Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Grijalva invites Ashcroft to see vigilante 'justice'
Arizona Daily Star ^ | 14 Jan 2003 | Unkown

Posted on 01/14/2003 8:01:56 AM PST by JackelopeBreeder

Grijalva invites Ashcroft to see vigilante 'justice'

ARIZONA DAILY STAR; Tuesday, January 14, 2003

U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva stepped up his campaign to crack down on vigilantes Monday by inviting Attorney General John Ashcroft to come to Southern Arizona to see the threat they pose to border security.

The Tucson Democrat told Ashcroft in a letter that the federal government's silence on the issue is "seen as giving official sanction to this racist movement, both by the perpetrators and victims of vigilante 'justice.' "

Ashcroft's voice, Grijalva added, "is needed now to make clear that private armed groups claiming law enforcement powers have no role in patrolling our border with Mexico."

Last week, shortly after he was sworn in, Grijalva called for a federal inquiry into the vigilante groups that have formed in response to the thousands of illegal immigrants who make their way across Arizona's border every year.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; Mexico; News/Current Events; US: Arizona
KEYWORDS: arizonaborder; illegalimmigration; vigilantes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440 ... 561-576 next last
To: Travis McGee
I agree with you (BlackElk said it though)
401 posted on 01/16/2003 7:33:50 PM PST by SwankyC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
You are frustrated because my lapels are not available for you to grab.

No need. You've demonstrated to everyone else on this board that you are dishonest and slanderous (you never did address the slander issue, even though the mod yanked the post in question). No lapel grabbing needed.

402 posted on 01/17/2003 6:58:20 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 396 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy; hchutch
As I have previously posted, truth is a complete defense to any claim of defamation including libel and slander. That is black letter law. If you think that the border mania crowd are not as I say, argue factually. If you think I am dishonest, argue the facts. Don't use words that you do not understand. BTW, written defamations are libel not slander.

As to lapel grabbing, that is the phenomenon of the recent convert to some exotic view or other feeling the need to grab the lapels of every passer by to scream: Don't you understand, man, our entire civilization is being overrun. You cannot undulge yourself in disagreeing with ME (on the CRISIS!!!!! du jour) unless you are an ENEMY of AMERICA!!!! The fever passes after a reasonable amount of time and the lapel grabber resumes somewhat normal life or gets one. Neither treatment nor medication is normally necessary. Time wounds most heels.

Meanwhile, the government (at least in this case) acts like a grown-up and dismisses the lapel-grabbing for what it is: a temporary deviation from objectivity which will pass soon enough in most cases; ignoring the grabbers until a sense of balance is restored in them.

403 posted on 01/17/2003 10:58:46 AM PST by BlackElk (Viva Cristo Rey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 402 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
As I have previously posted, truth is a complete defense to any claim of defamation including libel and slander. That is black letter law. If you think that the border mania crowd are not as I say, argue factually

You said they were breaking the law. Therefore, the burden of proof is for YOU to demonstrate how they are. And the moderator happens to agree, because he yanked your post accusing them of lawbreaking. So either put up a legal explanation as to why they are lawbreaking, or retract the statement.

As to lapel grabbing, that is the phenomenon of the recent convert to some exotic view or other feeling the need to grab the lapels of every passer by to scream:

And that has NOTHING to do with this thread, as you came in here of your own free will. You may be impressed with your ability to raise obfuscation to an art form, but the rest of us recognized it, by sight AND smell, for what it actually is...

404 posted on 01/17/2003 11:04:49 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 403 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
You have trouble with the English language. The fellow to whom I was posting is apparently a former government employee of the GOVERNMENT's border control bureaucracy. The agency he would have worked for is, no doubt, established by statute, governed by statutes and the constitution, hemmed in by court decisions, governed by a mountain or so of complicated regulations (known to the impatient and those with little use for ordered liberty as "red tape").

The, ummmm, (charitably speaking) border volunteers are some sort of law unto themselves. They are not created by statute whatever they may think. They may be individually or collectively made subject to the law if they transgress: i.e., if they go overboard, the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1869 is available as is RICO. There are no specific regs as there are for government agents and agencies (those acting under "color of law" as the term of legal art has it.) What we have instead is an, ummmm, mindset reflected by: "See border statute. See immigration statute. See government do what it does best: nothing much. Need private sector self-appointed poobahs to instruct government and DEMAND law enforcement according to personal opinions of poobahs as to law. Constitution be darned! Full speed ahead! Knuckles painful: remember to stop dragging! Etc., etc., etc."

May the full moon be over soon!

I have also previously pointed out to you that, under American law, there is no recognizeable cause of action for group defamation. Examples of group defamation which are never actionable: ["Illegals" are ruining our country! Prosecutors who refuse to obey border mania practitioners and choke the courts with 3 million or 8 million cases per year of allegedly illegal immigration are lawbreakers! The government officials are violating the constitution by not obeying border moon madness.!]

