Regulating access to your property is completely legal. Threatening to kill someone and kicking a woman while she's down on the ground are not, nor is trespassing on state property and holding US citizens hostage.
You know, lots of people like to scream "I have rights", but with rights come responsibility and not violating the rights of others.
Want to know who has the right to do whatever he absolutely wants without having to take responsibility? A baby. He screams when hungry, screams when he needs his diaper changed, etc, etc. But that's OK, and we understand. He is a baby, after all. But by the time a baby reaches adulthood, he has matured enough to understand that, when you want to assert your right to do something, you cannot violate the rights of others in doing it.
At this point, I am not sure who the biggest babies are - The illegals who thought they could violate a man's property rights without being held responsible, the judge who seems to think it is OK for illegal aliens to violate someone else's rights, or those who support the illegal aliens violating someone else's rights.
One last point. There is a difference between rights and privileges. If you want to cross someone's land, you must get his permission. That is known as a privilege, not a right.
You think the lawyer is concerned with justice?
The trespassing on state property is a separate issue, though I'm surprised it didn't end in jail time for unlawful arrest or the civilian equivalent. This specific case I'm more willing to lean towards property owner as he has apparently suffered much damage, vandalism, and theft at the hands of illegals. I'd be on edge to. As for the assault charge, well they'll have to prove that I guess. I don't know what sort of laws they have in his state, but in my State I can shoot people for trespassing if I feel they pose a threat to me.
You know, lots of people like to scream "I have rights", but with rights come responsibility and not violating the rights of others.
Want to know who has the right to do whatever he absolutely wants without having to take responsibility? A baby. He screams when hungry, screams when he needs his diaper changed, etc, etc. But that's OK, and we understand. He is a baby, after all. But by the time a baby reaches adulthood, he has matured enough to understand that, when you want to assert your right to do something, you cannot violate the rights of others in doing it.
At this point, I am not sure who the biggest babies are - The illegals who thought they could violate a man's property rights without being held responsible, the judge who seems to think it is OK for illegal aliens to violate someone else's rights, or those who support the illegal aliens violating someone else's rights.
One last point. There is a difference between rights and privileges. If you want to cross someone's land, you must get his permission. That is known as a privilege, not a right.
Again, nobody is defending the actions of the illegals in this case, nor is anyone saying that the guy didn't have the right to defend his property. However, there is a huge difference between stopping some people on your property and calling the cops, and between stopping some people on your property, threatening to kill them, kicking a woman who is down on the ground and not resisting, etc.
The fact that someone trespasses doesn't mean you get to do that.
We don't know all the facts, but going off of what we do know, I can draw some pretty obvious conclusions about the guy. The fact that he says he's turned in over 12,000 illegals over the years, combined with the fact that he has a whole electronic tracking and hunting system set up, combined with the fact that he's reckless and stupid enough to chase after legal citizens on state property and hold them hostage indicates to me that he's a giddy redneck who probably loves this **** and gets off on hunting people down and demonstrating his power over them.
While I agree that the immigrants were in the wrong, I think it's asinine to say that they do not have rights. They are human beings, much like you and I.
:rofl
That is rich coming from you who have several times shown yourself the enemy of private property.
What are these? Except a load of liberal, abstract bollocks of course.
As Joseph De Maistre pointed out, he had never met a "Man" ie a Human. He'd met Frenchman, Germans, Englishmen and he'd even heard of a Persian but never met a man.
You can't distinguish the difference between Constitutionally protected rights in the United States and the change of regime in the Palestinian Mandate. I am sorry for you and your inability to understand that what is reality is one place simply doesn't necessarily apply somewhere else. Perhaps, if you were to live in a variety of cultures in your life, you would understand this basic concept.
What the hell kind of Conservative are you?Have you ever heard of the Declaration of the Rights of "Man" and the Citizen? Goes back over 200 years. Ever heard of the Universal Declaration of "Human" Rights? Goes back over 60 years. Perhaps you should get your head out of the sand sometime.
An Arizona man who has waged a 10-year campaign to stop a flood of illegal immigrants from crossing his property is being sued by 16 Mexican nationals who accuse him of conspiring to violate their civil rights when he stopped them at gunpoint on his ranch on the U.S.-Mexico border.
Roger Barnett, 64, began rounding up illegal immigrants in 1998 and turning them over to the U.S. Border Patrol, he said, after they destroyed his property, killed his calves and broke into his home.
Moderator's Warning: |
You believe property rights come from the state, have defended the complete eradication of them several times and seem to be practicing hypocrisy.
What the hell kind of Conservative are you?
You attack property rights again and again and claim they come from the state then you appeal to Jacobinism, which De Maistre was specifically attacking, and the UN as universal law.
Human rights, like the so called rights of man, are abstract liberal bollocks which are contrary to common law principles and about forcing through their universalist, liberal agenda. They deserve the same derision that the great Conservative masters like Burke and De Maistre gave the Jacobin foolishness; "The rights of man".
And again what kind of Catholic has much time for Jacobins? Are you unaware of the history of the French revolution?
Actually, where I agree most strongly with you is the argument that property rights do not come from the state. Actually our Bill of Rights is based on property rights, so the state (the USA, that is) is actually derived FROM property rights, and not the other way around.
I do not recall claiming that they had the right to trespass...Sure, they have rights. They do NOT have the right to tresspass on someone else's land.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?