Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 1/25/2006 7:07:35 AM EDT
Mexico issues border ban

Web Posted: 01/25/2006 12:00 AM CST

Mariano Castillo

Express-News Border Bureau

A day after as many as 20 armed men in military fatigues crossed the
Rio Grande into Texas before being chased back by U.S. authorities,
the Mexican government ordered its troops not to come within 2
kilometers of the border.

While the Mexican Foreign Affairs Ministry and Defense Ministry
denied their military had a role in providing protection for Monday's
marijuana smuggling operation into Hudspeth County, the government
said its military wouldn't be permitted in the border zone without
authorization.

The face-off along the Rio Grande between the drug smugglers and U.S.
law enforcement officials came just days after Mexican and U.S.
officials downplayed news reports that U.S. Border Patrol agents have
occasionally seen what appear to be Mexican army units in the United
States.

"If it rattles like a snake and looks like a snake, it's probably a
damn snake," Hudspeth County Sheriff Arvin West said. "There's no
doubt it's Mexican military."

The encounter happened at about 2 p.m. east of the town of Fort Hancock.

Sheriff's deputies, later joined by DPS troopers and Border Patrol
agents, spotted and tried to stop three sport utility vehicles, which
fled toward the border.

A Cadillac Escalade in the convoy blew a tire and its driver fled,
West said. Authorities found 1,475 pounds of marijuana inside the
vehicle.

The two remaining SUVs made it to a spot known as Neely's Crossing,
about 15 miles downstream from Fort Hancock, West said.

There they met a military-style Humvee on the U.S. side, armed with a
heavy machine gun, which quickly crossed the shallow water into
Mexico, deputies reported.

A Toyota 4Runner made it across the river, but a Ford Expedition that
followed it got stuck.

"It was on their side of the river, so we just sat there and watched
them," West said.

What they saw was uniformed men guarding the vehicles with automatic
weapons.

After three failed tries to tow the stuck Expedition with the Humvee,
men in civilian clothing unloaded what looked like bundles of
marijuana and set the SUV ablaze, West said.

All the U.S. authorities could do was take photos, which West said
was evidence that military or pseudo-military crossings do occur.

"The government of Mexico denies entirely that this incident involved
the Mexican military," said the Foreign Ministry statement, issued
Tuesday. "It was done by organized crime, including drug traffickers
who are known to use military clothing and equipment."

The Mexican Defense Ministry said it has begun an investigation but
"there were no Humvees assigned to the fort at Ciudad Juárez with the
type of weaponry" mentioned by U.S. authorities.

Gov. Rick Perry asked Steve McCraw, his director for homeland
security, to investigate the matter, according to the governor's office.

"This incident is a troubling reminder that criminal organizations do
indeed smuggle drugs across our border and we need to continue to
focus our law enforcement efforts on stopping it," Perry spokeswoman
Rachael Novier said.

The Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, of Ontario, Calif., touched off
controversy last week by citing what it said were U.S. Homeland
Security Department figures showing Border Patrol agents reported
spotting what appeared to be Mexican soldiers on U.S. soil 216 times
since 1996.

Homeland security officials said the claims were overblown.

"When you see someone in green military-style uniform and a green
Humvee protecting what appears to be a load of narcotics, and the
individuals in uniform flank that vehicle to the left and the right,
it makes you wonder who they are," said Rick Glancey, the interim
executive director of the Texas Border Sheriffs Coalition.

"I think the United States government should demand an answer from
Mexico as to what was going on in Hudspeth County," he said.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 7:09:05 AM EDT
Sweet, a DMZ!
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 7:18:26 AM EDT
Consulate says Mexican troops not in standoff

Tammy Fonce-Olivas

The Mexican government will not allow its soldiers within 3.2 miles of the U.S.-Mexican border as a result of a standoff Monday near Sierra Blanca between Texas law enforcement officers and men dressed in military uniforms.

Juan Carlos Foncerrada Berumen, the Mexican consul general in El Paso, said Tuesday the men who faced off with the Texas officers were not Mexican soldiers.

He said Mexican military uniforms may have been used Monday to confuse "public opinion" and damage relations between the two countries.

"We totally reject any assumption that pretends to involve the Mexican Army in this incident," Foncerrada Berumen said.

