jakee 1,241 #101 October 5, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteChuck wasn't talking about law enforcement personnel, Bill...but you already knew that. Even so, if you're legally carrying a gun and someone shoots at you are you really going to be prosecuted for defending yourself? In Texas? Stereotype much? Eh? Where's the stereotype? I was simply under the impression that Texan self defence laws were very permissive, even by normal US standards.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #102 October 5, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteChuck wasn't talking about law enforcement personnel, Bill...but you already knew that. Even so, if you're legally carrying a gun and someone shoots at you are you really going to be prosecuted for defending yourself? In Texas? Stereotype much? Eh? Where's the stereotype? I was simply under the impression that Texan self defence laws were very permissive, even by normal US standards. It's more permissive in regards to defense against a home invasion, but in other circumstances not much different than the rest of the country - or, at least, other pro-2nd states.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #103 October 5, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteChuck wasn't talking about law enforcement personnel, Bill...but you already knew that. Even so, if you're legally carrying a gun and someone shoots at you are you really going to be prosecuted for defending yourself? In Texas? Stereotype much? Eh? Where's the stereotype? I was simply under the impression that Texan self defence laws were very permissive, even by normal US standards. every shooting in TX reported to the police requires (by law) a grand jury hearing. So you're going to be arrested certainly. Whether or not you're charged is up to the grand jury. Then you get to go defend yourself in front of a jury of your peers.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #104 October 5, 2010 I googled: 'laws pertaining to protecting private property from illegal aliens in Texas.' There's a whole bunch of cases that came-up. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #105 October 5, 2010 I googled 'laws pertaining to protection of private property from illegal aliens in Texas'. I did see the cases you referred to and in a couple of them, the land owner should've been sued. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #106 October 5, 2010 Check my reply to GeorgiaDon toward the bottom of page 5 of this thread. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #107 October 5, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote ACT OF WAR! Okay, maybe we don't go to war with Mexico. But that sack 'o' garbage in the White House needs to do something radical about this situation, RIGHT NOW. I wonder why that pussy from Texas didn't do anything about this as it grew worse and worse in the last 10 years Leave it to an America hating liberal to blame George Bush. STFU nah... it's that people think that the TX gov has any power. The gov position in TX is a figurehead position. Honestly I bet Rick Perry's hair has more governmental power in TX than he does. Political influence? yeah, that's different. He can certainly overspend just like the majority party and the President does. And this is just on a remodel of the Governers Mansion. Nothing like some luxury to help the politicians feel comfortable while they sign our money away. I heard on the news yesterday, where Perry and the other guy running for Texas Governor are getting their campaign money. Most of Perrys is coming from huge businesses who Perry has pushed bills for through the State House over the years. Perry can be bought, he's just not cheap! Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 336 #108 October 6, 2010 QuoteI googled 'laws pertaining to protection of private property from illegal aliens in Texas'.Thanks Chuck. I used that in Google and went through the first 6-7 pages of hits. Most relate to constitutional rights of illegal aliens, such as education for children or access to health care. The only ones I saw that pertain to private property were the cases we've already discussed, where the issue is not detaining the illegals but rather administering a little impromptu "frontier justice". Frankly, I did not find a single thing that suggests that property owners can't try to keep out trespassers, or detain trespassers until law enforcement or the Border Patrol can come and pick them up. I also can't find any law or court judgment that suggests in any way that illegals have any rights that US citizens do not. If any such laws or judgments do exist, I'd really appreciate a specific link. Thanks, Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #109 October 6, 2010 QuoteQuoteI googled 'laws pertaining to protection of private property from illegal aliens in Texas'.Thanks Chuck. I used that in Google and went through the first 6-7 pages of hits. Most relate to constitutional rights of illegal aliens, such as education for children or access to health care. The only ones I saw that pertain to private property were the cases we've already discussed, where the issue is not detaining the illegals but rather administering a little impromptu "frontier justice". Frankly, I did not find a single thing that suggests that property owners can't try to keep out trespassers, or detain trespassers until law enforcement or the Border Patrol can come and pick them up. I also can't find any law or court judgment that suggests in any way that illegals have any rights that US citizens do not. If any such laws or judgments do exist, I'd really appreciate a specific link. Thanks, Don[/reply It appears, should a land owner catch some illegals on his property, he'd better be real careful as to how he approaches and handles the situation. There is still, the possibility the land owner could find himself in a real bind. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,354 #110 October 6, 2010 >It appears, should a land owner catch some illegals on his property, he'd >better be real careful as to how he approaches and handles the situation. >There is still, the possibility the land owner could find himself in a real bind. From what I can tell, if someone shoots at him, there's no problem with him shooting back in self defense - no matter what their immigration status. However, if he decides to "arrest" some people he found on his property, and tries to "hold them at gunpoint" or some such, he could indeed get in trouble - again, no matter what their immigration status. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites masterrig 1 #111 October 6, 2010 Citizen's arrest? I would assume, it would be better to get a good description, direction of travel and any other useful information, give all that to the proper authorities and let them handle it. I know of a lot of folks along the border who are really fed-up with illegals trashing their property and breaking in to out-buildings or their homes, stealing vehicles or anything else that isn't nailed down and so-on and so-on. My question is... how much of that do they have to put-up with? To a lot of folks, calling Border Patrol doesn't 'fix' what the illegals 'broke'. It gets to be a hard pill to swallow. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,354 #112 October 6, 2010 > I would assume, it would be better to get a good description, direction >of travel and any other useful information, give all that to the proper >authorities and let them handle it. Definitely. >My question is... how much of that do they have to put-up with? They shouldn't have to put up with any of it. I guess my point is that they shouldn't have to put up with it whether or not the vandalism comes from local teens, a US gang or illegal immigrants. But if a rancher overreacts and "holds them at gunpoint" (or does other vigilante-like stuff) he may find himself in hot water. And again, he'll find himself in hot water whether they are miscreant teens or illegal immigrants. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhaig 0 #113 October 6, 2010 depends. sec 9 of Tx Penal code describes when the use of force (and deadly force) is allowed. Criminal mischief (vandalism) doesn't cross the line unless it's at night. I'm sure there are some actions they might take that would be justifiable under sec 9, but as long as it's just stuff, I don't think it's worth shooting anyone over.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skipbelt 0 #114 October 6, 2010 your point is a canard as it clumsily attempts to mitigate the central problem ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites masterrig 1 #115 October 6, 2010 QuoteI saw this story on TV this morning. Who's saying that there isn't a problem with violence in Mexico leaking into the US? http://abcnews.go.com/US/mexican-pirates-shot-tourist-head/story?id=11784598 Just heard this morning, U.S. authorities have contacted Mexican authorities in regard to this matter. Mexican authorities say they have not found a body or jet-ski. In other words, they don't believe it happened and are in essence, saying the wife 'made it up'. U.S. authorities are accusing Mexican authorities of not even looking. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites masterrig 1 #116 October 6, 2010 Quote> I would assume, it would be better to get a good description, direction >of travel and any other useful information, give all that to the proper >authorities and let them handle it. Definitely. >My question is... how much of that do they have to put-up with? They shouldn't have to put up with any of it. I guess my point is that they shouldn't have to put up with it whether or not the vandalism comes from local teens, a US gang or illegal immigrants. But if a rancher overreacts and "holds them at gunpoint" (or does other vigilante-like stuff) he may find himself in hot water. And again, he'll find himself in hot water whether they are miscreant teens or illegal immigrants. I found the statute in regard to dealing with trespassers in Texas. Basically, it states that the property owner must have his property posted and in the event of a trespasser(s), the property owner can verbally tell them to leave and should get good descriptions and report it to police. Actually, it says to 'avoid' confrontation but nothing about holding them at gun-point. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites funjumper101 15 #117 October 6, 2010 QuoteQuote> I would assume, it would be better to get a good description, direction >of travel and any other useful information, give all that to the proper >authorities and let them handle it. Definitely. >My question is... how much of that do they have to put-up with? They shouldn't have to put up with any of it. I guess my point is that they shouldn't have to put up with it whether or not the vandalism comes from local teens, a US gang or illegal immigrants. But if a rancher overreacts and "holds them at gunpoint" (or does other vigilante-like stuff) he may find himself in hot water. And again, he'll find himself in hot water whether they are miscreant teens or illegal immigrants. I found the statute in regard to dealing with trespassers in Texas. Basically, it states that the property owner must have his property posted and in the event of a trespasser(s), the property owner can verbally tell them to leave and should get good descriptions and report it to police. Actually, it says to 'avoid' confrontation but nothing about holding them at gun-point. Chuck So, in other words, you parroted the RWC talking points on this matter. Talking points that have little to no basis in fact. The talking points sure sounded real good, right up until you fact checked them. Then you come to the realization that you have been lied to, and have repeated those lies in error. You might just be able to break free from the RWC mindset and start thinking for yourself. BRAVO!!! The lesson for ALL RWCs is that fact-checking is really important, when it comes to the information presented to you by your preferred sources. Faux News is STILL litigating to establish the right to force newsreaders to broadcast information that the newsreaders KNOW to be factually incorrect. This is quite a departure from the journalistic ethics to which respectable organizations adhere to. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #118 October 6, 2010 QuoteFaux News is STILL litigating to establish the right to force newsreaders to broadcast information that the newsreaders KNOW to be factually incorrect. This is quite a departure from the journalistic ethics to which respectable organizations adhere to. ???witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites masterrig 1 #119 October 6, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote> I would assume, it would be better to get a good description, direction >of travel and any other useful information, give all that to the proper >authorities and let them handle it. Definitely. >My question is... how much of that do they have to put-up with? They shouldn't have to put up with any of it. I guess my point is that they shouldn't have to put up with it whether or not the vandalism comes from local teens, a US gang or illegal immigrants. But if a rancher overreacts and "holds them at gunpoint" (or does other vigilante-like stuff) he may find himself in hot water. And again, he'll find himself in hot water whether they are miscreant teens or illegal immigrants. I found the statute in regard to dealing with trespassers in Texas. Basically, it states that the property owner must have his property posted and in the event of a trespasser(s), the property owner can verbally tell them to leave and should get good descriptions and report it to police. Actually, it says to 'avoid' confrontation but nothing about holding them at gun-point. Chuck So, in other words, you parroted the RWC talking points on this matter. Talking points that have little to no basis in fact. The talking points sure sounded real good, right up until you fact checked them. Then you come to the realization that you have been lied to, and have repeated those lies in error. You might just be able to break free from the RWC mindset and start thinking for yourself. BRAVO!!! The lesson for ALL RWCs is that fact-checking is really important, when it comes to the information presented to you by your preferred sources. Faux News is STILL litigating to establish the right to force newsreaders to broadcast information that the newsreaders KNOW to be factually incorrect. This is quite a departure from the journalistic ethics to which respectable organizations adhere to. I haven't the slightest clue as to what the hell you said! Whatever RWC is... I don't have any 'preferred' sources. I was referring to the Texas Statute on 'trespassers' and how a land owner can deal with them. Where you came-up with what you did is beyond me. Ya' need to put-down the wacky-weed! Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,354 #120 October 6, 2010 >So, in other words, you parroted the RWC talking points on this matter. ?? No, he explained the law that he researched. Researching what the laws say concerning your property is generally a good idea no matter what side of the aisle you're on. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites masterrig 1 #121 October 7, 2010 The governor of Texas is 'pushing' the Mexican govt. to become 'active' in the investigation and to help find the body. This could also play right into the governor's hands. This is an election year and he's running again. I wonder, how much attention he would pay to this incident if it were not an election year. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhaig 0 #122 October 7, 2010 QuoteThe governor of Texas is 'pushing' the Mexican govt. to become 'active' in the investigation and to help find the body. This could also play right into the governor's hands. This is an election year and he's running again. I wonder, how much attention he would pay to this incident if it were not an election year. Chuck we all know he'd pay crap-all attention to it last year. outside of election year, he's more concerned about his hair.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #123 October 7, 2010 Quote Quote The governor of Texas is 'pushing' the Mexican govt. to become 'active' in the investigation and to help find the body. This could also play right into the governor's hands. This is an election year and he's running again. I wonder, how much attention he would pay to this incident if it were not an election year. Chuck we all know he'd pay crap-all attention to it last year. outside of election year, he's more concerned about his hair. See you need Ann Richards back in office. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites masterrig 1 #124 October 7, 2010 QuoteQuoteThe governor of Texas is 'pushing' the Mexican govt. to become 'active' in the investigation and to help find the body. This could also play right into the governor's hands. This is an election year and he's running again. I wonder, how much attention he would pay to this incident if it were not an election year. Chuck we all know he'd pay crap-all attention to it last year. outside of election year, he's more concerned about his hair. Yup! Also, after Arizona passed their controversial law, Perry said Texas would never have such a law. Now, he's pushing for one like it. From what I can see, he'll go to the highest bidder. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #125 October 12, 2010 QuoteThis isn't a case of Mexican violence entering the US. It is a case of Americans entering Mexico illegally. Many here believe Mexicans, illegally entering the US, should be shot on sight. What's good for the goose...and all that stuff. Then you seem to support the idea of Americans shooting illegal mexicans on site if you don't have a problem with Mexicans shooting Americans. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 5 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
