16 illegals sue Arizona rancher (32million)

[Dino]

yeah... lets rely on our LEGAL system.... THEY'LL sort it out properly. HA! That's all I'm saying

It may not be perfect but it is the best there is.

 

[CTA_Busa_LE]

Good find.

I read the first one to apply to law enforcement officials because the distinction between "law enforcement" and "private person". Make no mistake Once the LEOs arrived the 16 were clearly in a position to be detained arrested or otherwise.

13-409. Justification; use of physical force in law enforcement <- to mean enforcement of the law, not specifically just law enforcement personnel

A person ( <-any person, if it were law enforecment only it would say something to the effect of "a law enforcement officer) is justified in threatening or using physical force against another if in making or assisting in making an arrest or detention or in preventing or assisting in preventing the escape after arrest or detention of that other person, such person uses or threatens to use physical force and all of the following exist:
1. A reasonable person would believe that such force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or detention or prevent the escape.
2. Such person makes known the purpose of the arrest or detention or believes that it is otherwise known or cannot reasonably be made known to the person to be arrested or detained.
3. A reasonable person would believe the arrest or detention to be lawful.

There is more to the law than just reading and making assumptions, interpretation can be a tricky game but this one is very apparant. Almost always if the law is referring to law enforcement personnel only it will clearly state such

 

[Dino]

13-409. Justification; use of physical force in law enforcement <- to mean enforcement of the law, not specifically just law enforcement personnel

A person any person, if it were law enforecment only it would say something to the effect of "a law enforcement officer is justified in threatening or using physical force against another if in making or assisting in making an arrest or detention or in preventing or assisting in preventing the escape after arrest or detention of that other person, such person uses or threatens to use physical force and all of the following exist:
1. A reasonable person would believe that such force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or detention or prevent the escape.
2. Such person makes known the purpose of the arrest or detention or believes that it is otherwise known or cannot reasonably be made known to the person to be arrested or detained.
3. A reasonable person would believe the arrest or detention to be lawful.

There is more to the law than just reading and making assumptions, interpretation can be a tricky game but this one is very apparant. Almost always if the law is referring to law enforcement personnel only it will clearly state such

You may be right, like I said I based it upon a further definition of arrest by a private person to show a distinction between someone authorized (LEO) by their position vs. a private citizen. I agree with you and you may be right on this account. Like I said I think this and the threat of deadly force will be the crux of the arguement in court. Unfortunately for the Rancher, as you are probably well aware, in a civil trial there is a lower standard of proof demanded upon the plaintif.

Even so there is still that equally tricky determination if the threat to use deadly force and was justified. Again I would not want to be in the rancher's shoes because from what we can see of the circumstances and the laws justifying the use of force he may be in trouble. Like it or not.

 

[Mellow77]

You can count me as a loyal voter! Pick a party and send me a button and bumper sticker....

wait.... were they ENTERING LEGALLY or not? If not, they have NO rights. nothing

CRIMINALS DON'T HAVE RIGHTS, AMERICA!

I'm Greg and I approved this message. GB for President 2012

 

[CTA_Busa_LE]

You may be right, like I said I based it upon a further definition of arrest by a private person to show a distinction between someone authorized (LEO) by their position vs. a private citizen. I agree with you and you may be right on this account. Like I said I think this and the threat of deadly force will be the crux of the arguement in court. Unfortunately for the Rancher, as you are probably well aware, in a civil trial there is a lower standard of proof demanded upon the plaintif.

Even so there is still that equally tricky determination if the threat to use deadly force and was justified. Again I would not want to be in the rancher's shoes because from what we can see of the circumstances and the laws justifying the use of force he may be in trouble. Like it or not.

From reading the statutes I posted, I would say he was more than justified in his actions. " A reasonable person would believe" gives quite a bit of discretion to the rancher. 16 vs 1 would lead most anyone to believe that the threat was justified. Granted there are many details not stated so I won't go as far as saying its cut and dry or that I'm willing to stick my neck out for him. But from what I've read, his use of his weapon was more than justified.

