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

[xj0hnx]

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

The ranchers neighbor was murdered by illegals while working his fence, seems to me that he might have been on edge.

 

[fskimospy]

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.

[/SIZE]

Self defense laws and the castle doctrine are not the same thing. When you understand this, you will see why you were wrong.

 

[darkewaffle]

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?

So you treat anyone who's ever gotten a speeding ticket, jaywalking citation, or been arrested for streaking as a potentially violent threat?

 

[Red Dawn]

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

Yeah Chunk, just what we need, assholes like you out there detaining people because they look suspicious to you, by that I mean because they were hispanic.

 

[Red Dawn]

The ranchers neighbor was murdered by illegals while working his fence, seems to me that he might have been on edge.

Good reason to report them to the authorities.

 

[xj0hnx]

Self defense laws and the castle doctrine are not the same thing. When you understand this, you will see why you were wrong.

I completely understand them, and they are related to each other, hence why they reference back and forth. When you understand this, you will see why you are wrong.

 

[feralkid]

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"??????

Not just terrible; horrible, your reasoning!

Bordering on "infantile ersatz-patriotic tantrum".

If you want to reasonably discuss something, fine, but this is just ranting.






.

 

[xj0hnx]

Good reason to report them to the authorities.

Did he report them? Or was he just holding them for fun?

 

[Red Dawn]

Did he report them? Or was he just holding them for fun?

Holding them under the threat of death if they tried to escape.

 

[fskimospy]

I completely understand them, and they are related to each other, hence why they reference back and forth. When you understand this, you will see why you are wrong.

They are related to each other, and as I mentioned before your attempt to say that the doctrine extends outside of the home because one part of the law is similar is not factually accurate, and is in fact a wild distortion of the law.

This would be similar to saying that shoplifting and murder are the same because they both require mens rea.

 

[xj0hnx]

They are related to each other, and as I mentioned before your attempt to say that the doctrine extends outside of the home because one part of the law is similar is not factually accurate, and is in fact a wild distortion of the law.

This would be similar to saying that shoplifting and murder are the same because they both require mens rea.

I didn't say it applied because it is similar, I said that the Castle Doctrine says it applies. You are pretty dumb for someone that claims to be a super smart guy.

 

[darkewaffle]

The ranchers neighbor was murdered by illegals while working his fence, seems to me that he might have been on edge.

Except the Barnett incident happened six years before the murder.

 

[CycloWizard]

Good reason to report them to the authorities.

Yes, INS will be all over them... Just as soon as they take care of the other 10+ million illegals who are already in the queue.

 

[thraashman]

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.

[/SIZE]

Even what you posted indicates that you have to be of the reasonable belief of threat of harm to person or property. Trespassing doesn't indicate harm, just presence. Like I said earlier, if a trick-or-treater walks onto your property but you're not giving out candy, you can't hold them at gunpoint.

 

[fskimospy]

I didn't say it applied because it is similar, I said that the Castle Doctrine says it applies. You are pretty dumb for someone that claims to be a super smart guy.

I'm not sure what you aren't understanding. The castle doctrine is a set of conditions dealing with the defense of the home, sometimes this involves the right not to have to retreat. Just because another part of the self defense code ALSO includes a right not to retreat does not mean that the castle doctrine applies outside of the home.

This is not difficult. This is also why everyone else here is telling you that you're wrong.

 

[Ns1]

wow that ruling is bullshit.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

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?

What if the person who was cutting across your yard had just robbed a bank and was escaping the scene?

 

[Red Dawn]

Yes, INS will be all over them... Just as soon as they take care of the other 10+ million illegals who are already in the queue.

So it's best he draw a weapon on them and threaten with death if they flee, make them lay on the ground, intimidate them with his dog and kick a woman on the ground. Right

 

[stag3]

if they weren't illegally here, they never would have been held at gunpoint and dogpoint.
this is why this country is going to shit

 

[Red Dawn]

What if the person who was cutting across your yard had just robbed a bank and was escaping the scene?

He'd be armed and dangerous thus being a danger to the public and to you. This situation wasn't even close to the same thing.

 

[Red Dawn]

if they weren't illegally here, they never would have been held at gunpoint and dogpoint.
this is why this country is going to shit

Because we don't let vigilantes roam the country holding people at gunpoint because they are hispanic?

 

[fskimospy]

What if the person who was cutting across your yard had just robbed a bank and was escaping the scene?

Citizens arrest covers those having committed a felony.

 

[feralkid]

if they weren't illegally here, they never would have been held at gunpoint and dogpoint.
this is why this country is going to shit

Wrong.

The same rancher has held American Citizens at gunpoint in the same manner.

 

[Infohawk]

Sorry you shouldn't be able to bring a civil action unless you're here legally (whether it's on a visa or whatever.)

 

[chucky2]

So you treat anyone who's ever gotten a speeding ticket, jaywalking citation, or been arrested for streaking as a potentially violent threat?

No, I treat criminals, or people so likely as criminals, caught in the act as a threat. If I live next to a bank (US border) that is constantly being robbed only by brown skinned people (illegal aliens), and I'm out in the yard with my gun, and the bank bells are going off (illegal immigration not stemmed a bit), and I, wow, gee golly gosh, find a group of brown skinned people running across my yard (strongly suspected illegal aliens based on past robberies ((illegal border crossings))), then I should:

a.) Hold them at gunpoint until the authorities show up - because they sure as F didn't stop them from robbing the bank (illegally crossing the border).

b.) Sternly scold them and say, Bad robber, Bad robber, while they laugh and walk away say, No Habla Ingleis...whiteboy!

c.) Sue myself and give them money for the really harsh mental treatment of telling them Bad robbers, Bad robbers...

d.) Have 'super smart political guys' do their job and secure the border properly so I'm not invaded and put in situation a - c.

Well, personally, I'd love to choose d. However, we can see where the 'super smart political guy' loyalties lie. Now, I'm for my rights and future, not for illegal aliens, so, I'm going to rule out c. B doesn't sound like it's been to effective, which is what the policy the 'super smart political guys' have been employing for years now. I guess in light of maybe not getting robbed anymore, I could try a huh?

I eagerly await the other options that will be proposed that will ensure the guarantee that the illegal aliens are detained. This should be good....maybe a super hero called The Rules can fly in and secure the border? Oh wait, that already isn't working.....

Chuck