Started By
Message

re: 73 year old rancher shoots and kills illegal immigrant on his ranch.

Posted on 2/7/23 at 10:16 am to
Posted by DarthRebel
Tier Five is Alive
Member since Feb 2013
21301 posts
Posted on 2/7/23 at 10:16 am to
quote:

No. You trespass on my property, you should expect the possibility of being shot.


Good gosh some of you here

Who gave you the power to take someone's life, because they are standing on land you think you may own?

If the illegal was directly threatening the life of the rancher, family or livestock; then yes deadly force is warranted. Simply crossing his land is not a justification for killing him.

Some of you really need some Jesus in your lives.
Posted by Flats
Member since Jul 2019
21887 posts
Posted on 2/7/23 at 10:16 am to
What a retarded law. You can threaten to use force but you can’t actually do so.
Posted by Buryl
Member since Sep 2016
832 posts
Posted on 2/7/23 at 10:17 am to
That's pretty standard Castle doctrine... can only use deadly force to defend self or others, under certain conditions.
Posted by brass2mouth
NOLA
Member since Jul 2007
19713 posts
Posted on 2/7/23 at 10:21 am to
quote:

anyone can provide a link to that statute, or even a website reference from a law firm discussing it, I’d love to see it. I wasn’t able to find anything.


13-408. Justification; use of physical force in defense of property

A person is justified in using physical force against another when and to the extent that a reasonable person would believe it necessary to prevent what a reasonable person would believe is an attempt or commission by the other person of theft or criminal damage involving tangible movable property under his possession or control, but such person may use deadly physical force under these circumstances as provided in sections 13-405, 13-406 and 13-411.

For reference:
13-405. Justification; use of deadly physical force

A. A person is justified in threatening or using deadly physical force against another:

1. If such person would be justified in threatening or using physical force against the other under section 13-404, and

2. When and to the degree a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force.

B. A person has no duty to retreat before threatening or using deadly physical force pursuant to this section if the person is in a place where the person may legally be and is not engaged in an unlawful act.

13-406. Justification; defense of a third person

A person is justified in threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force against another to protect a third person if, under the circumstances as a reasonable person would believe them to be, such person would be justified under section 13-404 or 13-405 in threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force to protect himself against the unlawful physical force or deadly physical force a reasonable person would believe is threatening the third person he seeks to protect.

13-411. Justification; use of force in crime prevention; applicability

A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304, manslaughter under section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904 or aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2.

B. There is no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force justified by subsection A of this section.

C. A person is presumed to be acting reasonably for the purposes of this section if the person is acting to prevent what the person reasonably believes is the imminent or actual commission of any of the offenses listed in subsection A of this section.

D. This section includes the use or threatened use of physical force or deadly physical force in a person's home, residence, place of business, land the person owns or leases, conveyance of any kind, or any other place in this state where a person has a right to be.
This post was edited on 2/7/23 at 10:28 am
Posted by hogcard1964
Illinois
Member since Jan 2017
10606 posts
Posted on 2/7/23 at 10:23 am to
No

He's a great American.
Posted by ronricks
Member since Mar 2021
7103 posts
Posted on 2/7/23 at 10:24 am to
quote:

A few thousand incidents like this and the border jumping problem will resolve itself


Been saying this for a while now. Don't want to get killed? Don't come here illegally and trespass on other peoples land/property. Also, it likely to come down to kill them now or kill them later. Later will be too late. There's already 30 to 40 million Illegal Immigrants here.

Of course, ending the archaic 'birthright citizenship' would also put an end to all this. Only around 18 countries in the entire World still have that policy.
Posted by armtackledawg
Member since Aug 2017
11962 posts
Posted on 2/7/23 at 10:27 am to
quote:

Been saying this for a while now. Don't want to get killed? Don't come here illegally and trespass on other peoples land/property. Also, it likely to come down to kill them now or kill them later. Later will be too late. There's already 30 to 40 million Illegal Immigrants here.

Of course, ending the archaic 'birthright citizenship' would also put an end to all this. Only around 18 countries in the entire World still have that policy.


This can largely be corrected by finishing the wall (which we should do), but these cats shouldn't be killing people for no other reason than crossing empty property.
Posted by concrete_tiger
Member since May 2020
6066 posts
Posted on 2/7/23 at 10:29 am to
quote:

A few thousand incidents like this and the border jumping problem will resolve itself, but it’s a sad situation.



We need mountain lions, alligators, coyotes, honey badgers, whatever we can find... on the border. Declare them conservation areas. Then maybe the left will care.
Posted by alphaandomega
Tuscaloosa
Member since Aug 2012
13635 posts
Posted on 2/7/23 at 10:29 am to
This is an unfortunate situation. I hate if for the rancher. But if anyone is to blame it is the feds. If they would enforce our immigration laws this would have never happened.

