PDA

View Full Version : SF Reservist arrested in AZ


12B4S
04-13-2005, 21:37
This story is still being sorted out. To this point an Army reservist has been arrested for detaining seven illegals at gun point at an isolated rest stop in AZ on Hwy 8. So far it seems he has had two stints in Iraq. From Indiana traveling through AZ. When he came out to his truck seven mexicans came out of the bushes, his dog came between them and him at which time he got his pistol out of his truck and "detained" them. Just now listening to the 911 recording. On the tape he said he was SF Army. This story has a long way to go yet, but guess who is now under arrest. Here is a link. Although there is very little info on there right now and it is a LIB paper (of course, you folks can deduce that by the "undocumented immigrants" verbage.) OH! The illegals are pressing charges.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0413detain-blomo03.html

This story will go on for quite awhile. The lib media will be out to fry the guy, not to mention the ACLU. Well, need more facts to emerge.

12B4S
04-13-2005, 22:25
Another article from the Arizona Republic (The AZ Repugnant). The illegals are "immigrants" to this rag. Anyway.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0413az-border-detention13-ON.html

Smokin Joe
04-13-2005, 23:21
Although I understand what he did and why he did it. It is not reasonable to detain illegal immigrants at gun point if you have no other info other than the fact that they are illegals; it is excessive force. Additionally citizens do not have the powers of arrest when it comes to federal laws. Hopefully this will just go away and the guy gets off with only an ass chewing by the judge. However with the Minuteman Project going on along the border here in AZ I doubt this guy will get off easy.

12B4S
04-14-2005, 01:35
Although I understand what he did and why he did it. It is not reasonable to detain illegal immigrants at gun point if you have no other info other than the fact that they are illegals; it is excessive force. Additionally citizens do not have the powers of arrest when it comes to federal laws. Hopefully this will just go away and the guy gets off with only an ass chewing by the judge. However with the Minuteman Project going on along the border here in AZ I doubt this guy will get off easy.

Hiya Smokin Joe. I agree............ mostly. There are other facts and variables to come out of this. We'll see where it leads. One place it'll lead is right into the liberal media's lap. This incident at first, through the media here was to tie him into the Minutemen. All the facts are not in yet, but if it went down as he has described, to tell the truth, I doubt I would have done it any differently. I don't care what nationality. I just have a problem with 6 or 7 of anybody jumping me. Unless they're fem. :) Damn! Holding one or more folks at gunpoint because they came toward you out of the bushes in a remote desert area and may be a threat to you or your family is considered "excessive force" these days? Things keep changing, not my idea of excessive force. I don't know and there is mention of this guy being on drugs for combat stress. He may have been down there looking for something like this. We'll have to let it play out and see.

12B4S
04-14-2005, 01:39
One other thing Joe. Aren't you the guy that I believe Razor said "was one more use of excessive force away" from attaining.... hmmm, what was it a knife? Can't remember that part and not in a mood to do search right now. :D

Smokin Joe
04-14-2005, 02:48
One other thing Joe. Aren't you the guy that I believe Razor said "was one more use of excessive force away" from attaining.... hmmm, what was it a knife? Can't remember that part and not in a mood to do search right now. :D
LOL- it was to qualify for a "Man Killing MOS"

12B4S,
I got different info then what you did (nothing on the inside just a different news outlet). From what I understand these "Imigrants" were not even moving towards this guy. Who, knows...I made my statement on what little info I have which is: That this guy was at a rest stop just off Highway 8 (for you guys who don't know Highway runs almost through Mexico its so close to the border, also I-8 has some of the most desolate area I have EVER seen sand dunes for miles in all directions). Anyways the "Imigrants" come out of the bushes and are just walking not even towards this guy. Some how the "Imigrants" get between the Reservist and the Reservist dog, so the Reservist goes to his truck and gets his gun and "detains" these "Imigrants" at gun point. This to me is not reasonable because:

1. These "Imigrants" were not threatening this guy.
2. Nor even moving in his general direction. (this is total hersay)
3. Citizens do not have the authority to perform a citizen's arrest for federal imigration crimes.
4. He's not justified in threatening lethal force on these "Imigrants" because his life or the life of a third person is not in Emmient Danger of unlawful deadly force, nor was he stopping a Kidnapping, Rape, or Arson.

I think this guy should have been armed, and made it visible to the "Imigrants" that he was armed (i.e. not concealed) but I don't think that he should have "Detained" them at gun point.

Additionally, what I'm seeing with all the news here is that with the Minuteman Project going on the Feds (and libs) are going to Fry anyones ass that uses any amount of unjustified force on an Illegal Imigrant. Politics on this issue are getting really nasty and I would hate to be this Reservist caught in the middle. Good thing for this Reservist is he's a 2 tour Combat Vet (from what I hear) and he was NOT part of the Minuteman Project. If this was a private Citizen on public land part of the Minuteman Project, the media and Federal Governement would Crucifie them.
:) :cool:

Just my .02 cents

The Reaper
04-14-2005, 07:24
I hate to generalize, but lets review.

I am in Naco (carrying concealed) and I see several young Middle-Eastern appearing gentlemen speaking Arabic and carrying bags as they head north into the US.

I tell them to halt, and they refuse, but start to split up, with a couple moving toward me.

What should I do?

TR

Rotor Strike
04-14-2005, 08:42
I hate to generalize, but lets review.

I am in Naco (carrying concealed) and I see several young Middle-Eastern appearing gentlemen speaking Arabic and carrying bags as they head north into the US.

I tell them to halt, and they refuse, but start to split up, with a couple moving toward me.

What should I do?

TR

Shoot them, ditch the bodies, then the pistol. Proceed to nearest airport and visit an old SF buddy in Thailand. Consume mass quantities of alcohol! Repeat as neccessary. :cool:

CPTAUSRET
04-14-2005, 09:00
TR:

I would do what you are thinking, and arm a couple of them with throw away weapons.

Terry

Smokin Joe
04-14-2005, 10:17
I hate to generalize, but lets review.

I am in Naco (carrying concealed) and I see several young Middle-Eastern appearing gentlemen speaking Arabic and carrying bags as they head north into the US.

I tell them to halt, and they refuse, but start to split up, with a couple moving toward me.

What should I do?

TR

Defend yourself and your loved ones.

Call 911 ASAP

Sir, I totally understand what you are saying, but with the political tension and other B.S. that is surrounding the Minute Man Project here in AZ. The libs are pooring political pressure on the Feds to stop the Minute Men. Even the ACLU is on the border "monitoring" the Minute Men to make sure they don't "violate anyones civil rights" :rolleyes: and the Feds don't want to look bad so they are looking for someone to make and example of.

If this Reservist did the same thing prior to this month, the maximum he probably would have gotten would have been a good ass chewing on scene and then sent on his marry way. But he didn't effectively articulate his need to "detain" the "Illegal Imigrants" at gun point so the Feds found there example. Bad place and bad time for the Reservist. Hopefully, this will get swept under the rug later on down the road when the Minute Men aren't on everyone's radar. :)

I don't agree with it but that's how politics are in AZ.

The Reaper
04-14-2005, 10:24
But he didn't effectively articulate his need to "detain" the "Illegal Imigrants" at gun point so the Feds found there example. Bad place and bad time for the Reservist. Hopefully, this will get swept under the rug later on down the road when the Minute Men aren't on everyone's radar. :)

I don't agree with it but that's how politics are in AZ.

"I was afraid that the immigrants were armed, had heard about terrorists illegally entering the US in the same manner, was in fear for my life, and felt that I had to put them on the ground until competent authorities arrived for both their and my safety."

