Did you know Arizona Republicans want to let ranchers in southern Arizona legally shoot and kill undocumented immigrants who cross their land?

[goaded]

The pro-life party, everyone.

https://azmirror.com/2024/02/23/republican-bill-would-let-az-ranchers-shoot-and-kill-border-crossers-on-their-property/

"A 2022 JAMA Network study showed that “Stand Your Ground” laws were linked to an 8-11% increase in monthly rates of homicide and firearm homicide."

[BoopBoopBeep]

That's not entirely true. The AZ Mirror link still references the condition that "and the shooter feels threatened". That's a key point of legislation in castle doctrine laws across the country. I can't just shoot you because it's time to go home and the party is over. I have to be able to demonstrate, in court, that I reasonably believed I was being threatened.

Now that's not to say this isn't a dumb bill, but they're not declaring open season, and shooters who think it does are going to be enjoying lengthy stays at the expense of the state.

I also agree with @msc545 below that it clears up the ambiguity of "and" or "or" with regard to residence or land. Seems all around a generally shite written law, but having read thousands of them in my life, most of them actually are.

[goaded]

I felt threatened last Tuesday. Prove me wrong.

[BoopBoopBeep]

That's not how that law works. I don't have to prove anything. It's an affirmative defense, YOU have to prove it.

[goaded]

How should I do that, exactly? The only other person involved is lying dead with my bullet in his head. It's impossible to say someone's lying about something like that, which is why "I don't recall" is a popular way of avoiding perjury charges.

OK, after the first few...

[BoopBoopBeep]

Well if you want to claim you feel threatened then it's not my problem to tell you HOW to do it, as a member of your jury you have to find a way to demonstrate that to me. You also have to convince me that your belief was reasonable. "I shot him because he had baby corn and that shite is scary" doesn't work. You may have actually felt threatened by baby corn because you have that condition, but I'd venture most juries would still find that unreasonable. You can "not recall" all day long, but that only hurts you since there is no presumption of innocence on the grounds of an affirmative defense.

Now if you meant "how should I do that exactly?" as in, from you to me, not from the shooter to the jury member of your peers. How typically that's done is to show clear and compelling evidence that the situation was or would immediately play out such that you were in imminent peril of loss of life, limb, or eyesight. A sturdy man rushing at you with a big rock in his hand would probably do it. A bunch of people suddenly changing directions/intent of movement and descending on you in a hostile manner has done it. The "how" is really so case specific it's almost moot to go into a hypothetical how. That's why a good defense lawyer doesn't come cheap.

Now if it really is just you and one other person alone in the desert, you shoot him in the head and say it's self-defense, technically you could do that now with me or any other person, doesn't have to be illegal immigrant and argue the same thing. Boop attacked me... I had no choice. In the history of the desert have people done that and gotten away with it? I'm sure they have.

[BoopBoopBeep]

Do we go out every weekend and get rid of that f-stick that cut me off? No, either because we find that morally wrong or the risk is too scary to play FAFO in a death penalty state. Probably a bunch of reasons in between. Seems silly to say "why didn't you shoot anyone on the way to the bakery today?" but essentially it's not that far off. If you're just itching for a reason to shoot somebody in the face I'm not sure this is going to provide a great many people with an out since if you're going to lie about it, you could have lied about it last year before this law came up and say you were threatened, as you always have the affirmative right to self defense when faced with grievous bodily injury, the only difference being if you're in a duty to retreat state or not (which to my knowledge none of the border states are anyway).

"It's impossible to say someone's lying about something like that"... I agree. "Impossible" isn't the standard though, merely beyond a reasonable doubt.

And of course as with any charge there's the possibility of jury nullification to contend with. You can be legally guilty as fuck and the jury doesn't agree with the law so they just nullify the indictment all together and return a verdict of not guilty, which is there right under our system.

Crap forgot to @goaded... 2 replies

[goaded]

No need for the tag on my account, I get notifications because it's my question.

I see your point, but I can imagine a scenario where someone's determined to shoot people crossing their land and this gives them a potential "out", if they ever get caught. Like @Dargil said: "Pop Pop Pop. Nobody knew, nobody was missing and the cops never asked. Just like horse thieves in the Old West."

[BoopBoopBeep]

Oh i can imagine it for sure. Academically yeah. Practically speaking though... I don't know... I mean most people are still concerned enough with catching murder charges that they don't off people in road rage events, not sure if it would be much higher/lower to just pop somebody in a desert and be SO certain that there won't be some drone or whatnot that captured it on "film" or what have you. Even a lot of people who are convinced they could get away with murder because they're so smart and have watched every episode of 48 Hours or whatever don't... well... for lack of a better way to phrase it... don't have the balls to go out and pop somebody to find out.

They have a potential out, but potential enough to convince a jury? I mean... that always depends on the jury really, which is why jury consultants make so much bank.

[goaded]

Apparently the system sometimes works www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68450159 but laws like this encourage people to shoot first.

[BoopBoopBeep]

win one for the good guys

[Flatmanlewis]

The way I read this does not allow the indiscriminate use of deadly force but rather removes the obligation for the land owner to have to retreat or the dual legal requirement for a person to be on their property in addition to being in their home.

[goaded]

Exactly. They will be entitled to shoot and kill anyone on their property. Isn't that what I said? All you have to do is lie about being scared by the unarmed people and you can get away with mass murder.

People breaking into your home when you're miles away from anywhere are a threat, people walking across your land just leave footprints. Why not just alert the authorities about where they are and which direction they're going?

[Flatmanlewis]

That is what you said but that’s not how I’m reading it. It seems to change the obligation to only be in your home, and not have to retreat. I see no indication that the threshold of using deadly force is reduced to trespassing alone.

[msc545]

The existing threshold for the use of deadly force in the existence of Castle laws is simply the need to feel threatened, which is not externally measurable. In other words, as my friend said above, all you need to do is lie about feeling threatened and it is legal to kill a person who is walking on dirt that belongs to you.

[goaded]

Just a minute. I think @Flatmanlewis has a point, but the current law already allows you to shoot people walking across your land, as long as you're willing to lie about being afraid. This really is simply an expansion of that law.

"13-407. Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises

A. A person or his agent in lawful possession or control of premises is justified in threatening to use deadly physical force or in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent that a reasonable person would believe it immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon the premises.

B. A person may use deadly physical force under subsection A only in the defense of himself or third persons as described in sections 13-405 and 13-406.

C. In this section, "premises" means any real property and any structure, movable or immovable, permanent or temporary, adapted for both human residence and lodging whether occupied or not. "

https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/00407.htm

Criminal tresspass (the above doesn't specify what degree, so even third degree counts) includes:

"1. Knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully on any real property after a reasonable request to leave by a law enforcement officer, the owner or any other person having lawful control over such property, or reasonable notice prohibiting entry."
https://azleg.gov/ars/13/01502.htm

So, put up a "No Trespassing" sign and lie about feeling scared and you can legally shoot some people. Nice!

[msc545]

ok - Does "real property" mean land as well as a structure given this:

In this section, "premises" means any real property and any structure, movable or immovable, permanent or temporary, adapted for both human residence and lodging whether occupied or not. "

[msc545]

Just checked the definition - I guess it does.

[goaded]

@msc545 I think so, like "real estate". The lawmakers are simply ensuring that people will get away with it. Not that any Arizona judge wouldn't go along with the clear intent of the law.

[msc545]

True. What will they do next? this may exhaust the political points they get.

[Flatmanlewis]

Subsection B clearly states self-defense is part of the criteria. I’ve spent a lot of time in courtrooms and it’s usually a little more complex than simply saying “I was afraid”. Make no mistake, the court system is highly flawed but I still read this as a no-need to retreat and self-defense issue, not carte Blanche to kill anybody who steps on your property.

[msc545]

I think in most US courts "I was afraid" if you are a woman is sufficient.

[msc545]

I just read this. There is a resolution of an ambiguity in the existing law that says that a person must be both on your land and in your house simultaneously in order for you to legally shoot them. The new proposed law says the person can be in your house or on your land and you can legally shoot them.

The new proposed law is. Just an excuse that allows ranchers or others to shoot anyone that is simply on their property Man's not even threatening them in any way.

This is just another proposed law pandering to the gun lobby and pandering to Donald Trump.

[Dargil]

Good idea. And out in the bush, they have been doing to for years. One guy I knew (still do) had a classic sports car and criminal alien tried to seal it. Pop Pop Pop. Nobody knew, nobody was missing and the cops never asked. Just like horse thieves in the Old West.

[goaded]

Did you just admit to failing to report a murder? I think you did. You know that's a crime, right?

[Dargil]

Hearsay only.

[Friendlybro79]

This is what these monster Gop pro lifers mean by Pro life : Pro controlling women's lives and their unborn child and when you're born put on your bullet proof vests because we ain't protecting you. Immigrants you're not like us, you're not even human so you don't count.

