Arizona Republicans Vote Yes for Bill That Would Make It Legal to Kill Migrants Suspected of Trespassing

[robosmith]

Arizona Republicans Vote Yes for Bill That Would Make It Legal to Kill Migrants Suspected of Trespassing

Quote

How do Arizona Republicans think the border crisis should be solved? By giving people the legal right to shoot and kill undocumented immigrants via legislation that critics say will give the green light to more extrajudicial killings.

House Republicans in the border state are advancing HB2843, which declares: A person may use deadly physical force if they believe it immediately necessary to stop someone from trespassing or attempting to trespass on their property. While the bill does not include the words immigrants or migrants, as Axios notes, Representative Justin Heap, who sponsored the legislation, said in February that its intended purpose is to close a loophole that he contends has led to increasingly larger numbers of migrants or human traffickers moving across farm and ranch land. Current state law—the Castle Doctrine—allows deadly force to be used against home intruders for self-defense. Criminal defense attorney Jack Litwak told the Arizona Mirror the new law would give people much more cover, as it would allow the use of deadly force merely for appearing on one’s property. The idea with the Castle Doctrine is that you are supposed to be able to defend house and home, he said. This seems to broaden it to say you can shoot someone that’s just on your actual property.

Arguing against HB2843 last month, Democratic representative Analise Ortiz said the legislation expands the (Castle Doctrine) law in a way that I think is very dangerous, as guns continue to wreak havoc upon our communities. I do not think there is any sense in giving a green light to more extrajudicial killings. The bill was approved in the state House by a 31-28 vote. Next, it heads to the Senate. If passed there, it is expected to be vetoed by Democratic governor Katie Hobbs.

Arizona rancher George Alan Kelly is currently on trial on charges of second-degree murder (and aggravated assault) for allegedly killing Gabriel Cuen-Butimea after shooting at a group of unarmed migrants crossing his ranch. As the AZ Mirror notes, under the proposed law, Kelly could have been justified for allegedly killing any of the migrants. The outlet also notes that 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, leading researchers to conclude that the enactment of similar legislation across the country was directly related to an increase in violent and avoidable deaths. 

Jesus would not approve of killing trespassers and AZ Republicons who vote for this cannot truthfully call themselves Christian.

[Nationalist]

24 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Arizona Republicans Vote Yes for Bill That Would Make It Legal to Kill Migrants Suspected of Trespassing

Jesus would not approve of killing trespassers and AZ Republicons who vote for this cannot truthfully call themselves Christian.

Yet just yesterday you were defending the murder of a "trespasser" in The Peoples' House.

[CdnFox]

52 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Arizona Republicans Vote Yes for Bill That Would Make It Legal to Kill Migrants Suspected of Trespassing

Jesus would not approve of killing trespassers and AZ Republicons who vote for this cannot truthfully call themselves Christian.

well sounds like they'll be able to ask him personally.

[WestCanMan]

To keep this in perspective, the proposed law doesn't say that you can indiscriminately kill anyone who sets foot on your property, it says "A person may use deadly physical force if they believe it immediately necessary to stop people from trespassing...".

I'm not familiar with Arizona law, but it's not uncommon for words used in legalese to have a far more powerful effect than appears to be the case, and immediately necessary might be such a term. It doesn't sound like layman's English to me. 

When I googled it, this came up:

Quote

Non-urgent, urgent and immediately necessary treatment of overseas visitors

Immediately necessary treatment is that which a patient needs promptly:

• to save their life; or
• to prevent a condition from becoming immediately life-threatening; or
• to prevent permanent serious damage from occurring either to themselves or, in the BMA’s view, to the wider community.

In this context, immediately necessary is used to define the highest level of urgency. 

In the context of "immediately necessary to stop people from trespassing" that might specifically mean, in Az state legalese, that there's serious imminent danger perceived by the homeowner. 

For people who live in the city, where there are always lots of witnesses around, and where the cops are just a few blocks away most of the time, this might not make sense, but for anyone who's ever stayed on a farm, it's not unusual for the police to be more than half an hour away. 

If it's 1:00 am and there is a large group of people walking towards your house, and the nearest home is a mile away, surely there will be people who feel threatened by that. And why should that be a common occurrence? 

I don't think that'd good enough reason to open fire, but what if the homeowner just tells the tresspassers to steer well clear of the home but their warning goes unheeded? What if the trespassers threaten them? That kind of thing can escalate pretty quickly.

It seems pretty normal by American standards to pull out a gun at that point. We've all seen the movies where the farmer grabs the double-barrel to chase people off, and I'd never f-around and find out if it happens in real life by trespassing on some Yank's farm. 

I don't think that the bill will survive with it's current wording, but if the wording is tightened up to describe a situation where a home was being approached, or people who are out on their property are approached, I think it will get through. 

[WestCanMan]

15 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

well sounds like they'll be able to ask him personally.

Of course leftists are gonna lie, at the very least they'll lie by exaggeration, and in this case Vanity Fair is saying "legal to kill migrants suspected of trespassing" lol.

Farmer: "Well sonofagun. I thought that he was on my land! Turns out he was just in the ditch, taking a leak. Oh well, I did "suspect" that he was on my land, and that's close enough according to Vanity Fair's legal experts. I shot him 50 times." 

Edited April 12, 2024 by WestCanMan

[CdnFox]

21 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Of course leftists are gonna lie, at the very least they'll lie by exaggeration, and in this case Vanity Fair is saying "legal to kill migrants suspected of trespassing" lol.

Farmer: "Well sonofagun. I thought that he was on my land! Turns out he was just in the ditch, taking a leak. Oh well, I did "suspect" that he was on my land, and that's close enough according to Vanity Fair's legal experts. I shot him 50 times." 

They was comin' right for me! (bang!)

[WestCanMan]

13 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

They was comin' right for me! (bang!)

That sounds like it's from a Southpark episode lol.  

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Yet just yesterday you were defending the murder of a "trespasser" in The Peoples' House.

It wasn't murder. It's the difference between you killing someone that's kicking down your front door and killing someone who rings your bell.

I don't believe you're stupid enough to not understand that, so you must be just TROLLING.

Afterall, you've already copped to TROLLING HERE long ago.

Edited April 12, 2024 by robosmith

[Nationalist]

4 minutes ago, robosmith said:

It wasn't murder. It's the difference between you killing someone that's kicking down your front door and killing someone who rings your bell.

I don't believe you're stupid enough to not understand that, so you must be just TROLLING.

Afterall, you've already copped to TROLLING HERE long ago.

It was murder and you've once again proven what a hypocrite you are.!