Skip to comments.Illegals hit the pinata
Posted on 08/29/2005 2:26:24 PM PDT by VU4G10
Why should anyone be surprised that two illegal aliens who sued the American citizens who captured them were handed the 70-acre ranch that had belonged to one of their captors? Since most illegal aliens who sneaked into this republic are rewarded for breaking the immigration law -- by being allowed to enjoy America's bounty -- no one should be surprised about the verdict. It is just another topsy-turvy thing that happens from time to time along the Mexican border. Blame it on the Bush administration's continual refusal to protect American sovereignty, which some might think borders on treason. It gets worse...
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...
See Post 14.
Couldn't find the Arizona citizens arrest law, but I found the following here.
Particularly notice the Kentucky law.
Not long ago the politically correct Boston Globe noticed a "shocking" new trend. It seems as if some citizens of Massachusetts were so fed up with crime that they have begun to intervene in petty street crime afflicting the streets of our cities. Thieves and pickpockets in Massachusetts should exercise caution in where and how they ply their craft as the chances that vigilantes pummel them and drag them to the nearest cop are definitely on an upswing. While the Globe is shocked at this healthy trend, students of the law should note that both a statutory and common law basis for a certain degree of "vigilante behavior" is well founded. Indeed, in an era of lawlessness it is important that readers be advised as to their lawful right to protect their communities, loved ones and themselves by making lawful citizens' arrests. The purpose of this essay is to simply explain the law and the historical context of the citizen's arrest.
First, what is an arrest?
We can thank Black's Law Dictionary for a good definition: "The apprehending or detaining of a person in order to be forthcoming to answer an alleged or suspected crime." See Ex parte Sherwood, (29 Tex. App. 334, 15 S.W. 812).
Historically, in Anglo Saxon law in medieval England citizen's arrests were an important part of community law enforcement. Sheriffs encouraged and relied upon active participation by able bodied persons in the towns and villages of their jurisdiction. From this legacy originated the concept of the posse comitatus which is a part of the United States legal tradition as well as the English. In medieval England, the right of private persons to make arrests was virtually identical to the right of a sheriff and constable to do so. (See Inbau and Thompson, Criminal Procedure, The Foundation Press, Mineola, NY 1974.
A strong argument can be made that the right to make a citizen's arrest is a constitutionally protected right under the Ninth Amendment as its impact includes the individual's natural right to self preservation and the defense of the others. Indeed, the laws of citizens arrest appear to be predicated upon the effectiveness of the Second Amendment. Simply put, without firepower, people are less likely going to be able to make a citizen's arrest. A random sampling of the various states as well as the District of Columbia indicates that a citizen's arrest is valid when a public offense was committed in the presence of the arresting private citizen or when the arresting private citizen has a reasonable belief that the suspect has committed a felony, whether or not in the presence of the arresting citizen.
In the most crime ridden spot in the country, our nation's capitol, District of Columbia Law 23- 582(b) reads as follows:
(b) A private person may arrest another -
(1) who he has probable cause to believe is committing in his presence -
(A) a felony, or
(B) an offense enumerated in section 23-581 (a)(2); or
(2) in aid of a law enforcement officer or special policeman, or other person authorized by law to make an arrest.
(c) Any person making an arrest pursuant to this section shall deliver the person arrested to a law enforcement officer without unreasonable delay. (July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 630, Pub. L. 91-358, Title II, § 210(a); 1973 Ed., § 23-582; Apr. 30, 1988, D.C. Law 7-104, § 7(e), 35 DCR 147.)
In Tennessee, it has been held that a private citizen has the right to arrest when a felony has been committed and he has reasonable cause to believe that the person arrested committed it. Reasonable grounds will justify the arrest, whether the facts turn out to be sufficient or not. (See Wilson v. State, 79 Tenn. 310 (1833).
Contrast this to Massachusetts law, which while permitting a private person to arrest for a felony, permits those acquitted of the felony charge to sue the arresting person for false arrest or false imprisonment. (See Commonwealth v. Harris, 11 Mass. App. 165 (1981))
Kentucky law holds that a person witnessing a felony must take affirmative steps to prevent it, if possible. (See Gill v. Commonwealth, 235 KY 351 (1930.)
