Rancher Ordered To Pay Illegal Aliens Because He Assaulted Them On His Property

[xj0hnx]

You are wrong. Section e says you don't have to try to run away first. You still can use force only if the other sections of the law are met.

"is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section"

Right, you don't have to run away. The law still states that you have the right to defend yourself where ever you legally have the right to be. If I go to the store, and there's a robbery and I shoot the robber, I am protected. If I stop at a stop light, and am car jacked and kill the car jacker, I am protected. If I am at a party and someone threatens to kill me where I feel my life is in danger, and I kill them first, I am protected.

 

[Red Dawn]

This guy had no business doing what he did then IMO. Thanks for the clarification.

Wait he did this on public land? WTF, he's lucky he only has to pay $87K and not do time.

 

[darkewaffle]

Well yes, I would expect to keep someone in my backyard if they were just strolling through. What the fuck are they doing strolling through my backyard? What else did they fuck with? Better to keep them where they are until the authorities can arrive to work out a solution and make sure nothing crazy went on. I would also be more inclined to shoot someone for fleeing my property because how the fuck do I know they didn't steal shit or mess things up? I can't go CHECK everything, I have to keep an eye on them to make sure they don't mess anything else up, steal anything or escape with whatever they already did steal/mess up.

You're just being overly sympathetic for no reason. Now if he was beating the fools the whole time waiting for the cops, then yea sure I could see a penalty. Other than that, what I just described and what you said are exactly the kind of thing ANY RATIONAL PERSON SHOULD DO.

Overly sympathetic meet overly paranoid and prejudiced.

 

[Ldir]

Right, you don't have to run away. The law still states that you have the right to defend yourself where ever you legally have the right to be. If I go to the store, and there's a robbery and I shoot the robber, I am protected. If I stop at a stop light, and am car jacked and kill the car jacker, I am protected. If I am at a party and someone threatens to kill me where I feel my life is in danger, and I kill them first, I am protected.

And if you are not threatened, you do not have the right to kill them. Even if they're on your property.

 

[xj0hnx]

As for calling myself a super smart political guy, I have no idea what you're talking about. I've noticed you keep saying it over and over again, but I'm not sure what it refers to. If I did say it, that sounds an awful lot like sarcasm, doesn't it?

He's referring to you stating that you were a super smart political thinker. I remember it, it was pretty funny.

 

[xj0hnx]

And if you are not threatened, you do not have the right to kill them. Even if they're on your property.

And I said you did where? I posted the Castle Doctrine in refute to Traashmans claim that it only covered you from buildings on your property, which is false.

 

[CycloWizard]

The rancher ADMITTED that he was not threatened in any way by them, so his safety is not in question here.

This was not his house, this was land that he owned. Do you believe that if someone was cutting across your back yard, it would be acceptable for you to grab your gun and hold them there under threat of death until the police arrived, threatening to kill them even if they attempted to flee off of your property?

So he should wait until someone threatens him before he defends himself? It's often a bit late at that point. Do cops wait for me to pull a gun before telling me to put my hands on their heads and threatening me? I don't think so. His land is his land is his land. If someone catches a home invader near the outside window, should he wait until he comes through the window before pointing a gun at him?

 

[fskimospy]

That is EXACTLY why it was changed, to insure that you had the right to defend yourself with lethal force where you have the right to be.

There's no hedging here, you are simply wrong.

No, that only deals with your requirement to retreat, not as to whether or not the use of force was reasonable.

 

[xj0hnx]

No, that only deals with your requirement to retreat, not as to whether or not the use of force was reasonable.

I guess following a simple thing like seeing what was quoted, and then following along is too much for you. I posted the Castle Doctrine in refute to Traashmans claim that it only protected you on your property.

 

[Patranus]

Wait he did this on public land? WTF, he's lucky he only has to pay $87K and not do time.

Wait, so if I detain someone who murdered someone else and they are on public land I should go to jail?

 

[darkewaffle]

Wait, so if I detain someone who murdered someone else and they are on public land I should go to jail?

Wait, so if I detain someone who is on public land for no reason other than I think they shouldn't be there, I should get off scot free and be hailed a defender of freedom?

 

[thraashman]

And I said you did where? I posted the Castle Doctrine in refute to Traashmans claim that it only covered you from buildings on your property, which is false.

Actually, what I said was correct as fas as I can find. You're referring to duty to retreat which Castle Doctrine incorprates. But you don't have the right to use violence against people just because they're on your property, they have to be entering your home unlawfully to satisfy Castle Doctrine, and you have to be in defending yourself to satisfy no duty to retreat laws.

 

[chucky2]

Wow, that's a pretty impressive stream of consciousness crazy rant there. The argument you are making could be made for literally every other criminal action that exists. I'm not impressed. The law already allows US persons to protect their lives and property. Neither was at stake here, which of course was the whole problem to begin with.

What's more impressive is the total lack of action by the US government, you know, the group who's job it is to secure our borders, the job they've completely failed at on our southern border, is ordering a US citizen to pay illegal aliens any money. They're illegal aliens. They can get the F out and consider not landing in jail as payment.

