Arizona Republicans declare "open season" on migrants

[Bob78164]

An Arizona House committee has advanced a bill that would allow landowners legally to shoot and kill anyone crossing their property without permission. Even if the property is thousands of acres and the people are nowhere near any buildings. The bill, if enacted, is expected to authorize the murder of dozens of migrants each year.

Silly me. I thought human life was more precious than property rights. I guess I'm just behind the times. --Bob

[Beebs52]

I'm thinking if warnings to exit, remove, etc should be required. A bit extreme. Tho does the castle doctrine have caveats?

[flockofseagulls104]

An Arizona House committee has advanced a bill that would allow landowners legally to shoot and kill anyone crossing their property without permission. Even if the property is thousands of acres and the people are nowhere near any buildings. The bill, if enacted, is expected to authorize the murder of dozens of migrants each year.

Silly me. I thought human life was more precious than property rights. I guess I'm just behind the times. --Bob

Yes, silly you. To try and prevent one of doc's famous extrapolations, I do not agree with this bill. But if the border was closed and enforced as it should be, this would not even be considered. Unintended consequences to leftist lawlessness.

[jarnon]

What the amendment (and the laws that it refers to) actually says is that the killer must reasonably believe that heʻs protecting his own or someone elseʻs life (not property). Now if the trespassers are close enough to be shot, theyʻre close enough to shoot the homeowner, and itʻs hard for the prosecution to prove that the killer knew the intruders were unarmed, so this amendment makes murder convictions much more difficult. Still, it doesnʻt permit killing any trespasser.

[flockofseagulls104]

What the amendment (and the laws that it refers to) actually says is that the killer must reasonably believe that heʻs protecting his own or someone elseʻs life (not property). Now if the trespassers are close enough to be shot, theyʻre close enough to shoot the homeowner, and itʻs hard for the prosecution to prove that the killer knew the intruders were unarmed, so this amendment makes murder convictions much more difficult. Still, it doesnʻt permit killing any trespasser.

Don't bother to point out any specifics. To booby and company, it's 'Open Season'. Nothing anyone else says will make a dent. That is now the official narrative and cannot be strayed from. Just watch. Either more excuses, some ubiquitous personal attacks, a link or two to one of their 'experts', cries of racism or some other ism, or they will move on to another of their narrative topics.

[Beebs52]

What the amendment (and the laws that it refers to) actually says is that the killer must reasonably believe that heʻs protecting his own or someone elseʻs life (not property). Now if the trespassers are close enough to be shot, theyʻre close enough to shoot the homeowner, and itʻs hard for the prosecution to prove that the killer knew the intruders were unarmed, so this amendment makes murder convictions much more difficult. Still, it doesnʻt permit killing any trespasser.

Don't bother to point out any specifics. To booby and company, it's 'Open Season'. Nothing anyone else says will make a dent. That is now the official narrative and cannot be strayed from. Just watch. Either more excuses, some ubiquitous personal attacks, a link or two to one of their 'experts', cries of racism or some other ism, or they will move on to another of their narrative topics.

Hold on Flock. I axed an actual question and got an answer.

[flockofseagulls104]

What the amendment (and the laws that it refers to) actually says is that the killer must reasonably believe that heʻs protecting his own or someone elseʻs life (not property). Now if the trespassers are close enough to be shot, theyʻre close enough to shoot the homeowner, and itʻs hard for the prosecution to prove that the killer knew the intruders were unarmed, so this amendment makes murder convictions much more difficult. Still, it doesnʻt permit killing any trespasser.

Don't bother to point out any specifics. To booby and company, it's 'Open Season'. Nothing anyone else says will make a dent. That is now the official narrative and cannot be strayed from. Just watch. Either more excuses, some ubiquitous personal attacks, a link or two to one of their 'experts', cries of racism or some other ism, or they will move on to another of their narrative topics.

Hold on Flock. I axed an actual question and got an answer.

Sorry. Not used to actual answers here.

[Bob78164]

What the amendment (and the laws that it refers to) actually says is that the killer must reasonably believe that heʻs protecting his own or someone elseʻs life (not property). Now if the trespassers are close enough to be shot, theyʻre close enough to shoot the homeowner, and itʻs hard for the prosecution to prove that the killer knew the intruders were unarmed, so this amendment makes murder convictions much more difficult. Still, it doesnʻt permit killing any trespasser.

