Posted on 09/15/2006 1:18:49 PM PDT by NapkinUser
Washington, DC – U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Littleton) criticized Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in a letter to the Justice Department in the wake of media reports yesterday that the U.S. Marshals raided the Hawaii home of Duane “Dog” Chapman at the direction of the Mexican government.
A spokeswoman for the Marshals Office confirmed yesterday that an arrest warrant was signed Wednesday by a federal magistrate in Hawaii at the urging of the administration. Chapman could now be extradited to to face criminal charges for successfully capturing Max Factor heir Andrew Luster in Puerto Vallarta in 2003. Luster, who was wanted in the for rape is now serving a 124-year sentence.
“This Administration routinely tells Congress that they cannot secure our borders and immigration system due to a lack of resources. We are told that the U.S. Attorneys offices in Border States are simply overwhelmed with cases and cannot prosecute all the violations – even serious ones,” said Tancredo.
“Somehow this administration has plenty of time to track down a Mexican drug smuggler and give him immunity so he can testify against our Border Patrol agents,” said Tancredo referring to the prosecution of two Border Patrol agents facing 20 years in prison for wounding a Mexican smuggler during the course of their normal duties earlier this year.
“Americans are apparently supposed to happily accept presence the roughly 100,000 criminal aliens inside our borders – a number that is growing every year – while the Marshals use their resources to track down ‘Dog’ Chapman on orders from a foreign master for successfully brining a convicted rapist to justice.”
“It is becoming increasingly clear that the real problem with this administrations inability to address the failures of U.S. border security policy is not so much a lack of resources as it is one of misplaced priorities,” concluded Tancredo, “I’m beginning to wonder who is in charge of prioritizing assignments at DOJ. Is it this administration – or the one in Mexico City ?”
Chapman has money now and if he would have been a man and faced the Mexican charges(and IMO, would have been acquitted due to the resulting publicity) he would not be in this situation right now.
Since "Dog" committed no crime in the US, or at least none tied to bringing in the rapist, where did the complaint come from then? It pretty much had to come from the jurisdiction, Mexico, where the "crime" was committed, didn't it?
AFAIK, US courts would have no jurisdiction in such a matter, unless as part of a request under a treaty with the other country.
I asked you if you would have stayed.
Yes or no, tough guy?
Yes, I read it on the way here. While Dog may have been technically in violation of Mexican law, this is a matter of judgment and priorities. There are a zillion and one laws being broken in the U.S. and Mexico every day. It's a matter of using your judgment, establishing priorities, and yes, justice. People like Dane may be technically correct, but in this case, that means nothing. To arrest a man like Dog for bringing back a rapist scum who is being sheltered in Mexico is just plain wrong. It is not justice, it is just some kind of sick pandering by somebody to somebody, and it has to be about money.
Here's part of a news report about the arrest:
The charges stem from Chapman's capture of Max Factor heir Andrew Luster on June 18, 2003, in Puerto Villarta, Mexico, said Marshals spokeswoman Nikki Credic in Washington.
Charges have been pending against the three since local police in Mexico arrested them shortly after they roped in Luster. They posted bail but never returned to Puerto Villarta for their court hearing on July 15, 2003, Credic said.
Mexican authorities demanded that the Chapmans transfer Luster to Mexican police. Their refusal to do so led to their initial arrest.
A U.S. warrant for their arrest was signed by a federal judge in Honolulu on Wednesday.
Bounty hunting is considered a crime in Mexico. At that time, Mexican prosecutors maintained that Luster's capture violated their sovereignty.
The Chapmans each could face up to 8 years in prison if they are returned to Mexico and convicted on kidnapping charges.
So three americans were arrested in Mexico, and let out on bail. Then they jumped bail, and fled the country.
And there are conservatives who think they did nothing wrong, and that the warrent for their arrest is unjustified?
How would we feel if someone in our country committed a crime, jumped bail, and fled to mexico?
I know the answer -- because everybody who opposes Dog's arrest is happy that we grabbed Lester, who did the same thing.
If Mexico HAD bounty hunters, how would any of you feel if those bounty hunters had snuck into our country, grabbed Dog and his family, and kidnapped them back to Mexico?
But they jumped bail, which means there's some bail bondsman in Mexico who probably wishes he could hire Dog to capture Dog and bring him back.
