Posted on 02/21/2005 2:38:55 AM PST by ajolympian2004
It depends on state law. In some states you can shoot to protect your property. In others you better have one foot in the grave, if you shoot some guy pointing a gun at you while you're resting on your pillow.
That's an exageration, but not by as much as you might think in some states.
LOL
Elsie, I agree that things have gone terribly wrong. I want it stopped, and if this effort can be controlled, and it operates within legitimate guidelines, I support it. I don't want to send you down there knowing that you may wind up in prison, or worse yet shot. I don't think that is going to happen, so please don't misunderstand my point.
I'm not going to shoot someone for walking on my property. I wouldn't want them there. I'd be damned angry about it, bit I don't think of it as a capital offense. Perhaps you do. I can't sign on to that.
If that were to happen, the shooter would spend a decade or more in prision. It would be designated as racilly motivated. And although that would be fiercely debated, I'm not sure you'd prevail in a court.
I share your anger at this. I don't think it's right. But I do want to be the devil's advocate here, and try to explain that no matter how angry we are, there are some lines we should not cross.
Thanks for your comments.
I agree with you.
I take you are anti-gun rights and anti-self-defense.
I'm reminded of the story about the guy who was looking for something.
A passerby asked, 'What are you looking for?'
He said, 'My watch.'
'Where did you lose it?'
'Over there.', pointing across the street to an alley.
'Why are you looking here then?'
'The light's better.'
I can say for a fact that you are wrong and owe D1 an apology for levelling a charge against him without bothering to check his posting history.
I would take D1 covering my back any day of the week. You need to read what he is saying and try to think through it, instead of resorting to a knee-jerk attack.
Why don't you debate the subject instead of trying to raise the temperature of the thread?
Because he would be arrested for doing such.
Agree 100 percent. The real fight is in Washington. The purpose of this action should be to generate political embarassment and subsequent political action on congresscritters and the Bush Admin. We hold the high ground here - the law is already on our side. We just seek to have it enforced.
However, the worst action would be to break the law regarding citizen's arrest. That will play right into the hands of those who will try time and time again to paint those opposed to illegal immigration as violent vigalante bigots. We do not want to give them that kind of ammo. So IMO what Minuteman is doing is a right-wing non-violent protest against illegal immigration and the lack of fair enforcement of such.
Is it risky? Sure. But no one is forcing these folks to participate. They appear to be willing to take the risks to take a stand and make a point. And if they adhere to the values they are stating, I applaud them and support them.
And I will call them for such, as you can. However, please try to refrain from taking the dialogue on these threads to where it gets out of control. This is an important debate and there should be a fair hearing for both sides.
My post was not a 'knee-jerk attack' is was a accessment of DoughtyOne Post 2 which was:
If the Minuteman project wishes to become involved at the border, they must remain unarmed and peaceful. They cannot detain. They must work in an advisory status only.
Turth be told, I think they should be able to aprehend and detain north of the border. The fact is, the border patrol will turn on them like rabid dogs, if they do so.
This will probably get ugly. Perhaps that's a good thing. If the feds get the idea the citizens of this nation have had it, perhaps they'll get off thair fat rumps and do something about this travesty.
Course what they'd probably do is hire 10,000 new agents to guard against U.S. citizens making aprehensions. And they'd probably do it lickety split.
It sounds like that DoughtyOne agrees that things are bad and that the both the U.S. government agents and the illegals are already hurting U.S. citizens; YET, DoughtyOne also seems to think that the U.S. citizens on the border should remain unarmed and unorganized towards onslaught.
I am NOT saying what the M.M. is doing it right, but that logical accessment that the U.S. citizens are screwed either way.
Flame-baiting again, Dane?
Reagan went along with an amnesty that was supposed to end this problem. It instead made it worse.
There is much to admire about Reagan. His immigration policies are not one of those things.
I reviewed the thread. There was one post that asked why trespassers causing vandalism weren't shot. I addressed that post. If you can find any others, please point them out. Otherwise, please try to make your points without trying to cause conflict on this thread.
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.