In response to Monday's incident, the Mexican government has ordered its military to create an alert zone, extending 3.2 miles from the border, and not to allow soldiers in the alert zone unless they have authorization, Foncerrada Berumen said.

Three Hudspeth County sheriff's deputies were confronted by the men in military uniforms on Monday when a chase of three suspicious SUVs led them toward the Rio Grande about eight miles east of the Fort Hancock port of entry, Hudspeth County Sheriff Arvin West said Tuesday.

"This is an issue that concerns me tremendously. I'm worried for these guys --for their safety," West said.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry ordered an investigation.

"It's certainly troubling and unacceptable and a real reminder of how an unsecure border threatens all Texans and the rest of the nation," Perry spokeswoman Kathy Walt said.

West said he and 11 officers are responsible for patrolling 525 square miles. He said his office needs more manpower, as does the Border Patrol, to battle drug smugglers who frequently try to bring illegal drugs through the U.S.-Mexico border in Hudspeth.

The deputies were on patrol at about 2 p.m. when they along with a state trooper began chasing vehicles they suspected were carrying illegal drugs.

The more than 12-mile chase began on Interstate 10 and ended at the river near Highway 34.

No shots were fired and nobody was injured, West said.

West and Rick Glancey, interim executive director of the Texas Border Sheriff's Coalition, said that when the officers were approaching the Rio Grande they saw a green military-style Humvee on the U.S. side of the border. Inside the Humvee were several men, who appeared to be Mexican soldiers.

The Humvee made its way back to Mexico as two of the SUVs tried to cross the river, which is about 16 feet wide in that area.

One of the SUVs made it safely across the border; another of the SUVs got stuck in about 3 feet of water. The third SUV, carrying 1,400 pounds of marijuana, was left behind because of a flat tire. The occupants of this vehicle fled across the river.

The vehicle in the river was set ablaze by the men in military uniforms after approximately 10 men in civilian clothing unloaded what appeared to be bundles of drugs from the SUV, officials said.

While the SUV was being unloaded, the men in military uniforms pointed their automatic weapons at the deputies and the other Texas law enforcement officers, West said

More than six law enforcement officers, including Border Patrol agents, responded to the scene, officials said.

West said his office cannot say with any certainty that the men wearing military uniforms were members of the Mexican military.

However, officers responding to the scene managed to take photographs of the SUV in the water being unloaded and of the Humvee.

In November, the Hudspeth sheriff's department reported a similar incident involving what appeared to be soldiers from Mexico. Whether the men on the Mexican side of the border were soldiers from the Mexican military remains in dispute.

Sierra Blanca is about 90 miles east of El Paso, but the Hudspeth County line is about 10 miles from Fabens in El Paso County.

Glancey said Monday's incident shows the need to increase law enforcement manpower along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Glancey, also the El Paso County Sheriff's Office spokesman, said the El Paso Sheriff's Office is concerned about Monday's incident, because the same problem "could arise in El Paso."

"It's imperative that we communicate with one another because we feel things are getting a little bit out of hand in terms of how things are operating along the border. This was a very dangerous situation and we are very, very fortunate that we have men and women from the Hudspeth County Sheriff's Office that went home alive," he said.



Border incident sparks outrage

DAVID McLEMORE

A West Texas standoff along the Rio Grande between U.S. law enforcement officers and heavily armed Mexican drug smugglers in military-style clothing prompted congressional demands Tuesday for an international investigation and a call for deployment of U.S. troops to the border.

The incident, which occurred Monday on U.S. soil at an isolated river crossing about 50 miles east of El Paso, is the latest involving armed incursions along the U.S. border with Mexico.

And it comes less than a week after Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff called a California newspaper's account of such border incursions "overblown."

The incident Monday involved an encounter between two Hudspeth County Sheriff's Department deputies and three Department of Public Safety troopers and 10 heavily armed drug smugglers at an area about 50 miles down the river from El Paso.

A spokesman for Mexico's Foreign Ministry said Mexican military personnel had nothing to do with the incident and suggested the trespassers may have been drug traffickers wearing military-style gear.
The incident began on Interstate 10 near the Sierra Blanca checkpoint when DPS troopers began chasing three westbound SUVs believed to be carrying marijuana.

When the SUV drivers saw that they were being followed, they made a U-turn and headed south toward the river to an area known as Neely's Crossing, said Rick Glancey, executive director of the Texas Border Sheriffs Coalition.

At the crossing, one of the SUVs drove across the shallow river into Mexico. A second one got stuck in the muddy banks. And as the Texas deputies watched, a military-style Humvee attempted to pull it from the mud, while several armed men in green uniforms fanned out around it, Mr. Glancey said.

When the Humvee failed to extricate the truck, a group of men in civilian clothes walked into the ankle-deep river, removed what appeared to be bales of marijuana and hauled them to the Mexican side. They then set the truck, a Ford Expedition, ablaze.

The third vehicle, a Cadillac Escalade, was abandoned on the U.S. side with a flat tire as the driver escaped on foot. Deputies found 1,447 pounds of marijuana inside.

"What this latest incidence underscores is the necessity of increased support for local law enforcement to aid improving our border security," said Mr. Glancey. "If this doesn't open D.C.'s eyes, I don't know what will."

Inquiry launched

Monday's incident was not the first face-to-face confrontation for Hudspeth County deputies. In November, deputies responded to assist Border Patrol agents at the border town of Fort Hancock where they encountered six men in military uniforms attempting to carry a load of marijuana over the river.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials said Tuesday they have launched an inquiry into the Monday incident and asked Mexican authorities for a thorough investigation and full answer on what happened.

Customs "is coordinating closely with the appropriate federal, state and local authorities," said Kristi Clemens, Customs' assistant commissioner for public affairs. "The U.S. government is also discussing the matter with the government of Mexico and is asking for a thorough investigation and response. We take very seriously and investigate fully any alleged incident of criminal activity, threats against our agents or possible incursions."

Gov. Rick Perry also has ordered an investigation, spokeswoman Kathy Walt said.

U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., a frequent critic of the administration's border security efforts, called Tuesday for the federal government and the governments of southern border states to immediately deploy troops to the U.S.-Mexico border in light of what he termed "recent armed assistance Mexico's military has given to drug smugglers."

"Our border has literally turned into a war zone with foreign military personnel challenging our laws and our sovereignty," Mr. Tancredo said.

"The only way to deal with this dangerous situation is to tap the resources of our own military," Mr. Tancredo said. "I call on President Bush and the governors of border states to immediately deploy military personnel to defend our borders against the Mexican military."

U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security, called on Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice to initiate a formal investigation on the reported border crossings and to begin a dialogue with Mexican officials to prevent further occurrences.

"These illegal incursions are a violation of our sovereignty and pose a significant danger to U.S. law enforcement officials and citizens near the border – especially if all parties involved are armed. The potential for violence is significant.

Mr. Kyl noted that the Department of Homeland Security released figures that indicate that there have been 231 documented incursions along the 2,000-mile border with Mexico since 1996.

Of those, 63 in that nine-year period occurred in Arizona and 28 occurred along the Texas border, according to Homeland Security.

In each instance, U.S. agents at the local level asked Mexican federal police and army officials to clarify what happened.

Border forays

Many included accidental forays by legitimate Mexican authorities across a poorly defined border in rough and isolated country while in pursuit of drug dealers. The Texas-Mexico border, however, is delineated by the Rio Grande River.

Investigators have long documented that Mexican drug gangs often wear camouflage clothing and carry military-style automatic weapons.

But Tuesday's request for a Mexican government response significantly ups the ante, federal officials said.

In Mexico, officials said the National Defense Ministry has begun an investigation of the incident and launched a search for the vehicles identified by photographs taken by Hudspeth County deputies.
Hudspeth County Chief Deputy Mike Doyal said that men dressed as Mexican soldiers manned what looked like .50-caliber machine guns mounted on vehicles about 200 yards inside the U.S. border during the incident.

In Mexico, a ministry spokesman said that the Army's Ciudad Juarez garrison does not maintain Humvees with mounted .50-caliber machine guns.

"It cannot be ruled out that said actions are designed as much to harm the image of our armed forces as the bilateral cooperation between Mexico and the United States in the fight against organized crime and, in particular, narcotrafficking," a foreign ministry spokesman said.

