Doesn't make any difference if someone is an illegal immigrant on US soil since all people, citizens and visitors and illegals, are subject to the same laws. No one other than law enforcement has the right to approach others in an aggressive fashion, using guns to 'pistol whip'. This would be the same as me knowing some illegals live in a certain house and at 2am me and the boys kick down their front door, enter their house with our guns, and start some altercation...what I would be doing is illegal...
What you're saying and your analogy is not at all what happened, sir. The foreigners were trespassing. Was it necessary to pistol whip them? You weren't there and neither was I so I'm not playing God. What I'm saying is simply this: If you trespass on private property, you might get your butt whipped, the Rottweiler might be offended by your presence, and / or an angry land owner might put a round of buckshot in your arse. I won't mince words with you: I believe that a land owner has a Right to protect their property. The use of force should be just enough to repel the person violating your Rights. For instance shooting an unarmed trespasser in the back might be over-kill and unjustified, but a butt whipping for a trespasser that then becomes unruly might be expected. The property in this issue was posted. Now, the issue is who do you believe... the land owner or the trespasser? The "Secure the border" lobby has preached this B.S. line about the foreigners not having any respect for "our laws," but they suddenly get upset when I point out this case. Yet the same people finding fault with my reasoning are the ones who hailed Ranch Rescue as heroes. While I don't see Ranch Rescue as heroes, I still think we should have answered this property rights case in the courts. The trespassers obviously did not respect private property rights, so I'm not sure what your point is.
You don't give up private property rights on such flawed assumptions. Now the LEO community can use a flimsy pretext where they would have had to have a warrant in the past.
It came directly from the case. How can it NOT be what happened? Trespass is a civil offense, not a criminal offense. Are you claiming that pistol whipping is reasonable force? And you would be going to jail for assault, and possibly attempted manslaughter. If they were stealing something and they were caught stealing from you on your property that's one thing, these illegals weren't stealing anything, worst they were doing is littering. Obviously the members of Ranch Rescue didn't even bother to show up in court. If they weren't guilty of anything they should have been in court. It doesn't justify pistol whipping, threatening, illegal imprisonment, etc. They should have called the authorities and either waited for them to come apprehend them, or they should have simply escorted them off the property.
Don't care if anyone was 'trespassing'...this does not give anyone the legal right to take law into their own hands. A land owner, by law, does not have the right to injure and kill others simply to protect their property! Any person only has a right to protect themselves and others from imminent personal harm. I don't need to believe the land owner or the trespasser. We have laws that govern what we can do and I abide by them. My point, AND THE LAW, is that you or anyone does not have any legal right to assault others... - - - Updated - - - No sense in discussing what 'you believe' since we have laws in place that clearly define our legal actions...
In a de jure (lawful) Republic, you would be absolutely wrong. If someone is ignoring No Trespassing signs, they may be up to no good and your life could be at stake. Yes, we have laws in place. Where I live, we have stand your ground laws and we are allowed as much force to repel an illegal action as it takes without going further. If you try to hit me, I can shoot you. If you're running away from my property and I shoot, then I will be charged with a crime. Be that as it may, if you cannot defend your private property because of silly laws, then you don't have much room to complain if "the law" declares that people are not committing a crime by breaching the nation's borders. The law is not always right AND you retain both the Right and the Duty to ignore unconstitutional laws.
The law states that breaching the nations border is a Federal Misdemeanor, a second breach is a Federal Felony. The law is the law until it is challenged and found to be unconstitutional. You can challenge a law you deem unconstitutional, but don't be mad when you are found to be wrong on all accounts like Cheek was. Remember, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Here's the irony of the "Secure the border" guys: They don't believe in God; they think government has the solutions and they don't believe you should defend your private property - so they obviously have a hidden agenda against the Second Amendment. Ultimately they don't believe in God and they don't believe in guns, but if their lives were in danger, they would call upon a guy wearing a gun and pray that he got there on time. They just don't believe in the concept that your personal security rests in your own hands.
