Interesting story. This guy isn’t a member of the minuteman out in Arizona. He might have stopped a terrorist from getting in though.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Although Patrick said he had no preconceived notions about who the men were, he also said he thought they were going to attack him because they thought he was a Border Patrol agent.
This seemed a little contradictory, but I would imagine Border Patrol does more than enforce immigration laws.
And
quote: When the immigrants saw his gun, Patrick said, they walked toward the Suburban and climbed inside. Explaining that he was still concerned for his safety, Patrick followed the men to the vehicle and, with the gun aimed at them, took the car keys away from them. He said he then called 911 and asked the dispatcher whether he should order the men out of the vehicle.
No. If you are concerned for your safety, you do not act like a police officer and prolong the encounter. Any potential claim of self-defense just went out the window.
He might also be facing charges of unlawful imprisonment.
This is what gives gun owners a seriously, seriously bad name - you are not a cop. Don't pretend to be one.
He also had no grounds for making a citizen's arrest as he had no reason to believe the "suspects" were doing anything wrong.
He followed them to their car and ordered them out...hardly the act of a man who was afraid of being attacked. They were trying to leave, without threatening him at all at tehat point.
Now, he might have had a reason to worry at first, but once they walked past him and tried to leave he had no right to force them to stay.
quote: During his interview, Patrick denied that was the case, saying that he has taken medication for depression following bouts of post-traumatic stress.
"I lost a very close friend in a roadside bombing," he said.
Several times during the news conference, Patrick said that his military training took over when he saw the men coming out of the bushes. He said he pulled over at the rest stop in Sentinel on Interstate 8 to relieve his dog. He said he was walking the dog when the men appeared.
I'm not agreeing with the man's actions, but it sounds like there might be extenuating circumstance regarding his mental health. If this can be proven, I think removing his right to bear arms would be a good thing, along with an honorable discharge from the military. No criminal punishment, just make it clear that he's not stable.
Posts: 349 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unfortunately, you can't, to the best of my knowledge, selectively revoke personal rights.
If he's convicted of a felony, he does lose his right to bear arms, but I don't know of any other circumstance.
If anti-depression meds and PTSD is affecting him that badly, he has no business returning to active duty where his impairments are as much a threat to him as his squadmates and other soldiers.
If I had to guess, I'm thinking his fascination with wanting to be a law enforcement officer coupled with a gun and an attitude produced a bad combination which led to a worse situation.
posted
When he called 911, they should have told him to let the people go rather than simply saying to 'use his best judgement'
I don't see that he should get into trouble. He saw some people breaking the law and stopped them. He called 911 to ask them what he should do, and they didn't tell him to let them go, so he waited for the cops to come. He then turned over the people and his guns to the cops. If it is something that you are going to be arrested for, the 911 operators in the region should be told to tell people to NOT hold onto illegal immagrants until the police arrive.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Out of interest, what does the military consider "threatening" someone? If you point a rifle at a soldier but don't cock it, is that still considered "threatening?"
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
He isn't a criminal, a disturbed individual possible. I mean he did just get back from Iraq, where I'm sure he faced more dangerous things than 7 unarmed men. He felt threatened and thought he could control the situation, so he did.
As far as the contradictions he made in the press conference, you've got to remember that he's being asked lots of similar questions and trying his best to keep facts strait, none of the "details" that people have commented on contradicting each other makes me think nothing else but that he is probably overwhelmed with the situation.
Posts: 1094 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:He isn't a criminal, a disturbed individual possible. I mean he did just get back from Iraq, where I'm sure he faced more dangerous things than 7 unarmed men. He felt threatened and thought he could control the situation, so he did.
I'm not saying that I disagree, but I'm sure that quite a large number of inmates have a personal narrative that would fall under this defense.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:He isn't a criminal, a disturbed individual possible.
He IS a criminal: he committed a crime, assuming the facts are as stated (which isn't a safe assumption, but that's what we've got to go on).
He also doesn't have a mental excuse, judging from the statements he made and the information released so far. He might be able to get mitigation. In fact, I'll make a WAG that he will take a plea that involves either multiple misdemeanors or a single felony with no jail time.
posted
Lup - he didn't know they were breaking the law.