As for calling myself a super smart political guy, I have no idea what you're talking about. I've noticed you keep saying it over and over again, but I'm not sure what it refers to. If I did say it, that sounds an awful lot like sarcasm, doesn't it?

What's sad is that it was clear in the thread you posted that in, you actually meant it. You actually have that mental vision of yourself. Hence the whiteboy reference about getting played....you're touting The Rules as if they're relevent: They're often not, in the face of Reality, in the invasion situation happening down south. But then you know that, because, you're from Philly, have traveled the world, and know how to not get played. Played like letting millions of illegals stream across private, and public for US citizen and legal guest use, property, and then having US citizens pay illegals money. And you're happy with it.

Yep....no playing going on there...

Chuck

 

[fskimospy]

I guess following a simple thing like seeing what was quoted, and then following along is too much for you. I posted the Castle Doctrine in refute to Traashmans claim that it only protected you on your property.

Do you even know what the castle doctrine is? There is way more to it than simply the right not to retreat, much of it directly related to when it's ok to use deadly force. Needless to say, these other stipulations do NOT apply to some guys in a field. The idea that because one small part of certain state's laws on the subject is the same, that the doctrine applies is ridiculous.

So no, once again, the castle doctrine does not apply.

 

[Ldir]

I guess following a simple thing like seeing what was quoted, and then following along is too much for you. I posted the Castle Doctrine in refute to Traashmans claim that it only protected you on your property.

Thraashman was refuting Spidey07's claim that you can shoot someone just for being on your property. You are the one who can not follow along.

 

[chucky2]

Wait, so if I detain someone who is on public land for no reason other than I think they shouldn't be there, I should get off scot free and be hailed a defender of freedom?

Are you in a location where millions of illegals stream across, in groups, and you come across a group of people who happen to look exactly like these illegals, and behave exactly like these illegals?

Yes, in an invasion, while being invaded, err on the side of caution*.

*: Caution for you, not the invaders.

Chuck

 

[thraashman]

So he should wait until someone threatens him before he defends himself? It's often a bit late at that point. Do cops wait for me to pull a gun before telling me to put my hands on their heads and threatening me? I don't think so. His land is his land is his land. If someone catches a home invader near the outside window, should he wait until he comes through the window before pointing a gun at him?

Just because you disagree with the law doesn't give you the right to break it. If someone is outside your home and has made no attempt to break in and haven't threatened you, then they haven't broken any law that allows you to defend your home in ANY state. Police are allowed to pull a gun on you and tell you to put your hands up because they have police powers, which grant them those special permissions. YOU don't have police powers, therefore you cannot choose to enforce your view of the law in whatever situation you choose. Pretty much everywhere in the US frowns on vigilantism.

 

[fskimospy]

What's more impressive is the total lack of action by the US government, you know, the group who's job it is to secure our borders, the job they've completely failed at on our southern border, is ordering a US citizen to pay illegal aliens any money. They're illegal aliens. They can get the F out and consider not landing in jail as payment.

What's sad is that it was clear in the thread you posted that in, you actually meant it. You actually have that mental vision of yourself. Hence the whiteboy reference about getting played....you're touting The Rules as if they're relevent: They're often not, in the face of Reality, in the invasion situation happening down south. But then you know that, because, you're from Philly, have traveled the world, and know how to not get played. Played like letting millions of illegals stream across private, and public for US citizen and legal guest use public, property, and then having US citizens pay illegals money. And you're happy with it.

Yep....no playing going on there...

Chuck

I imagine this is what you meant?

There's no buying into anything, they are lowering the tax revenues for the next year by specifically enacting legislation to do so. When taxes are reduced next year to lower than they would be under current legislation that's called a 'tax cut' by us super smart politics guys. If it helps you feel better you can call it a 'freedom bill'.

If you think that my description of myself as a 'super smart politics guy' was anything other than a dig at Fern for his incredibly dumb description of tax policy, you have a really bizarre way of reading and comprehending English.

I'm sorry, but you're way too emotional about this, and you're just acting like a child. You need to think through the consequences of what you are advocating, because your ideas are terrible.

 

[chucky2]

My idea of US citizens not allowing illegal aliens to trespass across their own property, and public property near them, while the Fed Gov is spectactularly failing to stem the invasion of said illegas is "terrible"??????

Wow.....a new low....

 

[AznAnarchy99]

Wait, so if I detain someone who murdered someone else and they are on public land I should go to jail?

So where does it say that this group murdered someone? Or are you trying to group all illegal aliens as murderers?

 

[chucky2]

I would group them as criminals. Who knowingly broke the law. Do we detain criminals? Or do we let them walk off in the hopes that the police who aren't there maybe catch them?

 

[xj0hnx]

Actually, what I said was correct as fas as I can find. You're referring to duty to retreat which Castle Doctrine incorprates. But you don't have the right to use violence against people just because they're on your property, they have to be entering your home unlawfully to satisfy Castle Doctrine, and you have to be in defending yourself to satisfy no duty to retreat laws.

