GI Victimized, called Vigilante for Self Defense

[Kennedy 0]

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0414detain14.html

Quote

GI: I held migrants in self-defense
Accused vigilante says he feared 7 men were going to attack him
Robert Anglen
The Arizona Republic
Apr. 14, 2005 12:00 AM

Patrick Haab said he was a victim, not a vigilante, when he drew a pistol on several undocumented immigrants who he said rushed toward him out of the darkness of an Arizona rest stop this week.

"I acted in self-defense," the 24-year-old Army Reserve sergeant said during a news conference filled with contradictions Wednesday at the Maricopa County jail where he is being held on seven counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. "I thought they were going to attack me."

Dressed in prison stripes and shackled with chains at his ankles, Haab said he had no idea that the men were undocumented immigrants at the time he drew his pistol from a holster he often wears.

"I was not looking for any trouble," he said. "I'm not prejudiced in any way."

While Haab denied that his actions were planned or meant as a statement, his arrest has served as a lightning rod in a storm of controversy building along the 389-mile Arizona-Mexico border.

Supporters of several self-proclaimed civilian border patrols, who are converging in southern Arizona cities to help stem the flow of illegal immigration, are calling Haab a hero for taking quick and decisive action to stop an illegal border crossing.

But authorities say that Haab's actions were dangerous and violent and that he should be prosecuted for taking the law into his own hands.

Meanwhile, Haab's family is worried that he is being used as a political scapegoat and that authorities will convict him and send him to jail to send a message to fringe groups on the border.

"This couldn't have happened at a worse time," said Haab's father, Dave Haab, of New Paris, Ind. "They are trying to make an example out of Pat. They are trying to avoid a blood bath down there on the border. I think he has been charged unfairly and that he is being used as a political football."

Dave Haab, who arrived in Phoenix on Tuesday, spent the day attempting to find a lawyer to represent his son and arrange his release on a $10,000 bail bond. He described his son as a good soldier who had just returned from the Iraq war and was weeks away from a tour of duty in Afghanistan.

The younger Haab is assigned to a special-operations unit out of Kalamazoo, Mich., and has worked as a civilian affairs specialist. His duties include acting as a liaison between civilians and the Army in areas of conflict.

Patrick has served in Kosovo and Iraq since joining the U.S. Army Reserve. His 11-month stint in Iraq ended in October.

Army officials in Michigan could not be reached for comment Wednesday. But Haab's father said an Army captain in Kalamazoo said Patrick's transfer would be put on hold until his case was resolved.

Patrick moved to Arizona in January, and, according to the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, was rejected for a job as a detention officer at the jail where he is now being held.

Although officials could not give a cause for the rejection, on a document at the time of his arrest Sunday night, deputies noted that he was "mentally disturbed."

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.

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.

He said his dog, a black Labrador, is similar to ones used by Border Patrol agents. He said he first saw one man walk out of the bushes toward a white Chevy Suburban with California license plates parked in the lot next to Patrick's car.

A few seconds later, six more men emerged. Although Patrick said at one point that he was "attacked," he later acknowledged that none of them had weapons and none tried to touch him. But he insisted that might not have been the case if his dog had not gotten between them and if he had not been armed.

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.

Patrick said the 911 dispatcher told him to use his best judgment. He said he gave a second gun, a Derringer that he kept in his car, to another motorist who was also stopped at the rest stop. Patrick said the other motorist knew Spanish and confirmed that the men had crossed the border illegally.

He said he then ordered the men out of the Suburban and told them to lie on the ground, where he kept them covered with his weapon for 30 minutes while waiting for authorities. He said the other driver returned his weapon and left before authorities arrived.

The immigrants were taken to a federal facility in Yuma.

Patrick said repeatedly that he did not threaten the immigrants.

"I never patted any subjects down," he said. "I never pulled the (gun's) hammer back."

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

But authorities say that Haab's actions were dangerous and violent and that he should be prosecuted for taking the law into his own hands.

Do you guys not have a right to arrest someone in the commission of a criminal act? Does that power of arrest extend to illegal immigration?

Problem with claiming self defense is that they immigrants retreated and were leaving in their vehicle. He followed, this any self defense arguably ends there.

But does he have a right to arrest someone for illegal immigration? If that right exists that could be what he ought to argue.

[markd_nscr986 0]

Our government strikes again

A totally bullshit deal.......

Mr Haab should get a community service award.........not jail time

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Do you guys not have a right to arrest someone in the commission of a criminal act? Does that power of arrest extend to illegal immigration?

He admitted he didn't know they were illegal, so I don't think he could argue that.

[quade 4]

I believe I predicted this.

I further predicted that even worse things will happen to both sides.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Kennedy 0]

US citizens have the powe to arrest only for felonies they observed themselves. Whether that covers this incident is questionable.

I'd say he detained men who had threatened him enough to make him draw a weapon to ensure his own safety. I'd say he took the prudent course of action, and that he should be admired for his restraint.

I truly wonder what the charges are and how they might stand up.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[justinb138 0]

Quote

I truly wonder what the charges are and how they might stand up.

7 counts of aggravated assault w/ a deadly weapon.

[Kennedy 0]

Trouble is this guy wasn't even connected with the Minutement project. He is suffering the political backlash of their speaking out.

[Mr. Rogers voice]
Can you say "scapegoat?"

I knew you could.
[/voice]

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

I'm an idjit. I saw that but forgot it while posting.
Thanks.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[vpozzoli 0]

Quote

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0414detain14.html

Quote

GI: I held migrants in self-defense
Accused vigilante says he feared 7 men were going to attack him
Robert Anglen
The Arizona Republic
Apr. 14, 2005 12:00 AM

.....

Patrick said repeatedly that he did not threaten the immigrants.

"I never patted any subjects down," he said. "I never pulled the (gun's) hammer back."

Now this is a load of BS if I ever saw one. Pointing a gun at somebody cannot be considered a threat because the hammer is not cocked??
So what if somebody points a gun at me and I pull my gun and shoot him claiming self defense, but then it turns out HIS gun was not cocked? Does that make my claim at self defense baseless?
What if the gun is a signle action? Am I supposed to ask the guy to stand still while I check his gun's make and model and then ask an expert if I am not sure whether that gun is single or double action (or both)?
If this is the best line of defense he can come up with (besides claiming he is being targeted as a scapegoat) I'm sure he'll have a pretty hard time in court.
Cheers,

Vale

[chuckbrown 0]

Let's see he was rejected for a corrections position because he was mentally distrubed. He acknowledged that he could be mistaken for a Border Patrol agent and was walking a dog like those used by the Border Patrol. He acknowledged that none of the immigrants had a weapon or even tried to touch him. I don't see any crime which would have given him the right to draw his weapon. Even assuming he was in reasonable fear for his safety, he's only priviledged to use the force necessary to protect himself. In other words, when the threat abated he lost the priviledge to use the gun.

I'm a little curious as to why this guy was hanging out at a I-8 rest stop armed & looking like the Border Patrol. I'm sure the cops were wondering that too.

It's sort of interesting to see a police officer defending clearly illegal conduct.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

I'd say he detained men who had threatened him enough to make him draw a weapon to ensure his own safety. I'd say he took the prudent course of action, and that he should be admired for his restraint.

I suspect the best defense may be that he was arresting them for his earlier assault (presumably their threatening behavior amounts to assault there?).

Couched in those terms such action ought to be perfectly legal here. (so ok, replace pistol with rifle)

I think he's got difficulties in claiming continued self defense once he follows them back to their car. All he needed to do to defend himself was not go after them.

[Kennedy 0]

It's not a question of whether he threatened them.

His defense is that he feared for his life/safety. The rest is fluffy background. Remember, you're only reading what the writer included, not necesarily to most perinent parts of the statement.

The dividing line between legal and illegal in this case is whether or not he had a reasonable belief that his was in danger of GBH. That's why it'll go to court, and he'll be found not-guilty.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

The dividing line between legal and illegal in this case is whether or not he had a reasonable belief that his was in danger of GBH. That's why it'll go to court, and he'll be found not-guilty.

My point is though: is his belief that he's in danger still reasonable once the 6 men turn arround and walk off to their car? Maybe it is. Maybe he thought they were off for a gun?

Maybe the jury will conclude that once the turn arround to fuck off he was no longer defending himself. I certainly think there's a risk there... I wouldn't want to put my name to a not guilty prediction on those grounds alone.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

I don't see any crime which would have given him the right to draw his weapon.

That's a question for the jury. "Reasonable belief" is the requirement. Also, you're taking a very closed view of what is written. Admitting no one touched you is hardly saying no one threatened you. Trust me, a person can threaten you without a weapon from twenty feet away.

Quote

I'm a little curious as to why this guy was hanging out at a I-8 rest stop armed & looking like the Border Patrol.

Hell, when I throw on a thermal shirt and my cargos, I might look like a BP agent. He was at teh rest stop because He was travelling and had to let his dog piss. I didn't think stopping at a rest tsop was cause for suspicion.

Hell, if it is, I'll be under intense scrutiny because I'm driving from NJ to TN tomorrow to pick up my brother's dogs, and then driving home. You can rest assured I am going to stop at rest stops along the way.

Also, why is being armed cause for suspicion?

Quote

I'm sure the cops were wondering that too.

I doubt it. People pulling into rest stops is not uncommon, and neither is people going about their daily lives while armed. We are talking about Arizona here, not Albany.

Quote

It's sort of interesting to see a police officer defending clearly illegal conduct.

I don't wear a badge yet, and if you look at the legal threshold it's not a clear as might imagine.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[chuckbrown 0]

Quote

The dividing line between legal and illegal in this case is whether or not he had a reasonable belief that his was in danger of GBH. That's why it'll go to court, and he'll be found not-guilty.

No, the dividing line is whether he was privleged to use deadly force after they retreated.

This is what happens when little boys dress up and play policeman.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

No, the dividing line is whether he was privleged to use deadly force after they retreated.

When did he use deadly force?

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

My point is though: is his belief that he's in danger still reasonable once the 6 men turn arround and walk off to their car? Maybe it is. Maybe he thought they were off for a gun?

Maybe the jury will conclude that once the turn arround to fuck off he was no longer defending himself. I certainly think there's a risk there... I wouldn't want to put my name to a not guilty prediction on those grounds alone.

Once the direct threat of GBH (great/gross bodily harm) is past, that doesn't always end the situation. He did nothing wrong in detaining the men if the draw was legal. He is under indictment for pulling the gun on them while they were on foot.

Everything hinges on whether a jury finds that reasonable. Everything else is justified or not based on the draw.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

The dividing line between legal and illegal in this case is whether or not he had a reasonable belief that his was in danger of GBH. That's why it'll go to court, and he'll be found not-guilty.

No, the dividing line is whether he was privleged to use deadly force after they retreated.

You are incorrect. He never injured the seven men. He never used deadly force, so he doesn't need to justify deadly force. He needs to justify drawing, so the test is reasonable fear of GBH.

Quote

This is what happens when little boys dress up and play policeman.

How are you so convinced he was "dressed up playing policeman" rather than just letting his dog piss duringa roadtrip?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[mr2mk1g 10]

Isn't the "G" for "Grievous" over there too?

You guys have got odd charges over there. If anything I’d have had him charged with unlawful imprisonment for detaining them illegally rather than for drawing on them.

Is it not the case that in order to rely on self defence, you have to reasonably believe you are threatened at the time that you acted, rather than some time immediately before?

[chuckbrown 0]

Your points are excellent, and you'd make a good defense attorney. So, I'll say this:

1. We need more evidence to determine whether a threat was made which would constitute an assault justifying the use of deadly force to make an arrest after they retreated. The use of force after the threat is gone is different from being justified to use force to counter a threat. Once the threat abated, he was only privileged to make an arrest for a crime.

2. We need more evidence to determine whether he was in reasonable fear for his life to justify pulling the gun. This will be a close call. We haven't heard the immigrants side. Did they approach him or did he approach them? It'll make a big difference.

3. Why he was at the rest stop will be a very important point. While he did have the right to be there, his "reason" for being there will impact his defense. People don't just go to rest stops for shits and giggles (well some do but that's another topic). My suspicion is the police think he was playing BP. By the way, BP wear uniforms and can be very nasty if you cross them.

4. Being armed can be a reason for suspicion, or it can put into context to his actions. Being AZ, this might not be an issue in and of itself. Being armed and looking like BP does cast doubt that he was just out for a midnight stroll with his dog.

[Kennedy 0]

I don't recall that fancy legal word for "it just happend and we're still dealing with it," but that would be the case here.

The legal right pertaining to detaining felons would apply here if he had just been assaulted. As such, everything depends on the legality of the draw.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[chuckbrown 0]

Quote

Quote

No, the dividing line is whether he was privleged to use deadly force after they retreated.

When did he use deadly force?

When he pulled the gun. The force doesn't have to result in death. It only needs to be of a sort which could reasonably lead to death.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Does he really need to justify deadly force? Here simply pulling a gun does not require the same degree of threat as killing. Eg I can threaten with a gun to defend property but there are no circumstances that I can kill to defend property alone.

The reason why he was at the truck stop only counts as to the credability of what he says. It does not make what he did either legal or illegal - just changes whether or not the jury believe that he was genuinly acting out of self defense or simply out there acting as a vigilante.

Even vigilante's are allowed to act in self defense... but one who lied about why he's there might not be belived about how scared he was.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

No, the dividing line is whether he was privleged to use deadly force after they retreated.

When did he use deadly force?

When he pulled the gun. The force doesn't have to result in death. It only needs to be of a sort which could reasonably lead to death.

You are factually wrong. Drawing a deadly weapon is not the same thing as using deadly force. What he did is threaten deadly force, not use deadly force. There is a very large legal distinction.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*