The actions of the suspects did not present a clear and obvious violation of the law. They weren't, for example, assaulting someone or looting a store. And even if they were looting, most states do not permit the use of deadly force to defend property.
As it turns out, they were illegal immigrants and as such were breaking the law. But what if they weren't? Then seven innocent people just had a gun pulled on them and were forcibly detained for no reason by someone with no authority to do so.
But he did not have any right to brandish his weapon on people he suspected of being criminals. Even police officers can't do that.
If I went down to a "bad" section of town and started frisking people randomly at gunpoint, I'm pretty sure I'll find some people with illegal weapons and drugs. Being a civilian, I can't do that. Even cops need probable cause and they don't get to reach for their guns first except in very specific, controlled situations. Simply standing on a street corner does not give me, a civilian, the right to hold people at gunpoint until I'm satisfied they aren't doing anything wrong.
quote:He explained this week that the men climbed inside a Chevrolet Suburban when they saw his gun and he followed them to the SUV, took the vehicle keys and forced them out. Haab said he called 911 as soon as he had the situation under control and a dispatcher told him to do what he thought was best until authorities arrived.
"I have put out the real story," he said, adding that Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has made this out to be a case of vigilante justice. "I was acting in self defense."
Arpaio has said repeatedly that Haab's story doesn't make sense and has noted several contradictions. Among those: Haab's claim that he was being attacked even though none of the men made aggressive moves; Haab's claim that he was afraid for his life even though he followed the men to their car; Haab's claim that he did not know the men were undocumented immigrants though he later said he believed they thought he was a Border Patrol agent.
I think that a claim of self-defense sort of ends when you take the initiative to follow the people to their car and then take away their keys -- while still carrying a gun in your hand. That is not the action of someone afraid for their life.
Also, not cocking a gun, for most hand guns, doesn't mean it isn't ready to be fired. In most cases, it just means you have to pull further/harder on the trigger in order to fire.
Besides, the crime is in threatening people with a weapon. If it was mitigated by anything, it'd be by fear for one's own life, not the readiness of the weapon to fire. It's like saying "the safety was on." The law isn't going to give him a pass on that.
Jay, your point about these people being potential terrorists is a smoke-screen, IMHO. There's no way for him to know who is and is not a terrorist and, at least percentage-wise, acting as if every person crossing the US border from Mexico is a terrorist is just plain unsupported by the facts (At least I think we can safely assume that given that millions of people cross the border annually, and the estimated number of terrorists in the US has got to be several orders of magnitude lower -- and not all of those came into the country from Mexico).
Ah well. I don't see how his story can hold up very well. It's already contradictory.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
A Double-Action handgun does not need the hammer to be cocked before firing.
Try pointing an uncocked handgun at an officer and provided you survive the experience, try telling the judge you weren't threatening the officer because the hammer wasn't cocked.
If you pull out a handgun and then proceed to give me an order, whether you pointed the weapon at me or not, a reasonable person would assume the implied consequence of being shot if I fail to obey your orders.
posted
I agree that he went too far in following them to their vehicle - obviously it's a bit silly to claim he was still in fear of his life when they were trying to get away from him.
So he should be charged with something appropriate, and the illegals should be deported. They're both at fault - he is at fault for breaking the law and pointing his weapon at people. They are at fault for trying to illegally enter the country. So punish them both, and that should be the end of it.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"There's no way for him to know who is and is not a terrorist."
I doubt that he could distinguish between who is as opposed to who is not a UScitizen or legal resident -- let alone a legal visitor or tourist -- even to a point of having a reasonable suspicion of law-breaking.
In the Wal*Mart world of NAFTA, clothing is so internationalized that even a trained&experienced USCustoms agent would have difficulty based on what is being worn. In the heavily Latino SouthWest, it takes a lot of training&experience for a USBorderPatrol agent to become sophisticated enough to distinquish between Mexican/SouthAmerican accents&mannerisms as opposed to the various USLatinoAmerican accents&mannerisms: some accents&mannerisms used by decendents of folk who have lived in the SouthWest since before the present States were even a part of the USA.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