Link Posted: 1/25/2006 7:53:05 AM EDT
Well, the easy way to see if they're really Mexican military is to kill them and get their ID.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 7:54:41 AM EDT
The gov. needs to activate the air national guard and get some air and drones with night vision in there and check it out .

The ''comancheros'' will probably start running night ops any time now with the heat on.

Thing is, the shitbird drug runners have probably been getting away with this shit with impunity for at least the last twenty-five years.

Next tme they cross I hope they don't open fire on a trooper or a BP agent..

But if they do that should get the ball rolling and then our people may just get standing orders to engage the bastards with TOWS or hellfires.

Well I guess there's always hope.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 7:58:06 AM EDT
"This time we're not lying"

So when they pull their non-drug smuggling military 2km away from the border, who is going to police their border? Yeah, no one will be policing the Mexican side of the border - it will be totally wide open for the real drug smugglers to operate.

Good work Vicente, good work Jorge. See ya at the ballot box.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 8:04:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Tonkaman:
"This time we're not lying"

So when they pull their non-drug smuggling military 2km away from the border, who is going to police their border? Yeah, no one will be policing the Mexican side of the border - it will be totally wide open for the real drug smugglers to operate.

Good work Vicente, good work Jorge. See ya at the ballot box.



Jorge won't be running for anything. Sorry.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 8:30:53 AM EDT
Jorge won't be running but he it the leader of the Republican Party and represents all those Republicans in power who have ignored border security. Their jobs will not be safe when challenged by a Republican who will promote border security.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 8:44:59 AM EDT
Well, since the Mexican government officially and vehemently denies that those involved are Mexican Military, it shouldn't cause any "outrage" if the next crossing by these imposters is met with an Apache or M1A2 Abrams.

We need to start lighting these guys up and I am quite certain there are enough folks in Texas willing to do the job.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 9:12:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Tonkaman:
Jorge won't be running but he it the leader of the Republican Party and represents all those Republicans in power who have ignored border security. Their jobs will not be safe when challenged by a Republican Patriot who will promote border security.



fixed it for ya, don't see anyone else in the republican party falling over themselves to do shit about it.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 9:21:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Fourays2:

Originally Posted By Tonkaman:
Jorge won't be running but he it the leader of the Republican Party and represents all those Republicans in power who have ignored border security. Their jobs will not be safe when challenged by a Republican Patriot who will promote border security.



fixed it for ya, don't see anyone else in the republican party falling over themselves to do shit about it.



You are 100% right. El Jorge has dictated to all Republicans: Leave mi amigos alone.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 9:29:58 AM EDT
Is there a difference? Logic tells me that something this blantant and wrong must have high level backers on BOTH sides of the border. Follow the money.

"The government of Mexico denies entirely that this incident involved
the Mexican military," said the Foreign Ministry statement, issued
Tuesday. "It was done by organized crime, including drug traffickers
who are known to use military clothing and equipment."
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 9:41:43 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 9:44:04 AM EDT
Americans Are Suckers
Mexican AP News
Manuel Labour

A day after as many as 20 armed Mexican Soldiers crossed the Rio Grande into Texas before being chased back by U.S. authorities, the Mexican government ordered its troops not to come within 2 kilometers of the border, unless they could smuggle the drugs through without being seen.

Vincente Fox and the Mexican Defense Ministry tried to state with straight faces that this incident never happened, and if in fact it did it was really Haitians masquerading as Mexican Soldiers who did it.

At a later meeting, Mexican Governmental Officials were overheard stating "Americans are suckers...." and that President Fox would just call his friend, George Bush, to smooth over matters.


Link Posted: 1/25/2006 9:46:00 AM EDT
Knob Creek needs to move to the border and occur about twice a week. Better make sure there's a backstop so nobody wandering around in the dark has an accident during the night shoot too.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 9:46:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Tonkaman:
"This time we're not lying"

So when they pull their non-drug smuggling military 2km away from the border, who is going to police their border? Yeah, no one will be policing the Mexican side of the border - it will be totally wide open for the real drug smugglers to operate.

Good work Vicente, good work Jorge. See ya at the ballot box.

