Citizens Arrest - "RACISM?"

Let’s deal with a couple of things, get them out of the way:

First, Glen, you might want to reconsider. You might go to the United States Judo Association site and check, too. They and literally thousands of others will tell you that I am, in fact, a two-time United States National Judo Champion, a six time state judo champion (Iowa) and a sixth degree black belt. I was a coach for the U.S. National Judo Team from 1986 to 1992. I’m also a state pistol champion (Iowa), and you can look it up. This URL will help:

(http://www.state.ia.us/government/ilea/stark_award.html

Finally, I do sets of a dozen pull-ups and sixty pushups every day, together with three hundred sit-ups and an hour walk. I still run a mile in under six and a half minutes. Do what you threaten, and you will have your ass kicked as neither your intellect or experience could possibly imagine.

I take the time to say all that because I wonder at the intellect of someone who offers insult randomly and to anyone who opposes his point of view. I don’t really have to wonder about the courage and character of someone who, like metrosexual machismo’s ideal, gives the middle finger salute from a passing car. How candy-assed can you get?!

A few years ago, I happened to have the good fortune to watch a guy who had just done that pull into a shopping center parking lot and park. Sprinting on my bicycle, I got there as he and the woman with him were getting out of the car. If you don’t know what happened next, you probably think the typical American male still has balls bigger than a canary. Outweighing me by at least fifty pounds, less than half my age, he melted like a marshmallow on a skewer. The women with him pleaded with me not to hurt him.

Glen, guys like me recognize guys like you the same way ornithologists recognize the song of a robin or a cardinal. Just about any of us recognizes the bleat of a goat – or a sheep. “Men” who offer insult like yours measure themselves exactly for men like me. Thanks, though, for telling me what you are; that way, I have some idea what your opinion is worth.

Next, for “Terri,” there’s this, a number of questions:

I'm a “racist” because I demand that my government uphold immigration law and deport illegal aliens? I'm a “racist” because I demand that state, country, and city government uphold statute, ordinance, and city codes? Why should I be required to observe law that citizens of another country are not required to observe? That makes sense to you?

I’m a “racist” because I expect the city where I live to not allow single family dwellings to be occupied by literally dozens of people? I'm a “racist” because I believe local citizens, police, and law enforcement have the authority to arrest illegal aliens? I'm a “racist” because I expect that my state government will not give drivers licenses to illegal aliens? Explain that for me, please. Why should I, a native – I was born here; I am not an immigrant – citizen be required to do and obey law a person who is here illegally doesn’t have to obey? Yes, indeed – I’d love to hear your explanation.

I'm a “racist” because I believe my fellow Americans should employ their fellow Americans before they employ someone in this country against our immigration laws? What do you suppose the purpose of immigration law IS? I'm a “racist” because I object to paying immensely higher uninsured motorist premiums because illegal aliens drive (like maniacs) while uninsured and kill U.S. citizens literally by the thousands?

Why don’t you come down here to Texas and let me show you the “descansos” – little memorial shrines erected by Hispanics at the site of a fatal crash by relatives of the deceased. Let me show you how to get the record of how many of these people were insured, and how many people – “Anglos” – died with them.

I'm a “racist” because I object to the horde of criminals pouring (an average of a hundred twenty a day) over the border? I'm a “racist” because I don't want to be taxed to pay for a prison population comprised largely of illegal Mexicans, or for the government lawyers necessary to fight Mexico’s efforts to free people like the guy whose gang repeatedly raped, then beat and kicked to death two young “anglo” women here in Texas?

Sweetheart, I not only object to that last, I would with the greatest personal satisfaction strangle to death that Mexican son of a bitch and his cohort. And that has utterly nothing to do with “racism.”

I'm a “racist” because I demand that my government protect our borders and our sovereignty as a nation? Show me another nation who permits what’s happening on our border. Check Mexico, for instance.

