2 Border Vigilantes go to jail in capture

Arizona Republic ^ | 8 October 2003 | Daniel Gonzalez

[45Auto]

Two men received jail sentences Wednesday for illegally hunting down undocumented immigrants along the southern Arizona border with Mexico.

Human rights advocates, prosecutors and Mexican officials hailed the sentencing as a blow against border vigilantes, but the leader of a citizens border patrol group said the case has galvanized a group of people in the Yuma area to take up arms and patrol the border themselves.

[Cultural Jihad]

... trash ... ducks ... persecuting any American Citizen who dares try to defend his/her country.

How are "garbagemen who are picking up litter" defending the country? I see racist hotheads who terrorize unarmed women and children. Your use of dehumanizing language might be more fitting on other forums than here.

[Poohbah]

How convenient for the invaders and their enablers.

That's how the law of Arizona reads. If you don't like it, get it changed.

Where was the border patrol? Handing out coffee, donuts and a map of the USA?

Probably somewhere else, arresting or transporting other illegal aliens. It's not as if there are enough to have one just waiting for every illegal alien crossing the border.

You would absolutely s**t yourself if you started figuring out how many people we would need just to man the border 24/7 at just five agents per mile.

[Cultural Jihad]

SSS.

"Shoot - Shovel - Shutup". Nice conservative ethic you are advocating. "If you commit a misdemeanor, then I shall commit a felony upon you."

[strela]

That picture was a low blow, CJ. Was the Nazi imagery really necessary? I agree with you on a lot of things, but comparing wanting to keep illegal immigrants out of our country with herding them into ovens is a heck of a stretch.

[Cultural Jihad]

A stretch? In this short thread there was already one instance of someone advocating murder, and others were busy dehumanizing people. This conservative repudiates such talk wherever it rears its ugly head.

[kittymyrib]

Even worse than that...the mayor of Laredo, a Hispanic lady, was on Fox this evening saying that the city of Laredo and the local Border Patrol were furious that the new Immigration Service had let 68 South Americans go AND PAID FOR THEIR TICKETS to join families all over the US!!! Our tax dollars at work. She also said that Congressman Henry Bonilla, a terrific Republican, had added two provisions to the bill to fund Iraqi rebuilding saying that the government could not do this type of thing without consulting local law enforcement and Border Patrol officials in the future. We should let Jorge Boosh know how disgusting stunts like this are to us. It certainly makes all the talk about national security seem like blah, blah, blah.

[strela]

Then slam them for advocating murder and "dehumanizing" illegals (whatever that is). But to drag Hitler and the Nazis into a discussion on immigration policy goes too far and trivializes the very real evil represented and carried out by those devils on earth.

[MonroeDNA]

I never said that, nor would I advocate that.

I was sleeping, snoring. SSS.

[Regulator]

The fact that a federal prosecutor exercises discretion in bringing charges has nothing to do with the law. The law is rather clear on this:

8USC1325

CITE
8 USC Sec. 1325 01/05/99

EXPCITE
TITLE 8 - ALIENS AND NATIONALITY
CHAPTER 12 - IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY
SUBCHAPTER II - IMMIGRATION
PART VIII - General Penalty Provisions

HEAD
Sec. 1325. Improper entry by alien

STATUTE
(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts Any alien who - (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than six months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than two years or both.

There is no exclusion that says "the crime is what ever the prosecutor says it is". Second offense is a felony. The fact that a judge might elect to sentence someone to less than the maximum is irrelevant.

Note:

Felony Definition:
"A serious criminal offense. Under federal law any offense punishable by death or imprisonment for a term exceeding one year."

[F.J. Mitchell]

That is not your decision to make, Lady. Those people are terrorizing American citizens-not the other way around.

How long do you think this country can survive with the present absence of border control, or control of imigration, or do you care?

Do you have any compasion for those waiting and waiting to imigrate legally, while ten times their number just come in ahead of them? Probably not!

[PRND21]

These guys were just trying to enforce the laws that President Bush won't.

BS. What part of illegal don't you understand, hypocrite?

[Regulator]

"Reasonable suspicion" extends only to the specific act in question

Your opinion. Mine would be to assume they were repeat offenders. If you can make your version stick in court, great. If I can make mine stick, so much the better. Any good attorney could make a case for both. If he can't, he ain't no kind of attorney.

Otherwise, one could detain anyone on any grounds whatsoever--if you make enough leaps of logic, you will magically have "reasonable suspicion" of SOME felony, SOMEWHERE

Nope. Existence of the current crime - even suspicion - is defensible as suspicion for extenuation. An arrest is an allegation - nothing more. If insufficient evidence is found to prosecute, then...no crime. In this case, the same act has different penalties, dependent on the number of times committed. So better to allege and let the courts work it out.

The things that make it a felony are qualifications on the basic charge that must be established as fact prior to making a citizen's arrest

Nothing is established as a "fact" in any arrest. There are only allegations. "Facts" are up to the courts to declare, by the admittance of evidence.

[Poohbah]

Your opinion.

Also that of the courts, because "reasonable suspicion" must, first of all, be REASONABLE.

Mine would be to assume they were repeat offenders.

Fine. Someone now "assumes" that you are a child molester and arrests you. Under your version, if he can string together enough assumptions, then he walks on charges of false arrest.

You've just made false arrest perfectly legal.

Note again that being a "repeat offender" in this matter does not automatically make illegally crossing the border a felony.

If you can make your version stick in court, great.

My version IS the version that sticks.

If I can make mine stick, so much the better. Any good attorney could make a case for both. If he can't, he ain't no kind of attorney.

Attorneys must work within the confines of law and precedent, and neither one is on your side in this matter.

[Cultural Jihad]

I was sleeping, snoring. SSS.

Indeed you are.

[Cultural Jihad]

These guys were just trying to enforce the laws ...

So that's why they pleaded guilty to felonies.

[Cultural Jihad]

Those people are terrorizing American citizens-not the other way around.

Those people? You mean those women and children who had guns shoved in their faces are terrorizing American citizens? Conservatives repudiate your "Dead Birds" style of tribal justice.

[Cultural Jihad]

Nothing is established as a "fact" in any arrest. There are only allegations. "Facts" are up to the courts to declare, by the admittance of evidence.

Pointing loaded "allegations" at unarmed woman and children can land you in jail for a long, long time; and that's a fact, Jack.

[F.J. Mitchell]

We will still be arguing the rights of the illegal aliens, and you still will not have seen the threat, when we are rudly awakened to the fact that they have taken control, and rescinded our rights.

[Missouri]

I see racist hotheads

I knew sooner or latter the "Race Card" would be played.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

One of the prosecuting attorneys was named orozco. What was the judges name? Anybody know?