Leader of self-styled U.S. citizen border patrol attacked in jail

[webfact]

Leader of self-styled U.S. citizen border patrol attacked in jail

By Julio-Cesar Chavez

 

Larry Mitchell Hopkins appears in a police booking photo taken at the Dona Ana County Detention Center in Las Cruces, New Mexico, U.S., April 20, 2019. Picture taken April 20, 2019. Dona Ana County Detention Center/Handout via REUTERS.

 

SUNLAND PARK, N.M. (Reuters) - The leader of an armed militia that spent two months rounding up migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border before he was arrested on federal weapons charges was hospitalized after a jailhouse attack, his lawyer and authorities said on Wednesday.

 

Larry Hopkins, 69, whose group of self-styled citizen border cops drew condemnation from civil liberties advocates, suffered broken ribs in the beating by fellow inmates on Tuesday at the Dona Ana County Detention Center in Las Cruces, New Mexico, according to his attorney, Kelly O'Connell.

 

Hopkins was arrested on Saturday by the FBI on an outstanding warrant accusing him of being a felon in illegal possession of firearms, a charge dating back to a 2017 search of his home.

 

The detention facility, about 200 miles south of Albuquerque, confirmed that Hopkins was "the alleged victim" of a Tuesday night attack and said the incident was under investigation.

 

"Hopkins was given medical attention for non life-threatening injuries," county spokeswoman Kelly Jameson said in an email. She later told Reuters that Hopkins had been transferred from the jail on Wednesday and turned over to the U.S. Marshals Service.

 

She said Hopkins was beaten by three other inmates in the jail's television viewing room, and no weapons were found. Jameson said she had no information on what precipitated the violence.

 

The attack occurred the same day that Hopkins' United Constitutional Patriots group abandoned its encampment in Sunland Park, New Mexico, where they had spent two months patrolling a 5-mile stretch of the border and said they detained thousands of migrants they caught trying to cross into the United States.

 

The American Civil Liberties Union last week denounced the UCP as group of "fascist" vigilantes impersonating law enforcement to essentially kidnap Central American families seeking asylum.

 

New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Democrat, ordered an investigation of the group. UCP members insisted they were acting at the behest of U.S. Border Patrol agents.

 

O'Connell, who said on Wednesday he had spoken with Hopkins by phone, questioned the jail's ability to protect a "very high-profile" inmate, but said he did not know why Hopkins was targeted. A UCP spokesman, Jim Benvie, said he believed it was because of Hopkins' activity at the border.

 

"They put him in a pod cell with a group of people, and they had just got done watching the article about the ACLU writing about him being racist, and as a result of that he was attacked," Benvie said in a video posted online.

 

Hopkins was being held without bail pending a detention hearing set for Monday in Albuquerque.

 

Benvie said the UCP was moving to another campsite in a couple of days and would continue to support the U.S. Border Patrol, which has said it does not support private citizens acting as law enforcement.

 

(Additional reporting by Peter Szekely in New York and Andrew Hay in Taos, New Mexico; Editing by Scott Malone, Jonathan Oatisand Leslie Adler)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-04-25

[Chomper Higgot]

Cry me a river.

[Kasane]

Really? What did he do wrong? ????????????????

[wisperone]

Well that must have been a little uncomfortable when that news story came on the tv.  "Hey, anyone see the remote control"?

[moe666]

4 minutes ago, Kasane said:

Really? What did he do wrong? ????????????????

Hanging out in a van down by the railroad tracks. Three time convicted felon should be enough

[Thainesss]

12 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Cry me a river.

 

Tolerant liberal ^

[jwdub]

Yeah, Who could have seen this coming?

[Thainesss]

23 minutes ago, webfact said:

The American Civil Liberties Union last week denounced the UCP as group of "fascist" vigilantes impersonating law enforcement to essentially kidnap Central American families seeking asylum.

 

????

 

Seeking asylum by illegally crossing the border in the middle of the night instead of presenting themselves at a port of entry and applying for asylum. 

[Kasane]

4 minutes ago, moe666 said:

Hanging out in a van down by the railroad tracks. Three time convicted felon should be enough

He's a pathetic white supremacist. Getting roughed up when his gun totting supremacist thugs are not with him is minimal justice.

[Thakkar]

Regardless of his crimes, violence against this man should not be condoned. He should not be deprived of the rights he illegally denied others. Let the legal system take its course.

[welovesundaysatspace]

I don’t support self-justice. But I guess in this case it’s just fair — what goes around comes around. 

[lannarebirth]

10 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

Regardless of his crimes, violence against this man should not be condoned. He should not be deprived of the rights he illegally denied others. Let the legal system take its course.

 

Despite his xenophopic ideology, the fact remains he's a geriatric citizen in stir. Thye probably should have looked after him better.