I'm a “racist” because I object to having to pay higher sales and property taxes in order to build more schools for the illegitimate children of illegal aliens? I'm a “racist” because I object to paying higher costs and higher taxes in order that hospitals all across America can continue treating illegal aliens and stay in business? I'm a “racist” because I believe the government and its news media have a duty to publicize the names and race of criminal illegal aliens? I'm a “racist” because I want to deny citizenship to “anchor babies” born in this country? I'm a “racist” because I object to our welfare system paying billions – that’s literal, again – to people who aren’t citizens and haven’t paid a dime in taxation supporting that system? I'm a “racist” because I object to municipalities, bureaucracies, corporations, and others spending billions – again, literally - to write and translate into Spanish laws and rules? I'm a “racist” because – even though I speak Spanish – it annoys me to have to push this or that number on a telephone in order to listen to a message recorded in English – the language of my country?

Let me stop for breath – I’m getting mad (any, trust me, you don’t want to make Hal von Luebbert mad; “beware the anger of a patient man. . .”)

I'm a “racist” because I object to immigration policies that actually give preferential treatment to illegal aliens; that, while discriminating against not only people who immigrate legally, but U.S. citizens? Lady, you must exist in another space-time continuum. I suggest that I arrange for you a similar system wherein you stand in the stead of the U.S. Citizen vis a vis another abusing your humanity like the Mexican alien is abusing the humanity of the citizens of this country. That might make my point far better than anything I have said or might say. I am not one to stoop to invective and insult – in the manner you have – but I am damned sick and tired of people who – especially now that your kind have made the use of certain words punishable by fine or imprisonment – hurl about hither and yon terms like “racist.” I have taken wounds – wounds I still suffer with every time the weather changes – in order to preserve not only the civil rights of all people but the right to abuse freedom of speech the way you have here.

Make a contribution, ma’am – then shoot off your immature mouth.

Okay. I’ve got that off my chest. Some time ago, I wrote of the “wrath of the Saxon.” I’m Saxon. We are a very long-suffering people – willing to forbear almost anything. Except arrogance; except insolence. It only so happens that arrogance and insolence are singularly characteristic of a certain culture. Check the flags I’ve posted above here.

The following article is from the Word Wide Web (angry, really pissed off, I have foregone the quotations marks):

August 21, 2006

What is a Citizen’s Arrest?

By: Collin McKibben, Attorney at Law & Ariella Rosenberg

Everyone is familiar with the term citizen’s arrest: we have seen it on TV, read about it in books, and even heard about it in social circles. Surprisingly, however, almost nobody really understands what a citizen’s arrest is, or legally, what it represents.

A citizen's arrest is an arrest performed by a civilian who lacks official government authority to make an arrest (as opposed to an officer of the law). An arrest, as defined by Black's Law Dictionary, is "The apprehending or detaining of a person in order to be forthcoming to answer an alleged or suspected crime." Ex parte Sherwood, (29 Tex. App. 334, 15 S.W. 812).

Although generally the person making a citizen’s arrest must be a citizen, in certain states, a “citizen’s” arrest can be carried out by a civilian who is not a citizen (for example, an alien or illegal immigrant). A citizen’s arrest does not necessarily mean an arrest made by a single individual who happens to witness a crime. For example, a department store may also carry out a citizen’s arrest in the course of apprehending a shoplifter.
The right to making a citizen’s arrest goes back to our roots in English common law. Historically, before the modern infrastructure of police departments, citizen's arrests were an important part of community law enforcement. Today, citizen’s arrests are still legal in every state, although state laws pertaining to citizen’s arrests are not uniform. In general, all states permit citizen’s arrests if a criminal felony (defined by the government as “a serious crime, usually punishable by at least one year in prison”) is witnessed by the citizen carrying out the arrest, or if a citizen is asked to help apprehend a suspect by the police. Variations of state law arise in cases of misdemeanors, breaches of the peace, and felonies not witnessed by the arresting party.

