- Joined
- Jun 11, 2009
- Messages
- 19,657
- Reaction score
- 8,454
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
If he had a single "No Trespassing" sign posted anywhere on his property, they were fairly warned.
It has nothing to do with being semantical. Rights are rights. And they are ALL human rights and they are ALL equally important. As I've said before in other illegal immigration threads, playing the emotional card does nothing for me on this subject. So ignoring one set of rights just so you can play that card will get you absolutely no where, fast.
If he had a single "No Trespassing" sign posted anywhere on his property, they were fairly warned.
So in your opinion a property right is just as impoertant as the right to life? Gee, I sure don't want y'all as my attorney.
Sorry, that's not the law.
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.
Before you speak out your butt look up the law.
AZ Law on Trespassing.
I'm pretty sure that a sign saying "no trespassing" is completely reasonable.
BTW, did you know that this rancher has helped capture over 12,000 illegals with just his families help? That he has also testified before congress about the problems he has been having? Tell me...what is the difference between the other several thousand illegals that he has captured and these few that sued him?
And now he has been successfully sued. Sorry, but I'm just repeating what happened. Like I said below, its a good thing he is willing to go to SCOTUS to clear all this up. Very generous of him.
It should never have had to go to SCOTUS in the first place.
And please...instead of repeating what you have been told, think for yourself.
Sorry, that's not the law.
Sorry, but you've proven you have no idea what you're blathering on about.
Well then please tell me? If the ransher did not lose a hearing and an appeal as stated earlier in this thread, what has happened?
Well then please tell me? If the ransher did not lose a hearing and an appeal as stated earlier in this thread, what has happened?
If he had a single "No Trespassing" sign posted anywhere on his property, they were fairly warned.
Sorry, that's not the law.
Since you're having trouble, I'll break it down for you.
I said:
You so eloquently replied:
That statement is wrong.
The End.
But the court said that Barnett held them at gunpoint even after becoming aware that no one in the group of 16 men and women was armed, and so he could not use the argument of self-defense.
what if the rancher had been killed. His young daughters raped and vehicle and money stolen.
What if the rancher had been killed....
That is just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. It doesn't really matter if a group of 16 people were armed or not against a single man and his dog. Talk to the guys that got the crap beaten out of them in Egypt by gangs of 16 or 12 or whatever.
That is what they want. A borderless community between Canada and Mexico. Welcome to the North American Union with its new currency, destroyed constitution and endless cheap labor slavery. Wake up, people.[,
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?