I think that it is a good thing. It is slowing the flow, causing the US government to perform one of their few Constitutionally mandated responsibilities, is causing people to think about what is happening, and what might happen, and is forcing politicians to show their true colors.

TR

CPTAUSRET
04-14-2005, 10:44
I was at a dinner a couple of weeks ago with the Gov of AZ, I should have brought this (situation) up to her.

Smokin Joe
04-14-2005, 10:46
"I was afraid that the immigrants were armed, had heard about terrorists illegally entering the US in the same manner, was in fear for my life, and felt that I had to put them on the ground until competent authorities arrived for both their and my safety."

TR

;) Perfect Sir.

I think that it is a good thing. It is slowing the flow, causing the US government to perform one of their few Constitutionally mandated responsibilities, is causing people to think about what is happening, and what might happen, and is forcing politicians to show their true colors.

I agree, fortunately we have serious citizen who can dedicate there time and money to such as cause. The Minute Men are being met with ubsurd protesters and media bombarment but IMHO its doing little to force our Dike...I mean potentailly homosexual governer to get off her girlfriend and get our border secured. God forbid we allow the Border Patrol to be aggressive and properly staffed...that might hurt someones feelings :rolleyes:

jon448
04-14-2005, 11:02
;)
I agree, fortunately we have serious citizen who can dedicate there time and money to such as cause. The Minute Men are being met with ubsurd protesters and media bombarment but IMHO its doing little to force our Dike...I mean potentailly homosexual governer to get off her girlfriend and get our border secured. God forbid we allow the Border Patrol to be aggressive and properly staffed...that might hurt someones feelings :rolleyes:

From what I've heard isn't the Border Patrol federally backed not state? Wouldn't that mean that it should be congress fixing this whole issue?
I actually think it would be better off as a state issue because people up where I am don't see things the same way those who live relatively close to the border do.

Smokin Joe
04-14-2005, 11:52
From what I've heard isn't the Border Patrol federally backed not state? Wouldn't that mean that it should be congress fixing this whole issue?
I actually think it would be better off as a state issue because people up where I am don't see things the same way those who live relatively close to the border do.

Yes, however who should provide the pressure to Washington for adequate Agents and equipment to deal with the Illegals? What states feel the biggest impact by Illegal Immigrants? Also who has control over the National Guard? I feel Border protection is just as much a State problem as it is a National problem. The director of ICE could give a rat f*ck about AZ alone. He has 2 borders, 3 oceans, and thousands of port of entries to worry about. Also the State sets how Aggressive or not the Border Patrol can be (respectfully) I won't go into what the Border Patrol CAN'T do for OPSEC reasons but lets just say you would be very surprised and disapointed. :cool:

ender
04-14-2005, 12:30
On a side note, the Minutemen Program made the news here in Canada a few weeks ago. It portrayed them in a good light in my opinion. Hundreds of miles of border, limited federal resources, and concerned citizens.

I find it amusing though that the "immigrants" are pressing charges. For what? Unlawful confinement? I'm not up to speed on the legalities of citizens arrest. But what he did seems kosher to me. Unless the soldier, hurt them in some way? And he did call the lawful authorites, instead of spitting on the ground leveling the weapon and suggest they turn around and head back to wherever they came from.

Hmmm. It might have been bad judgement on his part to mention he was SF though. If no one asks, then why tell them?

magician
04-14-2005, 13:31
I am not saying a word.

jon448
04-14-2005, 16:04
Yes, however who should provide the pressure to Washington for adequate Agents and equipment to deal with the Illegals? Also the State sets how Aggressive or not the Border Patrol can be. :cool:

Thats a very good point that the govenor should be providing the pressure, along with the representatives to congress.
I didn't realize that the state sets the agressiveness of the border patrol. Thats very intresting... Maybe that could be why more immigrants are using AZ vs Texas now...along with the higher number of border patrol agents.

The Reaper
04-14-2005, 16:18
Thats a very good point that the govenor should be providing the pressure, along with the representatives to congress.
I didn't realize that the state sets the agressiveness of the border patrol. Thats very intresting... Maybe that could be why more immigrants are using AZ vs Texas now...along with the higher number of border patrol agents.

They can't pressure for more enforcement.

There are too many immigrants who can vote, and neither party can afford to alienate such a large bloc of voters. Ironically, legal immigrants frequently do not want the illegals here either, but it is a hot button issue, like race.

Urban areas are so eaten up that they have declared the cities sanctuaries for illegals, and it is illegal to ask people whether they are here legally or not.

You should see what health care for illegals cost in this country last year, not to mention education (for ESL students), welfare, incarceration, etc.

I think we should lock down the borders tight, allow controlled immigration for those with skills who want to come and work (and can find jobs) deny services to illegals, shut down businesses that hire illegals, and work hard to help Mexico create jobs and raise wages so that it is less attractive to come here illegally.

Where is Bill Jordan whan you need him?

TR

jasonglh
04-14-2005, 17:08
I think we should lock down the borders tight, allow controlled immigration for those with skills who want to come and work (and can find jobs) deny services to illegals, shut down businesses that hire illegals, and work hard to help Mexico create jobs and raise wages so that it is less attractive to come here illegally.

Hell I will vote for you!



On another forum they were talking about the status of the medical system in Cali. Nursing shortage, hospitals shutting down, and a Medicaid budget out the roof I think we can put much of the blame on illegals from the numbers I have seen. These hospitals are footing the bill for illegals, homeless and record numbers of uninusured working Americans. Hell I thought we did not have free health care in the USA. Why didnt I get the memo?

AngelsSix
04-14-2005, 19:34
How about we let all the illegals in here and we all move to Mexico and live cheap?? :rolleyes:

Manstein
04-14-2005, 20:10
You should see what health care for illegals cost in this country last year, not to mention education (for ESL students), welfare, incarceration, etc.

I think we should lock down the borders tight, allow controlled immigration for those with skills who want to come and work (and can find jobs) deny services to illegals, shut down businesses that hire illegals, and work hard to help Mexico create jobs and raise wages so that it is less attractive to come here illegally.



I heard an interesting quote from a German professor a few years back, who was referencing the Turkish Worker immigrants that started to arrive in Germany roughly forty years ago. Paraphrased of course:

"We wanted workers, and we got people instead."

He was stressing that people have children, people get sick, and people commit crime. Forty years later, Germany's population is almost 4% Turkish, and rising quickly because of their declining native birth rate. The numbers are even worse when it comes to France and their Muslim inhabitants. I know I'm straying a bit above (referencing Europe when we are talking about U.S immigration), but I think parallels can easily be drawn. What I'm getting at is that perhaps installing a strict "workers only" program will only slow the bleeding, not stop it. (Personally I'm more concerned about the Cultural impact of Mexican immigrants than the economic, although both are serious.)

Do you feel that a three year moratorium on all immigration would be the best course of action before we install a plan like the one you reccomend?

12B4S
04-14-2005, 20:37
I was at a dinner a couple of weeks ago with the Gov of AZ, I should have brought this (situation) up to her.

Oh!!! I am so sorry CPT.........................

12B4S
04-14-2005, 20:53
Sgt Haab was just released from jail 45 mins ago. There has been an effort underway here today to raise his the 10 grand for his bail and legal fees. Some anonymous benefactor posted the $10,000. this PM.

As in Reaper's example, what would you do in that position? It's dark, it's extremely desolate, there are six to seven of them, they come out of the bushes toward you, not thier vehicle. They get to within 10 feet. Last thing I would want, would to be flanked or encircled. I think the guy did what he thought best at that time. He ended the threat, got the situation to a point he figured was secure and called 911.

