Posted on 08/12/2003 7:21:52 PM PDT by Tancredo Fan
Updated 5:54 pm Aug 12, 2003
Immigrant-rights group intensifies fight against civilian patrols on border
The Associated Press
PHOENIX - An advocacy group wants to file a lawsuit on behalf of migrants who say they were victimized by armed civilian groups patrolling the border, and is seeking victims willing to serve as plaintiffs.
The Border Action Network claims the groups operate outside the law and violate the rights of immigrants. They hope to pressure authorities to intervene.
The self-appointed border patrol groups deny they are breaking the law, and said they pass along to authorities information that volunteers collect about illegal border-crossers.
Volunteers for the Border Action Network are stretching their search for alleged victims along the entire border and as far south as the Mexican state of Chiapas. The advocates began asking victims to come forward earlier this year through ads and radio spots in Sonora, Mexico.
Once alleged victims come forward, attorneys plan to sue the people or groups accused of assaulting, robbing, intimidating or illegally detaining border-crossers.
"The purpose of the suit is to get at their pocketbook," said Jesus Romo, a civil rights attorney in Tucson. "Our purpose is to bankrupt these individuals so that they stop their actions."
No lawsuits have been filed thus far.
Border Action Network plans to continue using radio spots and newspaper ads to find plaintiffs, particularly focusing in areas where migrants originate.
Finding plaintiffs for civil lawsuits also could make it easier for prosecutors and other officials to open investigations into the activities of civilian patrol groups, said Zoe Hammer-Tomizuka, a Border Action Network volunteer.
Glenn Spencer, president of American Border Patrol, an organization based in Sierra Vista that monitors illegal border-crossers, says his group operates lawfully and does not interfere with migrants.
Still, he said he's concerned about groups that plan to file lawsuits. "Things are getting a little hairy," he said. "They're heightening feelings on both sides of the border. They are trying to rabble-rouse."
Another group that has patrolled the Arizona-Mexico border was sued in Texas over two incidents of alleged abuse against detained migrants.
A lawsuit filed in May accuses Ranch Rescue and others of assaulting, falsely imprisoning and robbing six people during two incidents in March in rural south Texas.
The Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, Ala., and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund in Los Angeles joined in filing the lawsuit. The Southern Poverty Law Center monitors the political movements of groups from white supremacist groups to eco-terrorists.
After reading a few of its posts with a modicum of amusement, I think I'll ignore it now.
We're talking about one incident in which two guys from one border-watch group were accused after the fact of having waved guns around and threatened people, which a county mountie explained to a newspaperman was, in the mountie's opinion, a violation of Arizona law. Not considering for the moment whether the accusations were made in good faith, or trumped up afterward on the solicitation of one of the Leftist border groups.
OK, let's think about this.
Two guys jump out of a bush and confront a group of Mexican illegals. They can't know in advance whether they're illegal immigrants accompanying a coyote or drug mules accompanied by CAR-15-toting cocaine cowboys. Leaving aside the question of how smart this is, does this constitute "assault" under Arizona law? If so, is there any way to perform a citizen's arrest in Arizona without committing a criminal assault? Is there any way to perform a citizen's arrest in Arizona while strapped (for snakes, or in self-defense against criminals, on property you were invited to be standing on, or own, on which the other people were trespassing and breaking the laws of the United States) without committing an armed assault? What if the answer is no? Where does that leave people who confront trespassers on their own property -- are they assailants, with or without deadly weapons, if they so much as show themselves?
In Texas, going onto someone else's property or onto public lands while carrying a pistol without benefit of a concealed-carry license is "carrying for the purpose of going armed" and is a Class "A" misdemeanor. If you are on your own property, or if you are a designated agent (invitee?) of a property owner, you can carry openly without a license. I don't know what Arizona law is; it varies from state to state, but concealed-carry license-holders enjoy reciprocity in some jurisdictions. Someone from Arizona may want to shed some light on their state laws.
