Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[skeptik]

If they won't follow the laws of entry, it stands to reason they won't obey other laws either.

No it doesn't.

 

[Dak]

No it doesn't.

Impacts of Illegal Immigration

Obviously not all illegal immigrants are going to become repeat criminals. That is beside the original point though, and ignores the fact that they are breaking the law every second they stand on US soil.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Where did I say or even insinuate all human rights are forfeited?

When you said this:

It's also absurd to call defense of your property bullying in any case.

Now maybe I misinterpreted you, but you seemed to be saying "anything goes when you're defendin' yer land".

If you think "bullying" must somehow involve the bully initiating the conflict, then how about if I say he went out of his way to verbally harass and attack them in a situation where it was un-called for. The verbal harassment may not be worthy of a criminal charge, but kicking someone unprovoked is. That's the whole point I've been trying to make, and you keep saying that the fact that they were trespassing negates all of these concerns, which I strongly disagree with.

I does blow my mind that you somehow think this rancher commited a crime by holding trespassers on his land/country at gunpoint (how else are you going to hold them?) until the authorities arrived.

And you were wondering why I said you're blowing this out of proportion? I clearly never said this. You're putting inaccurate words in my mouth, and using them to reach bullshit conclusions on this issue.

You lost me on "missing the point of the punishment fitting the crime". How is what the guy did any different than what border patrol does? The "well he isn't border patrol" doesn't fly because they were on his land.

See above about the verbal harassment and unprovoked attack. I'm pretty sure neither of these are considered acceptable behavior by any law enforcement agent. Things always change with context, of course, but in this particular context, the guy seemed to be going out of his way to be belligerent. Whenever you're ready to acknowledge this extremely simple issue, do let me know.

 

[skeptik]

Impacts of Illegal Immigration

Obviously not all illegal immigrants are going to become repeat criminals. That is beside the original point though, and ignores the fact that they are breaking the law every second they stand on US soil.

You obviously don't know what the phrase "stands to reason" actually means.

 

[Dak]

When you said this:


Now maybe I misinterpreted you, but you seemed to be saying "anything goes when you're defendin' yer land".

If you think "bullying" must somehow involve the bully initiating the conflict, then how about if I say he went out of his way to verbally harass and attack them in a situation where it was un-called for. The verbal harassment may not be worthy of a criminal charge, but kicking someone unprovoked is. That's the whole point I've been trying to make, and you keep saying that the fact that they were trespassing negates all of these concerns, which I strongly disagree with.



And you were wondering why I said you're blowing this out of proportion? I clearly never said this. You're putting inaccurate words in my mouth, and using them to reach bullshit conclusions on this issue.



See above about the verbal harassment and unprovoked attack. I'm pretty sure neither of these are considered acceptable behavior by any law enforcement agent. Things always change with context, of course, but in this particular context, the guy seemed to be going out of his way to be belligerent. Whenever you're ready to acknowledge this extremely simple issue, do let me know.

You can't go out of your way to confront a trespasser, and them trespassing and potentially vandalizing is provoking. That article also did not gave the rancher's side to the particular confrontation in question, just background on his activities involving illegals in general. We don't know what was said/or done by them in the confrontation.

As far as putting words in your mouth, I didn't know how else to take the punishment/crime reference.

I fail to acknowledge these alleged actions as unprovoked because the act of trespassing and potential further damage is provoking. This is what you don't seem to believe.

To come at this from another angle: How would you handle a similar situation? What do you feel would be the right way to address someone trespassing/vandalizing your property when authorities are a half hour away etc.? Also how would your response change from 1 on 1 odds as opposed to a situation where you are extremely outnumbered (like 16-2 if you count the dog)?

You obviously don't know what the phrase "stands to reason" actually means.

stands to reason

Often+that. Not every time+that.

 

[skeptik]

It does not stand to reason that an illegal immigrant will commit other crimes. If you think this, you are stupid. That's all I'm going to waste my time saying in response to that.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

So let me get this straight Dakryn. Someone walks across your property, and you suspect that they're going to leave garbage lying around, so it's okay to physically attack them.

I'm sorry, but this is hilariously ignorant, and if you honestly believe that to be true then we might as well give up this debate now, because your moral beliefs are somewhere back in the middle ages where debates like this do not exist.

 

[Dak]

So let me get this straight Dakryn. Someone walks across your property, and you suspect that they're going to leave garbage lying around, so it's okay to physically attack them.

I'm sorry, but this is hilariously ignorant, and if you honestly believe that to be true then we might as well give up this debate now, because your moral beliefs are somewhere back in the middle ages where debates like this do not exist.

After it happens 12,000+ times, with dropped feces,trash, and vandalism accompanying the previous 12,000+ times, I think you might react a little harshly. Especially when you are extremely outnumbered. You still didn't answer my question: What would you do? If you saw me taking a shit/dropping trash/breaking things in your yard what would you do? What if it was the 12,000th time? What if I had 15 buddies with me all doing it as well?

This is a weekly reality along the border, not some sort of anti-utopian-middle-ages argument based on hypothetical events.

Edit: @ Dodens: Based on the data given above, it does stand to reason. I am in a border town, I see this stuff first hand.Feel free to continue to ignore me/the data though.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

After it happens 12,000+ times, with dropped feces,trash, and vandalism accompanying the previous 12,000+ times, I think you might react a little harshly. Especially when you are extremely outnumbered. You still didn't answer my question: What would you do? If you saw me taking a shit/dropping trash/breaking things in your yard what would you do? What if it was the 12,000th time? What if I had 15 buddies with me all doing it as well?

I'd get border patrol and police involved first, but I assume your point is that law enforcement is doing nothing for the guy, which leaves him no choice but to resort to violence. Based on the article, I'm not convinced that's the case.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Hm, I wonder if this had anything to do with Italy's 104%-GDP national debt.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Subject_of_high-profile_Italian_euthanasia_case_dies

 

[Dak]

I'd get border patrol and police involved first, but I assume your point is that law enforcement is doing nothing for the guy, which leaves him no choice but to resort to violence. Based on the article, I'm not convinced that's the case.

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.

His Cross Rail Ranch near Douglas, Ariz., is known by federal and county law enforcement authorities as "the avenue of choice" for immigrants seeking to enter the United States illegally.
.......
His sprawling ranch became an illegal-immigration highway when the Border Patrol diverted its attention to several border towns in an effort to take control of the established ports of entry. That effort moved the illegal immigrants to the remote areas of the border, including the Cross Rail Ranch.

The Border Patrol isn't doing enough apparently.

 

[Dak]

Hm, I wonder if this had anything to do with Italy's 104%-GDP national debt.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Subject_of_high-profile_Italian_euthanasia_case_dies

/facepalm. Wonder how many vegetable-state people they are keeping artificially alive.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

The Border Patrol isn't doing enough apparently.

The article also says that border patrol officers arrived during the incident, so it looks like there was no need for him to 'take the law into his own hands'.

I understand that the situation there is shitty, and that the guy has suffered some serious damages in the past (in which case violence may have been justified), but I don't see how that justifies being violent to any old person who crosses his land - especially when a lot of these people are just doing what they must to survive.

 

[Dak]

The article also says that border patrol officers arrived during the incident, so it looks like there was no need for him to 'take the law into his own hands'.

I understand that the situation there is shitty, and that the guy has suffered some serious damages in the past (in which case violence may have been justified), but I don't see how that justifies being violent to any old person who crosses his land - especially when a lot of these people are just doing what they must to survive.

The lawsuit said he then called his wife and two Border Patrol agents arrived at the site. It also said Mr. Barnett acknowledged that he had turned over 12,000 illegal immigrants to the Border Patrol since 1998.

That sentence is written poorly , but of course Border Patrol agents were going to show up because either he called them/his wife called them there. He had to detain them for Border Patrol, or by the time they could arrive they would likely have vanished. You can't detain illegal immigrants by shaking hands with them and engaging them in polite discourse.
He didn't lynch them or torture them. Allegedly kicking one of the women for an unknown offense and harsh talk is hardly violence, relativily speaking for this situation.

The guy even installed water taps on his water holding tanks so they can get water without breaking his tanks. If he was "out to do violence" he would have rigged the water holding tanks with claymores or poisened the water or something.

There is a reason BP sets up checkpoints along the I-8 in Arizona and California, because they can't get out to remote areas fast enough to stop everyone coming across the border. So they try and catch them leaving populated areas.

It really is deeper than just "someone crossing his land", and there is a difference between surviving and wanting higher quality of life illegally.

