Undocumented Aliens on my Land

[FN Phat]

I would imagine that damages to the irrigation/water supplies, fences, livestock, property, etc could be reason enough to make a rancher feel obligated to take matters in his own hands to protect his land, investments and properties.

I would be interested to hear Cowboy's point of view on this one, as he can relate to the possible hazards that trespassers would have on an active ranch.

[TripletDaddy]

Just so I have this straight. If some dude is in my backyard in the dead of night I have no right to detain him at gunpoint until the cops arrive because it might inflict emotional distress.

No. Pease baptize your mind of any legal jargon RedSox has used in this thread, since almost all of it has been incorrect.

Your inability to detain them at gunpoint is not because it might infilict emotional distress. It is simply because you dont have the right to detain someone at gunpoint if they are cutting across your property. You also dont have the right to assess citizenship.

Also please ignore these argument about broken sprinklers, etc. Damage to your property also does not allow you to use the threat of deadly force.

Call the cops, hope they help. If they dont, that might give you an idea of how "serious" they view the infraction.

[Shaka]

No. Pease baptize your mind of any legal jargon RedSox has used in this thread, since almost all of it has been incorrect.

Your inability to detain them at gunpoint is not because it might infilict emotional distress. It is simply because you dont have the right to detain someone at gunpoint if they are cutting across your property. You also dont have the right to assess citizenship.

Also please ignore these argument about broken sprinklers, etc. Damage to your property also does not allow you to use the threat of deadly force.

Call the cops, hope they help. If they dont, that might give you an idea of how "serious" they view the infraction.

What if I just tackle the dude and give him an atomic wedgie?

[wuapinmon]

What if I just tackle the dude and give him an atomic wedgie?

It would be better to just shout incivilities at them. A few:

1. Gadsen compró esta tierra de Santa Anna y no está de venta otra vez.
2. Si paras en tu camino, no habrá otra huella tuya y las de Dios tampoco, Él sólo anda en caminos dignos.
3. Voy a soltar mis perros como hicieron los de Cortez en Tenochtitlán contra tus antepasados.
4. Es una tristeza que tu gobierno los trata como unos huevones. ¡VIVA MÉXICO, CABRONES!

[Babs]

Call the cops, hope they help. If they dont, that might give you an idea of how "serious" they view the infraction.

I think in this case it could be the other way around. Free unlawful law enforcement.

This actually could be a fascinating case if anyone pursued the angle that this guy appears to be working in tandem with the immigration officials. He literally rounds up these immigrants by the dozen and then holds them until the agents arrive. Over 1200 and counting. It's hard to believe the agents haven't noticed the pattern. Clearly they're fully aware of the tactics he's using and have done nothing to intervene.

[Uncle Ted]

Also please ignore these argument about broken sprinklers, etc. Damage to your property also does not allow you to use the threat of deadly force.

Well, don't try to take someone's Twinkies in Texas...

In the State of Texas, homeowners have the right to use deadly force to protect their lives and property. But the case of Jose Luis Gonzalez sparked a controversy when the jury found him not guilty for shooting a teenage intruder over snacks and soda:

Gonzalez had endured several break-ins at his trailer when the four boys, ranging in age from 11 to 15, broke in. Gonzalez, who was in a nearby building at the time, went into the trailer and confronted the boys with a 16-gauge shotgun. Then he forced the boys, who were unarmed, to their knees, attorneys on both sides say.

The boys say they were begging for forgiveness when Gonzalez hit them with the barrel of the shotgun and kicked them repeatedly. Then, the medical examiner testified, Anguiano was shot in the back at close range. Two mashed Twinkies and some cookies were stuffed in the pockets of his shorts.

Another boy, Jesus Soto Jr., now 16, testified that Gonzalez ordered them at gunpoint to take Anguiano’s body outside.

Gonzalez said he thought Anguiano was lunging at him when he fired the shotgun.

[Babs]

Well, don't try to take someone's Twinkies in Texas...