Yes, all libs and media down here are wanting to sink thier fangs into Haab. They are SO frickin frustrated they havn't been able to burn any of the Minutemen. These illegals are a tremendous strain on the state's medical, education and welfare systems. Everything is free for them. Hell, my ex-wife several months ago was diagnosed with RA, has no health insurance and is trying to deal with it best she can. An illegal could have the same thing and waltz right into a hospital and begin treatments FREE!

Martin
04-15-2005, 06:47
So, a U.S. citizen is identified and is levied a fee for health treatment.
An illegal immigrant is identified and receives treatment for free.

A person is illegally in a country, not entitled to the benefit of the health care system, likely working illegally and not paying taxes. As this person has no right to receive the treatment, no right to be there, thus abuses the system where he or she currently resides and drives up costs of border security among other things, why is he treated instead of interrogated and deported?

Not even a PC socialist moral objection would work, parallell to the paying Americans.

Team Sergeant
04-15-2005, 07:52
In Arizona, Phoenix to be exact, a car full of illegals can drive through this city, speeding all the way and, if and when they are stopped, unless they are engaged in reckless driving with their speeding they are let go.

No drivers license, no insurance, no registration, not a legal citizen, not a problem here in Phoenix. The system is so over burdened unless there are over twenty illegals the Phoenix PD will just let them go.

My info comes from Phoenix policemen.

Also, Let's not hang the Sgt till he has his day in court. Funny how Americans would rather side with an illegals story than that of an American.

Oh and Sheriff Joe is an idiot, his words no longer carry any weight. He spends more time in front of TV cameras here then at his desk. He has lost his integrity and is no longer a viable leader. He has fired everyone that disagrees with him. Besides nothing he has done has changed the crime rate in this county.

stone
04-15-2005, 09:11
"I was afraid that the immigrants were armed, had heard about terrorists illegally entering the US in the same manner, was in fear for my life, and felt that I had to put them on the ground until competent authorities arrived for both their and my safety."

I think that it is a good thing. It is slowing the flow, causing the US government to perform one of their few Constitutionally mandated responsibilities, is causing people to think about what is happening, and what might happen, and is forcing politicians to show their true colors.

TR

While I understand his concern for personal safety, I think his detaining them at gunpoint went beyond any reasonable and appropriate response to the situation. As far as I know-- please correct me if I'm mistaken-- this group of men didn't make any overt threats towards him. Get your piece and call the police-- hopefully they'll be put on the next bus back to Mexico.... but detain them at gunpoint? For what? Looking menacing? How did he even know they were illegal? Now if you heard one of them say Salam 'alaykom then that's an ENTIRELY different situation. Just my .02 and offered, as always, with humility and respect.

The Reaper
04-15-2005, 11:25
While I understand his concern for personal safety, I think his detaining them at gunpoint went beyond any reasonable and appropriate response to the situation. As far as I know-- please correct me if I'm mistaken-- this group of men didn't make any overt threats towards him. Get your piece and call the police-- hopefully they'll be put on the next bus back to Mexico.... but detain them at gunpoint? For what? Looking menacing? How did he even know they were illegal? Now if you heard one of them say Salam 'alaykom then that's an ENTIRELY different situation. Just my .02 and offered, as always, with humility and respect.

Stone:

I think if you lived in southern AZ and knew what was passing across our borders everyday, and what these people may have been up to, you would have a different perspective.

You don't generally find to many legit U.S. male Hispanic residents of working age humping north in the AZ desert within a few miles of the border.

If he was afraid because their numbers, refusal to respond to questions and voice commands, potential threat that they might be armed and outnumbered him, and continued movement toward him after being told to stop, IMHO, that was all he needed to draw on them.

Would you prefer that his body be found in the desert, and reply with a brief, "RIP"?

TR

stone
04-15-2005, 12:06
Stone:

I think if you lived in southern AZ and knew what was passing across our borders everyday, and what these people may have been up to, you would have a different perspective.

You don't generally find to many legit U.S. male Hispanic residents of working age humping north in the AZ desert within a few miles of the border.

If he was afraid because their numbers, refusal to respond to questions and voice commands, potential threat that they might be armed and outnumbered him, and continued movement toward him after being told to stop, IMHO, that was all he needed to draw on them.

Would you prefer that his body be found in the desert, and reply with a brief, "RIP"?

TR

I concede that, as an East coast boy, I may not fully understand the implications of several dusty Hispanic men wandering around the Arizona desert.... And again, I understand his need to protect himself and his property... not to mention his dog.

Still though, I think you have to be really careful with vigilanteism-- it's a slippery slope. While I might trust someone like yourself (or other members of this board) with detaining people, there are alot of ying-yangs out there who have no business carrying firearms let alone detaining people.

I'm not trying to be PC-- I just think we're a nation of laws; it's what seperates us from the riff-raff, and we need to keep an eye on that.

Anyway, I'm glad he's alright and hope everything gets smoothed out for him.

Floyd
04-15-2005, 12:15
The reservist is a member of one of my former units.
More here

Article (http://www.southbendtribune.com/stories/thisday/local.20050415-sbt-MICH-E6-Hoosier_jailed_for_d.sto)

Roguish Lawyer
04-15-2005, 12:23
I'm not trying to be PC-- I just think we're a nation of laws; it's what seperates us from the riff-raff, and we need to keep an eye on that.


Well put, stone. :munchin

jatx
04-15-2005, 12:59
I can see how this individual might have felt intimidated by the group's approach, but I see no indication (and he has not expressed one) that his life was in immediate danger. If even one of the men had been brandishing so much as a stick, the answer would be different. Absent a real threat, though, he would not have been justified in using the weapon against the men. The issue of the dog is a red herring - you are not justified in using deadly force against a human being to protect a pet, tempting though it might be. And if he wasn't justified in using the weapon, he shouldn't have drawn it and and used the threat of force to detain the group. We NEVER pull guns to scare people, we do it is a last resort.

What else could he have done? I've read nothing to suggest that he attempted to put distance between himself and the men. That would have been my first response. Even assuming that his movement was blocked for some reason, did he need to escalate directly to aiming the weapon? No, he could have drawn and held at low ready, continued with his verbal commands and efforts to maximize distance, then escalated if the threat became more immediate. Ideally, the men would have gone on their merry way and he would have dialed 911, leaving law enforcement to the pros.

I do not want to see this guy crucified, and worry that he is likely to become a victim of politics, but he was not using his head.

Razor
04-15-2005, 13:36
...but I see no indication (and he has not expressed one) that his life was in immediate danger.

If you don't consider 6 adult males rushing toward you, armed or not, as a potential threat to your life, you a much badder man than I am. Have you ever seen what one unarmed man can do to another?

And if he wasn't justified in using the weapon, he shouldn't have drawn it and and used the threat of force to detain the group. We NEVER pull guns to scare people, we do it is a last resort.

...did he need to escalate directly to aiming the weapon? No, he could have drawn and held at low ready, continued with his verbal commands and efforts to maximize distance, then escalated if the threat became more immediate.

Huh? First you say brandishing is bad, then you talk about maintaining low ready and issuing verbal commands. Even at 'low ready' the weapon is out of the holster and ready for use. Have you seen how quickly someone can transition from 'low ready' to the ability to fire? If the weapon is in your hand, you're brandishing, so you might as well be ready to use it immediately rather than depend on it as a mere visual aid during negotiations.

Ideally, the men would have gone on their merry way and he would have dialed 911, leaving law enforcement to the pros.

So, its much better to allow these guys to move along and possibly injure and kill someone else (running with the illegal, possibly terrorist, scenario here) than to get involved, huh? You're safe and sound; too bad for everybody else. Those passengers in the hijacked airliner (Flight 93?) heading towards D.C. on 9/11/2001 should not have become involved with trying to detain the hijackers, as they could not have been 100% sure that their lives were in danger either, right?

