Shooting someone who is illegally on your property and illegally in the United States should be allowed if the person is in fear of danger for him(her)self or their family.
Shooting someone is legal if you have a reasonable belief that they are an imminent threat to your life or someone else’s, or could cause great physical harm. Exact verbiage varies by state. But I strongly disagree that trespassing or legal status should give anyone a right to kill another human being with no consequences.
I’ve seen a few articles on this case over the week. I can’t comment because there are many unknowns. Even the facts as reported are very confusing. What I can say is that this rancher should have immediately contacted an attorney before making any statements to the police. A little bit of USCCA training would have done him some good.
The border is a rough area, and it’s a massive failure of our government that they’ve let it get this bad. But that doesn’t mean it’s hunting season on migrants. If we were truly at that point, then we’ve lost more than just our border.
Disagree. While I don’t think that there should be carte blanche to shoot any random teenager who accidentally wanders onto your property, you SHOULD have the right to shoot foreign invaders who deliberately do so, especially along the border. In that case, not only do you have valid reason to fear for your safety, you’re also acting in defense of not just your own property, but of the entire nation.
If you believe that our country is sovereign, that means it has definable borders that it can defend with force. The men who founded this nation believed in the right and responsibility of individual citizens to act in defense of the country, rather than just relegating that responsibility to a standing army (which, in the present United States, exists for the benefit of beltway defense contractors and Ukraine money-launderers, and doesn’t do anything to defend the U.S. anyways).
There are a few problems with the statement that it’s not “hunting season on migrants”. (1) It conflates foreign invaders with people here under legitimate visas and migrant labor programs, whom we would have no reason to “hunt”, (2) it implies that this AZ man “went out hunting” rather than defending his own family on his own land, and (3) it leaves room only to conclude that we as American citizens should be hamstrung and therefore hunted by invading criminals, within our sovereign borders and even on our own property.
I just don’t see it as that black or white. The vast majority of these “invaders” are economic refuges. Most of them are fleeing failed governments and threatening conditions that in many cases our corporations and government played a significant role in creating.
I am 100% for closing our boarders and only allowing the people who follow the rules to enter. But desperate people will find a way. Especially desperate parents watching their children living in fear and going hungry. This is a massive mess that needs to be fixed but it is going to take a lot more than a multi billion dollar wall that can be bypassed with a $10 shovel or $75 ladder.
If you deliberately enter another country against that country’s laws (unless you are fleeing credible threats from your own government), you are an invader. Period.
Despite what MSNBC says, someone who tries to jump the border into another country because their own country’s economy sucks (usually due to their population’s belief in and promotion of socialist garbage) is not a “refugee”. A refugee is a person who is fleeing death and/or persecution at the hands of their own government. A good example would be capitalists fleeing Castro in Cuba. We have laws in place to help legitimate refugees and grant them asylum.
Someone who lives in Venezuela or Honduras and says “gee, this place is violent and impoverished” (because they keep electing communists), and then wants to sneak into the U.S. for better quality of life is not a refugee. If they were refugees, they would seek asylum in the country nearest to their own, rather than traveling through one or more countries to get to the one that just so happens to have the most goodies waiting for them. They are seeking to invade (not just immigrate to, but invade) our country for personal gain rather than improving their own country. This lowers the average quality of life both in the United States and in the nation that they left.
You know what’s cheaper and more effective in deterring invasion than a border wall? A credible promise that invaders will be met with violent force.
I have a lot of rot in my soul, but even I couldn’t stand on the border and shoot men, women, and children fleeing Mexico. Do I want a secure border? Yes. But if you’re saying that requires us to shoot little girls running through the desert, then I’m out. Hell, I might even be willing to shoot back in their defense.
Most of them aren’t fleeing Mexico, they are using Mexico as a rest stop on their way to invade the U.S. from whatever nation they left.
Don’t need to shoot women and children. Those can more easily be detained and deported. Men are a different story. The reality, though, is that once it happens a few times, most of the rest are likely to not even try.
If you want a secure border, how do you propose that can be achieved without the use of force to defend it?
I never claimed to have all the answers. I’m just not willing to stand in the desert and shoot people. That’s horrific. I wouldn’t defend those who did so, either. This isn’t some sport, and these General Zaroff wannabees aren’t the reason I support the 2nd Amendment.
And to be clear, I never said that’s what the rancher did in this case. I simply oppose the idea that we should be able to kill other human beings simply because of some imaginary line drawn on a map.
Legal status has everything to do with it! It’s not just one or two people, clearly this is a ground incursion on US soil.
Just so we are clear, I’d like to see what happens when 1000’s of Americans rush the Mexican border! Or just for fun let’s do that to Canada, NO, no reasons, no passports, just weapons, drugs and bad intentions! Let’s go, maybe millions of us rush the Canadian border! Does anyone really think the Royal Canadian Mounties are going to sit idly by as we rush in? What about when we start destroying their land, homes, hotels, disturb the peace and use up all their resources!
From what I heard the illegal that the rancher killed had BEEN DEPORTED SOME 7 OR 8 TIMES AND KEPT COMING BACK. And that he was also a KNOW CRIMINAL as well. And I’ve also been seeing reports from NON-LIBERAL NEWS OUTLETS that some of these illegals are breaking into home and robbing them and doing property damage when doing it. some have even tried to rap some girls and women. And this is all because Biden and his DHS Sec. refuse to do a damn thing to secure the border. Our country is being INVADED AND THEY DON’T CARE BECAUSE IT IS ALL PART OF THEIR PLAN TO CHANGE THE COUNTRY INTO WHAT THEY THINK IT SHOULD BE.
The cartels would kill them.
Because they’re bad guys.
Let’s not use them as a model for our behavior.
I’m all for a less violent solution to protecting our border, if anyone has one. I do not believe in violence as any kind of objective good. But I don’t think it is a legitimate argument to say “I believe in a secure border” while rejecting the one surefire way to secure it and then offering zero alternatives that would secure the border in any meaningful way.
I’ve said this before, we can’t use a person’s past history to justify lethal force against them. That’s not how the law works. What matters is the threat that person presents to you in the moment.
1000s? Try millions! Agree with the sentiment otherwise
I’m not presenting any argument in the way we should secure the border. I’m simply opposed to murder.
I’m opposed to murder, too. I’m not opposed to defense of one’s country from foreign invasion.
We are so screwed! Pleading with deaf, dumb and blind administrators and so called elected representatives will get us killed! Right now, as we speak, we are in the process of shooting down more enemy objects in the sky over the US.
I have a strange feeling the forefathers would be reacting much differently to the current invasion!
How was the rancher supposed to know this?
If this man was imminently threatening the rancher or his family then the shot or shots were completely justifiable. If the rancher was just fed up with the situation and decided to be judge, jury and executioner that is going to be a hard thing to justify.
Though I would agree that this incident is a direct result of the past several decades of failed boarder policy.
There are no more words to be used, the Constitution were the last words!
This is equivalent to talking your way out of a home invasion ( pun intended ) or a mass shooting!
I noticed the Thomas Jefferson, he wrote all that can be written, at some point, this invasion from the ground and the air needs to stop, or all the words don’t mean squat!
FYI the Liberals and Democrats have successfully achieved their goals, we are fighting each other.
Why would the rancher assume that someone who willfully invades another nation (even if this were the first time) and then the rancher’s land wouldn’t also be willing to invade his home? Home invasions along the border are becoming incredibly common.
Not all that different from if a guy carjacks you and then you shoot him when he’s in your car about to start driving it. Since he was willing to commit the first crime in stealing your car, you are not unreasonable in assuming he’d be willing to run you over with it.