16 illegals sue Arizona rancher (32million)

[Dino]

13-1502. Criminal trespass in the third degree; classification

A. A person commits criminal trespass in the third degree by:

1. Knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully on any real property after a reasonable request to leave by the owner or any other person having lawful control over such property, or reasonable notice prohibiting entry.

2. Knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully on the right-of-way for tracks, or the storage or switching yards or rolling stock of a railroad company.

B. Criminal trespass in the third degree is a class 3 misdemeanor.

[/QUOTE]

Ok so we don't know if he gave a reasonable notice prohibiting entry because it doesnt say in the article but as I read it they should have been given a reasonable request to leave then aloud to leave if they choose to.

 

[HT_USMC]

You may not agree with the law but that is what it states.

See below

13-1502. Criminal trespass in the third degree; classification

A. A person commits criminal trespass in the third degree by:

1. Knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully on any real property after a reasonable request to leave by the owner or any other person having lawful control over such property, or reasonable notice prohibiting entry.

2. Knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully on the right-of-way for tracks, or the storage or switching yards or rolling stock of a railroad company.

B. Criminal trespass in the third degree is a class 3 misdemeanor.

They knew they entered land they didn't belong on. That's all it takes to trespass.

 

[Lurch]

No the laws I quoted point out where Deadly Force and Self Defense ARE Justified. I included the link again above. No where could I find in my short search anything that justifys the rancher's actions.

well then I am coming to your house, break down your door. State in PLAIN ENGLISH to you that I am not going to harm you. Then proceed to take what ever I want from your house. You are not allowed by the laws you posted to touch me or detain me. If you do you are breaking the law. You said it yourself.
Man that bike is going to look real nice in my garage.

Think about this for a minute.

 

[HT_USMC]

The old guy and his family circle simply want to play minutemen. They just want to enrich their lives and entertain themselves by going after immigrants. He placed himself in the precarious situation and was not ambushed by a gang of violent barbarian criminal Mexicans. Gee Whiz! What a life! Life must be tough to be a person who owns 22,000 acres in the United States.

So if his house was on a quarter acre lot, he would be more entitled to protect and enforce it's perimeter?

Hell, on 22,000 illegals could be building a small town if he just kept looking the other way. I would have the desire to run each and every one of them off my land or hand them to authorities.

 

[Dino]

13-1502. Criminal trespass in the third degree; classification

A. A person commits criminal trespass in the third degree by:

1. Knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully on any real property after a reasonable request to leave by the owner or any other person having lawful control over such property, or reasonable notice prohibiting entry.

2. Knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully on the right-of-way for tracks, or the storage or switching yards or rolling stock of a railroad company.

B. Criminal trespass in the third degree is a class 3 misdemeanor.

[/QUOTE]

They knew they entered land they didn't belong on. That's all it takes to trespass.

Not if they leave after being asked to do so.

 

[HT_USMC]

First of all they are not my rules they are the Laws of the State of Arizona. Secondly you are right the "side of the law" doesn't provide much protection for the land owner, he should petition to have th elaw changed. Lastly under AZ Law the individuals were guilty of criminal trespass but only if they were asked to leave and didn't . Not my laws AZ's...

I'm repeating this to reinforce the point. You don't have to be asked to leave if you KNOW you don't belong there.

 

[Dino]

well then I am coming to your house, break down your door. State in PLAIN ENGLISH to you that I am not going to harm you. Then proceed to take what ever I want from your house. You are not allowed by the laws you posted to touch me or detain me. If you do you are breaking the law. You said it yourself.
Man that bike is going to look real nice in my garage.

Think about this for a minute.

Nope...Please see below.

13-407. Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises

A. A person or his agent in lawful possession or control of premises is justified in threatening to use deadly physical force or in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent that a reasonable person would believe it immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon the premises.

B. A person may use deadly physical force under subsection A only in the defense of himself or third persons as described in sections 13-405 and 13-406.

C. In this section, "premises" means any real property and any structure, movable or immovable, permanent or temporary, adapted for both human residence and lodging whether occupied or not.

 

[Dino]

well then I am coming to your house, break down your door. State in PLAIN ENGLISH to you that I am not going to harm you. Then proceed to take what ever I want from your house. You are not allowed by the laws you posted to touch me or detain me. If you do you are breaking the law. You said it yourself.
Man that bike is going to look real nice in my garage.

Think about this for a minute.

I'm repeating this to reinforce the point. You don't have to be asked to leave if you KNOW you don't belong there.

I did not see that in the law can you point it out, please?

You don't have to because it is not in there. You are wrong on this point in terms of the law. Read what the law says...not what you want it to say.

It is pretty clear what justifies the use of force in AZ and the Rancher violated it. You don't have to agree but the suit is not crazy based upon the LAW. That was the premise of the very first post. I am not certain I agree with it but until the law changes civilians can't run aroud doing whatever they want because they think it is justified.