Were any of the men detained injured? Other than being delayed in their travels, what long-term harm did they endure by this detainment? If legitimate law enforcement erroneously detains (or even incapacitates) a citizen, should they be charged with a crime as well?

Whatever happened to the concept of "better safe than sorry"?

jatx
04-15-2005, 14:37
If you don't consider 6 adult males rushing toward you, armed or not, as a potential threat to your life, you a much badder man than I am. Have you ever seen what one unarmed man can do to another?

I am no badass and would not claim that I am. I am a normal guy by most measures. But the issue isn't whether the six men were a potential threat, it's whether they were an imminent threat. None of the news reports have indicated that they threatened him or brandished weapons of any sort, only that they moved toward him as a group on the way to a vehicle two cars down from his. No imminent threat of mortal injury = deadly force not justified.

Huh? First you say brandishing is bad, then you talk about maintaining low ready and issuing verbal commands. Even at 'low ready' the weapon is out of the holster and ready for use. Have you seen how quickly someone can transition from 'low ready' to the ability to fire? If the weapon is in your hand, you're brandishing, so you might as well be ready to use it immediately rather than depend on it as a mere visual aid during negotiations.

I suggested that he first put distance between himself and the men. If, while doing that, they did in fact continue after him and not on the way to their own vehicle, he would be justified in fearing for his safety and could begin to escalate.

So, its much better to allow these guys to move along and possibly injure and kill someone else (running with the illegal, possibly terrorist, scenario here) than to get involved, huh? You're safe and sound; too bad for everybody else.

Don't twist my statement. As civilians, we carry weapons to protect our lives and those of others from legitimate, imminent threats. We do not carry them in order that we may enforce the law, and we do not carry them in order to diffuse "potential threats".

Those passengers in the hijacked airliner (Flight 93?) heading towards D.C. on 9/11/2001 should not have become involved with trying to detain the hijackers, as they could not have been 100% sure that their lives were in danger either, right?

This is an appeal to emotion, not a logical argument. Passengers on a hijacked airliner are certainly justified in believing that they are in mortal danger. The history of hijackings ending with violence confirms this. Therefore, they may take steps to subdue their assailants and protect themsleves.

Were any of the men detained injured? Other than being delayed in their travels, what long-term harm did they endure by this detainment? If legitimate law enforcement erroneously detains (or even incapacitates) a citizen, should they be charged with a crime as well?

The law does not require that youinjure someone in order to fall under the definition of assault. My copy of Black's defines assault as:

"Any willful attempt or threat to inflict injury upon the person of another, when coupled with an apparent present ability to do so, and any intentional display of force such as would give the victim reason to fear or or expect immediate bodily harm, constitutes an assault. An assault may be committed without actually touching, or striking, or doing bodily harm, to the person of another."

1. Did he threaten the men with injury? Yes, he held them at gunpoint on the ground.

2. Did he display the means to inflict injury? Yes, he drew the gun in circumstances where the use of deadly force in self defense would not have been justified.

3. Was the display intentional? Yes, he pursued some of the individuals after they were already in their own vehicle and forced them to get facedown on the ground at gunpoint.

Absent the conditions necessary to characterize the situation as one of justifiable self-defense, the men were assaulted. There is clearly a fine line here, and using force judiciously in self-defense requires you to be nimble both mentally and physically, but the decision to carry is the decision to play by the rules.

Whatever happened to the concept of "better safe than sorry"?

Civilians are occasionally justified in legally detaining others, i.e. "citizen's arrest". These cases are usually limited to situations where:

1. A felony or misdemeanor amounting to a breach of the peace is committed or attempted in your presence.

2. A felony has been committed and you have reason to believe that the person arrested committed it, whether or not it was in your presence.

Obviously, this individual witnessed no crime and had no reason to believe that a felony had occured. He was not within his rights and, while I do not want to see him thrown in the clink, he isn't exactly a poster boy for responsible carry, either.

The Reaper
04-15-2005, 15:18
Still though, I think you have to be really careful with vigilanteism-- it's a slippery slope. While I might trust someone like yourself (or other members of this board) with detaining people, there are alot of ying-yangs out there who have no business carrying firearms let alone detaining people.


Do you think it is a slippery slope for individuals to categorize others as "ying-yangs out there who have no business carrying firearms"?

People I think are ying-yangs and should not have a gun may not be the same people you think should not carry. Whose opinion should prevail?

Individuals (elected and appointed) imposing their beliefs on a right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights is how we got into the position of having to fight for the that right today.

TR

Razor
04-15-2005, 15:52
Ok, fair enough, jtax. How far do you allow the situation to escalate before you decide a threat is imminent and not potential? Do all the players agree to a time out, at which point each announces their intention to either kill or injure each other? In the SGT's statement, he used the term 'rushing' to describe the movement of the group towards him, and stated that they came to within 10 feet of his person. Even if they weren't displaying weapons (assuming that they weren't hiding any), could 6 men without weapons not easily kill or severely injure another man?

Bottom line is that we have the advantage of hindsight. Even in a fairly safe city such as where I live, I take precautions in certain areas due to a higher threat potential as I perceive it, based on historical crime data and not 'everyone is a good guy until they prove otherwise' pipedreams. If I feel sufficiently threatened, I will take those steps I feel necessary to protect myself and my family from harm. How many lines in the sand will you let someone cross before you protect yourself. Will you be proactive, or reactive (hopefully, with enough time and space to react effectively)? I suppose this boils down to a mindset issue; some of us are more offensively-minded than others. Being stuck in a primarily defensive mode might be adventageous in a courtroom, but I'd rather be wrong and breathing than, than wrong and room temperature.

Passengers on a hijacked airliner are certainly justified in believing that they are in mortal danger. The history of hijackings ending with violence confirms this. Therefore, they may take steps to subdue their assailants and protect themsleves.

Really? What was the percentage of hijackings that ended with passengers killed at the hands of the hijackers from 1970 to present? Is even a 1% occurance sufficient in your mind to justify taking offensive action, due to 'history'? If so, how often have people been attacked by a group of men rushing at them and severely injured/killed? I'd guess significantly more often than hijackers killing hostages on hijacked airplanes.

Again, we all have to do what we feel most comfortable doing. Myself? I'll err on the side of my survival and deal with the repercussions.

jatx
04-15-2005, 16:10
We may be visualizing the scenario differently, Razor, and I agree that we are doing so with the benefit of hindsight. I am interpreting the accounts as saying that the men were rushing towards him on their way to a car two spots down, you are interpreting it as meaning that they were moving toward him, but not their own car. That's why I'm not calling for the guy to be punished from the safety of my office, I just don't know.

In terms of "lines in the sand", the simple answer is that I will continue to draw such lines and seek to create distance until I have no other choice but to employ deadly force. That includes sprinting in the other direction like my hair is on fire, pride be damned. If all else fails and the situation warrants it, I will shoot and keep shooting until the threat is gone.

Razor
04-15-2005, 17:01
No worries. We each have to decide on our personal comfort level in the self-defense measures we're willing to adopt. I understand the rationale upon which you've based your comments here, as its a common mindset that's trained by many throughout the country. Do what works best for you.

jatx
04-15-2005, 17:21
You make a good point about mindset and training. Mine is very specific to a defensive civilian application, i.e. staying alive and out of jail. This soldier has probably been living with different rules of engagement while deployed.

BTW, I envy Arizona's open carry law. Must be nice when it gets hot out. :rolleyes:

frostfire
04-15-2005, 17:34
In Arizona, Phoenix to be exact, a car full of illegals can drive through this city, speeding all the way and, if and when they are stopped, unless they are engaged in reckless driving with their speeding they are let go.

