| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/15/2006 01:45:16 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by crayon:
all it takes is an organized mastermind to overthrow or create massive havoc |
...or unchecked immigration with all offspring of the criminals given citizenship by default. |
|
|
|
09/15/2006 01:51:25 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
...or unchecked immigration with all offspring of the criminals given citizenship by default. |
they do that in the US? |
|
|
|
09/15/2006 09:40:18 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...plus we got the "jingo" comment that we're bigger than they are so who's gonna stop us |
It's not a matter of who's bigger than who, it's a matter of the Mexican government wanting one of our law-abiding citizens for capturing a fugitive who they either refused to capture or who they where unable to capture.
It shouldn't be ok for any US fugutive to run to Mexico and hide. Likewise, any Mexican fugitives should not run to the US, and if they do, we should capture them and send them back.
Dog's right on this one and whoever ordered the arrest is wrong. The US gave Mexico over $10 billion in aid between 2002 and 2005 alone. The US has pledged that they will increase that amount by $5 billion in the coming years. My point is that Mexico is out of line to even request the arrest of a law-abiding citizen. The US should have told them to back off or they're not getting any money. It is not a question of who's bigger and badder than anyone.
Message edited by author 2006-09-15 09:53:49.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2006 09:53:46 AM · #29 |
My only question is:
Did Dog give Andrew Luster a smoke, then have a heart-to-heart with him until he got weepy and agreed to come back to court in the USA?
|
|
|
|
09/15/2006 10:11:20 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by deapee:
It's not a matter of who's bigger than who, it's a matter of the Mexican government wanting one of our law-abiding citizens for capturing a fugitive who they either refused to capture or who they where unable to capture.
|
The key phrase here is "law-abiding".
Dog evidently failed to obey the law while in Mexico. That excludes him from the "law-abiding" category.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2006 10:50:28 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by deapee:
It's not a matter of who's bigger than who, it's a matter of the Mexican government wanting one of our law-abiding citizens for capturing a fugitive who they either refused to capture or who they where unable to capture.
|
The key phrase here is "law-abiding".
Dog evidently failed to obey the law while in Mexico. That excludes him from the "law-abiding" category. |
What would you say if he captured someone who did these types of things to your family. Would you say "Go get him, but don't brake the law."
|
|
|
|
09/15/2006 12:33:30 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by spazmo99:
Originally posted by Travis99:
The key phrase here is "law-abiding".
Dog evidently failed to obey the law while in Mexico. That excludes him from the "law-abiding" category. |
What would you say if he captured someone who did these types of things to your family. Would you say "Go get him, but don't brake the law." |
Yes. The Law trumps the desires of individuals. While any particular case may be very clear-cut (especially in the eyes of the victim or his/her family), the principles of law must still be followed or everything disintegrates.
There was a time when we had "frontier justice" in the American West, where the citizens took the Law into their own hands, and now we have Miranda warnings etc. I'd rather have guilty people going free than innocent people condemned, is my personal bottom line. Maybe I'm just funny that way.
But in my mind, you can't pick-and-choose when you want the laws applied, or which laws can be disregarded. Or, in the case of civil disobedience for example, you need to be prepared to pay the consequences. In any case, we're discussing issues of criminal law here, not civil law.
R.
Message edited by author 2006-09-15 12:35:35.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2006 01:09:31 PM · #33 |
I agree with Bear and have one other thought to add (tho' far less elequently).
For those who feel Mexico should automatically extradite those accused of breaking US law;
If, for example, a woman fled to the US because in her country she'd been accused of speaking with a man in public and, if convicted, would be stoned to death, would you be in favour of automatically turning her over?
I lied, I have two thoughts...
Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? Maybe that's why he fled, because he knew he didn't stand a chance of a fair trial?
I don't know, but there's a few commenters in this thread that I don't think I'd want on a jury if I were ever on trial...
|
|
|
|
09/15/2006 01:27:22 PM · #34 |
I should probably keep my nose out this thread, but...
My grandfather always told me growing up "Right is right, and rules are rules...it doesn't mean they are one and the same". I never could figure out what he meant as a teenager. But, I do know what goes around comes around. I've watched their show a couple times and was throughly disgusted with it. The couple times I watched it I saw his wife taunting wifes, mothers and children. "Your man's going to jail", while they stood there and cried. I also saw her screaming at some woman in front of her very little children "Ice baby, Ice baby". Whatever that meant. Then I heard her crying on national TV about how unfair it is that they came in her house with guns drawn and took her man in front of her children. See above for my thoughts on that...