[FreyaRed]

When this law comes I will marry some Arizona guy with huge bolt action rifle collection...
I'm just kidding, we have a border either and confusing an illegal with a boar can always happen.

[laly520]

oh yes
so predictable n suitable for mass murders to come

[disgustingweebtrash]

Good. Same if a citizen treads on your land you should be entitled to defend it. Even more so for someone whom is not of that nation. Scrutinizing people who defend their land and family is just plain weird.

[msc545]

Yes, because we all know that walking on someone else's dirt ruins the dirt and they should have the right to shoot you because you walked on their dirt.

[Flatmanlewis]

I do think the border crisis is more than just people walking on dirt. I don’t live there but the two dudes I’ve known who lived on the Texas border tell some pretty wild stories.

[goaded]

@Flatmanlewis But walking across someone's land is not a deadly threat.

[msc545]

I live in California in Los Angeles right now, but I've lived down near San Diego and the border as well. I still go down there often. The biggest border crisis is the lack of illegal immigrant labor which is creating a problem with harvesting crops in the central valley of California. The big agricultural interests don't want to pay. Agricultural workers a living wage as defined here in California and therefore routinely hire only illegal immigrants to pick their crops. Except there are very few these days because most of them are scared as hell to come anywhere near the border. Thanks to the right wing in this country. Since most of the area where crops are grown is owned by right wing corporations. This sets up a rather interesting dynamic.

[msc545]

Don't blame me when your lunch salad costs 25 or 30 bucks.

[disgustingweebtrash]

@msc545 Its ironic that the left turns into free market supporters when it comes to illegals. On that note we should also bring back slavery. Could you imagine how cheap lunch salads would be with free labour instead of cheap labour?

[msc545]

I'm not sure that the left is supporting the free market all that much. It's more like the influx of illegal immigrants supports the free market for a time during harvest, but when harvest is over the employers of those illegally aliens would just as soon see them go back to wherever they came from until the next harvest. What would be even better according to the owners of these crops and lands would be a return to slavery because that would reduce their labor costs very significantly even if they did have to house and feed the slaves.

[disgustingweebtrash]

@msc545 it's ironic you claim to not support the free market but then use free market talking points to encourage illegal migration, it's nothing but intellectual dishonesty. Yes right wing corpos benefit from illegal migration because they can pay below belt due to the citizenship nature of illegals. But in reality both the company should not be allowed to profit off illegals and the illegal should not be there. If salads cost 25-30 dollars then let Americans eat cake

[msc545]

I'm not encouraging illegal migration, but the agricultural corporations certainly are although they are very reluctant to publicize this. It is technically illegal to employ somebody who is an illegal alien, but the law is rarely if ever enforced by the government which is quite aware of where the tax dollars come from in the state, not to mention the political power.

[Juxtapose]

Good! So long as property owners put up signs that make it very clear what they're going to do if you trespass I am all for it.

Fuck around and find out.

[Juxtapose]

By the way I know people in Germany and they have told me about how abhorrent your defense laws are. They told me that even having a baseball bat near your bed and using it to defend yourself would lead to the judge saying you were too eager and too prepared for that to happen.

[goaded]

law.stackexchange.com/.../is-deadly-self-defense-in-germany-legal

[Juxtapose]

So? What is written down and what is actually enforced are two different things in every single country in existence.

[Juxtapose]

Just because America has for example a law where you have to have police get a warrant before busting into your home? Police can come in and tell you to go fuck yourself.

My roommate had that happen to him.

[JacobJordan]

Good. More states need to pick up policies like this so people can't trespass with no consequences

[Berethor]

Good, the less illegal migrants there is the better, ranchers can help protect the border.

[msc545]

And who exactly do you think is going to pick the crops now?

[Berethor]

Legal workers will do that, lefists love to be dependent on illegal migrants, for votes too.

[msc545]

Here's a big problem with that. Experience has shown that white people will not pick crops for any wages. Also, the companies that own the fields and thus own the crops will not pay wages at the level sufficient to attract white workers. You can also substitute legal for the word white in this post with the same effect. Therefore, in order to have crops picked at a sustainable economic level, the workers need to be illegal immigrants. They are the only people that can be abused with low wages without fear of legal retribution in most cases.

[exitseven]

If this was done 3 years ago Laken Riley might still be alive today.

[gorydetails]

Sounds like a reasonable exercise of the right to self defense.

[Drewtate]

Trespassers will be shot