Posted on 04/21/2005 4:14:44 PM PDT by Spiff
KFYI is Reporting:
CHARGES HAVE BEEN DROPPED against Army reservist Patrick Haab who was accused of holding a group of illegals at gunpoint.
oops,"vulnerable", not "venerable."
The event was a two-part story. In part one, the illegals charged toward him and he drew his gun to defend himself. It was a perfectly legal exercise of his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and his rights under Arizona Revised Statues to threaten deadly force if he believes he is about to be badly injured in an attack.
Part two of our story starts when the illegals dispersed and ran to their Suburban. At that point he was no longer in danger. His next action should have been to holster his weapon and go on about his business. Instead, he followed them to the Suburban and held them at gunpoint. Now let's think about this for a minute. What Probable Cause did he have to perform a citizen's arrest? Did he ask them if they were American citizens? No. Did he check their identification? No. Why did he point his gun at them? Because they were SPEAKING SPANISH to each other. They very well could have been a traveling orchestra from Peru or something. The Deputies were correct to arrest him, no doubt about it. That's the way the system is supposed to work.
Then the County Attorney investigated and determined that he didn't want to prosecute. That also is the way the system is supposed to work. He came up with some pretty good reasons why he didn't prosecute. In the end, it turned out that they really were illegals along with a coyote.
I heard Sergeant Haab, County Attorney Thomas, and Sheriff Arpaio all interviewed on local radio station KFYI this evening. Sgt. Haab was understandably happy to find out that he wouldn't have to go to jail, but the interviewers asked about the possibility of federal prosecution. The Sgt. also said he was happy that the County Attorney overruled the Sheriff. Sheriff Arpaio said that he had no hard feelings toward the County Attorney, and supposed that he might not prosecute the case if he wasn't sure he was going to win. He also stood solidly behind the actions of his Deputies, which is what I was saying before - he supports his people. But the County Attorney had the most interesting quotes of all. He said that Sgt. Haab was lucky that they really were illegals. He said that if they hadn't been illegals, Sgt. Haab would have been guilty of a felony. He also said that this shouldn't be a green light for citizens to take the law into their own hands. He said "if you go to the local day labor center and start rounding up people, you will be arrested." And that is definitely the way the system is supposed to work. We don't arrest people for speaking a foreign language in this country. Sgt. Haab rolled the dice and happened to be a winner. The next person who tries it might very well arrest a group of American citizens, and the County Attorney will certainly make an example of him.
This area is sensitized to people "taking the law into their own hands." Right after 9/11 there was a guy who killed a Phoenix store owner that he thought was an Arab terrorist. It turned out the store owner was a Sikh from India, and the reason he was shot was because the guy saw the turban and beard he was wearing and thought that was the mark of a terrorist. What made it even sadder was that the dead guy's family was devastated, but they completely forgave the shooter.
"Soft on crime" is looking the other way while ten million illegals sneak into the country and clutter up our criminal justice system.
Did you read that other post about the percentages of illegals in our prisons?
And they keep stealing Tahoes and Suburbans to transport them in...like they did mine last summer from the local Home Depot. We recently got a call and it was found.... guess where?
We've been down this road before - immigration violations are simply not a responsibility of state law enforcement. You can't paint them with being soft on crime.
Invasion of the homeland is the only correct interpretation.
Bulls-eye
On what grounds?
Yeah, but see.. the difference is that O.J. hacked up two people with a machete. Haab arrested a bunch of criminals. That's different.
Yeah, but what about you? You're kind of a softy when it comes to illegal immigration.
"Did he check their identification? No. Why did he point his gun at them? Because they were SPEAKING SPANISH to each other. They very well could have been a traveling orchestra from Peru or something. "
Yeah, that's the ticket. They were a traveling orchestra from Peru, on the border with Mexico in the middle of the night bum rushing an American, because that's the right of Peruvian orchestra members.
Hoo boy, someone's filled with tequila. I live in Vegas, have had similar problems here. The situation is out of control and something has to be done.
I ate in a Panda's chinese restaurant today, every one of the help were illegal Mexicans.
It turned out the store owner was a Sikh from India, and the reason he was shot was because the guy saw the turban and beard he was wearing and thought that was the mark of a terrorist. What made it even sadder was that the dead guy's family was devastated, but they completely forgave the shooter.
His brother was my neighbor. Brother took off the turban and started wearing a baseball cap after that. I don't think the area is sensitized to something like that. It was horrible.
A cash bond as far as I know means just that..... cash. Depends upon the jurisdiction I'd guess but the cash is returned whereas a surety bond via a bail bondsman would have some fees assessed. I'm sure someone will correct any info I've stated in error.
It's too bad, really tragic. The turban that a sikh wears does not in any way resembe arabic headgear...
That decision really isn't up to us, it's up to their lawyers and the right civil jury. . . if you know what I mean$$$.
His right to draw and point and to make a citizen's arrest were part and parcel of the same right under Arizona statute. This right was greatly enhanced by his second amendment right to carry.
I'm not too sure you understand either the second ammendent to the US Constitution or the Arizona statute that gives a person the right to make a citizen's arrest.
What does my position on it have to do with anything? I'm not in office. I can't change laws. It is what it is.
Only if a jury found him guilty. If I'm on the jury, he walks.
This is the sheriff with an overgrown ego who loves the notoriety. But his judgement is sometimes lacking because he sees everything through the prism of his enormous ego.
Yep, I can see how he could be 'full of himself,' as my mother used to say...
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.