Oh, it also appears Dog wasn't under license by a bondsman when he captured Lester, as noted in THIS ARTICLE:
Bounty hunter Duane "Dog" Chapman was not entitled to any share of the money because he was acting on his own and not as a legally authorized bail recovery agent when he snatched Luster off a street in Puerto Vallarta on June 18, Superior Court Judge Edward Brodie ruled Tuesday.
"He went to Mexico and failed to comply with the law. I cannot condone vigilante justice," Brodie said of Chapman.
The law requires that bounty hunters have a formal agreement with the bail bond agent or law enforcement, have a clean criminal record and follow local laws when they search for felons. Bounty hunting is considered a crime in Mexico.
...
Chapman's attorney, Robert Sanger, said the bounty hunter faces only misdemeanor charges.
The last sentence implies that, at the time Dog came back, the charges were minor, and he only became a serious fugitive because he jumped bail and didn't go back for his trial.
Lastly, the claim that Mexico "refused" to return Lester for trial is a LIE. According to THIS CBS STORY, the bounty hunters discovered Lester but never asked the local police to arrest him, so we have no idea whether mexico would have turned him over to us:
Mexican prosecutors say they're considering a raft of charges against the unlikely team — three bounty hunters, a reality TV producer and an actor — because they should have gone to police instead of trying to whisk the convicted rapist out of Mexico for a reward.
On Thursday, authorities expelled Luster to the United States, where he is appealing a 124-year prison sentence for the drugging and rape of three women.
In other words, once the Mexican police had Lester in custody, they expelled him. Dog didn't "BRING HIM BACK", the Mexican Authorities SENT HIM BACK.
Yes, Dog "captured" him, but there is no evidence that, if Dog had just told the local police where he was, that they wouldn't have picked him up and expelled him.
So, in conclusion, Tancredo is being loose with his facts, and some freepers are playing along for some reason, supporting a bounty hunter who JUMPED BAIL.
100% correct!
The Mexicans would just have raided the Church. The Mexican government does not recognize Churches of any sort, and the Mexican Constitution actually does establish a wall of separation between Church and State, to the point where clerics, of whatever stripe, cannot hold political office. There are other limitations on their participation in the political process as well.
Yes or no, tough guy?
I am not the one who dresses up in black leather and portrays a tough guy personna on TV and then cowardly skips out on bail.
Well, there's what you say, and there's what the WH says. The two don't match.
What meaningful concessions could one expect from the WH on this issue?
What would you, personally, consider to be a "meaningful" concession? The fact is that the WH is actively working with Congress on immigration legislation -- clearly the responsible folks in Congress must see some reason to continue doing so.
You see all that, do you?
One way or another, everyone on this thread has a concerned opinion about bounty hunters. From what I've read, most of them are not concerned with legalities. If they were, they would not be cheering for a bounty hunter.
Have you been arrested before?
Before what?
That also nails it on the head...
100% right IMO.
Also on Tancredo's website's front page today:
Tancredo Applauds President’s Resolve in Defeating Radical Islam
Opps! Guess that makes this one part of an idiotic rant look even worse. As to the rest, the only thing I know to say is you need to step outside and get some air.
No, you didn't answer the question at all. It was very simple: "What would you have done?"
Would you stay or would you go?
Really simple.
Check one of the following boxes:
Stay [ ]
Go [ ]
I am a coward hiding behind a monitor [ ]
The news coverage says he was brought in by request of the mexican government. Note that the request to get Luster back would have been made by the American government -- that's how treaties of extradition work.
Catch my other post where I note that the Mexican government DID sent Luster back -- Dog did not bring him back, because Dog got arrested in Mexico during the abduction.
So in fact there is no evidence that Dog needed to capture him, no evidence of Mexico "refusing" to send Luster back, and every evidence that Mexico would have happily sent Luster back if Dog had simply found him, and told the mexican authorities that he was a wanted man.
But Dog was trying to get $350,000 in bounty for his capture, and was filming for his show.
You should make your reply #185 it's own thread which would be minus the tancredo publicity hounding.
Nice post.
Yup, and the person I posted to.
Man you have no clue about Mexico.
They don't want to lose their business of harboring criminals for money.
They want the Chapman's back to make an example of them.
We are talking a real corrupt country here, not anything that compares to us.
Hardly anything in the world compares with us.
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.