Cops Kill Illegal Alien: He Had No Rights

[Matt-CZ]

Cops show up to the wrong address and straight up kill the resident for no good reason, so of course this thread is about the intricacies of immigration law.

It's the "what was she wearing" of police excessive force. Super cool.

 

[Ultimate Shield]

Yeah. That would be an unfortunate ruling for everyone. Because then I’d be with the aliens. Just like I would have been with the Jews. I can’t allow people to be killed because they are illegal. I’ll happily help them get back to their home country. But if we begin killing them.....yeah, no, that’s not going to happen.

But I do get the sense that some NESers are happy he’s dead. And that makes me sad.

THIS.
If at any point in time you find yourself devaluing a human life based solely off a persons citizenship status or the amount of melanin in their skin or the languages they speak then you seriously need to take a step back and look in the mirror...

 

[SKumar]

This is another reason why qualified immunity has to go.

Exactly. This whole ordeal is just a cover-up for yet another f*** up cop.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Now, two years later, we are finding that the government is trying to dismiss the family’s lawsuit, claiming that Ismael Lopez had no Constitutional rights

Same argument the state made in the Comm2A case against the citizenship required for LTC law. We won.

 

[Bonesinium]

I’ve reported everyone in this thread who believe illegal immigrants have no rights to ICE for immediate summary execution or deportation. I’ve claimed they are also illegals. And since they are, they have no rights, which means they have no right to even challenge the allegation of being illegal! That’s what they believe. Reap what you sow.

 

[teaser452]

I’ve reported everyone in this thread who believe illegal immigrants have no rights to ICE for immediate summary execution or deportation. I’ve claimed they are also illegals. And since they are, they have no rights, which means they have no right to even challenge the allegation of being illegal! That’s what they believe. Reap what you sow.

No joke!

My wife forgets her wallet and license 20% of the time. I always warn her that if they pick her up she’s gonna get deported. With her blonde hair and blue eyes, it’s right back to Sweden for her. I warned her that it’s cold there!

 

[JayMcB]

THIS.
If at any point in time you find yourself devaluing a human life based solely off a persons citizenship status or the amount of melanin in their skin or the languages they speak then you seriously need to take a step back and look in the mirror...

project much? where is his primary language or skin color mentioned?

Exactly. This whole ordeal is just a cover-up for yet another f*** up cop.

This. And the twisted logic they're trying to use is why most people view lawyers who use it as scum.

 

[headednorth]

Meh how many illegals kill someone and walk away?

 

[Ultimate Shield]

project much? where is his primary language or skin color mentioned?

Lmao don’t even pretend for a second like that type of garbage doesn’t go on here from time to time. You personally may not have said anything pertaining to those specific things but its the exact same mindset. The “Not one of us” mindset. This guy didn’t do anything wrong outside of being in his own home at the wrong time. My statement stands

 

[KBCraig]

Our NES crew tend to be Constitutionalists, who know that if a power isn't authorized to the government by the Constitution, then they don't rightly have it. Gun control, for instance.

So here's an exercise: please cite any authorization in the Constitution for the federal government to control immigration. Not the "uniform rule of naturalization", because that's about becoming a citizen. Just cite any Constitutional authority for the federal government to say who can or can't enter the country.

By the way, one of the complaints against King George listed in the Declaration of Independence, was his refusal to allow free immigration.

 

[drgrant]

So he's not 'innocent', which was my point. But even someone this un-innocent doesn't deserve summary execution. I'm just calling out the bleeding hearts with their 'innocent' thing, because he wasn't.

Depends on how one is using the term innocent- He certainly was "innocent" within the context of the framed police
action. If a cop shoots some guy holding a broad hostage and the bullet goes through him and kills her brother, who, at that point, was an otherwise unknown serial killer, "that guy" is still an innocent victim within the context of the original police action, even if it turns out
that he was a murdering piece of shit.

-Mike

 

[Cipher]

Our NES crew tend to be Constitutionalists, who know that if a power isn't authorized to the government by the Constitution, then they don't rightly have it. Gun control, for instance.

