Grijalva invites Ashcroft to see vigilante 'justice'

Arizona Daily Star ^ | 14 Jan 2003 | Unkown

[marajade]

So the qualifier in relation to just plain ol breaking and entering being a misdemeanor would be a "breach of peace" whatever that means... Good luck...

[dirtboy]

I also believe that most misdemeanors have to be committed in the presence of a sworn law enforcement officer before they can be adjudged in court as well...

What kind of nonsense is that? The vast majority of crimes, misdemeanor or felony, are committed without a law enforcement officer present to observe them, and the perps are apprehended through witness descriptions, physical evidence and/or circumstantial evidence. Once again, according to Arizona code, if the groups see aliens breaking into a structure and removing contents, that is a felony in progress and they can make a citizens arrest.

[marajade]

That's different... Witnesses aren't the ones making citizens arrests...

[dirtboy]

So the qualifier in relation to just plain ol breaking and entering being a misdemeanor would be a "breach of peace" whatever that means... Good luck...

What part of "or" do you not understand:

1. When the person to be arrested has in his presence committed a misdemeanor amounting to a breach of the peace, or a felony.

It's bad enough I'm having to educate you on Arizona law, but it seems I've having to tutor you in reading comprehension and the English langauge as well. BTW, breach of peace is generally taken to be rioting, and does not apply here.

[dirtboy]

That's different... Witnesses aren't the ones making citizens arrests...

Gawd, you're a waste of bandwidth. You keep spinning your position, you must be getting dizzy. If the groups see felony burglary in process, they can make a citizens arrest. End of story.

[marajade]

So if its just breaking and entering its just a misdemeanor and a citizen's arrest would not stand up in any criminal court...

Again, good luck...

[marajade]

And the qualifier to it being a felony is that it is in conjunction with theft or fraud...

[SmartEnough]

Your proof that it IS?

[dirtboy]

So if its just breaking and entering its just a misdemeanor and a citizen's arrest would not stand up in any criminal court...

I already provided the qualifier that the aliens need to be observed removing items from the building in order for it to be considered a probable felony subject to citizen's arrest. Why do you keep trying to ignore the qualifier I made at the very beginning of this particular debate? Are you this dense on purpose?

Adios, you're yet another waste of time...

[dirtboy]

And the qualifier to it being a felony is that it is in conjunction with theft or fraud...

Which I already covered with my qualifier all the way back in post #511. A qualifier I reminded you of again in post #517. And then you try to make it a qualifier for your point here, WHEN I'VE BEEN FRIGGIN' SAYING IT ALL ALONG? Jeeez. You take the cake.

[marajade]

I'm just trying to clarify what you supposedly have stated in this thread because you seem to have supposed that citizens can just arrest anyone for anything they want when that really isn't true or statutorily correct at all...

[dirtboy]

I'm just trying to clarify what you supposedly have stated in this thread because you seem to have supposed that citizens can just arrest anyone for anything they want when that really isn't true or statutorily correct at all...

Please point out where I have said that. The matter regarding felony trespass is not entirely clear - but the groups in question are not arresting for trespass, only upon observation of felony burlary. So that part of the debate is moot anyway. The point is, the groups are acting in a legal manner, and you have done nothing but go around in circles on this thread, and haven't provided squat that the groups are acting in an illegal manner.

Just because you might not like what a group is doing, it doesn't make it a crime, the Democratic Party being the prime example.

[MissAmericanPie]

Your liberals are very free and easy with their interpretations of the simple language of the Constitution regarding its citizens. A conservative Supreme Court will define much better the difference between invader and citizen. No more word smithing allowed.

[marajade]

"The matter regarding felony trespass is not entirely clear"

Sure it is...

[dirtboy]

Sure it is...

I already said it was immaterial for what the groups are doing, as they are only carrying out a citizens arrest upon observation of felony burglary, NOT felony trespass. If you want to waste more of my time nitpicking something that doesn't even apply to the debate at hand, be my guest, just don't expect me to play along.

[marajade]

" ... as they are only carrying out a citizens arrest upon observation of felony burglary, NOT felony trespass."

Why not felony trespass?

[dirtboy]

Why not felony trespass?

Like I said, have fun playing with yourself, and good night. I would sure hate to be the citizen of the good State of Arizona that has to deal with you on state business...

[marajade]

Why? Because I believe in the rule of law and not vigilantism?

[dirtboy]

Why? Because I believe in the rule of law and not vigilantism?

Prove it is vigilantism and against the law. You have done neither here, and I already said they are not doing a citizens arrest for felony trespass, just felony burglary, which is legal under the law of Arizona, as I have aptly proven. You're being a deliberate jerk now...

[marajade]

If its legal for them to make a citizens arrest, even for felony trespass, why aren't they?