Edit: The arguement that they weren't necessarily deserving of any harsh treatment just because out of 12,000+ illegals, they might not have done anything else to his property besides walk on it is very akin to the arguement of what action you are allowed to confront a burgler in your house, especially in the dark. In that situation you better believe I am going to shoot first and check him for weapons later. At least this guy isn't "shooting first".

The dude shouldn't have to spend $30,000 on surveillance equipment, and go on armed patrols of his land, and sleep in fear at night that a herd of immigrants is going to over-run his house. But that's the unfortunate reality on the border (especially in remote areas), and a symptom of shortfalls in the system.

Edit #2: This apparently should have gotten its own thread instead of cluttering up the news thread.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

That sentence is written poorly , but of course Border Patrol agents were going to show up because either he called them/his wife called them there. He had to detain them for Border Patrol, or by the time they could arrive they would likely have vanished. You can't detain illegal immigrants by shaking hands with them and engaging them in polite discourse.
He didn't lynch them or torture them. Allegedly kicking one of the women for an unknown offense and harsh talk is hardly violence, relativily speaking for this situation.

I'm sure we could go back and forth on this given how little we know about the actual details, but I'm getting tired of arguing over this, so whatever.

It really is deeper than just "someone crossing his land", and there is a difference between surviving and wanting higher quality of life illegally.

And if entering another country illegally is the only way you have of surviving?

Edit: The arguement that they weren't necessarily deserving of any harsh treatment just because out of 12,000+ illegals, they might not have done anything else to his property besides walk on it is very akin to the arguement of what action you are allowed to confront a burgler in your house, especially in the dark. In that situation you better believe I am going to shoot first and check him for weapons later. At least this guy isn't "shooting first".

Um, no. Having someone break into your home is a much more threatening situation than having someone wander through a 22,000-acre field you own. Try again.

The dude shouldn't have to spend $30,000 on surveillance equipment, and go on armed patrols of his land, and sleep in fear at night that a herd of immigrants is going to over-run his house. But that's the unfortunate reality on the border (especially in remote areas), and a symptom of shortfalls in the system.

Yes, he's got it pretty bad (as far as a rich land-owner could have it bad, anyway), and there's no easy solution to this. I'm sure he's entitled to some acts of aggression every now and then, but there's obviously a limit. I've made my point by now, so I won't keep nickel-and-diming with you over whether the limit was crossed in this particular case.

 

[Dak]

I'm sure we could go back and forth on this given how little we know about the actual details, but I'm getting tired of arguing over this, so whatever.

/nod

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Holy shit. This is unreal.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Man_in_..._911_to_complain_about_fast_food?curid=120877

Man in Florida, USA, arrested for using 911 to complain about fast food
From Wikinews

A man in Boynton Beach, Florida located in the United States, was arrested for misusing the city's 911 emergency phone service. Jean Fortune, 66, called 911 to complain about a fast food order from Burger King he didn't yet place.

On Monday Fortune called 911 to complain that the Burger King he was going to eat at, did not sell lemonade. He also complained to 911 operators that the food he had yet to order, was going to take 15 minutes to complete.

"You cannot dial 911 because you are unhappy with your burger, ok. I know you don't seriously think that the police need to make Burger King give you food faster," says the operator as Fortune continued to complain. "If it takes 15 minutes to cook, it takes 15 minutes to cook, ok. You don't need to call 911."

It turns out, after nearly three minutes of arguing with the operator, Fortune never even placed an order.

"Have you given them any money?," asks the operator. Fortune replies "no." The operator then asks Fortune, "have they given you any food?" Again Fortune replies "no." The operator then tells Fortune that he is able to "just drive away" from the situation, but he disagrees and tells her he will "just move [his] car". The operator warns Fortune that the police are on their way and then tells him to not block the drive-thru.

When police arrived, they arrested him for misusing the emergency line, which is a criminal offense in Florida. He was formally charged with the crime, issued a notice to appear in court and then released.

...

 

[Dak]

New Hampshire House Resolution voiding Federal law outside limits established in Constitution

Good for them.

 

[Dak]

32 Arizona representatives sponser bill similar to N.H. bill, citing Tenth Ammendment, state sovereignty.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

So what does that do for them? The "limits of the Constitution" are vague as fuck. Is there a specific Federal law(s) that they're protesting or attempting to nullify with this resolution?