So here's an exercise: please cite any authorization in the Constitution for the federal government to control immigration. Not the "uniform rule of naturalization", because that's about becoming a citizen. Just cite any Constitutional authority for the federal government to say who can or can't enter the country.

By the way, one of the complaints against King George listed in the Declaration of Independence, was his refusal to allow free immigration.

Rob Natelson, a Constitutional law professor, wrote a brief piece on this issue that is elaborated on in his book "The Original Constitution".

"The law of nations" was the usual 18th-century term for international law. It included standards of conduct among nations. But it also encompassed some rules within national boundaries. A power to "define and punish" an "offense against the law of nations" included protecting foreign ambassadors against interference, protecting safe-conduct passes - and restricting immigration.

Why have so many writers - including some constitutional law professors - missed this? One reason is that 18th-century legal terms and categories were different from those we use today. For example, a modern law book might feature a heading for "immigration law." But in William Blackstone's "Commentaries," the English book that served as America's most popular legal treatise, there was no such heading.

Link

"Constitutionalism" is pretty vague. Even in a literalist interpretation you still have many arguing over the contextual and historical meanings of the Constitution. We argue over what is meant by a "well regulated militia" with leftists all the time so historical context is key to answering that.

 

[drgrant]

Our NES crew tend to be Constitutionalists, who know that if a power isn't authorized to the government by the Constitution, then they don't rightly have it. Gun control, for instance.

So here's an exercise: please cite any authorization in the Constitution for the federal government to control immigration. Not the "uniform rule of naturalization", because that's about becoming a citizen. Just cite any Constitutional authority for the federal government to say who can or can't enter the country.

Conversely, though, is there specific language in the constitution which was supposed to stop the government from controlling
immigration? Note: I'm not arguing this is the case one way or the other, rather I'm interested in knowing if it was something that was supposed to be inhibited by design. (for example, its often opined that we should have only ever had a navy but never a standing army, etc. based off historical things linked to those ideas... )

-Mike

 

[Bonesinium]

Conversely, though, is there specific language in the constitution which was supposed to stop the government from controlling
immigration?

Yes. It’s exclusion.


The country was new, it’s population small, and made up of immigrants. The federal government restricting immigration would not have been beneficial.

 

[Spanz]

just another example of us having too many Lawyers, Judges, and Lawsuits.

Cops made a mistake. They need to make it right by compensating the surviving family members. Open and shut case.

 

[swatgig]

What criminal law did he violate? You do realize that unlawful entry or overstaying a visa is a civil infraction, right? Civil infractions do not a criminal act make.

He possessed the bullets the police shot him with. That's illegal under 18 USC 922.

 

[Darksideblues42]

He possessed the bullets the police shot him with. That's illegal under 18 USC 922.

My grandfather shared a story not unlike this which shaped how he felt about race relations in this country. It was during the few days of leave his regiment had before they left for Europe following training in Texas. He and some friends had permission to leave base to see a movie. The driver they hired struck an African American man with his car, and broke his leg. The friends of the African American man put him in a pickup to bring him to the hospital that accepted "colored" patients. The local constabulary pulled out a ticket book and as the driver protested, the officer told him to settle down, he was citing "that negro yonder for fleeing the scene of an accident"

My grandfather took that lesson to heart, just how far the country still had to go. As a man living in Massachusetts, he never saw such overt racism.

 

[KBCraig]

Rob Natelson, a Constitutional law professor, wrote a brief piece on this issue that is elaborated on in his book "The Original Constitution".
Link

That's not what I asked. That's a cite to some guy talking about how everyone else is wrong.

Conversely, though, is there specific language in the constitution which was supposed to stop the government from controlling immigration?

Yes. Its called the Tenth Amendment: any power not expressly delegated to the federal government is reserved to the several states.

 

[teaser452]

That's not what I asked. That's a cite to some guy talking about how everyone else is wrong.