For example, California Penal Code mandates:
A private person may arrest another: 1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence. 2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presence. 3. When a felony has been in fact committed, and he has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it. (C.P.C. § 837).

In contrast, New York State Consolidated Laws hold that:
Any person may arrest another person (a) for a felony when the latter has in fact committed such felony, and (b) for any offense when the latter has in fact committed such offense in his presence. (N.Y.C.L. §140.30).

Unlike the California statute, which only permits citizen’s arrests in cases of felony, New York law extends the possibility for making a citizen’s arrest to “any offense committed in [one’s] presence”. Additionally, in cases where the citizen has not necessarily witnessed the crime being committed, California law allows citizen’s arrests when a citizen has “reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed [a felony],” whereas New York law applies only to situations in which person has “in fact committed” a felony. Distinctions such as these are important–unwarranted citizen’s arrests can result in repercussions (such as law suits) for well-meaning citizens who attempt to make arrests without understanding local laws. It is important to be familiar with the laws in your particular state should you want to carry out a citizen’s arrest, or should a citizen try to unlawfully detain you.

Once a person has committed an offense meriting a citizen’s arrest (under the applicable state law), the arresting party must follow certain guidelines to detain and deliver to authorities the suspect in question. Acceptable guidelines for carrying out a citizen’s arrest also vary by state. In general, the arresting party must notify the suspect as to why he or she is being arrested, and may enter the building or private residence where the suspect is residing, using a reasonable amount of force to apprehend the suspect. In California, for example, To make an arrest, a private person, if the offense is a felony…may break open the door or window of the house in which the person to be arrested is, or in which they have reasonable grounds for believing the person to be, after having demanded admittance and explained the purpose for which admittance is desired. (C.P.C., §844). In New York, A person may arrest another person for an offense…at any hour of any day or night. 2. Such person must inform the person whom he is arresting of the reason for such arrest unless he encounters physical resistance, flight or other factors rendering such procedure impractical. 3. In order to effect such an arrest, such person may use such physical force as is justifiable pursuant to subdivision four of section 35.30 of the penal law. (N.Y.C.L. §140.35).

Once the suspect has been taken into custody (by the citizen), it is the citizen’s responsibility to deliver the suspect to the proper authorities in a timely fashion. In California, A private person who has arrested another for the commission of a public offense must, without unnecessary delay, take the person arrested before a magistrate, or deliver him or her to a peace officer. (C.P.C. §847). In New York, a citizen must also act without unnecessary delay to deliver a suspect to an officer of the law. (N.Y.C.L. §140).

Making a citizen's arrest maliciously or with insufficient evidence of wrongdoing by the arrested individual can lead to civil or criminal penalties. Additionally, it is in violation of a suspect’s rights for a citizen making an arrest to use unnecessary force, to intentionally harm the suspect, to hold the suspect in unsafe conditions, or to delay in turning the suspect over to authorities. A citizen making an arrest is acting in the place of an officer of the law, and as such, is required to uphold the same rights and civil liberties as an officer of the law must uphold.

A citizen who violates a suspect’s rights, or who violates the applicable state law in detaining the suspect, (for example, arresting a suspect for a misdemeanor when the state statute requires a felony for a citizen’s arrest), risks being sued or even charged with a crime. Additionally, if it is found that the arresting party did not meet the pertinent state requirements for a citizen’s arrest, any contraband found on the suspect will have been found illegally, and charges may be dropped entirely.

If you feel that you have been unfairly arrested by a citizen, or if you have been charged with illegally detaining a suspect during an illegitimate citizen’s arrest, it is important to seek the counsel of an experienced attorney. A good attorney will demonstrate familiarity with state laws, and as such will help you to ensure the best possible outcome of your case.