It is sad that some think only US citizens should be protectd by US law, one because it shows a fundamental lack of understanding of our laws and how they are designed to protect peopel, and two because as a country we are better than that. That rancher had serious issues with immigrants but he did not have the right to threaten them or detain them based upon AZ law. I think he probably should have the right to detain them but is deadly force justified? What if one or all got up and just walked away, should he have the right to start shooting? If so why?

 

[HT_USMC]

Not if they leave after being asked to do so.[/QUOTE]

That's not how the law reads. Sorry.




Knowingly entering

(I think the fact that they aren't even in Mexico anymore proves they knew they were somewhere they shouldn't have been.)

OR

remaining unlawfully on any real property after a reasonable request to leave by the owner or any other person having lawful control over such property

(It doesn't say the owner is required to ask them to leave - it simply provides a provision for someone getting lost and being informed they are on someone's land and to get off that land)

OR

reasonable notice prohibiting entry

(The signs at the border would have been the first notice- don't you think?)

 

[BlueHaya]

being "asked to leave" is like if you are at a party and are asked to leave and refuse...you are now trespassing, but you were not trespassing before you were asked to leave.

These people entered onto property (US and owners) where they knew entry is prohibited.

 

[Dino]

Not if they leave after being asked to do so.

That's not how the law reads. Sorry. a reasonable request to leave by the owner



Knowingly entering

(I think the fact that they aren't even in Mexico anymore proves they knew they were somewhere they shouldn't have been.)

OR

remaining unlawfully on any real property after a reasonable request to leave by the owner or any other person having lawful control over such property

(It doesn't say the owner is required to ask them to leave - it simply provides a provision for someone getting lost and being informed they are on someone's land and to get off that land) OK so how is that not a reasonable request? There is no provision in the law that states that the request is only applies to individuals that are lost.

OR

reasonable notice prohibiting entry

(The signs at the border would have been the first notice- don't you think?) Probably but I guess it depends upon what the law considers a reasonable notice. [/QUOTE]

All this being said, none of it give him a civilian the right to detain the individuals or threaten the use of force.

 

[Dino]

being "asked to leave" is like if you are at a party and are asked to leave and refuse...you are now trespassing, but you were not trespassing before you were asked to leave.

These people entered onto property (US and owners) where they knew entry is prohibited.

That is a very reasonable interpretation and if I were the lawyer for the defense I would argue that point, but it is moot because even if they were guilty of trespassing it doesn't give the rancher the right to threaten or use deadly force to detain them.

 

[CTA_Busa_LE]

A couple laws to look at. These are from AZ statutes. Keep in mind I'm not an expert on AZ laws but the AZ statute is very similar to IL statutes and yes I am up on IL statutes.

13-409. Justification; use of physical force in law enforcement
A person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another if in making or assisting in making an arrest or detention or in preventing or assisting in preventing the escape after arrest or detention of that other person, such person uses or threatens to use physical force and all of the following exist:
1. A reasonable person would believe that such force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or detention or prevent the escape.
2. Such person makes known the purpose of the arrest or detention or believes that it is otherwise known or cannot reasonably be made known to the person to be arrested or detained.
3. A reasonable person would believe the arrest or detention to be lawful.

And on individuals making arrests

13-3889. Method of arrest by private person
A private person when making an arrest shall inform the person to be arrested of the intention to arrest him and the cause of the arrest, unless he is then engaged in the commission of an offense, or is pursued immediately after its commission or after an escape, or flees or forcibly resists before the person making the arrest has opportunity so to inform him, or when the giving of such information will imperil the arrest.


This tells me that in AZ private persons can legally make arrests, the first law tells me that when making arrests any use of force necessary to make that arrest can be used.
Considering this guy has worked law enforcement, I'm sure he is aware of the laws.

Now show me where there is a law that says this man has to sit back and isn't allowed to take action to protect his property as long as it is done in a lawful manner. Regardless of the size of his property, be it a lot or 1 million acres, he is the owner and is afforded rights under AZ law and the US constitution.

 

[BlueHaya]

ok..ok now we are getting somewhere...we are on common ground that they were probably trespassing.....now lets look at the retention.

 

[BlueHaya]

"prevent escape"

 

[wharthog3]

Nope...Please see below.

13-407. Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises

A. A person or his agent in lawful possession or control of premises is justified in threatening to use deadly physical force or in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent that a reasonable person would believe it immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon the premises. <-- It sounds to me that he was preventing them from continuing of their commissioned crime of criminal trespass. Assuming the trespassers came from the South, and he not stopping them meant they would continue North (further into his property)

B. A person may use deadly physical force under subsection A only in the defense of himself or third persons as described in sections 13-405 and 13-406.

C. In this section, "premises" means any real property and any structure, movable or immovable, permanent or temporary, adapted for both human residence and lodging whether occupied or not.

Let's get over the "they're Mexican" argument and just look at it as a criminal trespass issue.

 

[HT_USMC]

remaining unlawfully on any real property after a reasonable request to leave by the owner or any other person having lawful control over such property

(It doesn't say the owner is required to ask them to leave - it simply provides a provision for someone getting lost and being informed they are on someone's land and to get off that land) OK so how is that not a reasonable request? There is no provision in the law that states that the request is only applies to individuals that are lost.

