rancher who held ilegals at gunpoint trial starts !

[Jay Cunningham]

What I am saying is that if I were in his shoes, with illegal aliens trouncing across my land on a daily basis and the border patrol being uncooperative, then I might do something irrational.

Indeed.

Average citizens armed with powerful firearms and professional training must exercise extreme discretion. It is a huge responsibility, this thing that we do - one of the reasons so many gun owners choose not to.

[ZDL]

I'm not trying to turn this into a "what if" scenario because this can be gamed all kinds of ways and that's not really my intent. But...

Moving to confront 16 strangers by your lonesome is not my idea of smart - armed or not. In fact, it is my idea of "very stupid".

There's a saying where I work: Only two things can come from this; nothing, or nothing good. This saying directly applies to moving out to confront 16 strangers with a firearm.

Understandable and I can see were you are coming form. We are wired differently I suppose. I don't avoid situations because they might be dangerous particularly when the safety of my family is involved. That isn't meant to be taken as a dig. Just an observation. I think we both agree the ability to avoid conflict is the greatest weapon. Sometimes though... Enough is enough. Does it make it right? Arguable till then end of time. Does it make it legal? We'll see. Does it make it smart? Probably not as most "I've had enough" scenarios are ill conceived and executed poorly.

If I deemed it dangerous to my family to go out and confront 16 people then I simply wouldn't do it. If they were 1000 yards off and I could keep visual on them and they weren't heading towards my house, then I would simply call LE and continue to observe. If there were 16 armed men heading towards my house, I would have the family in the fastest vehicle I owned and doing felony speed to get away.

It does sound like this rancher was simply pissed off and had enough. I can sympathize. "should" he have done it is a relative discussion that can't/won't be finalized on a gun forum.

What Katar is getting at, which most people are missing I think, has a lot of merit. However, the other side will argue that the apathetic approach to everything nowadays is the reason for the decline of our nation. Both sides have weight. I for one am not intelligent or arrogant enough, to settle on a conclusion with such little information/education.

I've made clear under what circumstances I would approach, solely, 16 people on my land and what circumstances I wouldn't. Oddly, the "would not"s outweigh the "would".

[Sttrongbow]

Can an illegal actually have civil rights in the US?? I dont understand how a non citizen can have the rights of a citizen

The Constitution does not limit rights to citizens. The rights apply to ANYONE within the jurisdiction of the Constitution. That's why Bush set up the prison in Guantanamo... he was trying to avoid the jurisdiction of the Constitution.

One thing we do NOT want to do is start decided who is and isn't protected by the Bill of Rights.

I think the farmer may have violated the law by threatening deadly force in a circumstance he wasn't permitted to do so, but I'm not sure I see a civil rights violation here.

[bkb0000]

citizens cant violate civil rights of other citizens- i thought this was established case-law?

i can do you wrong, and you can sue me- but only the government can violate your consitutional rights. are "civil rights" different than constitutional rights?

[g5m]

You guys are really not getting it - the guy chose to confront these 16 people. He could have chosen not to confront them. Would this have been "right" or "wrong"? It doesn't matter - he could have contacted police and border patrol, armed himself, and observed them at a discrete distance. Hell he could have taken their picture or recorded them on video. If they moved toward him he could have evaluated the potential threat and assessed the option to safely retreat.

I know - "he shouldn't have to!" etc. Emotion should not trump common sense.

Be glad you don't live on the Border or in the Southwest.

[g5m]

Can you actually hold someone at gun point for tresspass (posted, non-posted?)? In the house in one thing, at the other extreme is unposted land. Down south near the border with drug gangs and MexMil, things are a bit different, I understand.

The answer apparently is 'No'.
But, in Arizona the law used to be that a trespasser could be shot. Really.
It was changed about 30-35 years ago when some college student was killed by the homeowner for walking across the guy's lawn. Sorry, but I don't recall the history of the law.