 

[Hayabusa Fury]

The thing that keeps bothering me about this story is not if the rancher is guilty or innocent, it is why 32 million dollars???

 

[CTA_Busa_LE]

The thing that keeps bothering me about this story is not if the rancher is guilty or innocent, it is why 32 million dollars???

because when you sue someone you can use just about any number that sounds good.

 

[Dino]

13-409. Justification; use of physical force in law enforcement <- to mean enforcement of the law, not specifically just law enforcement personnel

A person ( <-any person, if it were law enforecment only it would say something to the effect of "a law enforcement officer) is justified in threatening or using physical force against another if in making or assisting in making an arrest or detention or in preventing or assisting in preventing the escape after arrest or detention of that other person, such person uses or threatens to use physical force and all of the following exist:
1. A reasonable person would believe that such force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or detention or prevent the escape.
2. Such person makes known the purpose of the arrest or detention or believes that it is otherwise known or cannot reasonably be made known to the person to be arrested or detained.
3. A reasonable person would believe the arrest or detention to be lawful.

There is more to the law than just reading and making assumptions, interpretation can be a tricky game but this one is very apparant. Almost always if the law is referring to law enforcement personnel only it will clearly state such

From reading the statutes I posted, I would say he was more than justified in his actions. " A reasonable person would believe" gives quite a bit of discretion to the rancher. 16 vs 1 would lead most anyone to believe that the threat was justified. Granted there are many details not stated so I won't go as far as saying its cut and dry or that I'm willing to stick my neck out for him. But from what I've read, his use of his weapon was more than justified.

I am leaning heavily toward agreeing with you on the use of physical force but I am not quite there on the use of or threat to use deadly force, as you know there is a legal distinction. 16 to 1 (well one plus big dog) is significant but if he was in sufficient control to assault one of the individuals as alleged in the article then I am not sure the 16 to 1 argument as justification is viable. I would like to read the arguments because this is an interesting case.

 

[WWJD]

The thing that keeps bothering me about this story is not if the rancher is guilty or innocent, it is why 32 million dollars???

because it is ALWAYS more about money, than right and wrong.

 

[CTA_Busa_LE]

I am leaning heavily toward agreeing with you on the use of physical force but I am not quite there on the use of or threat to use deadly force, as you know there is a legal distinction. 16 to 1 (well one plus big dog) is significant but if he was in sufficient control to assault one of the individuals as alleged in the article then I am not sure the 16 to 1 argument as justification is viable. I would like to read the arguments because this is an interesting case.

That's where the missing information comes into play. Because so much is missing I will not form opinion either way on this one without knowing more of the claims from both sides and hearing the arguments made for and against the action.

 

[Wag]

. . .they are not criminals until a court says so.

Not true. A criminal is a criminal at the moment the offense is committed.

--Wag--

 

[Wag]

"People who are in this country illegally should not be provided any protection under any of our laws."

What a ridiculous thing to say and worse yet, what an awful thing to believe.

People in this country illegally have very limited rights and only those rights which fall under the category of "human rights." They do not have the same protections and civil rights afforded to citizens under the constitution. Them's the breaks.

So, for example, if an illegal alien is assaulted, they will have cause in the courts against their assailant for his human rights but if they are attempting to establish cause based on our constitution, they have no rights.

Sorry about that. In order to secure those rights, they have to be in this country legally.

--Wag--

 

[Hayabusa Fury]

From reading the statutes I posted, I would say he was more than justified in his actions. " A reasonable person would believe" gives quite a bit of discretion to the rancher. 16 vs 1 would lead most anyone to believe that the threat was justified. Granted there are many details not stated so I won't go as far as saying its cut and dry or that I'm willing to stick my neck out for him. But from what I've read, his use of his weapon was more than justified.

I have a running argument with people from large metro areas about gun ownership, relative saftey in there homes and the difference in that between the city and a place like Douglas, AZ.

Have any of you been there?