No, that's the whole point is that your home is no longer the only place you are covered under the Castle Doctrine (this my vary by state). Any place that you legally have a right to be, work, car, store, etc..., assuming you are not involved in a crime, did not instigate the attack, and reasonably believe you, or a third party, are in danger, you do not have a duty to retreat. And yes if you reasonably believe that someone on your property means to do you, or a third party harm, you can use deadly force. Did the rancher have reason to believe he was in danger ...probably not, does that change the laws ...nope.

The Self Defense Laws Of Texas ​

​

The Texas Constitution
Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 23 - RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
​

"Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime."

Self Defense Statutes
(Texas Penal Code)​

(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,1994.
Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 190, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

Deadly Force in Defense of Person ​

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another if he would be justified in using force under Section 9.31 of the statute when and to the degree he reasonable believes that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force, if a reasonable person in the same situation would have not retreated. The use of deadly force is also justified to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, rape or robbery."

Defense of Another Person ​

"A person is justified in using deadly force against an attacker to protect another person if he would be justified to use it to protect himself against an unlawful attack and he reasonably believes his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the other person from serious injury or death."

Deadly Force to Protect Property​

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means." ​

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to pervent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)" ​

Protection of the Property of Others
​

"A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect the property of a third person if he reasonably believes he would be justified to use similar force to protect his own property, and he reasonably believes that there existed an attempt or actual commission of the crime of theft or criminal mischief."
"Also, a person is justified in using force or deadly force if he reasonably believes that the third person has requested his protection of property; or he has a legal duty to protect the property; or the third person whose property he is protecting is his spouse, parent or child."

Reasonable Belief ​

"It is not necessary that there should be actual danger, as a person has the right to defend his life and person from apparent danger as fully and to the same extent as he would have were the danger real, as it reasonably appeared to him from his standpoint at the time."
"In fact, Sec 9.31(a) [of the Penal Code] expressly provides that a person is justified in using deadly force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary."

Justification for Using Deadly Force Can Be Lost ​

"Even though a person is justified in threatening or using force or deadly force against another in self defense or defense of others or property as described in the statute, if in doing so he also recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification for deadly force is unavailable."
"A person acts recklessly when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk with respect to the circumstances surrounding his conduct or the results of his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation of the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise, viewed from the person's standpoint under all the circumstances existing at the time."

Self Defense Definitions ​

"Assault is committed if a person intentionally, knowingly or recklessly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, causes bodily injury to another, or causes physical contact with another when he knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative."
"Aggravated assault is committed if a person commits Assault (qv.) and causes serious bodily injury to another, or causes bodily injury to a peace officer, or uses a deadly weapon."
"Burglary is committed if, without the effective consent of the owner, a person: 1) Enters a building, or any portion of a bulding, not open to the public with intent to commit a felony or theft, or 2) Remains concealed in a building with the intent to commit a felony or theft."
"Criminal Mischief is committed if, without the effective consent of the owner, a person: 1) Intentionally or knowingly damages or destroys the property of the owner, or 2) Tampers with the property of the owner and causes momentary loss or sustained inconvenience to the owner or third person."

 

[CycloWizard]

Just because you disagree with the law doesn't give you the right to break it. If someone is outside your home and has made no attempt to break in and haven't threatened you, then they haven't broken any law that allows you to defend your home in ANY state. Police are allowed to pull a gun on you and tell you to put your hands up because they have police powers, which grant them those special permissions. YOU don't have police powers, therefore you cannot choose to enforce your view of the law in whatever situation you choose. Pretty much everywhere in the US frowns on vigilantism.

He didn't defend his home. He didn't assault anyone. He didn't shoot anyone. He didn't do anything that any reasonable person would consider improper. If the law disagrees with his actions, the law is FUBAR.

 

[darkewaffle]

Are you in a location where millions of illegals stream across, in groups, and you come across a group of people who happen to look exactly like these illegals, and behave exactly like these illegals?

Yes, in an invasion, while being invaded, err on the side of caution*.

*: Caution for you, not the invaders.

Chuck

We get it, you hate immigrants because they're taking your jerbs and ruining our country and you automatically assume that they're dangerous fiends. Very reasonable of you.

Anecdotally, I grew up in a small town with a noticeable Hispanic population (in my age range especially). Actually I believe most of them were more Central and South American, but it's a similar demographic. By and large, they were hard workers and kept to themselves. I went through high school with them, and then a few years later I worked next to them in an industrial production setting and theres absolutely nothing wrong with them. I have no problem with more people in our country, we've got room and could always use more tax dollars and willing workers. I've met my fair share of Americans I can't say the same of.

I bear them no ill will. Obviously you're drinking the haterade however.

 

[Red Dawn]

Wait, so if I detain someone who murdered someone else and they are on public land I should go to jail?

Not if you knew they murdered someone. How did this guy know they were illegals. I mean it might have been obvious to him because they were mexican and didn't speak english but did he force them at gunpoint to prove it? He doesn't have that right. We don't need fucking Cowboys doing vigilante justice out there.