billvon 2,354 #110 October 6, 2010 >It appears, should a land owner catch some illegals on his property, he'd >better be real careful as to how he approaches and handles the situation. >There is still, the possibility the land owner could find himself in a real bind. From what I can tell, if someone shoots at him, there's no problem with him shooting back in self defense - no matter what their immigration status. However, if he decides to "arrest" some people he found on his property, and tries to "hold them at gunpoint" or some such, he could indeed get in trouble - again, no matter what their immigration status. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #111 October 6, 2010 Citizen's arrest? I would assume, it would be better to get a good description, direction of travel and any other useful information, give all that to the proper authorities and let them handle it. I know of a lot of folks along the border who are really fed-up with illegals trashing their property and breaking in to out-buildings or their homes, stealing vehicles or anything else that isn't nailed down and so-on and so-on. My question is... how much of that do they have to put-up with? To a lot of folks, calling Border Patrol doesn't 'fix' what the illegals 'broke'. It gets to be a hard pill to swallow. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,354 #112 October 6, 2010 > I would assume, it would be better to get a good description, direction >of travel and any other useful information, give all that to the proper >authorities and let them handle it. Definitely. >My question is... how much of that do they have to put-up with? They shouldn't have to put up with any of it. I guess my point is that they shouldn't have to put up with it whether or not the vandalism comes from local teens, a US gang or illegal immigrants. But if a rancher overreacts and "holds them at gunpoint" (or does other vigilante-like stuff) he may find himself in hot water. And again, he'll find himself in hot water whether they are miscreant teens or illegal immigrants. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #113 October 6, 2010 depends. sec 9 of Tx Penal code describes when the use of force (and deadly force) is allowed. Criminal mischief (vandalism) doesn't cross the line unless it's at night. I'm sure there are some actions they might take that would be justifiable under sec 9, but as long as it's just stuff, I don't think it's worth shooting anyone over.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skipbelt 0 #114 October 6, 2010 your point is a canard as it clumsily attempts to mitigate the central problem ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #115 October 6, 2010 QuoteI saw this story on TV this morning. Who's saying that there isn't a problem with violence in Mexico leaking into the US? http://abcnews.go.com/US/mexican-pirates-shot-tourist-head/story?id=11784598 Just heard this morning, U.S. authorities have contacted Mexican authorities in regard to this matter. Mexican authorities say they have not found a body or jet-ski. In other words, they don't believe it happened and are in essence, saying the wife 'made it up'. U.S. authorities are accusing Mexican authorities of not even looking. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #116 October 6, 2010 Quote> I would assume, it would be better to get a good description, direction >of travel and any other useful information, give all that to the proper >authorities and let them handle it. Definitely. >My question is... how much of that do they have to put-up with? They shouldn't have to put up with any of it. I guess my point is that they shouldn't have to put up with it whether or not the vandalism comes from local teens, a US gang or illegal immigrants. But if a rancher overreacts and "holds them at gunpoint" (or does other vigilante-like stuff) he may find himself in hot water. And again, he'll find himself in hot water whether they are miscreant teens or illegal immigrants. I found the statute in regard to dealing with trespassers in Texas. Basically, it states that the property owner must have his property posted and in the event of a trespasser(s), the property owner can verbally tell them to leave and should get good descriptions and report it to police. Actually, it says to 'avoid' confrontation but nothing about holding them at gun-point. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funjumper101 15 #117 October 6, 2010 QuoteQuote> I would assume, it would be better to get a good description, direction >of travel and any other useful information, give all that to the proper >authorities and let them handle it. Definitely. >My question is... how much of that do they have to put-up with? They shouldn't have to put up with any of it. I guess my point is that they shouldn't have to put up with it whether or not the vandalism comes from local teens, a US gang or illegal immigrants. But if a rancher overreacts and "holds them at gunpoint" (or does other vigilante-like stuff) he may find himself in hot water. And again, he'll find himself in hot water whether they are miscreant teens or illegal immigrants. I found the statute in regard to dealing with trespassers in Texas. Basically, it states that the property owner must have his property posted and in the event of a trespasser(s), the property owner can verbally tell them to leave and should get good descriptions and report it to police. Actually, it says to 'avoid' confrontation but nothing about holding them at gun-point. Chuck So, in other words, you parroted the RWC talking points on this matter. Talking points that have little to no basis in fact. The talking points sure sounded real good, right up until you fact checked them. Then you come to the realization that you have been lied to, and have repeated those lies in error. You might just be able to break free from the RWC mindset and start thinking for yourself. BRAVO!!! The lesson for ALL RWCs is that fact-checking is really important, when it comes to the information presented to you by your preferred sources. Faux News is STILL litigating to establish the right to force newsreaders to broadcast information that the newsreaders KNOW to be factually incorrect. This is quite a departure from the journalistic ethics to which respectable organizations adhere to. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #118 October 6, 2010 QuoteFaux News is STILL litigating to establish the right to force newsreaders to broadcast information that the newsreaders KNOW to be factually incorrect. This is quite a departure from the journalistic ethics to which respectable organizations adhere to. ???witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #119 October 6, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote> I would assume, it would be better to get a good description, direction >of travel and any other useful information, give all that to the proper >authorities and let them handle it. Definitely. >My question is... how much of that do they have to put-up with? They shouldn't have to put up with any of it. I guess my point is that they shouldn't have to put up with it whether or not the vandalism comes from local teens, a US gang or illegal immigrants. But if a rancher overreacts and "holds them at gunpoint" (or does other vigilante-like stuff) he may find himself in hot water. And again, he'll find himself in hot water whether they are miscreant teens or illegal immigrants. I found the statute in regard to dealing with trespassers in Texas. Basically, it states that the property owner must have his property posted and in the event of a trespasser(s), the property owner can verbally tell them to leave and should get good descriptions and report it to police. Actually, it says to 'avoid' confrontation but nothing about holding them at gun-point. Chuck So, in other words, you parroted the RWC talking points on this matter. Talking points that have little to no basis in fact. The talking points sure sounded real good, right up until you fact checked them. Then you come to the realization that you have been lied to, and have repeated those lies in error. You might just be able to break free from the RWC mindset and start thinking for yourself. BRAVO!!! The lesson for ALL RWCs is that fact-checking is really important, when it comes to the information presented to you by your preferred sources. Faux News is STILL litigating to establish the right to force newsreaders to broadcast information that the newsreaders KNOW to be factually incorrect. This is quite a departure from the journalistic ethics to which respectable organizations adhere to. I haven't the slightest clue as to what the hell you said! Whatever RWC is... I don't have any 'preferred' sources. I was referring to the Texas Statute on 'trespassers' and how a land owner can deal with them. Where you came-up with what you did is beyond me. Ya' need to put-down the wacky-weed! Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,354 #120 October 6, 2010 >So, in other words, you parroted the RWC talking points on this matter. ?? No, he explained the law that he researched. Researching what the laws say concerning your property is generally a good idea no matter what side of the aisle you're on. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #121 October 7, 2010 The governor of Texas is 'pushing' the Mexican govt. to become 'active' in the investigation and to help find the body. This could also play right into the governor's hands. This is an election year and he's running again. I wonder, how much attention he would pay to this incident if it were not an election year. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #122 October 7, 2010 QuoteThe governor of Texas is 'pushing' the Mexican govt. to become 'active' in the investigation and to help find the body. This could also play right into the governor's hands. This is an election year and he's running again. I wonder, how much attention he would pay to this incident if it were not an election year. Chuck we all know he'd pay crap-all attention to it last year. outside of election year, he's more concerned about his hair.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #123 October 7, 2010 Quote Quote The governor of Texas is 'pushing' the Mexican govt. to become 'active' in the investigation and to help find the body. This could also play right into the governor's hands. This is an election year and he's running again. I wonder, how much attention he would pay to this incident if it were not an election year. Chuck we all know he'd pay crap-all attention to it last year. outside of election year, he's more concerned about his hair. See you need Ann Richards back in office. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #124 October 7, 2010 QuoteQuoteThe governor of Texas is 'pushing' the Mexican govt. to become 'active' in the investigation and to help find the body. This could also play right into the governor's hands. This is an election year and he's running again. I wonder, how much attention he would pay to this incident if it were not an election year. Chuck we all know he'd pay crap-all attention to it last year. outside of election year, he's more concerned about his hair. Yup! Also, after Arizona passed their controversial law, Perry said Texas would never have such a law. Now, he's pushing for one like it. From what I can see, he'll go to the highest bidder. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #125 October 12, 2010 QuoteThis isn't a case of Mexican violence entering the US. It is a case of Americans entering Mexico illegally. Many here believe Mexicans, illegally entering the US, should be shot on sight. What's good for the goose...and all that stuff. Then you seem to support the idea of Americans shooting illegal mexicans on site if you don't have a problem with Mexicans shooting Americans. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites