Minuteman Leader murders 9 year old girl.

That's because you can't unless you want to trash The First Amendment.

You are wrong about that Finn. The First Amendment is not the problem... it is the solution. Free speech works because in a free marketplace of ideas, the good ideas get more traction and the bad ideas become too costly to hold.

The solution is to make individuals and groups who tolerate hate speech pay-- politically and socially.

The "Republicans are Racist" meme has a lot of credibility right now with a significant part of the electorate. Is this label fair? Well, not even I would say that 'all Republicans are Racist.' But, the fact is that there is speech that I find offensive that is being used and even promoted by prominent Republicans. This idea that Republicans are racist is starting to seriously impact their ability to win elections.

The Republicans aren't helpless victims in this matter. They could make a serious effort to stand up to racist ideas coming from their ranks... and when a serious effort is made (right now there are only a few Republican voices in the wilderness) it will probably be to good effect with minority voters. And so, free speech can be self regulating-- the fact the Republicans are afraid of a negative label being slapped on them will make them more sensitive to slapping labels on other people.

The rhetoric from the anti-immigrant side-- from the prominent voices including from thoses on television-- go far beyond a civil debate. Using the word "invader" for people who come to do landscaping (what do you do to invaders?); attacking Hispanic civil rights group; promoting conspiracy theories based on a Hispanic take over... all of these things feed into a right-wing hysteria that can, and does lead to violence.

The solution is to publicize and condemn the hate speech coming from FAIR, and CIS and the Tancredos of the world. and this is exactly what we are doing.

Not only Hispanic groups have been opposing the hate speech, other groups such as the SPLC (traditionally involved in African-American civil rights) and the ADL (founded to oppose anti-Semitiam) have joined together to publicly condemn the tactics of the anti-immigrant movement.

It is completely fair in the upcoming immigration debate that the tactics that anti-immigrant groups use to rile up their supporters is thrown back in their faces. Free speech is the answer to free speech.

The same is true in the abortion debate. Terry Randall-- the head of Operation Rescue-- is horrified that the terrorist murder of Dr. Tiller is being blamed on him... but come on. He is running around the country talking about "baby killers" and the "blood of millions"...

Come on. Saying that Terry Randall is a terrorist is also protected free speech... and the fact that the 'extremist' label sticks is due to his own actions and is part of how free speech works

Finn - of course you are right on the First Amendment.

Whether Brown-Munoz believes his own misrepresentations (to put it very politely, though "contemptible libel", "malicious defamation", or "filthy propaganda" would all be more accurate) or not I can't tell, but look no further than this thread: there is no "Minuteman Leader" and no conviction for "murder" to be found in any documented facts. A 9-year old died in circumstances explained earlier in this thread.

No conviction for murder by these Minutemen yet, but, it's just a matter of time.
http://www.eastcountymagazine.org/?q=node/1419

June 14, 2009 (San Diego’s East County) " Shawna Forde, leader of Minutemen America Defense(MAD), has been arrested along with two men and charged with double homicide in a home invasion. The victims included a nine-year-old girl and her father. Forde has recently visited Camp Vigilance, a high-desert training camp operated by Minuteman Civil Defense near Boulevard in San Diego’s East County in 2008, East County Magazine has learned. A second suspect arrested also has ties to Minutemen Civil Defense Corps (MCDC), which operates a Minutemen training facility in East County.photo: Forde in East County, courtesy of Campo Minutemen.

Forde was arrested along with Albert Robert Gaxiola and Jason Eugene Bush in Pima County, Arizona. All three have been charged with two-counts of first-degree murder and other charges in a home invasion that left Raul Junior Flores and his 9-year-old daughter, Brisenia Flores, dead. The trio reportedly dressed as law enforcement officers, gunning down Flores and his daughter. The home invasion was reportedly drug related and the motive may have include financial gain. “Forde had previously discussed robbing drug traffickers linked to Mexican organized crime, her mother said,” according to the Everett Herald in Washington State, where Forde had recently resided.

Not so, Edgar - and the legal reasons were outlined previously on this thread.