But does a person otherwise legally carrying weapons in Arizona really commit assault with a deadly weapon, or "brandishing", if he attempts to make a citizen's arrest of people clearly breaking the law? Does Arizona law require people legally carrying weapons to allow armed trespassers to shoot them, if they are not to become lawbreakers themselves by reason of "brandishing"? Does carrying a weapon at low ready constitute "brandishing"? Does carrying a weapon unslung or unholstered constitute "brandishing"? Does the law require me to allow the other person to shoot at me first, before I unholster or unsling my piece, even if the other person clearly is breaking the law from the moment I see him? Does Arizona law require me to be a passive observer of my own murder, lest I "brandish" a weapon or "assault" someone? Does Arizona law require me to stay at home with a glass of warm milk when other people break the law, lest I "brandish" or "assault"? How far does Arizona go with this reasoning, and can anyone who is required by law to "leave it to Beaver" when invading foreign nationals break the law on his property be said to be a free person?
I would venture that the strong majority of crimes are reported that way. I agree there could be political underpinnings here - however, the sheriff of the county in question has generally been supportive of the border groups in the past.
Leaving aside the question of how smart this is, does this constitute "assault" under Arizona law? If so, is there any way to perform a citizen's arrest in Arizona without committing a criminal assault?
In this case, it's not the method, it is the circumstance. Arizona law requires that you witness a probable felony in progress (except for midemeanor riot, which doesn't apply here) to perform a citizens arrest, and at that point you could brandish a weapon against someone to perform the arrest. However, being an illegal is not, in most cases, a felony arrest, so spotting an illegal alien does not rise to the level of probable felony, hence a citizens arrest is not warranted under Arizona law and any attempt at citizens arrest can be interpreted as assault, just as if someone pulled a gun on you while you were walking down the street.
How far does Arizona go with this reasoning, and can anyone who is required by law to "leave it to Beaver" when invading foreign nationals break the law on his property be said to be a free person?
That's generally where the laws regarding trespass have gone in this country, and that is the case whether the perp is an illegal or a citizen. You can ask them to leave immediately, and if they refuse they have upped the ante. When ABP witnesses illegals breaking into a structure and removing property, they arrest them at that point, as the offense has just risen to the threshhold of probable felony. I personally would be in favor of allowing citizen apprehension of illegals along the immediate border - but once you get inland more than 5-10 miles, there are legal issues determining who is an illegal or not. But that's not the law now, and these groups, knowing that a bunch of libs are gunning for them politically, need to be really careful not to step over the line as the law is currently written.
When asked if his organization feared they too could be arrested, French was undeterred. ''First and foremost, Special Service has its own regulations, codes, by-laws and laws. All are under the Constitution of the United States. S.S. agents, guards, and officers are not permitted to be arrested,'' he said. ''They will walk the line according to [United States Code] and Special Service, not according to any county, city, or state code that violates the rights given under the 'law of the land,' the U.S. Constitution.''
''Special Service carries a zero tolerance policy and will not permit any branch of government to seize, or likewise take into their custody any S.S. agents, guards or officers,'' he told WorldNetDaily.
''This is considered insurrection against the civil forces of the United States and we will hold those accountable who try.''
This is exactly what the La Raza types have been waiting for - a border group that wants to take the law into its own hands.
That's what I'm afraid of: once the citizen patrols start working public land instead of privately owned land, it's their word against the illegals or the law, and will probably find themselves frequently arrested and bring down the wrath of agencies on the other patrol groups that work strickly on private ranch land. Individual citizens have a right to protect their private property, but the law starts to get fuzzy on public land.
As I understood it, law officers were on the scene immediately when they were called in. They saw the scenario and didn't arrest either of the border-patrol members. The complaint arose later, with an odor of barratry around it, and the local sheriff's office arrested the two individuals on representations made to the sheriff later.
They will probably have to document everything meticulously with video, including night-vision imagery and (if they got it) tactical radar imagery showing a) the GPS-located position of the radar emitter and b) targets crossing the border.
Of course, everyone I know can just dip right into his IRA and come up with all that equipment........
A lead-pipe cinch, in other words.
They certainly sound like cowboys; OTOH they must know they're waving red flags at all the badges around them and calling out "Yoo-hoo, come arrest me!" IMHO what we have here are some strict-construction constitutionalists who want to test in court, at the peril of being branded felons for life, some of the laws they deem unconstitutional, such as the invasions of property owners' rights you mentioned above under which property owners must suffer people wandering around on their property and rely on the arbitrary discretion of LEO's to get relief from invasion of their property rights and personal insecurity arising from the fact that some of the invaders are most certainly armed and dangerous.