Each of the foregoing is an untrue statement about one GROUP or another. The falsity is only one of the elements of actionable defamation. If the statement in any of those cases were found true, the action would fail in any event because groups CANNOT be defamed in any actionable sense.

You don't know what you are talking about. That is also one of the dangers of the desert version of self-appointed keystone kops or the private F troop..

405 posted on 01/17/2003 11:24:51 AM PST by BlackElk (Viva Cristo Rey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 394 | View Replies]

To: Marine Inspector
Yes, but if Tommy Temper Tantrum's ego is not so inflated as to run for president, the party is preparing the well-financed primary that should separate him from Congress as the embarassing mistake that he is.
406 posted on 01/17/2003 11:30:05 AM PST by BlackElk (Viva Cristo Rey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy; hchutch
If you think that the border mania crowd are not as I say, argue factually. If you think I am dishonest, argue the facts.

Never mind the fact that BlackElk refuses to lead by example, apparently he lives by double standards. Typical libbie mindset - "one set of rules for ME, a seperate set of rules for anyone who DISAGREES with me"

He has consistently FAILED to provide any facts to back up his claims of racism and xenophobia.

407 posted on 01/17/2003 11:35:10 AM PST by occam's chainsaw (Let's rip off the mask!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies]

To: Marine Inspector
We homeschool and have created our own private Catholic school, as well.

If you are a current federal officer and you act in concert with private citizens who violate the law, that has specific legal consequences under the post-Civil War Civil Rights Acts for you as well as them.

You may not like the regulations that restrict you or your agency (who likes regulations?), but you are regulated nonetheless. You are a professional if you work for the government agency, not in the sense of being particularly good at what you do although you may well be superb at what you do, but rather you are a professional as opposed to an amateur because you are employed and paid to do what you do. A-Rod or Barry Bonds vs. the local college ballplayer.

408 posted on 01/17/2003 11:37:22 AM PST by BlackElk (Viva Cristo Rey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 382 | View Replies]

To: Marine Inspector
OK, if I served on a jury that tried a pope, I would vote not guilty. That should cover it. My obligation to God and the Church is far, far more important than any commitment to some temporary nation state. Alexander's Greece is no more. The Roman Empire is no more. The Holy Roman Empire is no more. British colonial rule of any part of the United States is no more. The Assyrian Empire is no more. Many French Republics are no more. There will NOT always be an England. Nor will there always be a United States. The US is, by far, the best of these but it too is mortal and will not be around forever. Hopefully, the future holds not a one-world government by the execrable likes of the UN but other arrangements of multiple nations advancing in truth and freedom beyond the point we have achieved.

This will not be prevented by calcifying our own society, however.

As to your original question, the Scriptures record the commandments which include the admonition that their author is the Lord, our God, and that he requires us not to have strange gods before him. Now Zeus is a fantasy and so is the old hummingbird god of Cactus Rock (now Mexico City) and so are all the other pagan gods mere myth. The meaning of the commandment is not to worship our sins and vanities instead of God Himself. In this context, the law of any specific nation or state or locality is also not a god. In those things not immoral in and of themselves or not immoral as occurring in the specific prevailing circumstances, we are enjoined by Romans to obey even the governments of the likes of Hitler or Stalin: (Don't block fire hydrants. Don't spit on the sidewalk. Register your dog. Or whatever.] We ought, for the same reason and others, to obey those laws which prohibit intrinsically evil conduct: Do not Murder. Do not Steal.

Let us not get carried away, however, to believe that immigration is inherently evil, even if prohibited by statute. Immigration and emigration, without the imprimatur of statute or regulation, were going on long before there existed these United States and will continue long afterward.

The same controversy that arose when Christians (Catholics) went to their deaths in the Colisseum rather than sacrifice to Caligula or Nero or Diocletian or their like is the underlying controversy here. Neither the government nor the law is any sort of god much less one which may take the place of the real thing. If I have made myself sufficiently clear, then you understand that my mind will not be changed. You may follow your conscience as you choose. You may not compel mine.

409 posted on 01/17/2003 11:58:02 AM PST by BlackElk (Viva Cristo Rey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies]

To: SwankyC
Suits me.
410 posted on 01/17/2003 11:58:50 AM PST by BlackElk (Viva Cristo Rey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 399 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
The, ummmm, (charitably speaking) border volunteers are some sort of law unto themselves. They are not created by statute whatever they may think. They may be individually or collectively made subject to the law if they transgress: i.e., if they go overboard, the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1869 is available as is RICO. There are no specific regs as there are for government agents and agencies (those acting under "color of law" as the term of legal art has it.) What we have instead is an, ummmm, mindset reflected by: "See border statute. See immigration statute. See government do what it does best: nothing much. Need private sector self-appointed poobahs to instruct government and DEMAND law enforcement according to personal opinions of poobahs as to law. Constitution be darned! Full speed ahead! Knuckles painful: remember to stop dragging! Etc., etc., etc."