You will note that the attorneys’ opinions are nearly identical to what I said here earlier. In other words, I kid you not. I wasn’t kidding – and I wasn’t wrong back in the eighties when I said the same things on late-night radio programs. I won’t back off, either. In closing this time, I quote (as I am wont to do; I seldom say things as well as the great men and women of history – that’s why they’re “great” and I’m not . . .) Abraham Lincoln, author – I remind us – of the Emancipation Proclamation:

“This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it.”

Let’s not forget that. This is OUR country. Our forebears made it, and we mean to preserve it in the state they made it. Anyone who intends otherwise ought read another quote – “The Wrath of the Saxon.”

Flags, Logic, and "There Is No Such Thing As Illegal!"

Last night, I watched yet another demonstration and example of something I’ve been afraid of since boyhood, bias. Of the several subjects I have maintained study of all my life (and by “study,” I include continual and regular returns to college classes) one is the psychology and sociology of bias in human opinion and opinion formation.

Bias amounts to nothing short of a form of insanity. It is very like a reflexive or Pavlovian reaction, in that the individual either responds without thought, or – perhaps even more indicative of his condition – even after thought. In almost all of its forms, the bias so masks its presence that the afflicted individual actually believes he IS thinking, the bias having appeared as thought.

Bias, moreover, is seldom self-induced, being a product almost entirely of the human need and tendency to control his fellow and his behavior. The result is that few of the behavioral sciences – or sciences in general, for that matter – receive more attention and study from government than that of bias creation. That’s what’s become known as propaganda. In my own poor way, I seek to combat bias induced by propaganda with methods like my logic page here, “The Thinker.” The idea primarily is to point out on a continuing basis examples of illogical argument and propaganda – with government, as with all human beings, the determination is always that of evil intent or simple error – being foisted upon the public by the nation’s information and news media.

Last night, on the Lou Dobbs Show, I watched in utter astonishment one of the most egregious examples of human bias I’ve ever witnessed anywhere. As I have again and again wondered here on these pages, I wondered at the mental and psychological state of the principals. Where bias of this kind is derived from the erroneous, but ubiquitous fallacy of moral justification of method by end result, the individual must, I suppose, be excused of any evil being done. The issue here was that of illegal immigration (and, in order to deliberate effectively here, one must begin with recognition of the kind of bias capable of stating categorically that illegal immigration is not illegal – or its inverse, that all immigration is legal), and all that means for the U.S. and its legal citizenry.

It appears that some time ago (I haven’t looked it up), Lou Dobbs made reference to the number of illegal aliens from Mexico who had Hanson’s Disease, or leprosy. That I do not have the precisely correct numbers is due the fact in the first place that illegal immigration prevents knowing the numbers – which is precisely one of the reasons any nation attempts to control immigration.

That fact was conspicuous by its absence from the argument of the Dobbs’ Show’s guests.

Otherwise, the guests’ astonishingly biased argument committed primarily the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion, proceeding to use the irrelevant conclusion in the further fallacy of appeal to ignorance.

That last there is not intended as double entendre, incidentally, but it you don’t recognize appeal to ignorance, you don’t watch much television these days. You may recall from earlier posts here Nazi German Minister of Propaganda Josef Goebbels’ dictum that propaganda must be directed at stupidity and repeated often. Now that I think of it, your failure to recognize that may prove that you watch too much TV. It would also prove, then, that Goebbels was right.

Dobbs had reported in some fashion – and the fashion constitutes all aspects of the guests objection and argument – that a precipitous rise in cases of leprosy (to say nothing of the danger of epidemics resulted from there being no way to know who or what is crossing the border with Mexico) could reasonably be connected with illegal immigration. The following URLs will relieve me of any necessary recitation of statistics on that specific subject. From them, the reader can proceed to his own research of the issue and problem. If that doesn’t piss you off with Dobbs’ detractors – including, incidentally, Media Matters – nothing will.

ftp://ftp.hrsa.gov/bphc/pdf/nhdp/2003Regreport.pdf

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43275

That second URL, incidentally, is the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons report, and it includes what might be considered a prescription for protecting the health of Americans:

“Closing America's borders with fences, high-tech security devices and troops.
“Rescinding the U.S. citizenship of "anchor babies."
“Punishing the aiding and abetting of illegal aliens as a crime.
“An end to amnesty programs.”