I sincerely hope these guys are backed up by some long bread that has Plato Cacheris and Alan Dershowitz on retainer. It's about time those two began fighting for the Constitution, instead of scumbag millionaire murderesses, White House adventuresses, and rabble-rousing Marxist street operatives.
They need to get a new name, though......I really don't like their acronym, "S.S." That's bound to piss off some very senior, very honor-laden citizens who learned all about the S.S. in places like Sicily and the Ardennes.
1. Arizona law sucks, if it requires us to know when a felony has been committed, rather than a class "A" misdemeanor, before someone can step in and stop someone else from doing wrong, without being arrested himself. That's just plain wrong -- that's treading on the people's right to raise the ancient Anglo-Saxon hue and cry and arrest midemeanants.
The whole idea of intermediation of the law in medieval times was to interrupt the cycle of vendetta and stop people's killing one another. Now it's being used to enforce an Establishment politics of quietism and personal anomie.
2. Crashing the borders of the United States isn't a felony? You mean there is such a thing as a federal misdemeanor ?
If what dirtboy said is true, then they don't have a right to protect themselves or their property; they only have a right to call 9-1-1 and then maybe some LEO will do something about it, in his abundance of discretion, after some suitable period of time passes during which your family become corpses.
You have the right to remonstrate in strong language, and to urge the felons on your property, in your best imitation of Judith Martin starchiness, to leave your property posthaste!. Then, after they stop laughing, you are in God's hands -- and theirs.
From what I understand, most LEO are instructed to not get involved in illegal border crossers. In some area's they cannot apprehend illegals on the basis that LEO's suspect they are border-busters...they can however stop the illegals for some other crime-related reason and take it from there. What typically happens is LE is told to let them go. It varies from area to area...I know in my part of the state, illegals cannot be detained by the law unless they commit another crime. States and counties are not financially equipped to deport. Thats the job of the INS. INS tells the LE to take names and let them go and the illegals vanish into the American urban-scape. Our entire system is exploited and taken advantage of, while US, the law abiding tax payers get stuck footing the bill for squatters. I think some duties of the INS should be disolved and the funding go to the individual states so that state and local LE agencies have the means to track, enforce and deport illegal aliens.
I don't think you can get around the fact that the Constitution places defense of the borders in the hands of the federal government. Our problem is that both major political parties, who between them enjoy exclusive ownership of the government and the exclusive right to make and carry out policy, have decided to let the illegals in and never mind either the law or what we think.
Lyndon Johnson started all this, never forget that. And the reason he passed the 1965 bill was because of the Civil Rights Act of 1965, and the political consequences of it that he predicted.
He can't be dug up and hanged enough to suit me. But at least we can take down his library and burn his papers.
I don't think it rises to a federal misdemeanor, but instead is some kind of administrative offense that leads directly to deportation. There are some cases where it rises to a felony level, but those are usually coupled to some other offense or prior conviction. So, given that the strong majority of illegal crossings are not felonious in nature, then the fact that someone is crossing the border does not rise to the level of probable felony.
Arizona Revised Statutes
13-3881. Arrest; how made; force and restraint A. An arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person to be arrested, or by his submission to the custody of the person making the arrest.
B. No unnecessary or unreasonable force shall be used in making an arrest, and the person arrested shall not be subjected to any greater restraint than necessary for his detention.
13-3884. Arrest by private person A private person may make an arrest:
1. When the person to be arrested has in his presence committed a misdemeanor amounting to a breach of the peace, or a felony.
2. When a felony has been in fact committed and he has reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed it.
13-3889. Method of arrest by private person A private person when making an arrest shall inform the person to be arrested of the intention to arrest him and the cause of the arrest, unless he is then engaged in the commission of an offense, or is pursued immediately after its commission or after an escape, or flees or forcibly resists before the person making the arrest has opportunity so to inform him, or when the giving of such information will imperil the arrest.
13-3900. Duty of private person after making arrest A private person who has made an arrest shall without unnecessary delay take the person arrested before the nearest or most accessible magistrate in the county in which the arrest was made, or deliver him to a peace officer, who shall without unnecessary delay take him before such magistrate. The private person or officer so taking the person arrested before the magistrate shall make before the magistrate a complaint, which shall set forth the facts showing the offense for which the person was arrested. If, however, the officer cannot make the complaint, the private person who delivered the person arrested to the officer shall accompany the officer before the magistrate and shall make to the magistrate the complaint against the person arrested.
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/title13.htm
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.