I lived near there for 10 years. It is an extremely enviromentally dangerous place. The wild animals alone would dictate no roaming around unarmed. But in that part of the country a smuggler of drugs or people would rather kill you than let you go. Even something like breaking down on the highway is a very dangerous situation. The fact these people crossed the terrain they did make them very desperate. So "reasonable person" in pleasntville USA would not see the need to detain the 16 people at gun point, but reasonable in Douglas AZ, is a very different.

The tradegy here is the people that are led to believe that trip is worth it. The rancher that is forced to take these measures, and the courts that get abused with these types of lawsuits.

Whatever the law is now, I hope this causes change for the better.

 

[WWJD]

by the time we're done ANALyzing this, 80 more have come across illegally, changed their names, taken some jobs, married your daughters, burned a flag, been elected to congress...

 

[Dino]

People in this country illegally have very limited rights and only those rights which fall under the category of "human rights." They do not have the same protections and civil rights afforded to citizens under the constitution. Them's the breaks.

So, for example, if an illegal alien is assaulted, they will have cause in the courts against their assailant for his human rights but if they are attempting to establish cause based on our constitution, they have no rights.

Sorry about that. In order to secure those rights, they have to be in this country legally.

--Wag--

Wag am not agreeing or disagreeing with you but I would like to know the source of your position. No where that I know of in the constitution is there a distinction between US Citizens and Non-US Citizens in terms of what rights under the constitution are granted. Additionally if be careful going with human rights if your intent is to show that illegal alieans have a limited selection of rights they can envoke. Accepted definitions of Human Rights parallel the rights granted in the constitution pretty closely and are almost synonymous with civil rights.

 

[Dino]

People in this country illegally have very limited rights and only those rights which fall under the category of "human rights." They do not have the same protections and civil rights afforded to citizens under the constitution. Them's the breaks.

So, for example, if an illegal alien is assaulted, they will have cause in the courts against their assailant for his human rights but if they are attempting to establish cause based on our constitution, they have no rights.

Sorry about that. In order to secure those rights, they have to be in this country legally.

--Wag--

That's where the missing information comes into play. Because so much is missing I will not form opinion either way on this one without knowing more of the claims from both sides and hearing the arguments made for and against the action.

Agreed...

 

[Dino]

Not true. A criminal is a criminal at the moment the offense is committed.

--Wag--

And all this time I thought an individual was innocent until proven guilty...

 

[thrasherfox]

"People who are in this country illegally should not be provided any protection under any of our laws."

What a ridiculous thing to say and worse yet, what an awful thing to believe.

Uhhno its not.


Anyone in this country illegaly is an offense to me and my ancestors who came over here legally.

Any person in this country who had to come here legally or is a decendant of the same who had to learn english, had to go through the proper channels and had a strong desire to become an american citizen should be offended by people getting the same rights as they do without having to go through the same process.

It isnt fair and it isnt right.

In addition if a person is here illegaly, for one they are not able to properly contribute to this country (i.e. they dont have the ability to pay taxes, they dont have the ability to vote etc.)

And another thing, all of you who are coming down on those of us who are against illegals being in this country are the problem, let me repeat "YOU ARE THE PROBLEM"

If you care so much about illegals in the country, do something to help them become legal citizens, because guess what? anyone in this country who is here illegally will never have the oportunity to suceed in life. most of the time illegals will always be working for someone else and an extremely low wage with no medical benafits other than those that tax payers provide. They are just being taken advantage of as slave labor for the most part.

How is this helpful to them?

Any of you arguing this point are just doing so to stir the pot and play "devils advocate" because in the end illegals in this country are not good for anyone, inlcuding those that are here ilegally. If you dont recognize this then you have blinders on.

I am all for fencing our borders and shooting anyone that comes across from this point forward.

And ALL of the illegal immigrants that are here at the moment allow them a one time opurtunity to become an American Citizen, no strings attached.

After this has been accomplished, anyone found in this country should be deported immediately (once verified they truly are here illegaly) alone with any children they have).

