From: An Insurance Guy [Email him]

This is funny, the state wants to have their cake and eat it too.Lets hope this case turns into an anchor baby quagmire.

In this BlackListed News story Cops Go to Wrong Home, Execute Innocent Man, Claim it Was Okay Because He Had No Rights, September 27, 2019, the city of Southhaven, MS, is claiming that the family of  an illegal, shot when cops rapped on his door by mistake, and he (according to them) pulled a gun on them, can't sue on the basis of violation of his "civil rights" because he didn't have those rights.

Lawyers for Southhaven:

Ismael Lopez had no Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment civil rights as alleged in the Complaint. There is no jurisdiction based on the absence of any legally recognized relationship of Ismael Lopez with the United States at the time of his death. In the alternative, there is no standing by either Plaintiff due to the illegal alien status of Lopez at the time of his death in tandem with his insufficient connections with the United States of the type, dignity, and caliber required for standing.

They can't say the victim has no rights because they're in the country illegally, then claim their children born here are US citizens because they're under US jurisdiction.

Either they're under US jurisdiction or they're not, but not both.

James Fulford writes: I take no position on whether the shooting of Ismael Lopezwas justified or not, because I know that police sometimes lie, and the  press always lies about the circumstances. What I do know is that after most justifiable homicides, there is frequently an attempt to prosecute the shooter, and an attempt by the family of the deceased (aka "the attacker") to get rich, which is what is happening here. [Attorneys for man killed by police call Southaven's actions 'aggressive', WMCActionNews5.com, September 26, 2019]

A Grand Jury wouldn't indict the police who went, admittedly, to the wrong house and were greeted, apparently, by an illegal alien pointing a gun at them. Are the lawyers who claim that the deceased had Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment civil rights for purposes of a lawsuit also under the impression that he had Second Amendment rights?