Yes. Its called the Tenth Amendment: any power not expressly delegated to the federal government is reserved to the several states.

Or the people.

 

[KBCraig]

Or the people.

Yes, and I was wrong to not include that.

The people create the several states; the states create the federal government.

Too many people have everything reversed, thinking that the states were created by the federal government and are mere subdivisions of it, and that "rights" come from the government.

 

[doxdsgn]

Claiming the victim has no standing to have his family bring suit in Federal court is a legal strategy — with very, very ugly optics.

 

[Agnotology]

You guys sure do like applying your hindsight knowledge to a person's actions who did not have the benefit of that same information.

If I read the article correctly, the guy answered the door with a gun? Cops show up to domestic call, granted at wrong house, find guy at door with gun. What would you do? Who answers their door with a gun drawn by default?

His civil infraction of being here illegally just became a moot point, as he would now be a felon for having that firearm.

The consitution does not grant all liberties to non-citizens.... otherwise illegal immigrants could vote in full capacity. This case will set an interesting precedent for civil lawsuits.

 

[teaser452]

You guys sure do like applying your hindsight knowledge to a person's actions who did not have the benefit of that same information.

If I read the article correctly, the guy answered the door with a gun? Cops show up to domestic call, granted at wrong house, find guy at door with gun. What would you do? Who answers their door with a gun drawn by default?

His civil infraction of being here illegally just became a moot point, as he would now be a felon for having that firearm.

The consitution does not grant all liberties to non-citizens.... otherwise illegal immigrants could vote in full capacity. This case will set an interesting precedent for civil lawsuits.

????

You read this :
“Police claim that when Lopez came to the door, he pointed a gun at them. However, multiple bullets were fired through the closed door and Champion admitted that the autopsy showed Lopez died from a gunshot wound to the back of the head.

According to WMC 5, three officers were at the scene, but only one of them opened fire. That officer fired six total shots—two at a dog that ran out of Lopez’s house toward the officers and four into the house. The bullets went through Lopez’s front door; one hit him in the back of the head. Lopez’s dog was grazed by a bullet.

“I do not believe [the officers] identified themselves at the door,” Champion said.

Champion said Lopez was pulling the gun away from the direction of the officers when the officers opened fire. He said he did not want to speculate about how it happened, but he thought Lopez could have been shot in the back of the head while he turned away from the officers, reports WMC 5.

The autopsy would later prove this to be true.”

You read that and concluded that he pointed a gun at the cops? Cops don’t identify themselves, guy grabs his gun and cracks the door open. Dog runs out, one cop opens fire at the dog with 2 rounds, Lopez is shitting his pants and turns to run and cop unloads 4 more rounds, managing to shoot the door and get one into the back of Lopez’s head.

You don’t happen to work for Adam Schiff as his reading comprehension advisor, do you?

Bullets through the door and a kill shot to the back of the head is not the penalty for being an illegal alien.

 

[robjax]

You guys sure do like applying your hindsight knowledge to a person's actions who did not have the benefit of that same information.

If I read the article correctly, the guy answered the door with a gun? Cops show up to domestic call, granted at wrong house, find guy at door with gun. What would you do? Who answers their door with a gun drawn by default?

His civil infraction of being here illegally just became a moot point, as he would now be a felon for having that firearm.

The consitution does not grant all liberties to non-citizens.... otherwise illegal immigrants could vote in full capacity. This case will set an interesting precedent for civil lawsuits.

If it is my house I can answer the door any darn way I please. I can answer my door with my gun drawn.

It is incumbent on the police to have the correct residence.

Since it was the wrong house it should be considered a murder.

 

[milktree]

If I read the article correctly, the guy answered the door with a gun? Cops show up to domestic call, granted at wrong house, find guy at door with gun. What would you do? Who answers their door with a gun drawn by default?

People who live in shit neighborhoods?

His civil infraction of being here illegally just became a moot point, as he would now be a felon for having that firearm.

Not until he was convicted.