What I dont understand is what is the problem with Mexicans leggaly comeing into this country?

Isnt there a process? what is the problem? are we not accepting anyone else here? I dont get it.

Is it imposible to come here legaly from Mexico? or is it just a pain in the rear and people are to lazy to go through the process?

This is a serious question I dont have an answer for and would like to understand.

 

[Dino]

Not true. A criminal is a criminal at the moment the offense is committed.

--Wag--

I have a running argument with people from large metro areas about gun ownership, relative saftey in there homes and the difference in that between the city and a place like Douglas, AZ.

Have any of you been there?

I lived near there for 10 years. It is an extremely enviromentally dangerous place. The wild animals alone would dictate no roaming around unarmed. But in that part of the country a smuggler of drugs or people would rather kill you than let you go. Even something like breaking down on the highway is a very dangerous situation. The fact these people crossed the terrain they did make them very desperate. So "reasonable person" in pleasntville USA would not see the need to detain the 16 people at gun point, but reasonable in Douglas AZ, is a very different.

The tradegy here is the people that are led to believe that trip is worth it. The rancher that is forced to take these measures, and the courts that get abused with these types of lawsuits.

Whatever the law is now, I hope this causes change for the better.

Uhhno its not.


Anyone in this country illegaly is an offense to me and my ancestors who came over here legally.

Any person in this country who had to come here legally or is a decendant of the same who had to learn english, had to go through the proper channels and had a strong desire to become an american citizen should be offended by people getting the same rights as they do without having to go through the same process.

It isnt fair and it isnt right.

In addition if a person is here illegaly, for one they are not able to properly contribute to this country (i.e. they dont have the ability to pay taxes, they dont have the ability to vote etc.)

And another thing, all of you who are coming down on those of us who are against illegals being in this country are the problem, let me repeat "YOU ARE THE PROBLEM"

If you care so much about illegals in the country, do something to help them become legal citizens, because guess what? anyone in this country who is here illegally will never have the oportunity to suceed in life. most of the time illegals will always be working for someone else and an extremely low wage with no medical benafits other than those that tax payers provide. They are just being taken advantage of as slave labor for the most part.

How is this helpful to them?

Any of you arguing this point are just doing so to stir the pot and play "devils advocate" because in the end illegals in this country are not good for anyone, inlcuding those that are here ilegally. If you dont recognize this then you have blinders on.

I am all for fencing our borders and shooting anyone that comes across from this point forward.

And ALL of the illegal immigrants that are here at the moment allow them a one time opurtunity to become an American Citizen, no strings attached.

After this has been accomplished, anyone found in this country should be deported immediately (once verified they truly are here illegaly) alone with any children they have).

What I dont understand is what is the problem with Mexicans leggaly comeing into this country?

Isnt there a process? what is the problem? are we not accepting anyone else here? I dont get it.

Is it imposible to come here legaly from Mexico? or is it just a pain in the rear and people are to lazy to go through the process?

This is a serious question I dont have an answer for and would like to understand.

I m not touching this one. Projekt it is all yours.....

 

[SAMBUSA]

No offense was intended towards you as your statement was entertaining. That is why I said it didn't include everybody who posted.

The targets of my inflammatory, "pot stirring" statement were those who stated such things as "he should just shoot them" or those who even jokingly agree with that statement.

On the surface, I think the whole thing is a ridiculous suit which does nothing more than to line the pockets of a group of lawyers. However, there must be some truth to the allegations of abuse brought against this man. Why else would an American court allow the suit to stand?

The man should be allowed to protect his property against damage but I really doubt that his piece of mind and safety is seriously infringed upon by some poor tired people traversing his humongous 22,000 acre ranch.

So I'm a racist because I'd shoot them? Right. Not so much, I dont care what color they are. Come on my property, vadalizing/damaging it you will get shot. Especially illegals. If they will damage my property, what else are they willing to damage? Me? My family? I wont take that chance. Especially when their punishment for crimes commited is deportation. Wow, that's brutal. They get deported just so they can enter illegally again.