No drivers license, no insurance, no registration, not a legal citizen, not a problem here in Phoenix. The system is so over burdened unless there are over twenty illegals the Phoenix PD will just let them go.


Not only in Arizona....
I saw first hand one illegal with expired Florida DL (wonder how he got it...) that made it to the court room in Savannah, GA from driving violation. The judge "had" to let him go, and yes, thanks to the over burdened system. The cops couldn't help but smile...

This problem may be more wide spread than we are aware of

JGarcia
04-15-2005, 18:15
This absolutely makes me feel sick to my stomach thinking that this and worse actually happens these days. I think perhaps my idea of the United States, and being an American is a thing of the past. Anyone who does the right thing in regard to illegal immigration is a 'racist' 'gun toting ying yang' and so on.

I have no faith that our government, our people will fix this problem. It is the way people want it to be. Don't they see that illegal immigration is a factor in the growing expanse between rich and poor? These illegals benefit companies who hire them, the profit margin increases, the operation cost decreases, the money the illegals make goes back to their families in Mexico or Central America, not into the US. Hospitals in California close, because they cannot afford to stay in business. The drop out rate of high school students in the San Francisco bay area is over 50% in some districts. And our country's heroes are jailed for doing the right thing.

If we wanted to stop the flow across the borders tomorrow we could. If we wanted to envoke emergency powers a nation at war sometimes does, we could have most illegals gathered and sent home in a few months. We could pay for the cost from the sale of businesses and business owners property. All of it seized and sold right down to the kitchen knives.

Bush I feel has sold us out on this issue. Our government will consistently do what is best for the short term profit. I feel deeply saddend by the way things are.

What will be done? We'll give them amnesty, until eventually there is no border because 'we' will have voted it away. The rest of us are like tall green weeds in a healthy lawn, and some day may be 'cut down' just as this poor fellow in Arizona is now. I am anxious to hear how I am completely wrong, seeing the glass half empty, etc. Tell me how there will be a good ending to this story. Tell me things like the declaration of independence, and the constitution, are still sacred, that we still have the dream Thomas Jefferson expressed with divine inspiration so many years ago. :(

jasonglh
04-15-2005, 18:21
"I believe I'm a victim," said Haab, who spent 11 months in Iraq but declined to discuss his duty or location there, except to say that he takes medication for combat stress and lost a close friend in a roadside bombing overseas.


Well theres a good backup defense.


I would hate to think he would end up as a guest in tent city. :mad:


In regards to feeling let down by the govt on this issue. I think the 2 parties in power have the public dumbed down to the fact that neither is interested in change of the status quo. I suppose the public is too concerned with all the red vs blue state crap.

stone
04-15-2005, 19:12
Do you think it is a slippery slope for individuals to categorize others as "ying-yangs out there who have no business carrying firearms"?

People I think are ying-yangs and should not have a gun may not be the same people you think should not carry. Whose opinion should prevail?

Individuals (elected and appointed) imposing their beliefs on a right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights is how we got into the position of having to fight for the that right today.

TR

Reaper:

I support (100%) the right of every American, ying-yang or not, to own a firearm. I did not intend to suggest otherwise. Of course that's not to say that, personally/privately, I don't wish that said irresponsible ying-yangs didn't own firearms.... just like I believe there more than a few people who probably shouldn't be behind the wheel of a car.... but I certainly don't want to impose my personal opinions on what is inherently someone elses right.

At the same time, I would have a real problem with an unauthorized idividual attempting to detain me at gunpoint whilst on U.S. soil. I know that's a bit off-topic but that's the slope I was alluding to-- i.e. law enforcement should be left to professionals-- excluding rare circumstances like plane hijackings etc.

Respectfully

stone

Dan
04-15-2005, 19:21
Was listening to AM radio this afternoon and heard Sean Hannity interviewing the Sheriff from Arizona, that made pink underwear, prison stripes, and bologna sandwiches famous. The Sheriff commented on some info about the 9-11 call...it's obvious from the call that this guy was wrong. The Sheriff also made it known that this guy tried out for his department as a deputy last year, but wouldn't say why they didn't hire him.

stone
04-15-2005, 19:22
Quick note regarding ying-yangs-- I hope I haven't given the impression that I'm some liberal sob-sister that thinks everyone with a firearm is a goofball-- because NOTHING could be further from the truth. I just meant one needs to be careful with vigilanteism. Anyway, I feel like I'm beating a dead horse now!

lksteve
04-15-2005, 20:00
Quick note regarding ying-yangs-- I hope I haven't given the impression that I'm some liberal sob-sister that thinks everyone with a firearm is a goofball--

well, now that you mention it.... :rolleyes:

AngelsSix
04-15-2005, 21:02
Main Entry: 1il·le·gal
Pronunciation: (")i(l)-'lE-g&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French or Medieval Latin; Middle French illegal, from Medieval Latin illegalis, from Latin in- + legalis legal
: not according to or authorized by law : UNLAWFUL, ILLICIT; also : not sanctioned by official rules (as of a game)
- il·le·gal·i·ty /"i-li-'ga-l&-tE/ noun
- il·le·gal·ly /(")i(l)-'lE-g&-lE/ adverb

We arrest people for driving drunk, which is illegal
We cite people for driving without seatbelts, which is illegal
We arrest people for doing drugs, which is illegal

So what gives the people who have illegally come into MY country the right to do anything besides be deported??
I should go to Mexico, claim citizenship there, sneak across the border and get some free benefits and not have to worry about getting tickets.....at least it would be better than the way I get treated as a veteran in this country. Can you believe that the VA actually asked me for a financial statement to decide whether I was eligible for medical benefits or not?? Can you say trip to DC????? :mad:

stone
04-15-2005, 21:27
well, now that you mention it.... :rolleyes:

Ah well....

Smokin Joe
04-16-2005, 01:21
I haven't had the time today to intellegently respond (like I ever really intellegently respond but thats another topic :D ). I will try my damnist to clarify any issue I raise here tomorrow.....so a couple of quick thoughts

1. By the letter of the law the kid was commited Aggrevated Assault as soon as he became the aggressor. i.e. pulling the guys out of the car at gun point.

2. Everyone who is on US soil (legally or illegally) is granted the same civil rights as US citizens....

3. Articulation from the get go is the key to EVERYTHING. I'm not by any means advocating lieing or twisting the truth but if you threaten someone with deadly force or use deadly force on someone and you try to come across as John Wayne after the fact you are digging your own grave. I don't care if you are the badest man to ever walk the face of the earth if you get into something that requires that level of force you should act like a normal average citizen would after the fact (i.e. freaked out). If not every officer who arrives on scene after the fact will think that you were John Wayne looking for trouble. Not the average citizen trying to avoid trouble.

More later...

brownapple
04-16-2005, 02:53
So what gives the people who have illegally come into MY country the right to do anything besides be deported??


The Supreme Court

AngelsSix
04-16-2005, 07:34
Then why are they being touted as illegals is my point? Why not just call them refugees?


Greenhat:

can you help me out there? What cases? When specifically did the Supreme Court (who oversees cases brought before it from lower courts) make a law (they make decisions that impact the law) that illegals are to have more rights than full-fledged American CITIZENS?

Call me confused. I personally cannot see why we put up with it. American citizens that serve in the military get their rights violated on a daily basis.

jatx
04-16-2005, 13:27
Okay, it seems by now like the gentleman in question was a bit aggressive, particularly with respect to his action of forcing several of the men from their vehicle and holding them at gunpoint.