And, regarding the civil rights of the illegals, it seems that the Supreme Court settled that about 1979 or so when Iranians in the country were demonstrating against the Shah and some were arrested and there was a lawsuit and it went to the Supreme Court which gave, again IIRC, the same rights to anyone in the country, citizen or not. At least that's the way I remember it and an attorney can certainly correct me as needed.

[g5m]

Understandable and I can see were you are coming form. We are wired differently I suppose. I don't avoid situations because they might be dangerous particularly when the safety of my family is involved. That isn't meant to be taken as a dig. Just an observation. I think we both agree the ability to avoid conflict is the greatest weapon. Sometimes though... Enough is enough. Does it make it right? Arguable till then end of time. Does it make it legal? We'll see. Does it make it smart? Probably not as most "I've had enough" scenarios are ill conceived and executed poorly.

If I deemed it dangerous to my family to go out and confront 16 people then I simply wouldn't do it. If they were 1000 yards off and I could keep visual on them and they weren't heading towards my house, then I would simply call LE and continue to observe. If there were 16 armed men heading towards my house, I would have the family in the fastest vehicle I owned and doing felony speed to get away.

It does sound like this rancher was simply pissed off and had enough. I can sympathize. "should" he have done it is a relative discussion that can't/won't be finalized on a gun forum.

Or, just for effect, the hundred thousandth?

What Katar is getting at, which most people are missing I think, has a lot of merit. However, the other side will argue that the apathetic approach to everything nowadays is the reason for the decline of our nation. Both sides have weight. I for one am not intelligent or arrogant enough, to settle on a conclusion with such little information/education.

I've made clear under what circumstances I would approach, solely, 16 people on my land and what circumstances I wouldn't. Oddly, the "would not"s outweigh the "would".

But what if it's not just sixteen but the 50th or five hundredth or such and it's been going on for years?
Might that change your perspective?


Or, just for effect, the hundred thousandth?

[g5m]

I'm not trying to turn this into a "what if" scenario because this can be gamed all kinds of ways and that's not really my intent. But...

Moving to confront 16 strangers by your lonesome is not my idea of smart - armed or not. In fact, it is my idea of "very stupid".

There's a saying where I work: Only two things can come from this; nothing, or nothing good. This saying directly applies to moving out to confront 16 strangers with a firearm.

You are absolutely right. And I'm glad I'm not in the shoes of the man who confronted them or in the shoes of the people who, most likely, are just trying to make a better life for themselves and their families.
Many of the illegals I've talked to don't even try to come here legally as it's easy to do it illegally and nearly impossible to do it legally. The obstructions to coming here legally are apparently nearly insurmountable. The new administration might change that.

[Dano5326]

Katar.. you are clearly a product of urbania w/o perspective on simple survival

one could ask any resident of central or south america on how to handle tresspassers.. w/o getting a pile of theoretical bs...

all answers relative to survival relate directly to the ground in question.. key terrain.. were the tresspassers taking the high ground? did this need to be mitigated? taking controlling the area necessary for water or feeding yourself, family, or stock? or your movement.. if so.. this need be addressed before one is a victim.

All battles are won before fought, only those who haven't spilt or smelt blood don't understand..

99.99%+ of people, in the US, don't understand the reality of the surviving w/o the 24hr supermarket and the illusion of a 911 call safety net. You can delude yourself that a phone call will help... that the the "rule of law" matters.

When persons choose to ingnore the social contract, only violence can rectify this. I have seen , numerous times, sworn officers of several different Fed Agencies avoid their duty when armed oppostition was involved... don't think you & yours bear any special consideration to the bureocrat. So.. who's gonna do it?

[variablebinary]

If you dont live in a border state, you cant possibly understand what ranchers and border towns have to deal with.

What you also dont hear is how many border state property owners end up shot at, killed, raped and robbed daily.

Being on the ass end of a war our government wont even attempt to fight will make people feel like their hand is forced.