Posted on 02/27/2024 9:07:23 PM PST by libh8er
Arizona Republicans are advancing a bill that would allow people to legally kill someone accused of attempting to trespass or actively trespassing on their property.
The big picture: The legislation, which is expected to be vetoed if it reaches the state's Democratic governor, would legalize the murder of undocumented immigrants, who often have to cross ranches that sit on the state's border with Mexico.
State Rep. Justin Heap (R.) said the bill is intended to close a loophole by which migrants have moved within the U.S., per the Arizona Mirror. Context: George Alan Kelly, an Arizona rancher, was accused of killing a migrant, Gabriel Cuen Buitimea, walking through his 170-acre property last year, per the Arizona Republic.
His trial is set for March 21, per the AP. What's inside: "Premises" is defined in the bill to mean any property or structure, "occupied or not."
Arizona law already allows the use of deadly force against home intruders if deemed necessary for protection. The bill expands the existing doctrine from a home intrusion to a home or property intrusion.
(Excerpt) Read more at axios.com ...
This is a step in the right direction...
Rational Invasion Defense
Sounds good to me.
Moving targets are more challenging.
A Kurt Schlichter solution.
https://www.amazon.com/Attack-Kurt-Schlichter-ebook/dp/B0CR1N7R8T?ref_=ast_author_mpb
Rightly so...I like it!
The ultimate “Get Off My Lawn.”
I’ll grant that we don’t want them here. If a person is
traversing the South 40, and the property isn’t well
defined, then I’m not in favor of killing someone over
it.
If there is activity near the physical structures on the
property and you feel endangered, then open season > IMO.
If there is a lot of narcotic or cartel activity, I’d
also loosen those parameters.
I’m not into killing some poor Mexican just because he
was stupid enough to be on your property, in a non-
threatening manner.
In general, property owners cannot use deadly force to protect property. But property owners may be able to shoot at trespassers in self-defense if they fear great bodily harm or death.So that suggests that 16 states permit you to shoot trespassers on your property outside your home. Continues...The law gives property owners the right to defend themselves with a reasonable response. That means any force used against a trespasser must usually be proportionate to harm that is reasonably perceived.
The legality of shooting a trespasser will further depend on whether you have a duty to retreat or a right to stand your ground, and the extent of your curtilage (your property surrounding your home) that counts as your dwelling.
In 2021, a total of 27 states have adopted stand-your-ground laws. Eleven states restricted the right of armed response to their homes -- the "Castle Doctrine" -- and saying that people have a duty to retreat from threats or danger in public places.
For example, Florida lets you open fire on someone forcibly trying to enter your dwelling -- including your attached porch -- but not the rest of your property (such as a yard).It sounds like Arizona is codifying exactly what and where you can shoot trespassers found on your property. To be on the safe side, you should probably post "No Trespassing" signs in ten different languages.Also, since most state laws require that a trespasser knowingly or intentionally enter someone's private property, it's important for property owners to have a "No Trespassers" sign in place to serve as notice.
But remember: Shooting at a trespasser is always a legal gamble. The legality of such actions is incredibly state-specific and fact-specific. Property owners could potentially be held liable -- civilly and/or criminally -- if their efforts cross the line.
Good. This is war. An invasion.
You presume that it will be a Mexican but 125 different countries are sending their people here.
It is said the Chinese are supplying weapons to disaffected Americans
ALRIGHT!!
When I was a kid, every kid knew that a property owner might shoot you . . . so KEEP OUT!
I knew 1 kid who broke that warning. He was trouble. He would hide in the nearby woods and wait for a pet to appear in a neighbor’s yard . . . and then shoot the pet with an arrow.
I caught that kid, doing that, one day, and I chased him all the way to his house.
Their kitchen door was open, and he dashed inside, with me just behind him.
His mother was at the stove. She turned, and I told her what just happened.
The kid denied, denied, denied.
I never served but I'm not unfamiliar with shooting. As per a moving target you have to lead it, correct?
That’s not exactly true, as far as presumptions go.
Larger groups do contain people from various nations. I do
think the straggler type still exists from time to time.
If there’s a group on your property, it’s a different type
of situation.
Not sure it would be wise to mix it up with coyotes et al,
unless you have others with you.
Wise other-passed FR guy Jackelope Breeder, who lived in the zone, told me he made his night forays discouraging the illegals with horrendous stuff (skunk extract, etc.) while never killing or causing severe injuries. His heart eventually gave out but I honor him and relay his message:
The moment we're cast as the villains merely trying to defend our nation when official forces are told not to equals getting handed a ticking count down of our time left free before they get us out of the way one way or another.
I thought my neighbor was an illegal. Sorry about that.
> As per a moving target you have to lead it, correct?<
Not from a helicopter. If it’s faster than you, yes. If it’s the same speed, no. If it’s slower, you have to aim behind it.
EC
This alone will resolve the migrant issue in a heartbeat.
Castle Doctrine with a build in “Visiting the Triple S Ranch” (Shoot, Shovel and Shut up). Or in Yellowstone parlance, a trip to the Train Station.
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.