arrest" when his suspicions were proven correct?"
Probable cause has to exist BEFORE the action, not after.
"Does this mean when a peace officer has probable, reasonable suspicion, and he is in the wrong he should get thrown in jail on $100,000 bond?"
Again, if probable cause existed before the action, he did not break the law regardless of the outcome.
"gut instinct"
That's a great starting point to become interested. You have to develop a case from there. By itself, not enough to arrest.
"By the way; I smell a plant. This is waaay too convenient. And he's special forces. He can just disappear. Just my suspicions"
SSSSSHHHHHHHHHH! (sound of black helicopters)
Irrelevent in this situation. You have sworn an oath as a member of the armed forces. You are acting as a private citizen.
"I would call that reasonable suspicion, and probable cause for a reaction"
No court in the U.S. would.
"Although I also probably would have just used a cell phone"
THAT would have been reasonable.
"How can you call this a "false arrest" when his suspicions were proven correct?"
Probable cause has to exist BEFORE the action, not after.
"Does this mean when a peace officer has probable, reasonable suspicion, and he is in the wrong he should get thrown in jail on $100,000 bond?"
Again, if probable cause existed before the action, he did not break the law regardless of the outcome.
"gut instinct"
That's a great starting point to become interested. You have to develop a case from there. By itself, not enough to arrest.
"By the way; I smell a plant. This is waaay too convenient. And he's special forces. He can just disappear. Just my suspicions"
SSSSSHHHHHHHHHH! (sound of black helicopters)
DRZinn
Member
Uhhh.... wrong. In southern Arizona, in the middle of the desert, a group of Hispanics emerging from behind a bush, and you think they're probably just all taking a crap together? Riiiiiiight.
Okay, maybe there's some detailed legal definition of "reasonable suspicion," but in plain ol' English that qualifies.
beerslurpy
member
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.
As for people running about dirty harry style, theres nothing wrong with people getting shot as long as its the right people (to quote dirty harry).
Surely anyone who carries a firearm for self defense must realize that there is a whole category of bad and good shooting. Obviously that same moral distinction extends to situations where law and order has deteriorated enough that the police are more of a danger to the law abiding than to the criminals. Eventually SOMEONE has to take the law into their hands. Unless this border situation and the associated social ills are somehow lawful in a way that I dont yet appreciate?
Maybe if more illegals had accidents they would be less eager to invade the country.
Of course this is purely hypothetical- law and order hasnt broken down, and illegal immigrants arent committing any crimes beyond not having proper documetnation.
As for people running about dirty harry style, theres nothing wrong with people getting shot as long as its the right people (to quote dirty harry).
Surely anyone who carries a firearm for self defense must realize that there is a whole category of bad and good shooting. Obviously that same moral distinction extends to situations where law and order has deteriorated enough that the police are more of a danger to the law abiding than to the criminals. Eventually SOMEONE has to take the law into their hands. Unless this border situation and the associated social ills are somehow lawful in a way that I dont yet appreciate?
Maybe if more illegals had accidents they would be less eager to invade the country.
Of course this is purely hypothetical- law and order hasnt broken down, and illegal immigrants arent committing any crimes beyond not having proper documetnation.
Aguila Blanca
Member
I don't think so.
At least in my state, the state police (and the authority that trickles down to swear in municipal police) exists under and derives from the executive branch, not the judicial branch. Which means LEOs are officers of the state, not officers of the court.
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. I'm not above the law. But there is right and wrong. And this situation is rather black and white for me.
Look, I'm not trying to start an argument. Just trying to voice my opinion. That's all. I'll admit, in a rather facetious way too. Sorry, crappy day, but good mood. Sort of a "the ship be damned, full speed ahead" type mood.
I'll tell you this. I'm a computer guy, but my business is multi-faceted. I work for a friend who is a business owner in several small endeavors. And sometimes I pitch in and help in the other businesses.
And he has some that are Mexicans that work for him, some who are also now American citizens. The difference is my friend goes out of his way to make sure these guys get kosher. Either they have a work permit, or they get citizenship. The difference is they pull their weight. They pay taxes like you and me. This is different than a freeloader. Even a freeloader who will do the jobs that you and I won't do because we are too stinking proud. And they like working, long hard hours. I am under no false pretense that they can and do outwork most white Americans, and nearly all Black Americans. If us whiteys don't get our heads out of the sand, and teach our young ones the ideal of a good honest day's work, this country is screwed. The Mexicans automatically inherit it by default. And deserve it. That's what made this country what it is today. The white man will have to swallow his pride and outwork them, or learn to integrate, or become virtually extinct like the American Indian. This goes for the rest of the world. I have co-workers who are Indian, African, Russian. And have had Chinese and Japanese co-workers too. One thing I have learned from them is that some of them have shaken some of the chains of bondage and they are after a better life, where they don't have to worry about oppression. Not like you and I would naturally think. It's funny, Americans are the richest, indebted people I know. And it's all because we seek after our own lusts. These guys just want to work where they are not scraping together just enough to live on day by day. And I mean as in eating. You alway see your next meal coming. Some of those I talk about don't.
Just so you know I also don't begrudge the Mexican trying to cross the border. Legally or illegally. I have been to Mexico several times, and spent a fair amount of time all along the border towns. The small ones. I learn that the ones coming here are oppressed. The tall lights hate the short darks. It's racism pure and simple. It's just that they should go about it lawfully. If they don't, personally I don't care. They need to pull their weight like the rest of us. Otherwise it's just another form of racism. Albeit coming from someone other than our southern neighbors, and not necessarily something they can do anything about. Heck I'd collect welfare, government funding, etc. too if I came here and it was offered. I just see the political agenda behind the mask of the common Mexican immigrant...
- Status