Subject to the learned opinion of the resident legal eagle here (David), it is my understanding that a conviction for murder requires proof of intent - if you accidentally run someone over in your car, for instance, even if you kill him it's not murder. Here, briefly, we have 2 illegal Mexican residents of Arizona, engaged in drug trafficking, who had their 9-year old in the house with them at the time 3 others decided to break in intending to steal money and/or drugs. A shootout ensued, the girl and others died and/or were injured.

So it's not a matter of "time", it's a matter of proving intent - not to mention that ballistics tests aren't complete yet, and for all anyone knows the girl might have been killed by a ricocheting bullet fired by one of her parents. Somewhere on this site we have a ricocheting thread; here's a link, if you're interested in ballistics:
http://able2know.org/topic/133226-3#post-3675349

A death during the commission of a crime is murder under most state laws. On top of that, anyone involved in the crime is also guilty of the murder.

If the intent was to break into the house and commit robbery, any death as a result of that break in even if not caused by a gun of those committing the crime is murder. Even if the bullet that killed the child was from one of the parents and the parents had drugs in the house the charge of murder would still be against those that broke into the house.

Parados - as I said, you don't know whose bullet killed the girl until the ballistics test results are in. If the bullet came from a gun fired by one of her parents, would you say the surviving parent (the mother) should be prosecuted for the murder of her daughter? The parents were engaged in drug trafficking, so "commission of a crime" applies as well.

That is up to the prosecutor to decide. Every adult could be tried for murder if all were committing crimes.

However the surviving parent has a right of self defense in their own home. That would be a valid argument if the prosecutor tried to charge them with murder. There would have been no murder during the crime they were committing at the time without the intrusion.

if every member of the minutemen were to be shot in the head, dumped in a pit and **** on, i don't believe i'd lose any sleep

The motive was robbery. They have already been charged with first degree murder, according to my linked story.

Please read all the details provided in the sheriff's statement in addition to the one story, Edgar. The question of ballistics tests is still open - if it's not a bullet fired by one of the 3 home invasion suspects, charges of murder will automatically get dropped. Again, as I said, subject to legal opinion by David here.

No matter. They have been charged already, regardless of the sherriff statement. No matter who killed whom, the invaders are responsible.

Edgar - so if I and my husband, illegal residents in a country, use a house there to traffic in illegal drugs (per sheriff statement), you and 2 confederates break in to steal my drugs and cash, I by mistake shoot and kill my own daughter, it is YOU who can be convicted of murdering her??

Yes, because the person breaking into the house created the circumstances in which people could be injured. By creating those circumstances, they are responsible for anyone that would die under those circumstances even if they didn't directly cause the death.

Assume someone is shooting at the police and an innocent person drives by..
1. The person shooting at the police shoots and kills this person.
2. The person shooting at the police misses the person but scares them so they drive off the road and die in an auto accident.

Do you think the 2nd circumstance is the result of the person shooting at the police? Should that person be charged with murder even if no one else was killed?

From the AZ law for 2nd degree homicide.
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/01104.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS

So that would include the parents of the girl who got killed in the shootout - precisely my point.

The lengths you are willing to go to to defend these people - doesn't reflect well on ya.

Cycloptichorn

I defend nobody - that was a legal question, addressed to Edgar, who made that argument. Read before commenting. Better yet, get on the damn flight to get married before your bride-to-be figures out what a little pest you are and leaves you waiting at the altar! Best wishes for happiness

Are you a police officer to decide to go in there? Haven't you the humanity to consider the children before you enter with a gun?

If you break in as a concerned citizen, you would be guilty of poor judgement and some sort of crime. If you are a common robber, what does it matter what the victims may or may not be guilty of? Have they been convicted of recent drug activity from that home? If you don't have papers charging them they are innocent until proven guilty.

I suppose I was speaking more about the entirety of the thread, and not the last post in question.

I believe you would find my bride-to-be to be a bigger pest than I, as she is arguably more liberal - and less willing to be tolerant of those who would argue on behalf of home-invading marauders.

Cycloptichorn