That was just an example. The point being, which you're dancing around, is that it does not indicate that a request HAS to be offered. In addition the "OR" between those plays a major part in how the law is read. They knew they shouldn't have been there - therefore the entire provision in 13-1502.A.1 would translate to true. They did trespass.

All this being said, none of it give him a civilian the right to detain the individuals or threaten the use of force.[/QUOTE]

Actually, we have a right to bear arms. If he's got a license for the weapon he had, he's on his land, well then he's within his rights. As a citizen we all have the right to defend our property. So I would say, on both counts, you're incorrect.

I'm sorry Surfer but we don't see eye to eye bro. You're trying to use the law to back your claim that the owner was wrong but the more you cram the law down peoples throat here, the more I realize that I'm correct in my thinking. The owner was well within his rights according to the law of the state as well as those of the country.

If he had ill will toward those people or any of the other 1188-ish he's turned over in the passed - he'd have pulled the trigger. He respected them as human beings and sent them through the proper channels back to their country of origin - he didn't march them to the border or dust them right then and there.

 

[Dino]

A couple laws to look at. These are from AZ statutes. Keep in mind I'm not an expert on AZ laws but the AZ statute is very similar to IL statutes and yes I am up on IL statutes.

13-409. Justification; use of physical force in law enforcement
A person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another if in making or assisting in making an arrest or detention or in preventing or assisting in preventing the escape after arrest or detention of that other person, such person uses or threatens to use physical force and all of the following exist:
1. A reasonable person would believe that such force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or detention or prevent the escape.
2. Such person makes known the purpose of the arrest or detention or believes that it is otherwise known or cannot reasonably be made known to the person to be arrested or detained.
3. A reasonable person would believe the arrest or detention to be lawful.

And on individuals making arrests

13-3889. Method of arrest by private person
A private person when making an arrest shall inform the person to be arrested of the intention to arrest him and the cause of the arrest, unless he is then engaged in the commission of an offense, or is pursued immediately after its commission or after an escape, or flees or forcibly resists before the person making the arrest has opportunity so to inform him, or when the giving of such information will imperil the arrest.


This tells me that in AZ private persons can legally make arrests, the first law tells me that when making arrests any use of force necessary to make that arrest can be used.
Considering this guy has worked law enforcement, I'm sure he is aware of the laws.

Now show me where there is a law that says this man has to sit back and isn't allowed to take action to protect his property as long as it is done in a lawful manner. Regardless of the size of his property, be it a lot or 1 million acres, he is the owner and is afforded rights under AZ law and the US constitution.

Good find.

I read the first one to apply to law enforcement officials because the distinction between "law enforcement" and "private person". Make no mistake Once the LEOs arrived the 16 were clearly in a position to be detained arrested or otherwise.

I would think that the method of arrest by a private person would be limited or accomponied by the justification of use of force/deadly force while making the arrest. For instance I do not think using 13-3889. Method of arrest by private person to justify making an arrest would also justify the use of deadly force unless justified under 13-403. So the land owner does not have to sit back but he also can not use or threaten force unless justified. The question will be whether or not he was justified. I am betting this is where the courts battle will take place.

 

[WWJD]

yeah... lets rely on our LEGAL system.... THEY'LL sort it out properly. HA! That's all I'm saying

 

[Dino]

remaining unlawfully on any real property after a reasonable request to leave by the owner or any other person having lawful control over such property

(It doesn't say the owner is required to ask them to leave - it simply provides a provision for someone getting lost and being informed they are on someone's land and to get off that land) OK so how is that not a reasonable request? There is no provision in the law that states that the request is only applies to individuals that are lost.

That was just an example. The point being, which you're dancing around, is that it does not indicate that a request HAS to be offered. In addition the "OR" between those plays a major part in how the law is read. They knew they shouldn't have been there - therefore the entire provision in 13-1502.A.1 would translate to true. They did trespass.

All this being said, none of it give him a civilian the right to detain the individuals or threaten the use of force.

Actually, we have a right to bear arms. If he's got a license for the weapon he had, he's on his land, well then he's within his rights. <-- to carry the weapon absolutely, but not to use it against someone unless justified. That justification is spelled out in the law. As a citizen we all have the right to defend our property. <--- Check AZ law on this because it spells it out the justification for the use of force in protecting property pretty clearly. So I would say, on both counts, you're incorrect.

I'm sorry Surfer but we don't see eye to eye bro. You're trying to use the law to back your claim that the owner was wrong but the more you cram the law down peoples throat here <--- I am not shoving it down your throat. We are a country of laws and that is how we should be addressing these type arguements not based upon or emotions. , the more I realize that I'm correct in my thinking. The owner was well within his rights according to the law of the state as well as those of the country. <--- The cite the law that supports your thinking?
If he had ill will toward those people or any of the other 1188-ish he's turned over in the passed - he'd have pulled the trigger. He respected them as human beings and sent them through the proper channels back to their country of origin - he didn't march them to the border or dust them right then and there. [/QUOTE]

As for the trespass arguement even if it can be proven they were trespassing you then have to Justify the use of force and threat of deadly force used against them.