[Chomper Higgot]

I’ve said for a while now, the President needs to prioritise prison reform.

[Tug]

1 hour ago, Thainesss said:

 

????

 

Seeking asylum by illegally crossing the border in the middle of the night instead of presenting themselves at a port of entry and applying for asylum. 

I’m sure you are aware Donald is playing his delay game at the border so that route doesent work and it’s just about 1 year now that Donald skrewed up the opertunity for immigration reforms cause he couldn’t stand the thought of the daka kids could have a pass to citizenship and I’m glad he got his ass beat 

[Tug]

44 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’ve said for a while now, the President needs to prioritise prison reform.

He might need it

[Thakkar]

50 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Despite his xenophopic ideology, the fact remains he's a geriatric citizen in stir. Thye probably should have looked after him better.

 

Not following this case closely so don’t know the nitty gritty. Elderly care in America is unbecoming of a skef-proclaimed “great” nation that has the money for military spending ten time more than their nearest rival. Speaking in general terms, I think it’s a fair assumption that people like this man would oppose orgs like the ACLU (except when they specifically help him) and have voted for politicians that have eliminated needed funding for things like elderly care. I don’t feel a sense of “som-na-na” but rather sadness.

 

that is why talking heads on fox, and, sometimes, the other channels anger me so much, because they surely know better, but continue to spout falsehoods that con people into voting against their own interests.

 

I’m aware that that sounds condescending to the people who vote for those politicians, as if I’m calling them stupid. People vote certain ways for many reasons. It could be religious. It could be emotional (same thing, come to think of it). It could be racism. It could be misinformation. It could be pro or anti tax cuts. But it could also be stupidity, and the associated susceptibility to being conned.

[lannarebirth]

4 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

 

Not following this case closely so don’t know the nitty gritty. Elderly care in America is unbecoming of a skef-proclaimed “great” nation that has the money for military spending ten time more than their nearest rival. Speaking in general terms, I think it’s a fair assumption that people like this man would oppose orgs like the ACLU (except when they specifically help him) and have voted for politicians that have eliminated needed funding for things like elderly care. I don’t feel a sense of “som-na-na” but rather sadness.

 

that is why talking heads on fox, and, sometimes, the other channels anger me so much, because they surely know better, but continue to spout falsehoods that con people into voting against their own interests.

 

I’m aware that that sounds condescending to the people who vote for those politicians, as if I’m calling them stupid. People vote certain ways for many reasons. It could be religious. It could be emotional (same thing, come to think of it). It could be racism. It could be misinformation. It could be pro or anti tax cuts. But it could also be stupidity, and the associated susceptibility to being conned.

 

To be fair, sometimes there are no good choices to vote for. Your "least worst choice" may be different than someone else's but it's still someone you wish hadn't won. That's why I never recommend that people vote for the least worst candidate. Vote for the one that you think is best. Maybe they'll win, probably they won't, but you wouldn't have liked that "least worst" candidate anyway so what have you got to lose?

[Thakkar]

16 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

To be fair, sometimes there are no good choices to vote for. Your "least worst choice" may be different than someone else's but it's still someone you wish hadn't won. That's why I never recommend that people vote for the least worst candidate. Vote for the one that you think is best. Maybe they'll win, probably they won't, but you wouldn't have liked that "least worst" candidate anyway so what have you got to lose?

I disagree. Firstly, there’s a lot to lose, as the election of Trump shows. I’m aware (if I remember correctly) that you voted third party. Unlike others, I wouldn’t say it was a wasted vote, as it did send a message, though one can dispute if that message was in any way meaningful or  consequential. But my following comment are not directed at you personally. They are directed at the argument I think you are making, and, it is a common argument, not entirely without merit. It is an argument, I feel, borne of exasperation as opposed to hope (or, in the case of Trump voters—anger). At best it is an argument borne of unrealistic hope.

 

There may never be ideal choices, but there are always better choices. All politicians are not the same. There are bad ones, worse ones, and no so bad ones. There really are people who go into politics for the greater good, and they achieve tangible results. I’ve known many, and I’ve worked for one.

 

The American system is seriously flawed, no doubt. But, I’d argue, not fundamentally so. It stands on the three pillars of an admirable constitution, robust Bill of Rights, and separation of powers. Under Trump, and years of successive Presidents concentrating power in their office, that third leg of this stool is barely holding up, but still holding. There’s also the added democratic protection of Federation as the US is a collection of fairly independent States.