JMHO! |
|
|
|
09/15/2006 10:43:02 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by spazmo99:
Originally posted by Travis99:
The key phrase here is "law-abiding".
Dog evidently failed to obey the law while in Mexico. That excludes him from the "law-abiding" category. |
What would you say if he captured someone who did these types of things to your family. Would you say "Go get him, but don't brake the law." |
Yes. The Law trumps the desires of individuals. While any particular case may be very clear-cut (especially in the eyes of the victim or his/her family), the principles of law must still be followed or everything disintegrates.
R. |
What would your family say about that?
Message edited by author 2006-09-15 22:43:59.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2006 10:51:36 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
...or unchecked immigration with all offspring of the criminals given citizenship by default. |
they do that in the US? |
Yes. Being born here = instant citizenship. |
|
|
|
09/15/2006 10:59:07 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by Travis99:
What would your family say about that? |
They'd agree with me. Guaranteed.
R.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2006 12:00:16 AM · #38 |
:P
|
|
|
|
09/16/2006 12:37:43 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
If, for example, a woman fled to the US because in her country she'd been accused of speaking with a man in public and, if convicted, would be stoned to death, would you be in favour of automatically turning her over? |
OK...let's examine this statement.
"If, for example, a woman fled to the US because in her country she'd been accused of speaking with..."
So we're saying a woman left her country and illegally entered the US.
There would be no question about turning her over. They wouldn't even have to ask me to turn her over. She left her country as a wanted individual, and that's against the US' policy whether she has a passport or not, so yeah...I'd tie her up and send her back.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2006 01:53:05 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by deapee:
There would be no question about turning her over. They wouldn't even have to ask me to turn her over. She left her country as a wanted individual, and that's against the US' policy whether she has a passport or not, so yeah...I'd tie her up and send her back. |
I don't know deapee... you might want to re-read what the original comment was... you know... the part that said: it was a crime for a woman to speak to a man in public, and that if deported she would be stoned to death
Surely you don't mean to tell us that you wouldn't give that little factor some consideration. Think back to all the peoples the USA took in with open arms because they were being oppressed in their own country. If we take the time to look at all of the dissidents the USA took in over the years, it could be argued that the vast majority of them were "wanted criminals" in the country they fled from.
Not everything in life is black and white.
Ray |
|
|
|
09/16/2006 08:08:55 AM · #41 |
| Sounds like you are saying you will not honor the laws you disagree with. |
|
|
|
09/16/2006 10:23:19 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Sounds like you are saying you will not honor the laws you disagree with. |
If that is your interpretation of what I said... then you are absolutely right.
There are laws in some part of the world that would never stand the scrutiny of any court of law in this country or for that matter several other countries.
That being said, we are seriously digressing from the initial post. What this man did is illegal pure and simple. There are venues available to deal with issues of this nature and it would seem these were not addressed.
Ray |
|
|
|
09/19/2006 10:36:49 AM · #43 |
| DOes anyone remember the singapore Cannings from the early 90's I think. Over chewing gum which is illegal over there? The kid broke the laws and got canned. I agree that if dog broke the law he should answer for it. I understand though this is a mistaminer and according to the extradition laws we dont have an agreement over mistaminers. I think we are missing something here and I think its because of the individual who this is happening to. If this had been any other Bounty hunter would this have even made the news? The media and government id leaving too much to question. May have a friend look it up on lexis nexis and westlaw to find out what is really going on. |
|
|
|
09/19/2006 11:13:06 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by Travis99:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by deapee:
It's not a matter of who's bigger than who, it's a matter of the Mexican government wanting one of our law-abiding citizens for capturing a fugitive who they either refused to capture or who they where unable to capture.
|
The key phrase here is "law-abiding".
Dog evidently failed to obey the law while in Mexico. That excludes him from the "law-abiding" category. |
What would you say if he captured someone who did these types of things to your family. Would you say "Go get him, but don't brake the law." |
Yes.
And, yes, my family would agree. |
|
|
|
09/19/2006 11:16:43 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by David Ey:
Sounds like you are saying you will not honor the laws you disagree with. |
If that is your interpretation of what I said... then you are absolutely right.
There are laws in some part of the world that would never stand the scrutiny of any court of law in this country or for that matter several other countries.
That being said, we are seriously digressing from the initial post. What this man did is illegal pure and simple. There are venues available to deal with issues of this nature and it would seem these were not addressed.
Ray |
We have our own laws here in the US that would not stand the scrutiny of the courts in many other countries. Take the death penalty for example. Many countries that do not have the death penalty will not extradite someone back to the US without assurances that the accused will not face the death penalty. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/29/2025 05:00:31 AM EDT.