Excuse me but there is NO difference between the non-drug smuggling and drug smuggling mexican military. Because there is no non-drug smuggling mexican military. I'll say this loud and clear...the ENTIRE govt. of mexico is CORRUPT!!! Top to bottom. If you don't realize this then pull your head out of the sand and take a look around.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 1:46:46 PM EDT

a close examination shows that the total annual costs of the drug war
probably exceed $50 billion. State and local governments contributed $15.9 ...
www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99/n667/a01.html



If we are in a "War on Drugs" and collectively wasting spending $50 billion a year and we ain't shooting back...

We aren't getting our money's worth.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 2:03:37 PM EDT
It cannot be ruled out that said actions are designed as much to harm the image of our armed forces as the bilateral cooperation between Mexico and the United States in the fight against organized crime and, in particular, narcotrafficking," a foreign ministry spokesman said.

Oh please. Give me a break. Is there anybody in the Gov. thats willing to states things as they really are?
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 8:38:36 PM EDT
On the bright side, this may be the spark to really fire off a lot of our folks to send WTF letters to their Congresscritters and the standard Dem milksop answer and the not much better GOP answer isn't going to work. Now Congress has elections this year, you think they want to appear soft on this in front of everybody?

You think Vicente Fox is happy about the map fiasco and this happening in the same week. He's trying to get the US to help him out and his underlings are apparently trying to piss off everybody in the US. This may even cause some cleanup off the border problems for a while. At least a week or two.

It's going to force both governments to do things they really don't want to do.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 8:44:40 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 8:53:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Paul:
From the sounds of this this area is a very well known and busy crossing area. I would think that some local citizens might just take offense to this trespassing and shoot those people on the spot. I've been told that after dark all personnel are fair game in the state of Texas - or paint a series of purple (IIRC?) stripes on the poles and shoot them in the day for trespassing. Or do illegals have special permission to trespass?



Well according to tc556guy in the thread I posted earlier about this same topic illegal border crossers have the same rights as US citizens so I am confused now


Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Everyone has rights, whether they are citizens or not. You can't say that its ok to use a certain tool on non-citizens but not citizens.



Link Posted: 1/25/2006 8:59:53 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 9:03:19 PM EDT
Would anyone be real upset if say Mexico vaporized? Maybe some acidental nukeage.....just a thought,


Let come over here to LA, IM waiting
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 9:12:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/25/2006 9:13:21 PM EDT by pointtarget]
Here is Texas law on that.
§ 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A
person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.31;
(2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation
would not have retreated; and
(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect himself against the other's use or
attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not
apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time
of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the
habitation of the actor.



§ 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified
in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third
person if:
(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably
believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31
or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against
the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes
to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
(2) the actor reasonably believes that his
intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.


§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,
under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the
actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force
or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


Link Posted: 1/25/2006 9:20:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By -Duke-Nukem-:
The Mexican military has never crossed the border into the US covertly. This is the official position of their elected government.

The US military never crossed the border into Cambodia or Laos covertly either. This was the offical position of our elected government as well.

Maybe it should be the official position of the government of Texas that drug smuggling scumbags bringing addiction and death to our children are never shot dead wherever they are found and left to the buzzards and dogs.



A - F'n - men!
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 9:25:48 PM EDT
Chuck Norris, Texas Ranger would have drawn down...
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 9:26:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/25/2006 9:27:13 PM EDT by 22bad]

Originally Posted By Paul:

Originally Posted By LANCEMAN:
Well according to tc556guy in the thread I posted earlier about this same topic illegal border crossers have the same rights as US citizens so I am confused now



So that means Texans can shoot them without a single legal problem. Right?



Shooting someone generally means SOME sort of legal problem, in todays world anyway..........

You can shoot them if they are stealing stuff at night from private property.......at least that is what I believe the law says

Most rational people probably don't want to shoot someone for stealing hamburger, jeans and a beer

OTOH most rational people wonder why illegals have MORE rights than US Citizens
fake ID, no problem
evade income tax, no problem
drive without insurance, no problem
drive without drivers license, no problem
work without social security number, no problem
spread communicable diseases, no problem
ect, ect, ect, ect, ect, ect, no problem
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 10:02:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 22bad:

Originally Posted By Paul:

Originally Posted By LANCEMAN:
Well according to tc556guy in the thread I posted earlier about this same topic illegal border crossers have the same rights as US citizens so I am confused now



So that means Texans can shoot them without a single legal problem. Right?