I'd be interested in thoughts on the following two variations of the scenario (RL, we know you're not allowed to arm yourself, but feel free to pretend and play along :D )

1. Facts as stated, but the men were clearly making their way toward him en masse and not toward their own vehicle. What sequence of actions would you take and at what point would you escalate to deadly force. I.e., what would be your "line in the sand", as Razor put it?

2. Same setting and number of men, but they have not approached you. Instead, you witness them transferring a number of weapons and bulky packages between the trunks of two cars. You have no other information on their intentions and are not in immediate danger. What would you do, given your concern about further acts of domestic terrorism?

:munchin

sf11b_p
04-17-2005, 08:48
Couple things..

First Michigan news reported Haab was an Indiana resident and member of a Michigan Civil Affairs unit in Iraq. He was prescribed medication for PTSD. The report stated he claimed the illegals were threatening or attepted to rush him. The report also stated he denied affiliation with the Minutemen project.

I think he would have been as effective blocking their SUV with his vehicle.

If deadly force is allowable to defend your life is it allowed in the defense of others lives. Would it fit that if it were reasonable to believe the escape of suspects would lead to the death or endangerment of others deadly force is allowed. If any LEO had made the stop would the LEO have allowed the illegals to move to the vehicle where weapons may have been concealed, does that justify Haab not wanting them in the vehicle. Are civilians allowed the right to make a "citizens arrest" of people illegally crossing the border. Seems I remember an interviewed LEO saying no, but is that all inclusive of any illegal crossing the border, whatever activity they're suspected of.

12B4S
04-21-2005, 20:20
About three hours ago it was reported here on a local radio station that the Maricopa County Attorney has dropped all charges against Sgt Haab. I doubt there is anything in print out there as of yet. The decision was based primarily because it was deemed a legal citizen's arrest. Haab had walked into a felony in progress (human smuggling). One of the seven was thier "coyote". Self defense was a part of the decision as well, plus after questioning the seven illegal aliens, thier stories were all different.
The County prosecutor will now more than likely be under fire from the lib groups for a few weeks.
I listened to Haab on the radio an hour or so ago and he slammed Sherrif Joe pretty well. :D
Always nice to see right win out over BS PC politics.

Gypsy
04-21-2005, 20:31
Excellent news thanks 12B!

Ambush Master
04-21-2005, 20:31
Good on him !!!
We should take the likes of Kerry, Kennedy, Shrillary, Jesse and First and "Smuggle" them into Mexico !!! Bet Vecente Fox would put the Wall up on their side !!!!

jasonglh
04-21-2005, 20:42
Not sure if I am happy he is not being charged. A little concerned that someone is wandering the county side armed and on meds for a mental illness.

Also can anyone verify he was ever actually in Iraq or if in fact he is still in the Army?

Gypsy
04-21-2005, 20:53
No offense jasonglh but I've had a lot of friends come back with altered personalities, nervous ticks and the like. One of them being my cousin, who's been a Marine for years.

This guy responded to a perceived threat. He's been in a war zone for probably 12+ months getting ambushed, attacked and shot at and God knows what else by an invisible enemy....I have no doubt there is more than a bit of self preservation instinct that kicks in.

And let's not forget those people entered this Country illegally....

Just my .02.

jasonglh
04-21-2005, 21:02
No offense taken. I know what my dad was like the first 10 years of my life. After 35 years he has started to mellow....some.

I will though redirect you to my last sentence though. Was he in Iraq?

Gypsy
04-21-2005, 21:11
No offense taken. I know what my dad was like the first 10 years of my life. After 35 years he has started to mellow....some.

I will though redirect you to my last sentence though. Was he in Iraq?

Good enough.

I wasn't there with him so I can't offer you proof positive. I personally believe he was.

Smokin Joe
04-21-2005, 21:26
Good for him, I'm glad the BS was put aside, its too bad the Guys name was dragged through the mud. This should have been handled at the scene, not a week later.

12B4S
04-21-2005, 22:00
Excellent news thanks 12B!

NP Gypsy, my pleasure.


Not sure if I am happy he is not being charged. A little concerned that someone is wandering the county side armed and on meds for a mental illness.

Hi jason. Sgt Haab may be on some sort of meds and I don't know if you would classify any condition he may have as a "mental illness". I couldn't begin to tell you how often that "mental illness" generalization was tacked onto to the guys that served in Nam. It went on for something like a decade or more. Anytime a former soldier made the news for some crime, whether robbery, drugs, whatever, the "mental illness" to due combat was slapped on him. Hell, it was slapped on any guy that served back then. Through the 70's, Hollywood's favorite target for a whacked out soldier gone bad in thier cop shows and such were former SF guys. More so on TV, but films as well. 'Apocalypse Now', for one.

Haab wasn't wandering around Maricopa County with a loaded sidearm looking for
bad guys or illegals or to satisfy some med induced mental condition. He was just headed to San Diego to deliver a lab pup and stopped at that rest stop. I've heard him interviewed on the radio twice and the recording of his 911 call. He isn't a whacko, he just did what he needed to do at that moment. As far as I'm concerned it was the right thing. Had I been in his shoes, I can't think I'd done it differently.

12B4S
04-21-2005, 22:07
Good on him !!!
We should take the likes of Kerry, Kennedy, Shrillary, Jesse and First and "Smuggle" them into Mexico !!! Bet Vecente Fox would put the Wall up on their side !!!!

AGREED!! Oh. If only there were a way.... :D


Good for him, I'm glad the BS was put aside, its too bad the Guys name was dragged through the mud. This should have been handled at the scene, not a week later.

Yeah Smokin. Actually, the first cops to arrive were DPS. They questioned Haab,assessed the situation and decided not to arrest him. It was Sherrif Joe's county cops that took him into custody.

Smokin Joe
04-22-2005, 00:32
Yeah Smokin. Actually, the first cops to arrive were DPS. They questioned Haab,assessed the situation and decided not to arrest him. It was Sherrif Joe's county cops that took him into custody.


Well that's just shocking. :rolleyes:

Amazing how the State Police made that assessment but Maricopa #1 didn't. Seems like someone was publicity seeking (again).

12B4S
04-22-2005, 00:54
Well that's just shocking. :rolleyes:

Amazing how the State Police made that assessment but Maricopa #1 didn't. Seems like someone was publicity seeking (again).

LOL. I wonder who. Seems a few days ago Sheriff Joe felt it necessary to let the press know that Haab had 160 rounds with him. As if he was ready to take on every illegal that stepped foot in this country. Damn, I went to the range yesterday with 100 rounds, would have preferred it to had been 200 or more. I suppose Haab had three 50 round boxes and 10 in the mag. I'd hate to be caught by Joe's guys headed to the range with several hundred rounds. :eek:

magician
04-22-2005, 02:01
have to say....that I am surprised--and delighted.

I thought for sure that this guy would be crucified.

now....where are the illegals that he apprehended? Did Sheriff Joe bother to arrest those guys?

Cincinnatus
04-22-2005, 08:12
I'm glad this turned out the way it did. From what I've read Sgt Haab's actions were reasonable and responsible.

I want to take issue with what jasonglh said about mental illness and his concern about someone wandering around armed and on meds. There is a terrible history in my family of depression, on my father's side, and Alzheimer's, on my mother's side, and I have more first hand experience dealing with the mentally ill than I'd really like to have.

While there is certainly a point at which someone becomes so ill that they are a danger to themselves and others, most people with mental illness are responsible productive members of society. They struggle mightily with their demons, but often so quietly that neighbors and coworkers have no idea that they are ill.

Their rights should not be forfeit, or in any way compromised, simply by virtue of the fact that their illness affects the brain rather than some other organ. Something like one in four of us will suffer at least one episode of mental illness during our lifetime. As mental illness is subtle and shifting, subject to misdiagnosis, and as it is difficult to demonstrate that one has recovered fully and impossible to guarantee there will be no recurrence, restricting someone's rights because they are, in the judgement of someone else, mentally ill is a path fraught with peril.