In the report located at the first URL, you will note that thirty-seven percent of all leprosy among immigrants to the U.S. occurs in Caucasian Mexicans. A further eight percent occurs in black Mexicans. The percentage nearest those has to do with “Pacific or Asian Islanders” – twenty-two percent.

Now, to regress momentarily and for cause, the fallacy of argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad Ignoratium (that, actually, means “appeal to ignorance”) or argument by lack of imagination, is the logical fallacy in which one avers that a premise is false only because it has not been proved true. Its corollary is the equally fallacious averment that says a premise is true because it has not been proved false or that a premise contained in the averment is false.

The Dobbs Show guests went even further (as do many – most, and almost invariably – of illegal immigration apologists), to the similar fallacy known as argument from personal belief or conviction. That one says that because the apologist’s bias won’t let him believe something – a premise, technically – the premise or argument can be assumed to be false. The inverse of that one is that a premise preferred is true even though not proved.

Both these dingbat arguments regard lack of evidence for one conclusion as constituting evidence or proof that another conclusion is instead true. In the anti-derivative of that one the dingbat arguer regards his personal bias against the opinion opposing his as probative. “I don’t like it, so it isn’t so.”

If you haven’t recognized that one in all the flak flying up from the illegal immigrant forces – try Geraldo Rivera, for instance – you’re again demonstrating either that you don’t watch television or that you watch so much television that the Goebbels Method has you in thrall

Finally, and summing up, the two Lou Dobbs Show guests asseverated indignantly that because Dobbs’ supposed statement wasn’t provable – I remind the reader that on account of the nature of illegal immigration – there is no way to know – it was false (Dobbs pointed out that, still further along the string of fallacious assumption, he had never said what the guests’ insisted was inferable from his actual statement).

To sum up the guests’ (and that of literally dozens of proponents of illegal immigration and amnesty for those already here) argument, we don’t know how many people with leprosy (conspicuous again by its absence was mention of all other diseases possible) are coming across the border, so none of the people coming across the border illegally are lepers. Remarkable.

Here, by the way again, we may fairly remind ourselves that all the same logical nonsense is being asserted where criminals and other examples of flotsam and jetsam from Mexican and other South American social paradises are concerned. Want to go a little further along that same line of d-u-u-u-h reasoning (still another reason we so desperately need these people – their surpassing intelligence)?

Pay attention, now – let’s see if you can identify the fallacious thinking necessary to explain the immigrant who flees his Mexican homeland in order to make his new country like his old one . . . If Aztlan belongs to Mexico, and by out-breeding us, they take it back and turn it into Mexico, how will the citizens of the new Mexican state have gained anything? What, the land – the air, maybe - makes U.S. citizens prosperous and successful as a community and nation?

“Splain dat to me, Luci!” Isn’t Mexico the way Mexico is on account of Mexicans?

Still, we’re not done yet. Next, we have the “only a little or a few” fallacy of composition argument. Only a few of the people coming over the border are sick, criminal pedophiles, rapists, or murders. “The new TV is cheap, because it only cost a dollar, fifty a day” (and it you haven’t heard that one, you’re either deaf or haven’t listened to radio, watched TV, or read a newspaper). Illegal immigration can’t cost us that much (some of the fiscal argument being put forward by illegal immigration supporters are deliberate exploitation of public stupidity where innumeracy is concerned, obviously fallacious on their face to anyone who can add, subtract, multiply, or divided numbers in six digits).

It’s only when the TV salesman tells you that his buck, fifty a day adds up to five hundred, forty-seven, fifty that the “cheap” comes out of the innumeracy fog into the light of day.