Of course, the way this will play out is people will go out armed, shoot first, ask questions later, and then claim they reasonably believed the people they were stalking were about to use force against them. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

What the amendment (and the laws that it refers to) actually says is that the killer must reasonably believe that heʻs protecting his own or someone elseʻs life (not property). Now if the trespassers are close enough to be shot, theyʻre close enough to shoot the homeowner, and itʻs hard for the prosecution to prove that the killer knew the intruders were unarmed, so this amendment makes murder convictions much more difficult. Still, it doesnʻt permit killing any trespasser.

Of course, the way this will play out is people will go out armed, shoot first, ask questions later, and then claim they reasonably believed the people they were stalking were about to use force against them. --Bob

Bingo. Excuses based on his biases.

[BackInTex]

What the amendment (and the laws that it refers to) actually says is that the killer must reasonably believe that heʻs protecting his own or someone elseʻs life (not property). Now if the trespassers are close enough to be shot, theyʻre close enough to shoot the homeowner, and itʻs hard for the prosecution to prove that the killer knew the intruders were unarmed, so this amendment makes murder convictions much more difficult. Still, it doesnʻt permit killing any trespasser.

Of course, the way this will play out is people will go out armed, shoot first, ask questions later, and then claim they reasonably believed the people they were stalking were about to use force against them. --Bob

Wasn't this supposed to happen already in Texas when we adopted Constitutional Carry. It hasn't by the way.

[Weyoun]

What the amendment (and the laws that it refers to) actually says is that the killer must reasonably believe that heʻs protecting his own or someone elseʻs life (not property). Now if the trespassers are close enough to be shot, theyʻre close enough to shoot the homeowner, and itʻs hard for the prosecution to prove that the killer knew the intruders were unarmed, so this amendment makes murder convictions much more difficult. Still, it doesnʻt permit killing any trespasser.

Of course, the way this will play out is people will go out armed, shoot first, ask questions later, and then claim they reasonably believed the people they were stalking were about to use force against them. --Bob

Wasn't this supposed to happen already in Texas when we adopted Constitutional Carry. It hasn't by the way.

Folks are too busy shooting school children

[Pastor Fireball]

Of course, the way this will play out is people will go out armed, shoot first, ask questions later, and then claim they reasonably believed the people they were stalking were about to use force against them. --Bob

Wasn't this supposed to happen already in Texas when we adopted Constitutional Carry. It hasn't by the way.

Folks are too busy shooting school children

But thank God they aren't shooting school embryos, right?

[tlynn78]

Wasn't this supposed to happen already in Texas when we adopted Constitutional Carry. It hasn't by the way.

Folks are too busy shooting school children

But thank God they aren't shooting school embryos, right?

Don't worry, padre, there's still plenty of places one can rip a baby from it's mother's womb piece by piece.

[Beebs52]

Nah, there are also knives
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnew ... -death.amp
and I'm sure a LEGALLY procured gun
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.co ... index.html

[Beebs52]

Of course, the way this will play out is people will go out armed, shoot first, ask questions later, and then claim they reasonably believed the people they were stalking were about to use force against them. --Bob

Wasn't this supposed to happen already in Texas when we adopted Constitutional Carry. It hasn't by the way.

Folks are too busy shooting school children

Apparently you don't believe psychopathy, bad parenting, etc contribute to, well, undesirable results. Or actual enforcement of existing laws. Cite statistics for your condemnation of just Texas.

[jarnon]

No need to change the law when the prosecutor is incapable of enforcing the existing law.

State prosecutors won't retry 75-year-old Arizona rancher accused of fatally shooting unarmed migrant

[tlynn78]

No need to change the law when the prosecutor is incapable of enforcing the existing law.

State prosecutors won't retry 75-year-old Arizona rancher accused of fatally shooting unarmed migrant

Gee, I wonder where they got that notion?

[flockofseagulls104]

No need to change the law when the prosecutor is incapable of enforcing the existing law.

State prosecutors won't retry 75-year-old Arizona rancher accused of fatally shooting unarmed migrant

Perhaps he was too mentally confused and they would never get a conviction. Or maybe he didn't really mean any harm. Both valid excuses for getting away with actual crimes these days. If you're a high ranking democrat.

[wbtravis007]

No need to change the law when the prosecutor is incapable of enforcing the existing law.

State prosecutors won't retry 75-year-old Arizona rancher accused of fatally shooting unarmed migrant

Perhaps he was too mentally confused and they would never get a conviction. Or maybe he didn't really mean any harm. Both valid excuses for getting away with actual crimes these days. If you're a high ranking democrat.

I’m curious about what your friend who lives in South Texas thinks about this.