 

on the issue of voting, the choices are often not as depressingly dire as excessively cynical people like to argue. Women should have control over their bodies. That doesn’t mean I support abortion. It means I shouldn’t decide for them. Trade Unions should be robust, supported and every worker encouraged to join. Sure, Trade Union leaders can be corrupted, like any human. There are sensible solutions to that short of eliminating trade unions. The vulnerable in society need to be protected and supported. Yes, there will be scroungers, but, again there are solutions that have already been figured out. Even then there will be scroungers. So be it; the greater good is still served. Religion does not belong in government. Billionaires don’t need more tax cuts. Trickle down doesn’t work.

 

There are politicians on the right side of these issues, and others that are on the wrong side of those issues. And, yes, there is a clear right and wrong. Voting for the third party candidate (or staying home) may send a message, but risks giving power to the politician on the clearly wrong side of those issues.

 

Part of the public apathy stems from the right wing's cynical assertions of dishonesty and malfeasance where none existed (think Whitewater, Monica, "I invented the internet", Swift-boats, Birtherism, Benghazi, etc) and the media's unwillingness to sort out real corruption from partisan opportunism. Too many people believe the system is irretrievably iniquitous and so when a real corrupt leader like Trump comes along they see it as business as usual. 

 

It's an old story --- the boy who cried wolf. Well, we have real wolf now.

[billd766]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’ve said for a while now, the President needs to prioritise prison reform.

From the inside. ????

[lannarebirth]

29 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

I disagree. Firstly, there’s a lot to lose, as the election of Trump shows. I’m aware (if I remember correctly) that you voted third party. Unlike others, I wouldn’t say it was a wasted vote, as it did send a message, though one can dispute if that message was in any way meaningful or  consequential. But my following comment are not directed at you personally. They are directed at the argument I think you are making, and, it is a common argument, not entirely without merit. It is an argument, I feel, borne of exasperation as opposed to hope (or, in the case of Trump voters—anger). At best it is an argument borne of unrealistic hope.

 

There may never be ideal choices, but there are always better choices. All politicians are not the same. There are bad ones, worse ones, and no so bad ones. There really are people who go into politics for the greater good, and they achieve tangible results. I’ve known many, and I’ve worked for one.

 

The American system is seriously flawed, no doubt. But, I’d argue, not fundamentally so. It stands on the three pillars of an admirable constitution, robust Bill of Rights, and separation of powers. Under Trump, and years of successive Presidents concentrating power in their office, that third leg of this stool is barely holding up, but still holding. There’s also the added democratic protection of Federation as the US is a collection of fairly independent States.

 

on the issue of voting, the choices are often not as depressingly dire as excessively cynical people like to argue. Women should have control over their bodies. That doesn’t mean I support abortion. It means I shouldn’t decide for them. Trade Unions should be robust, supported and every worker encouraged to join. Sure, Trade Union leaders can be corrupted, like any human. There are sensible solutions to that short of eliminating trade unions. The vulnerable in society need to be protected and supported. Yes, there will be scroungers, but, again there are solutions that have already been figured out. Even then there will be scroungers. So be it; the greater good is still served. Religion does not belong in government. Billionaires don’t need more tax cuts. Trickle down doesn’t work.

 

There are politicians on the right side of these issues, and others that are on the wrong side of those issues. And, yes, there is a clear right and wrong. Voting for the third party candidate (or staying home) may send a message, but risks giving power to the politician on the clearly wrong side of those issues.

 

Part of the public apathy stems from the right wing's cynical assertions of dishonesty and malfeasance where none existed (think Whitewater, Monica, "I invented the internet", Swift-boats, Birtherism, Benghazi, etc) and the media's unwillingness to sort out real corruption from partisan opportunism. Too many people believe the system is irretrievably iniquitous and so when a real corrupt leader like Trump comes along they see it as business as usual. 

 

It's an old story --- the boy who cried wolf. Well, we have real wolf now.

 

 

That's a very thoughtful response, but I can't remember what we were talking about.

 

Oh, yeah, voting your conscience. With the exception of the 4 times I've voted for Ralph Nader, every vote I've cast for president has been a huge compromise for me. I'm not looking for someone to change the world or even the nation. Just come up with one good program that moves the country forward. You know, like Eisenhower and Kennedy and Johnson and Nixon did. 

 

One good program that applies to everyone, rich or poor. Something that may not be perfect but applies to everyone. A program that doesn't pick winners and losers but says we're all in this together.

 

If the next president made ten proposals but could only follow through on one, say universal health care for all, they'd be among the greatest presidents in history IMO. And maybe Congress would stop being beneath contemp as well.

 

I very much appreciate your thoughtful post, but in the last election the choice was between a war mongering political hack who used their influence to enrich themselves, versus a con man who could only dream of how he might enrich himself, win or lose. The responsible choice was to vote for neither. Would you be worse off if you had? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Thakkar]

1 hour ago, lannarebirth said:

in the last election the choice was between a war mongering political hack who used their influence to enrich themselves, versus a con man who could only dream of how he might enrich himself, win or lose. The responsible choice was to vote for neither. Would you be worse off if you had? 