Indeed, Kentucky citizens are permitted to kill fleeing felons while making a citizen's arrest (Kentucky Criminal Code § 37; S 43, §44.)
Utah law permits citizen's arrest, but explicitly prohibits deadly force. (See Chapter 76-2-403.)
Making citizen's arrest maliciously or without reasonable basis in belief could lead to civil or criminal penalties. It would obviously be a violation of a suspect's civil rights to use excessive force, to torture, to hold in unsafe or cruel conditions or to invent a reason to arrest for the ulterior motive of settling a private score.
Civil lawsuits against department stores, police departments, and even cult deprogrammers for false imprisonment are legend. Anybody who makes a citizens arrest should not use more force than is necessary, should not delay in turning the suspect over to the proper authorities, and should never mete out any punishment ... unless willing to face the consequences.
As the ability of the powers that be to hold society together and preserve law and order diminishes, citizen's arrests will undoubtedly be more common as a way to help communities cope with the wrongdoers in out midst.
This should be a lesson to any Minutemen who plan on bringing firearms into Texas. Learn our laws and obey them.
Doesn't have to even ask. The Anti-Christian Lunatics Union will handle all the details and even coach them on what to say.
The Southern Poverty Law Center is, I believe, an affiliated arm of the ACLU. Same coackroaches, different striping.
"We" do, huh?
As far as distinguishing between legal and illegal immigrants, I don't. I have no need to. As far as I'm concerned there is no difference.
I had acquaintances who flew drugs in from Cancun by private jet. They'd stop in Cuba for refueling and bring back cigars. I ran into the DA one night when we were both smoking the same type.
Doesn't sound that "seriously" to me.
Whoops - sorry, rod, didn't mean to "stalk" you again.
...tell 'em what they've won, Johnny!
So you have stalked me to another thread. A stalker is a stalker.
And a racist is a racist. Shall I post the link to your anti-Hispanic, anti-Nigerian, anti-half-a-dozen-other-types post again?
We sure do. Look at this.
Beyond its strategic location, smugglers use Houston as a stopping point because it is safe for them. The federal government concentrates almost all of its anti-smuggling operations on the border, leaving cities such as Houston with little funding for enforcement, according to Cravener.
So immigration laws in a city such as Houston are essentially unenforced. Nearly 90 percent of the illegal immigrants apprehended by the government last year were picked up by the Border Patrol. Houston officials captured less than 5,500 illegal immigrants in 2002, the lowest number in seven years, according to statistics from the Department of Homeland Security.
Most choices will be made at the ballot box.
A truism that will soon be swept out to sea.
The guy didn't show up because he was in jail for parole violation. They would not let him out to defend himself in the suit. AND they tried to steal his bail money - loaned by his mother (her life's savings). This story is awful.
They were served on his attorney of record. Joseph Laurence Jacobsen in Travis County, Texas.
He had an attorney (Jacobsen), he had property. A Deed of Trust on his own property could have been arranged. Why did he risk his mother's life savings?
I have to wonder where some of these "tough on immigration" people were before Bush was President. It's not like he opened the borders himself. It was a problem when Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, were in office, and probably even before that. Obviously, the cumulative effect builds up over time, but it's amazing how these problems only seem to crop up when a Republican occupies the White House.
"Considering the Non-Accomplishments in Washington, D.C. since 9-11:
No solving the Border Security issue
No solving the Illegal Immigration issue
No addressing the Islamic Threat to our Judeo-Christian Civilization
No addressing the Trade Balance issue
No addressing the Out-Sourcing of Jobs to overseas
No addressing the Pork Barrel Spending & the Fleecing of the Taxpayers
No addressing the complicated IRS Mess
No addressing the vast Voter Fraud epidemic
No addressing the abusive Judicial Confirmation Process
No Accountability for the Corrupt Manner in which CAFTA was rammed through Congress
and there are more ..........
It would good & wise to vote EVERY Politico in the U.S. Senate (who is up for re-election) and in the U.S. Congress OUT of office in 2006.
There is no way that their replacements, however inexperienced or from whatever party could possibly do worse than the current malfeasant incompetents who talk much during media face-time, dress nice and are well-coiffured -- yet, do Nothing.
It would do the Nation good to have a 2-year flush and remind those elected just who they work for. The few good guys won't mind and they will get back in."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.