Again, however, the real trouble comes from having no idea how much the payments are going to be. WE DON’T KNOW HOW MUCH ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS GOING TO COST, BECAUSE WE DON’T KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE THERE ARE! The same is true of how much disease, how many pedophiles, how many drug-pushers, and how many murderers. More, while it is reasonable to assume that some of the people willing to break both our immigration laws and those of their own country (another thing conspicuous – at least to me – by it’s absence from the discussion) are something less than candidates for sainthood, it is equally likely that at least some are criminals of the lowest possible nature - scum of the earth, in other words.

Or, maybe, a Mexican national can’t be a criminal?

What? – Citizens of the U.S. are to play the equivalent of Russian Roulette, just because Mexico wants relief from its own societally prostrate condition? Maybe when we’ve become the victim of an illegal immigrant and illegal immigration the government will give us – like it does the family of a soldier maimed or killed in Iraq “the honor and respect of a grateful nation?” Mexico, maybe?! Maybe we can have cast a new medal, a Purple Heart for wounds suffered while being sacrificed to Mexico’s invasion of the U.S.

Thanks, I’ll take vanilla – enforce the law, I mean.

Want to do some fun numbers? Assume that twenty million illegal aliens are given amnesty – meaning, in a few years, social security benefits. Do the numbers; say, an average of what I get (for fifty years of payments, mind you) $10,320 a year. Multiply by twenty millions (never mind – I’ll do it for you), you get $206,400,000,000. That’s two hundred six billion, four hundred million. And if you think that will do it, you don’t realize how I’m getting screwed; worse, you think illegal aliens will stand for being treated like I was. There’s nobody who doesn’t realize that just social security income – I haven’t mentioned all the rest – benefits for the amnestied illegal aliens will cost people like me – and you - a couple of trillion dollars.

But my topic was bias (again, I digress – if only to demonstrate the degree of dishonesty resulted from bias, my subject). How do two educated persons like Dobbs’ guests dare sit before a national audience and commit the kind of stultifying, stupefying dissimulation and prevarication these birds did? How does a Reverend Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson dare rail one day against the same faux pas he commits the next? A Glen Beck ballyhooing on Monday the end of the world and on Thursday excoriate as fear-mongers exponents of human-originated global warming? How does a Sean Hannity or Bill O’Reilly, a Rosie O’Donnell or Al Franken take a politically right-wing or left-wing view on every issue?

How is it that a television viewing researcher can watch for days on end without seeing a single logical argument propounded by any pundit on any issue of political and national importance? Not one!

Why is it that that same researcher - and just about anyone who watches television or reads the papers – can know in advance on any given subject or issue what any of these purported experts will argue?

How does a Sean Hannity dare – like every, single one of his to the political right of Attila the Hun ilk – dare say something as illogically stupid as the argument that U.S. departure from Iraq would result in increased violence? Go back to the fallacies of Ignoratium and division, then think about that one.

Three guys in a roomful of people are fighting one another, tearing the place all to hell, and knocking hell out of all the bystanders – innocent or otherwise. All the principals are shooting at all the others. How the hell does one guy being removed increase the level of violence? They’re not going to use the ammo they were shooting at us to go on shooting at one another? The guy who left was preventing them from shooting one another? What - by drawing fire? Our shooting wasn’t hurting anybody? We didn’t have and use far more firepower than either of the other two?

And, pal, if you tell me about the two thousand pound bombs that can hit a doorknob, failing to mention what the explosion does to everything in a one thousand yard radius of that doorknob, if you tell me about a hundred and fifty thousand of our troops shooting in every direction every kind of personal weapon, mortar, rocket, and cannon, all hitting nothing but what they’re aiming at, we’ll be right back to the buck, fifty a day television set.

The violence in Iraq can be worsened when we stop shooting, bombing and blasting, and leave? HOW, do tell!