Shooting someone generally means SOME sort of legal problem, in todays world anyway..........

You can shoot them if they are stealing stuff at night from private property.......at least that is what I believe the law says

Most rational people probably don't want to shoot someone for stealing hamburger, jeans and a beer

OTOH most rational people wonder why illegals have MORE rights than US Citizens
fake ID, no problem
evade income tax, no problem
drive without insurance, no problem
drive without drivers license, no problem
work without social security number, no problem
spread communicable diseases, no problem
ect, ect, ect, ect, ect, ect, no problem



Rational people maybe, but we're talking Texans here! Yee Haw

I hate to say it but this makes it look like randomly sniping crossers is not exactly permitted

(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means
; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 10:20:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PaDanby:

Originally Posted By 22bad:

Originally Posted By Paul:

Originally Posted By LANCEMAN:
Well according to tc556guy in the thread I posted earlier about this same topic illegal border crossers have the same rights as US citizens so I am confused now



So that means Texans can shoot them without a single legal problem. Right?



Shooting someone generally means SOME sort of legal problem, in todays world anyway..........

You can shoot them if they are stealing stuff at night from private property.......at least that is what I believe the law says

Most rational people probably don't want to shoot someone for stealing hamburger, jeans and a beer

OTOH most rational people wonder why illegals have MORE rights than US Citizens
fake ID, no problem
evade income tax, no problem
drive without insurance, no problem
drive without drivers license, no problem
work without social security number, no problem
spread communicable diseases, no problem
ect, ect, ect, ect, ect, ect, no problem



Rational people maybe, but we're talking Texans here! Yee Haw

I hate to say it but this makes it look like randomly sniping crossers is not exactly permitted

(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means
; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.



All Texans are not created equally, so please don't lump all of us into the same category
(just like I don't think that ALL Californians are either illegals or granola-munching-liberal-drug-addicts)

Those laws would probably work for illegals stealing from private property, not public land

Isn't there something in SOME law about protecting the border from foreign invasion?
(I guess if there was, our president or chief of homeland security would have found it by now)

Someone asked earlier about what the US government would do "extraditionwise"

They WILL extradite any US Citizen OR foreign national to any country with a valid claim
with the SOLE exclusion that they will not extradite to a country that they think will TORTURE you
(and they do not think mexico will torture you, you probably won't like the prisons much though)

bush and rice have already promised that they will deal with any lawbreaking vigilantes severely
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 10:30:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/25/2006 10:31:43 PM EDT by AZMAN-1]
[Sarcasm] But,..but, Chertoff said it was all "Overblown exagerations". How could this be so!?!?[/Sarcasm]....
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 10:31:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AZMAN-1:
[Sarcasm]But,..but, Chertoff said it was "Overblown exagerations". How could this be so!?!?[/Sarcasm]....



Has he proven that he is the wrong man for the job spectacularly enough yet?
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 11:25:35 PM EDT

All the U.S. authorities could do was take photos, which West said
was evidence that military or pseudo-military crossings do occur.



These should be good! I wonder when/if they will ever get out.
Link Posted: 1/26/2006 3:51:47 AM EDT
Not that they were doing anything prior to this "event" but it's comforting to know there is now 2 kilometers of dead space on the Mexican side of the border that isn't being guarded.

Maybe I'm reading too much into this but it seems pretty obvious that the Mexican't goverment is uber-corrupt... yeah I know... master of the obvious.
Link Posted: 1/26/2006 3:55:39 AM EDT
Some blow hard was on Fox News last night, he said it was 100% impossible for them not to be anything but Mexican Military. He reasoning:

Because even here in America it is impossible for ANYONE but the military to own a humvee and a .50 cal machine gun, and in Mexico people are not allowed to own weapons of any sort.


It's neat where they get these experts from.....He was a former Border Agent.
Link Posted: 1/26/2006 4:01:30 AM EDT
2 Kilometers (1.2 miles) or 3.2 miles, which is it?

Unless I remember wrong a KM is .6 miles....

It looks like they threw out 2 different distances, maybe to muddy the clarification for future incursions?
Top Top