An awful lot of vets will come back from Iraq and Afghanistan with PTSD and other mental illness (reports are showing a startling number of brain injuries from the shock waves from IEDs for example.) If we stigmatize the mentally ill, and suggest that they are in some way less deserving of basic human rights (such as the right to defend themselves) we do them a terrible disservice. They will be less likely to seek treatment, their suffering will be prolonged, their condition may worsen. With treatment most will make a full recovery.

jatx
04-22-2005, 08:36
Joe, would you care to share a few words with us on citizen's arrests? I touched on them briefly in one of my earlier posts, but I'm sure both I and the others would benefit from the professional perspective.

I.e., the presence of the coyote changed everything, since SGT had reason to believe a felony was underway. But how far can you push the citizen's arrest power if, say, the subjects try to flee? Is deadly force justified even though not in self-defense ("fleeing felon"). How does LE typically respond to instances of citizen's arrest? Thanks.

jasonglh
04-22-2005, 09:02
Well first of all I am not throwing stones at someone with diagnosed PTSD or a metal illness. I am not even labeling him that way he did that himself in the press. Making a diagnosis of mental illness is not my job I just treat them afterwards.

SO far in the press I have seen.

SGT Haab claim to be on meds for combat stress and claim its for PTSD.

SGT Haab claim to be in Iraq for 11 months and 2 years.

SGT Haab bought 2 guns before he was arrested. Isnt there some question in the background check about mental illness?



But I still as yet have not heard from anyone who was in Iraq with him. I have heard from a soldier in Civil Affairs who was in Iraq when SGT Haabs "close friend" was there and they say he was not in Iraq with their unit.

mz73t
04-22-2005, 10:01
Sgt Haab did NOT serve a day in Iraq.

I deployed in the same unit as him. He was sent back to the States while we were still in Kuwait.

Cincinnatus
04-22-2005, 11:27
jasonglh,

I don't know what the deal is w/ Sgt Haab. Never met the man, none of my business, don't put a whole lot of faith in what's been reported, so I do not judge.

My comments were about the issue of the mentally ill being denied their right to defend themselves, specifically, or any other right, generally, merely by virtue of being diagnosed mentally ill.

Nor am I taking you to task for this, I merely took issue with one statement that you made. Outside of the context of this remark, I've no idea what your thoughts and beliefs on the subject are and I no more want to paint you with a broad brush than I want to see the mentally ill, as a whole, painted so.

IIRC, the Fed'l paperwork for purchasing a firearm asks if you've ever been hospitalized for a mental illness or adjudicated mentally defective or words to that effect. This is a much higher standard than merely being, or having been, diagnosed as mentally ill. I have concerns about this as the standard as well.

As an example of my concerns, let me pose a scenario not terribly different from something I know to have happened. A young man after arguing with his girlfriend doesn't attempt to stop her from getting into a car with some people he knows to be drunk. Several hours later, himself now drunk, he learns that she was killed in an auto accident. Drunk and grieving he makes statements about harming himself and is taken into custody by the police who take him to the emergency room. There he repeats these threats to kill himself and is hospitalized overnight. The next morning, no longer drunk, still terribly upset, he's interviewed by a psychiatrist who recognizes that he is not a danger to himself and releases him.

Should this guy be denied the means to protect himself and his loved ones from violent predators, solely because of this one night of poor judgement and bad behavior? I'm going to go out on a limb here and bet that most members of this board have overindulged and acted badly on more than one occasion. Let he who has not sinned... etc.

jasonglh
04-22-2005, 17:31
Well I must confess that I know mz73t so I already had a good bead on SGT Haab and it was not favorable.

Actually your scenario I am quite familiar with. After the state cut back on medicaid payments for mental health my hospital closed its Psych unit. All the Psych nurses were transferred to ER as Mental Health Intake nurses whatever the hell that means. Basically KY has 2 state funded Mental hospitals and their cutting funding makes us transfer them there. So basically if the Pt needs help they have to go to ER and be seen. If the RN feels they need to be admitted for observation they get admitted to ICU and thats where I come in. Basically we observe them until hospital security can take them to the State hospital. Mostly I deal with Bi-Polar and schizophrenic Pt's and I know they have real problems usually because they have gone off their meds for whatever reason. Not what I had in mind when I wanted ICU but no other floor can handle them. Also if a Pt's BAC is high enough then we get the beligerant drunks as well.

As stated in your scenario then no that guy should not be denied that right.

Gypsy
04-22-2005, 19:00
SGT Haab will be on Fox, Hannity and Combs (sp?) tonight.

Smokin Joe
04-24-2005, 08:33
Joe, would you care to share a few words with us on citizen's arrests? I touched on them briefly in one of my earlier posts, but I'm sure both I and the others would benefit from the professional perspective.

I.e., the presence of the coyote changed everything, since SGT had reason to believe a felony was underway. But how far can you push the citizen's arrest power if, say, the subjects try to flee? Is deadly force justified even though not in self-defense ("fleeing felon"). How does LE typically respond to instances of citizen's arrest? Thanks.

Sorry I'm late

Check this thread out concerning justification and Use of Force (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2762&highlight=force)

A citizen is justified in detaining the suspect if the suspect comitted a misdemeanor in the citizen's presence. A citizen is also justified in detaining a suspect if the suspect has committed a Felony in the citizen's presence, or the citizen has reasonable suspicion to believe the suspect just comitted a Felony. Again your laws may vary. Also from what I understand citizen's do not have the power of arrest for Federal Crimes (I will check into this).

This is my advice to John Q. Public:
1. Protect you and yours FIRST.
2. Don't be a hero; It is better to be a good witness then a dead participant. If the suspect gets away? One of the first things the officers on scene are going to ask is Suspect description, Suspect Vehicle description, and last direction of travel. Have this CLEAR in your head.
3. IF you have no other choice but to get involved. Only use that amount of force in which a reasonable person would belief necessary to stop the threat or to affect the arrest. So, if you can yell at someone and by your mere presence and voice you get this person to submit, you would not be justified in sticking your gun in there mouth until the police arrive. Again see Use of Force. Use the minimum amount of force necessary to protect yourself and your loved ones.

If anyone here ever plans on making a "Citizen's Arrest" or detention, you had better know your local laws backwards and forwards. I'm sure no one hear plans on making a Citizen's Arrest or Detention but if you carry a CCW firearm for protection you need to know this stuff as well.

As always articulation AT THE SCENE is very important.....more later

12B4S
04-24-2005, 23:01
have to say....that I am surprised--and delighted.

I thought for sure that this guy would be crucified.

now....where are the illegals that he apprehended? Did Sheriff Joe bother to arrest those guys?

Hiya magician, after your first post in this thread about not saying a thing. I thought for sure you'd at the very least knawed your mouse to pieces. ;) They took the coyote and illegals into custody. They questioned them, all stories were different and conflicting. Last I heard, the 'coyote' will go to trial. ( he was the one that commited a felony, human trafficing/smuggling) The deal is, entering this country illegaly is not a felony. Guess it's a misdemeanor like jaywalking. As far as his illegals, I don't know. More than likely they will find housing for them and put 'em on welfare or something.

magician
04-25-2005, 00:25
Fascinating.

Anyone see our rabid vigilante on Fox news? Just curious how he came across.

I find it....oddly typical that this case has dropped off the national media radar. For a moment there, it appeared that the sergeant would end up the sacrificial test case. So much the better, for the liberals, that he was "on medications" and could be catagorized as a damaged "war vet."

Now....the whole thing seems to be forgotten. I have not seen any follow up on this case on any websites, no articles in the vaunted "newspaper of record," nothing even in the Washington Times, which can usually be relied upon to cover issues with appeal to conservatives. Keep in mind that I have not searched....I gauge a story's profile by the frequency with which I encounter it in my daily surfing.

On a personal level, I am glad that the sergeant has apparently dodged a legal bullet. Had I been in his shoes, I cannot say that I would have acted differently. No one fucks with my dog out in the bush, especially a bunch of rough-looking characters who materialize out of nowhere with unknowable intentions. It is situations like this....that lead me to conclude that guys like me belong bunkered down in isolated areas, away from the madness, lest we end up surrounded, misunderstood and embattled like Randy Weaver. I bear no man ill will, but I am neither a victim nor the second coming of Jesus Christ. I will not turn the proverbial other cheek. I will bust a cap on your ass.

I think that the powers-that-be would vastly prefer that the issues of illegal immigration and security fade from the collective consciousness. Too much scrutiny will simply highlight the profits and exploitation which are the root of the problem. I myself am no fan of big government....but I see no solution to this dilemma but proactive, responsible regulation and enforcement. This will not be popular...as it raises costs for those who create the market for migrant labor in the first place. It is idealistic to redirect the focus on poverty in Mexico....it will take generations for that country to develop to a point where migrants can simply stay home and work in their own economy, in factories that we export from the American mainland.

No, we need to get serious about matters of border security, immigration reform, guest worker programs, and the entire corpus of regulations and law need to be overhauled and made sensible. It is ridiculous that a van full of illegals can be stopped for a routine traffic violation in Virginia, and then released on the condition that they report to immigration on Monday. Of course they are not going to report.

It will take nothing more than five "Beltway snipers" in various cities, all randomly killing miscellaneous victims on a loosely coordinated schedule, who are ultimately demonstrated to have infiltrated the country through our porous borders......for this matter to come into harsh relief.

The outcry will be great.

You will find me behind multiple layers of security, a gun within arm's reach, watching the whole thing on satelilte tv.

magician
04-26-2005, 02:17
Commentary > The Monitor's View
from the April 26, 2005 edition

Police Who Nab Illegal Aliens
The Monitor's View
Tracking down criminals often requires teamwork at many levels of law enforcement. This month, for instance, a joint federal, state, and local task force caught 10,000 fugitives in a coordinated nationwide effort.
Impressive as it was, the question must be asked: Why not use the same scale of teamwork against the largest group of outlaws in the United States - the 10.3 million illegal aliens estimated to be in the country?


As it is, the federal government deploys only some 2,000 immigration agents to nab that tide of humanity - after they've managed to slip past the Border Patrol.

Yet ask any of the 650,000 state and local police in the US if they could easily find illegal immigrants in their jurisdiction, and the answer would probably be "no problem."

Finding illegal immigrants is primarily a federal role. But since Congress isn't adding a whole lot more immigration agents, the jurisdictional divide shouldn't stop police from being far better utilized in this security task.

And police who engage in immigration enforcement shouldn't have to run into division-of-labor walls.

No such wall existed in one of the highest profile immigration cases yet, that of Wal-Mart being fined $11 million this year after its cleaning contractors were caught employing hundreds of illegal immigrants. The tip-off for this crime came from the Pennsylvania police.

States and localities have a strong incentive to worry about illegal immigrants - nearly 5 percent of them have criminal records. The burden of providing education, healthcare, and prison cells for illegal immigrants falls heavily on state and local governments. And these aliens push down wages for legal migrants and Americans, and often don't pay income taxes.

Virginia allows limited police role

Virginia passed a law last year that allows police (after they're trained in immigration law) to ask for proof of an individual's legal presence in the US - but only if they suspect the person has committed a crime other than illegal entry into the US. They still cannot detain someone just for that, at least not for more than 72 hours. Police encounter further frustrations working on immigration cases: Federal authorities don't always return their phone calls and a shortage of federal detention cells means many illegal immigrants often wind up back on the streets.

Other reasons police don't act

State and local governments also have their own roadblocks to cooperation. Officers are often stretched thin, and not adequately trained to deal with the nuances of federal immigration law. And they worry they may be charged with racial profiling if they detain suspected illegal aliens.

Some cities, notably Los Angeles, constrain police with "sanctuary" provisions that inhibit officers from even asking about a person's immigration status. And police often say they'd rather befriend illegal migrants in order to glean tips on criminals.

Those concerns are legitimate, but not insurmountable. What's needed are adjustments by federal officers and state and local forces, and probably, more dollars.

The House of Representatives passed a bill this year, called the Real ID Act of 2005, that among other things, would enhance federal cooperation with state and local police to enforce immigration laws. And a bill expected to be reintroduced in Congress soon would establish a standardized way for officers to communicate with immigration authorities.

Learning about visa law

Police need training in complicated immigration issues - awareness, for instance, that overstaying a visa is a civil, not a criminal, violation. And cities and states can eliminate their sanctuary policies, as Arizona looks set to do. On the federal side, agents must be properly set up to handle state and local immigration calls.

Public frustration at government's difficulty in enforcing existing immigration law was expressed recently in the highly questionable action of the Arizona Minutemen - a group of citizens who recently took it upon themselves to help nab illegal migrants along the Arizona-Mexico border.

Adding police officers to immigration enforcement would enhance public safety. There may be a line in the sand over who does what, but a lot more reaching can be done across that line to better ensure the rule of law.

sf11b_p
04-26-2005, 12:45
I wonder how "sanctuary cities" feel they aren't aiding and abetting as well as harboring. Makes me wonder too how they avoid civil lawsuits in cases that involve illegal immigrants commiting robbery, rape, murder, trafficking or gang activities. They could claim they didn't know the individual involved was liable to commit a crime but one, the individual was already commiting a crime by being in the country illegally and two, the cities are making it known to all they are "sanctuaries" and will harbor illegals/criminals.

They should lose Federal funds just as was threatened against states that didn't comply with speed limits.

No pork for you, four years! :eek:

magician
04-27-2005, 00:08
hmmm....sounds like a precedent waiting to happen.

:)

12B4S
04-27-2005, 02:27
hmmm....sounds like a precedent waiting to happen.

:)

All Above well said. By the way, a couple days ago seven libs here in AZ were spewing thier wah wah poor migrant (ILLEGAL alien) crap. Well 6 libs and one republican, who may just as well change his party affiliation. Anyway, they are now trying to take Haab's case federal. They are soooooooooooo frickin pissed, better than that :D they are FRUSTRATED. The libs wanted to get the Minutemen sooooooooooo bad and didn't. Haab's case is thier next target. They lost what they believe to be Round 1. So now, they will waste everybody's time and money, trying to hang the guy. Hell, it's thier nature. They, having nothing constructive to offer. The deal with these pukes is this, they figure after the dropped charges on Haab, that all of us down here are going to run around pulling guns on Mexicans. These guys are lead by some sort of State representative named ben miranda (guess where he is from). If he had his way, the entire country of Mexico could empty into the U.S. and we'd pay for whatever they wanted/needed. #@!$#@ I'll stop now.

Detonics
05-02-2005, 14:38
"I was afraid that the immigrants were armed, had heard about terrorists illegally entering the US in the same manner, was in fear for my life, and felt that I had to put them on the ground until competent authorities arrived for both their and my safety."

I think that it is a good thing. It is slowing the flow, causing the US government to perform one of their few Constitutionally mandated responsibilities, is causing people to think about what is happening, and what might happen, and is forcing politicians to show their true colors.

TR

Well said, Reaper!
An interesting website for those of you that follow this topic: EscapingJustice.Com (http://www.escapingjustice.com/)