All those words and not one clear reference to a specific statute or legal code as to why the actions are illegal - but it's about what I expected from you. I'll lay the issues down for you here, and I demand you refute them one by one with clear, relevant statutes, not your usual bullsh**. First of all, they are acting within the borders of the State of Arizona, so state law is applicable here. Second, they are currently acting on private property at the invitation of landowners - and if someone is crossing that property without permission, they are detecting trespass, which is a crime in its own right. They are allowed under Arizona law to detain trespass or to report trespass, and if there is suspicion that the trespassers are illegal aliens (i.e., observed crossing the border without presenting documentation), then that is fair grounds to call the INS. That is what the groups are doing - reporting a crime - so if you believe those activities to be illegal, please explain how reporting a crime in progress became a crime in its own right, especially in the context of law enforcement encouraging people to form neighborhood watches to report crimes in their neighborhoods.

You lose, jack. The border groups are just another form of neighborhood watch, looking for criminal activity on private property. I'm not a lawyer, but I can figure this out, so what does that say about YOU?

411 posted on 01/17/2003 12:05:29 PM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
Yes, but if Tommy Temper Tantrum's ego is not so inflated as to run for president, the party is preparing the well-financed primary that should separate him from Congress as the embarassing mistake that he is.

He's not running for president, dipweed. That's just another strawman you're erecting instead of making a factual argument.

412 posted on 01/17/2003 12:06:50 PM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 406 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
Let us not get carried away, however, to believe that immigration is inherently evil, even if prohibited by statute.

Please show where ANYONE on this thread has said such. Another strawman. I hope you donated a lot of money to JimRob, because you sure are wasting a lot of his bandwidth with useless, irrelevant posts.

413 posted on 01/17/2003 12:07:55 PM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 409 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
You don't know what you are talking about.

So since you do, lawyer boy, provide specific statutes instead of sweeping generalities. Put up or shut up.

414 posted on 01/17/2003 12:08:56 PM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
OK, lawyer boy, since you won't mention codes, I'll start. From the State Code of Arizona:

13-407. Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises

A. A person or his agent in lawful possession or control of premises is justified in threatening to use deadly physical force or in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent that a reasonable person would believe it immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon the premises.

So it is legal under Arizona law to allow agents to protect land from trespass and vandalism, and to use physical force to halt such. Your turn, what can YOU produce from the Arizona code here?

415 posted on 01/17/2003 12:12:40 PM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 409 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
Citizen's arrest is legal in Arizona, lawyer boy:

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.

You see, lawyer boy, these groups actually did their homework before going out and doing this - because they were well aware that cretins like you were just waiting to claim they were lawbreaking. Libel and slander are the stock in trade of liberals, and unfortunately it appears a few self-professed conservatives seem to engage in it as well.

416 posted on 01/17/2003 12:19:32 PM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 410 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
And here are the grounds for citizen's arrest in Arizona, lawyer boy:

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.

417 posted on 01/17/2003 12:23:23 PM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 410 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
private citizens who violate the law

So far, none of these private citizen groups have violated any laws. I don't work for them or with them, because I am regulated as to what I can and can't do.

But those regulations can not stop me from vocally supporting these legal private citizen groups or even donating money to them.

418 posted on 01/17/2003 12:26:03 PM PST by Marine Inspector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 408 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
And here is the statute for criminal trespass in the 1st degree:

13-1504. Criminal trespass in the first degree; classification

A. A person commits criminal trespass in the first degree by knowingly:

1. Entering or remaining unlawfully in or on a residential structure or in a fenced residential yard; or

2. Entering any residential yard and, without lawful authority, looking into the residential structure thereon in reckless disregard of infringing on the inhabitant's right of privacy.

3. Entering unlawfully on real property subject to a valid mineral claim or lease with the intent to hold, work, take or explore for minerals on such claim or lease.

4. Entering or remaining unlawfully on the property of another and burning, defacing, mutilating or otherwise desecrating a religious symbol or other religious property of another without the express permission of the owner of the property.

B. Criminal trespass in the first degree is a class 6 felony if it is committed by entering or remaining unlawfully in or on a residential structure or committed pursuant to subsection A, paragraph 4. Criminal trespass in the first degree is a class 1 misdemeanor if it is committed by entering or remaining unlawfully in a fenced residential yard or committed pursuant to subsection A, paragraph 2 or 3.

419 posted on 01/17/2003 12:27:26 PM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 410 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
OK, if I served on a jury that tried a pope, I would vote not guilty.

So if the Pope was molesting children, that would be OK with you?

420 posted on 01/17/2003 12:27:34 PM PST by Marine Inspector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 409 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440 ... 561-576 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson