FBI arrests militia member near border, described as "armed vigilante"

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Malisa

You're entitled to your opinion.

Same as I.

Thank you for letting me express it without telling me other kind of rude words

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Guyfriday

Apparently exercising Constitutional rights, civic duties and upholding the law is a net-negative to those people...beats me, trying to understand the logic of emotionally driven knee-jerkers is near impossible

As far as those who refuse to allow others to defend themselves.. That same group would be the first one to ask for help from the neighbor that has and knows how to use guns.

Also they would somehow feel entitled to get that help as soon as they realized they wont make it otherwise. I know people like that and it's absurd and ridiculous

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Allaroundyou

We are raised and trained to put all our faith into "the authorities" and "law enforcement".

Look where that's gotten us.

Maybe we really do need more vigilantes.

Or just let everyone recognize "Natural Justice" again.

My Google feed has been running hit stories on these "armed" "right wing" "militia" groups for the last three days straight. If he personally was armed, he should be prosecuted and he is stupid. If he was not armed, but members of the group he was with were armed (which I suspect is the case), then he was specifically targeted and should be vindicated. But the result is the same, they wrapped him up in red tape and lawyers, got their hit pieces written in the news, smeared these groups as right wing vigilanties, and further hindering stopping the capturing of illegals.

Per Wiki

In the United States a private person may arrest another without a warrant, for a crime occurring in their presence.

This is just one guy they arrested, albeit the leader, apparently. That won't stop the rest of the patriots from intercepting the invaders.

originally posted by: odzeandennz

2 wrongs make a right?

No, three actually do lol.

This just seems another case of discredit the messanger, because they can't discredit the message. I think I will call this kind of behavior, Zen-Liberal or empowering one's inner fool :-)

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: Malisa

Ain't that the truth!

The hypocrisy is stunning. If a WROL situation resolved itself, they would probably sue gun owners in court with some BS argument that they were *owed* individual protection

Fortunately, in such a scenario, many would see the folly of their anti-gun arguments with the low lifes they defend showed up at their front door trying to pound it in, to steal what little food/supplies they had on hand. Sadly that would be too late.

Thanks for the reply

Zorro was a vigilante, actively wanted by the authorities as well. People hate Zorro?

originally posted by: projectvxn
If he's a felon, screw him.

Easy kid lol. He could have sold a bag of Pot 20 years ago and been convicted a felon. Hardly makes the guy a bad person today. Especially when he is trying TO HELP OUR BORDER PATROL.. If you ask the land owners on the border, they love guys like this who come and keep the Narcos away.

a reply to: RudeMarine

Easy kid lol.

I'm not a child.

He could have sold a bag of Pot 20 years ago and been convicted a felon.

Not my problem.

as posted in the other thread

he got busted up in jail

in the hospital. few broken ribs

He was just on the wrong side.

Armed militia men from central America who dont speak English are greeted and given a free plane ticket to a city of their choice.

The few illegals I know all crossed over with a firearm.

It was for protection on the trip and for a quick sale for money when in the states.

Very common practice.

But who cares about unmarked guns coming in the country?

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

I agree.

What do you think about the others in the video that weren't charged? Do you agree with their actions?

originally posted by: Guyfriday
I'm a little confused here. Only the felon was arrested and not the rest of the group, so the rest group is still very well guarding the boarder. What's the issue? The guy shouldn't have had any weapons on himself, he could have lead the group while unarmed, but he didn't. Now he has to pay the price.

A few things that bothered me though;
What was Larry Mitchell Hopkins felony conviction?
If only Larry Mitchell Hopkins was arrested, then shouldn't his second in command just assume command?
Why was the story focused on Larry Mitchell Hopkins, but concludes with

“This is a dangerous felon who should not have weapons around children and families," said New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas. "Today’s arrest by the FBI indicates clearly that the rule of law should be in the hands of trained law enforcement officials, not armed vigilantes.”

have to do with the civilans on the boarder helping out in "boarder-hood watch"?