This was the other case I was trying to remember.

Cardiac, this is what I was telling you about. Technically, what happened with the next-door neighbor robbery was not justified. Precedentially, however, in Texas the propertyowner has always won, no matter how poorly the self-defense claim fits the actual provision.

[Pheidippides]

This was the other case I was trying to remember.

Cardiac, this is what I was telling you about. Technically, what happened with the next-door neighbor robbery was not justified. Precedentially, however, in Texas the propertyowner has always won, no matter how poorly the self-defense claim fits the actual provision.

Yeah, you're taking your life in your own hands when you so much as trespass here. With that said, I'm not sure how much of a deterrent effect that has on people who don't know the law - such as immigrants who don't speak English.

I have mixed feelings about this kind of law. I do own a hunting rifle and a nice semi-auto pistol, and would like to add a shotgun of the 12 gauge variety in the mix. If I hear weird noises at night, the first thing I'd reach for would be the pistol (until I have a shotgun) and the second would be the phone. Indeed, I've done just this now and again - while my neighborhood is upscale, there are some not-so-upscale areas nearby (welcome to Houston!) and break-ins are not unheard of.

But actually shooting? It would have to be pretty cut and dried. I'll bark and order you on the ground with a steady hand. And if you run out the front door, I'll let you go. But it would take a serious act of aggression to actually fire.

Killing another person is a horrible thing, even if it is necessary and even if you are legally and morally justified. I've been within 30 seconds of having to do it in the past. I never want to actually be there.

[BlueHair]

If someone breaks into my house, they are getting shot. I can't imagine how horrible it would be to take someone's life, but I'm not going to take the chance of letting them harm my family. Intent would be really hard to determine when you are terrified in the middle of the night.

If they're in my backyard, I'll call the cops.

[Commando]

I think in this case it could be the other way around. Free unlawful law enforcement.

This actually could be a fascinating case if anyone pursued the angle that this guy appears to be working in tandem with the immigration officials. He literally rounds up these immigrants by the dozen and then holds them until the agents arrive. Over 1200 and counting. It's hard to believe the agents haven't noticed the pattern. Clearly they're fully aware of the tactics he's using and have done nothing to intervene.

ICE agents only deal with the INA, not state laws dealing with assault, unlawful detainment, etc. I think that since they don't enforce state laws, state police shouldn't attempt to enforce federal immigration law, but that's just me-- simple and misguided.

[Babs]

ICE agents only deal with the INA, not state laws dealing with assault, unlawful detainment, etc.

nevermind.

For those of you who are fans, you'll be relieved to hear there's a defense fund set up in support of Barnett. You can send contributions to:
Legal Defense Fund
1498 E. Fry Blvd.
Sierra Vista, AZ 85635

[Green Monstah]

No. Pease baptize your mind of any legal jargon RedSox has used in this thread, since almost all of it has been incorrect.

Your inability to detain them at gunpoint is not because it might infilict emotional distress. It is simply because you dont have the right to detain someone at gunpoint if they are cutting across your property. You also dont have the right to assess citizenship.

Also please ignore these argument about broken sprinklers, etc. Damage to your property also does not allow you to use the threat of deadly force.

Call the cops, hope they help. If they dont, that might give you an idea of how "serious" they view the infraction.

Jackass, he lost a civil suit filed by four of the women he detained. 85% of the damages were for intentional infliction of emotional distress. For all your talk of paying attention in law school, you're having a hard time distinguishing the criminal from the civil.

[Babs]

Jackass, he lost a civil suit filed by four of the women he detained. 85% of the damages were for intentional infliction of emotional distress. For all your talk of paying attention in law school, you're having a hard time distinguishing the criminal from the civil.

The first thing they taught us in law school was to know when to stop talking.

[wuapinmon]

The first thing they taught us in law school was to know when to stop talking.

I would've flunked out.

[Green Monstah]

The first thing they taught us in law school was to know when to stop talking.

Did I say something that was untrue?