The consitution does not grant all liberties to non-citizens.... otherwise illegal immigrants could vote in full capacity. This case will set an interesting precedent for civil lawsuits.

The Constitution does not grant rights AT ALL, it limits the power of government.

“Citizenship” is barely mentioned in The Constitution, and there’s nothing in The Constitution that requires citizenship to vote.

 

[FrugalFannie]

The consitution does not grant all liberties to non-citizens.... otherwise illegal immigrants could vote in full capacity. This case will set an interesting precedent for civil lawsuits.

No, but the PROTECTIONS guaranteed by the Constitution to ALL WITHIN ITS BORDERS apply to everyone whether here legally or NOT. i.e. the Bill of Rights. An illegal alien here has the same PROTECTION against illegal search and seizures as you and I, the right to practice their religion and the right to not incriminate themselves.

 

[robjax]

No, but the PROTECTIONS guaranteed by the Constitution to ALL WITHIN ITS BORDERS apply to everyone whether here legally or NOT. i.e. the Bill of Rights. An illegal alien here has the same PROTECTION against illegal search and seizures as you and I, the right to practice their religion and the right to not incriminate themselves.

However it is true that not all the rights in the BOR apply. They don't have 2A rights though....so their rights are limited within the borders if they are here illegally.

And that really seems to be part of the issue since he allegedly answered the door with a gun drawn.

 

[FrugalFannie]

However it is true that not all the rights in the BOR apply. They don't have 2A rights though....so their rights are limited within the borders if they are here illegally.

And that really seems to be part of the issue since he allegedly answered the door with a gun drawn.

whether he was legally in possession of that firearm was something that could not be determined when he opened the door. and while he may not have the legal right to buy or carry a firearm, I believe courts have decided that being in possession of the firearm in one's domicile is a right afforded to every person within the confines of the US, legally here or not. IMHO, "legal status" does not negate a human right to self defense. and when the 2A was written, there was none of this illegal vs legal status of people residing in a country. It has been decided that one does not need to be a citizen of the US to possess a firearm in the US. I think there was actually a Comm2A case in MA that was decided that green card holders (yes, that's a legal status) have the right to possess a firearm. And no, I have no case citations to back up these assertions.

 

[weekendracer]

Southaven, MS — Two years ago, police responding to a call of domestic violence went to the wrong home and killed an innocent husband. A year later, the tragedy grew deeper when TFTP learned that the officers involved in the killing would not be charged. Now, two years later, we are finding that the government is trying to dismiss the family’s lawsuit, claiming that Ismael Lopez had no Constitutional rights, therefore his murder did not matter.

In July of 2018, the officers who killed Lopez were brought to a grand jury by District Attorney John Champion who attempted to get them indicted on charges of homicide. However, the grand jury irresponsibly failed to return an indictment.

“The grand jury was given all of the evidence and they decided not to indict,” Champion said. “From my perspective, the case is closed at this point.”

Now, according to a document filed by the City of Southaven Tuesday, the city is attempting to justify the murder and dismiss the lawsuit by claiming Lopez has no rights because he was an undocumented immigrant.

Cops Go to Wrong Home, Execute Innocent Man, Claim it Was Okay Because He Had No Rights

Appealed in 3...2...

 

[robjax]

whether he was legally in possession of that firearm was something that could not be determined when he opened the door. and while he may not have the legal right to buy or carry a firearm, I believe courts have decided that being in possession of the firearm in one's domicile is a right afforded to every person within the confines of the US, legally here or not. IMHO, "legal status" does not negate a human right to self defense. and when the 2A was written, there was none of this illegal vs legal status of people residing in a country. It has been decided that one does not need to be a citizen of the US to possess a firearm in the US. I think there was actually a Comm2A case in MA that was decided that green card holders (yes, that's a legal status) have the right to possess a firearm. And no, I have no case citations to back up these assertions.

if he is in the country illegally there a few options if any for him to have legally obtained that firearm.

Even so, he shouldn't have been murdered.