 

On your last question, yes; a few things immediately come to mind:

 

The US would not have withdrawn from the Paris Accord and the Iran nuclear deal. Flawed as they were, the situation is now made worse, especially in the case of the latter, and especially for the lives of ordinary Iranians.

 

Khossoggi would probably still be alive, or at least died a less gruesome death.

 

The despicable corporatists, Garouch and Kavanaugh would not be on the SC. They will be setting back, or at the very least, slowing down progress for a generation.

 

Trans people in the military would not be in the untenable situation they are in and the door for new recruits would not be shut tight.

 

muslims from about a dozen countries seeking medical treatment or family reunions would not be barred.

 

Family separation at the border would not be the robust policy it is today, and at least fewer, if not zero kids in cages. 

 

800, 000 DACA recipients would not be living in fear and limbo.

 

Arguably, Palestinians would not be as despondent as they are. 

 

Millions would not have lost (or be paying more for) healthcare.

 

these are just off the top of my head. No doubt there’s more.

 

I’ve gone on too long, so will refrain from re litigating all the false accusations against Clinton. 

[Lupatria]

Looking at the photo, one can only hope this "White Power Supremacist" was denied any sperm bank donations.

[ParadiseLost]

31 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

On your last question, yes; a few things immediately come to mind:

Great post!

 

To add, the rich would not have been given a hefty tax cut...

 

America would have dignity and self-respect, still be admired by the international community. Most Americans today (outside their country) are deeply embarrassed by this pantomime Pres and his disgusting offspring.

[Baerboxer]

4 hours ago, Tug said:

I’m sure you are aware Donald is playing his delay game at the border so that route doesent work and it’s just about 1 year now that Donald skrewed up the opertunity for immigration reforms cause he couldn’t stand the thought of the daka kids could have a pass to citizenship and I’m glad he got his ass beat 

 

So you condone illegal immigration and illegal violent assaults in prison.

 

Well how liberal of you!

[Baerboxer]

44 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

On your last question, yes; a few things immediately come to mind:

 

The US would not have withdrawn from the Paris Accord and the Iran nuclear deal. Flawed as they were, the situation is now made worse, especially in the case of the latter, and especially for the lives of ordinary Iranians.

 

Khossoggi would probably still be alive, or at least died a less gruesome death.

 

The despicable corporatists, Garouch and Kavanaugh would not be on the SC. They will be setting back, or at the very least, slowing down progress for a generation.

 

Trans people in the military would not be in the untenable situation they are in and the door for new recruits would not be shut tight.

 

muslims from about a dozen countries seeking medical treatment or family reunions would not be barred.

 

Family separation at the border would not be the robust policy it is today, and at least fewer, if not zero kids in cages. 

 

800, 000 DACA recipients would not be living in fear and limbo.

 

Arguably, Palestinians would not be as despondent as they are. 

 

Millions would not have lost (or be paying more for) healthcare.

 

these are just off the top of my head. No doubt there’s more.

 

I’ve gone on too long, so will refrain from re litigating all the false accusations against Clinton. 

 

Accusations against Clinton - false. Accusations against Trump - true.

 

FCKU any evidence, biased investigations etc etc.

 

So easy when your political view is good, others bad.

[ParadiseLost]

As for this geriatric, overgrown baboon; he is typical of the macho type - remove his weapons and take away his entourage of retards and you are left with a sad old man who most likely peed himself when faced with a beating... Good.

[ParadiseLost]

23 minutes ago, Lupatria said:

Looking at the photo, one can only hope this "White Power Supremacist" was denied any sperm bank donations.

It's a pity his mother was denied an abortion...

[ParadiseLost]

3 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

Accusations against Trump - true.

As has been proven ...and there is oh so much more to come.

 

Strangely all the accusations against Hillary are just hot air from blowhards - they tried very hard to prove anything at all but failed miserably...

[Chomper Higgot]

Hopkins was charged with illegal possession of fire arms and ammunition, he lost his right to bear arms on the basis of his three former felony convictions.

 

This begs a question.

 

There is a process by which he can apply to have his right to bear arms returned, its not easy, it expensive and it takes time and he may not meet the criteria but that’s the law.

 

Why didn’t he apply at the proper place and get it line like everyone else?

 

I just don’t understand why he can’t follow the legal process like everyone else has to.

 

 

https://www.justice.gov/usao-nm/pr/larry-mitchell-hopkins-facing-federal-firearms-charge-new-mexico

 

https://thelawdictionary.org/article/how-can-a-convicted-felon-receive-firearm-rights/

[Emdog]

"...she had no information on what precipitated the violence."

He wanted to watch Fox News, and they were watching Game of Thrones. Gotta be the reason