Is this a hit pice on Larry Mitchell Hopkins, or an attack piece on civilans patrolling the boarder?

Very good point, I was thinking the same thing. It is definitely a hit piece on citizens in general patrolling the border. In doing so these people that write these type of stories are $hitting where they eat so-to-speak.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Guyfriday
I'm a little confused here. Only the felon was arrested and not the rest of the group, so the rest group is still very well guarding the boarder. What's the issue? The guy shouldn't have had any weapons on himself, he could have lead the group while unarmed, but he didn't. Now he has to pay the price.

A few things that bothered me though;
What was Larry Mitchell Hopkins felony conviction?
If only Larry Mitchell Hopkins was arrested, then shouldn't his second in command just assume command?
Why was the story focused on Larry Mitchell Hopkins, but concludes with

“This is a dangerous felon who should not have weapons around children and families," said New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas. "Today’s arrest by the FBI indicates clearly that the rule of law should be in the hands of trained law enforcement officials, not armed vigilantes.”

have to do with the civilans on the boarder helping out in "boarder-hood watch"?


Is this a hit pice on Larry Mitchell Hopkins, or an attack piece on civilans patrolling the boarder?

Very good point, I was thinking the same thing. It is definitely a hit piece on citizens in general patrolling the border. In doing so these people that write these type of stories are $hitting where they eat so-to-speak.

Well citizens don't have the authority to patrol the border do they, should citizens just patrol the streets as cops too ?

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Sounds like he is pretty clear on that detail.

Holy Crap sounds like you live in clarksville .
Thats a bad place to go anymore .
i used to love going there til it got so crazy.a reply to: Nickn3

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Guyfriday
I'm a little confused here. Only the felon was arrested and not the rest of the group, so the rest group is still very well guarding the boarder. What's the issue? The guy shouldn't have had any weapons on himself, he could have lead the group while unarmed, but he didn't. Now he has to pay the price.

A few things that bothered me though;
What was Larry Mitchell Hopkins felony conviction?
If only Larry Mitchell Hopkins was arrested, then shouldn't his second in command just assume command?
Why was the story focused on Larry Mitchell Hopkins, but concludes with

“This is a dangerous felon who should not have weapons around children and families," said New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas. "Today’s arrest by the FBI indicates clearly that the rule of law should be in the hands of trained law enforcement officials, not armed vigilantes.”

have to do with the civilans on the boarder helping out in "boarder-hood watch"?


Is this a hit pice on Larry Mitchell Hopkins, or an attack piece on civilans patrolling the boarder?

Very good point, I was thinking the same thing. It is definitely a hit piece on citizens in general patrolling the border. In doing so these people that write these type of stories are $hitting where they eat so-to-speak.

Well citizens don't have the authority to patrol the border do they, should citizens just patrol the streets as cops too ?

Ofcourse they can.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

“Basically the cartel controls at least the first five miles of the U.S. territory,” Oregon resident Mike LaMarte says. “The Border Patrol does the best they can out here, but they’re in and out. And the cartels know the routine and they just operate around them.”
That’s why this team is here. For a week in June, as daytime temperatures hovered above 100 degrees, LaMarte and about a dozen men have paid their own way to camp, train and patrol as volunteers with Arizona Border Recon.
To be certain, the Border Patrol does not affirm the vigilantes’ opinion that federal authorities have no control over the territory.
Still, Border Recon has for the past seven years maintained a presence on this part of the border, conducting weeklong “operations” every other month under the guidance of founder Tim Foley.
Videos on the group’s YouTube channel show “the reality of our unsecured border”: Group after group of men, usually dressed in camouflage, carry large bundles — presumably marijuana — as they walk north.

source

What problem do you have with citizens stopping drug shipments, human traffickers and other illegals crossing into the border of our country?

a reply to: Alien Abduct

My problem is vigilante justice isn't the answer to this mess, it's not up to citizens to enforce the law.