A secure border is one of the most important aspects to a nations strengths.
Posted by brass2mouth
NOLA
Member since Jul 2007
19713 posts
Posted on 2/7/23 at 10:29 am to
quote:

This can largely be corrected by finishing the wall (which we should do), but these cats shouldn't be killing people for no other reason than crossing empty property.


They aren’t. They are defending themselves and their property.
Posted by Tuscaloosa
11x Award Winning SECRant user
Member since Dec 2011
46685 posts
Posted on 2/7/23 at 10:32 am to
His use of deadly force doesn’t appear to be protected by any of that. Reference 13-407.
Posted by AggieHank86
Texas
Member since Sep 2013
42941 posts
Posted on 2/7/23 at 10:33 am to
Daily Mail headline:
quote:

Rancher, 73, is charged with murder on his Arizona land after shooting dead Mexican, 48, who had history of illegal crossings into US
Why shoot a dead Mexican? Why is it “murder” to shoot a dead Mexican?
This post was edited on 2/7/23 at 10:34 am
Posted by tarzana
TX Hwy 6--Brazos River Backwater
Member since Sep 2015
26357 posts
Posted on 2/7/23 at 10:34 am to
Simple trespassing is definitely not a felony. Was there any indication the victim intended to commit burglary of a habitation, robbery, assault & battery, etc. that would indicate he intended to harm anyone residing on the property?

There's got to be more than just trespassing to make the homeowner's actions in any way defensible.
Posted by ronricks
Member since Mar 2021
7103 posts
Posted on 2/7/23 at 10:35 am to
quote:

cats shouldn't be killing people for no other reason than crossing empty property.


These entitled Illegal Immigrants have no right to be here. They are invading and it should be treated as such. It's deal with them now or deal with them later. You know what happened to Rome? We've all seen this play out before and it ended in absolute disaster. If you think for one second letting all these Low IQ, Uneducated, Unskilled Illegal Immigrants in this country is going to end well I have some prime beachfront property in Kansas to sell you. Enough is enough with these criminals.
This post was edited on 2/7/23 at 10:36 am
Posted by AggieHank86
Texas
Member since Sep 2013
42941 posts
Posted on 2/7/23 at 10:38 am to
quote:

His use of deadly force doesn’t appear to be protected by any of that. Reference 13-407.
the daily Mail article directly contradicts the plain language of the statue, as follows:
quote:

But under Arizona law, deadly force is allowed on one's own property if the homeowner believes it 'immediately necessary' to prevent trespassing.
To be generous, that is irresponsible reporting. People who read that bullshite will think that this is indeed the law, and more people will be shot (and prosecuted) as a result.
Posted by brass2mouth
NOLA
Member since Jul 2007
19713 posts
Posted on 2/7/23 at 10:40 am to
quote:

Simple trespassing is definitely not a felony. Was there any indication the victim intended to commit burglary of a habitation, robbery, assault & battery, etc. that would indicate he intended to harm anyone residing on the property?

There's got to be more than just trespassing to make the homeowner's actions in any way defensible.


I don’t know how the cops were even called. Old man should’ve just went to bed.
Posted by brass2mouth
NOLA
Member since Jul 2007
19713 posts
Posted on 2/7/23 at 10:42 am to
quote:

His use of deadly force doesn’t appear to be protected by any of that. Reference 13-407.


Not from what we know currently, No.


Going to depend what his statement to the police is/was. The good thing about these laws it is shifts the responsibility back to the state to prove he wasn’t acting in accordance and not him having to prove he was. He’s automatically assumed to have acted accordingly.
Posted by Robin Masters
Birmingham
Member since Jul 2010
29996 posts
Posted on 2/7/23 at 10:50 am to
quote:



Of course, but don't you think killing a man for it is a little extreme unless there is some threat to your life?


This board is weird af when it comes to wanting to shoot someone. I mean I take a wrong turn into your driveway and90% of this board seems to think its justifiable to light them up. I was downvoted to shite because I thought it unreasonable to kill someone you thought was breaking into your car. Literally the next day my 11 yo daughter was trying to get into a car she thought was ours but wasnt. I guess the alphas on here would be ok pumping her full of lead.

I'm pretty conservative and love the 2A but some of you people have some issues.
Posted by shinerfan
Duckworld(Earth-616)
Member since Sep 2009
22480 posts
Posted on 2/7/23 at 10:52 am to
quote:

a criminal trespass by




Is there any further definition of "criminal trespass" or does this apply to any trespasser? Hikers get lost all the time, sometimes hunters get lost.
Posted by 93and99
Dayton , Oh / Allentown , Pa
Member since Dec 2018
14400 posts
Posted on 2/7/23 at 10:53 am to
[quote]I'm pretty conservative and love the 2A but some of you people have some issues.
[/quote]

You are?

Aren't you against the death penalty for murderers?
Jump to page
Page 1 2 3 4 5 ... 10
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 3 of 10Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram