Posted on 03/21/2003 9:14:39 AM PST by Technoman
HEBBRONVILLE, Texas – A pair of Ranch Rescue volunteers arrested here Wednesday are facing two felony charges each, Texas Department of Public Safety officials say.
As WorldNetDaily reported yesterday, Casey Nethercutt of California and Hank Conner of Louisiana were arrested by Texas Ranger Sgt. Doyle Holdridge and charged with two counts of aggravated assault with a weapon and two counts of unlawful restraint for allegedly pistol-whipping and detaining a Salvadoran man and his wife early Wednesday morning.
Nethercutt and Conner were part of a four-man detachment from Ranch Rescue – a property-rights activist group – which was led by Texas chapter head and national spokesman Jack Foote. The four-man contingent, at the request of rancher Joe Sutton, was here to prevent criminal trespassers from crossing Sutton's property.
Law enforcement and other sources say the men are being held in a detention facility in nearby Falfurrias. Officials said yesterday that bond for each man had been set at $200,000. The men were expected to be arraigned in Hebbronville this morning.
Holdridge told WorldNetDaily that the Salvadoran couple – a man and woman described as being in their mid-20s, but whose names have not yet been released – bore some visible physical signs of injury. After Nethercutt and Conner were apprehended, the Salvadoran couple picked the men out of a photo array, said the arresting officer.
Foote said the charges are bogus. He said he and his team "never touched" the couple, "except to pat them down and search them for weapons" after discovering them lying down in brush early Wednesday morning around 1 a.m. He says he has pictures to prove it, although they weren't available at publication time.
After Nethercutt and Conner searched the two Salvadorans, said Foote, they "were taken by van" to the front of Sutton's property, which is guarded by a heavy, steel, sliding gate that remains locked along Hwy. 16.
In the interim, said Foote, the U.S. Border Patrol – which mans an inspection station about seven miles north of Sutton's ranch – was notified to come pick up the Salvadorans. But after waiting around 45 minutes, Sutton grew impatient and ordered his detachment to simply open the front gate and release the Salvadoran couple, said Foote.
The Border Patrol arrived about 10 minutes later, said Foote. Sources told WND the Salvadoran couple eventually turned themselves in to Border Patrol officers, but agency officials would not confirm that.
Border Patrol spokesmen in Hebbronville and Laredo had no comment, except to say the case was being handled by Texas authorities.
It was unclear how the Salvadorans' testimony was obtained; neither Holdridge nor Jim Hogg County Sheriff's Department officials would say. Holdridge did say Wednesday, however, that the Salvadoran couple did not swear out a complaint.
"I filed charges on behalf of the state of Texas," he told WND.
In addition to legal problems, Nethercutt, who is in his mid-30s, and Conner, who was described as being nearly 60, have experienced health problems since being incarcerated. Officials say Nethercutt is suffering complications from pancreatitis, while Conner is suffering from chronic high blood pressure.
Authorities allowed volunteers to bring Conner medicine early yesterday, but refused to allow them to visit Nethercutt. Officials were also unclear as to whether Nethercutt had been taken for treatment to an area hospital or whether he was being treated on-site at a detention center health facility.
Foote says he is confident the men will be exonerated, but believes they will have to endure a lengthy court battle to prove their innocence. He also said he is having difficulty raising bail money and that he asked Sutton to help, but that he refused.
Although the current "mission" on Sutton's ranch is over, Foote pledges that the incident won't permanently damage Ranch Rescue.
"We just have to pick our battles," he said. "Right now, I just want to get these guys out of jail."
You might not like that, I really don't like that, but that's the law as it currently stands. I talked this over at length with Marine Inspector, who is a freeper and works for the INS.
Wrong. I'll take the word of Marine Inspector on this one, he works for the INS (and is on our side in this matter). Illegal entry is an administrative offense subject to deportation. Attempted illegal re-entry may be classified as a felony, but someone watching illegal entry has no way of determining this, therefore they cannot claim that they were witnessing a felony in progress and make a citizens arrest. Probably the best thing to do is to try and get the border states to revise their statutes to include illegal entry as an offense subject to citizens arrest.
I don't understand your comment.
What is your point?
AMENDMENTS 1996 - Subsecs. (b) to (d). Pub. L. 104-208 added subsec. (b) and redesignated former subsecs. (b) and (c) as (c) and (d), respectively. 1991 - Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 102-232 substituted ''fined under title 18'' for ''fined not more than $2,000 (or, if greater, the amount provided under title 18)''. 1990 - Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 101-649, Sec. 543(b)(2), inserted ''or attempts to enter'' after ''(1) enters'' and ''attempts to enter or'' after ''or (3)'', and substituted ''shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined not more than $2,000 (or, if greater, the amount provided under title 18) or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years'' for ''shall, for the first commission of any such offenses, be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof be punished by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by a fine of not more than $500, or by both, and for a subsequent commission of any such offenses shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than two years, or by a fine of not more than $1,000''. Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 101-649, Sec. 121(b)(3), added subsec. (c). 1986 - Pub. L. 99-639 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsec. (b).
It is a SUBSEQUENT conviction of the offense that is a felony - not the initial offense. And someone patrolling the border has no way of knowing if an illegal they are confronting has previously been convicted - therefore, they cannot make a determination of a felony being committed in their presence by the act of illegal entry into the country. Marine Inspector and I went over this in detail a couple of months ago.
No, it is not automatically a felony, nor does someone witnessing illegal entry have the ability to reasonably determine on the spot that a felony is in progress. Check my post #51.
I think you're painting with waay too broad a brush here.
and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years'' for ''shall, for the first commission of any such offenses, be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof be punished by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by a fine of not more than $500, or by both
First offense is a misdemeanor.
I have that bad habit sometimes. Google wrecks a lot of otherwise wonderful theories...
Not exactly. It is true that in some jurisdictions that a citizen's arrest can only be effected for an offense actually observed by the arresting party. But virtually all states of the nation allow for a citizen's arrest for both misdemeanor and felony offenses. I don't have a cite to the actual Texas statute on citizen's arrest, but here is what the website for a Houston law firm says about the legitimacy of citizen's arrest.
Can someone other than a Police Officer arrest me?Maybe some other legal beagle can locate the precise Texas State statute, but I think you'll find that citizen's arrest, for both felony and misdemeanor offenses, is perfectly legal and proper under Texas law.
Any person, such as a private security guard, can make a citizen's arrest if they see a misdemeanor being attempted or committed (A misdemeanor is a criminal offense usually punishable with a fine or short jail term). They also can make a legal arrest for a felony if it actually was committed and they have good reason to believe that you did it. They must take you to a police officer or judge who is required by law to take you into custody.
Moreover, when a citizen's arrest is made, you are allowed to use what ever force is reasonably necessary to effect that arrest. Whether physical force was used in the present case and whether it was "reasonably necessary" force, remains to be seen.
--Boot Hill
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.