16 illegals sue Arizona rancher: UPDATE! Mixed Verdict, orderd to pay $77,804!

RAMSTORIA

CAGiversary!
Feedback
34 (100%)
OP
An Arizona man who has waged a 10-year campaign to stop a flood of illegal immigrants from crossing his property is being sued by 16 Mexican nationals who accuse him of conspiring to violate their civil rights when he stopped them at gunpoint on his ranch on the U.S.-Mexico border.

Roger Barnett, 64, began rounding up illegal immigrants in 1998 and turning them over to the U.S. Border Patrol, he said, after they destroyed his property, killed his calves and broke into his home.

His Cross Rail Ranch near Douglas, Ariz., is known by federal and county law enforcement authorities as "the avenue of choice" for immigrants seeking to enter the United States illegally.

Trial continues Monday in the federal lawsuit, which seeks $32 million in actual and punitive damages for civil rights violations, the infliction of emotional distress and other crimes. Also named are Mr. Barnett's wife, Barbara, his brother, Donald, and Larry Dever, sheriff in Cochise County, Ariz., where the Barnetts live. The civil trial is expected to continue until Friday.

The lawsuit is based on a March 7, 2004, incident in a dry wash on the 22,000-acre ranch, when he approached a group of illegal immigrants while carrying a gun and accompanied by a large dog.

Attorneys for the immigrants - five women and 11 men who were trying to cross illegally into the United States - have accused Mr. Barnett of holding the group captive at gunpoint, threatening to turn his dog loose on them and saying he would shoot anyone who tried to escape.

The immigrants are represented at trial by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), which also charged that Sheriff Dever did nothing to prevent Mr. Barnett from holding their clients at "gunpoint, yelling obscenities at them and kicking one of the women."

In the lawsuit, MALDEF said Mr. Barnett approached the group as the immigrants moved through his property, and that he was carrying a pistol and threatening them in English and Spanish. At one point, it said, Mr. Barnett's dog barked at several of the women and he yelled at them in Spanish, "My dog is hungry and he's hungry for buttocks."

The lawsuit said he then called his wife and two Border Patrol agents arrived at the site. It also said Mr. Barnett acknowledged that he had turned over 12,000 illegal immigrants to the Border Patrol since 1998.

In March, U.S. District Judge John Roll rejected a motion by Mr. Barnett to have the charges dropped, ruling there was sufficient evidence to allow the matter to be presented to a jury. Mr. Barnett's attorney, David Hardy, had argued that illegal immigrants did not have the same rights as U.S. citizens.

Mr. Barnett told The Washington Times in a 2002 interview that he began rounding up illegal immigrants after they started to vandalize his property, northeast of Douglas along Arizona Highway 80. He said the immigrants tore up water pumps, killed calves, destroyed fences and gates, stole trucks and broke into his home.

Some of his cattle died from ingesting the plastic bottles left behind by the immigrants, he said, adding that he installed a faucet on an 8,000-gallon water tank so the immigrants would stop damaging the tank to get water.

Mr. Barnett said some of the ranch´s established immigrant trails were littered with trash 10 inches deep, including human waste, used toilet paper, soiled diapers, cigarette packs, clothes, backpacks, empty 1-gallon water bottles, chewing-gum wrappers and aluminum foil - which supposedly is used to pack the drugs the immigrant smugglers give their "clients" to keep them running.

He said he carried a pistol during his searches for the immigrants and had a rifle in his truck "for protection" against immigrant and drug smugglers, who often are armed.


ASSOCIATED PRESS DEFENDANT: Roger Barnett said he had turned over 12,000 illegal immigrants to the Border Patrol since 1998.

A former Cochise County sheriff´s deputy who later was successful in the towing and propane business, Mr. Barnett spent $30,000 on electronic sensors, which he has hidden along established trails on his ranch. He searches the ranch for illegal immigrants in a pickup truck, dressed in a green shirt and camouflage hat, with his handgun and rifle, high-powered binoculars and a walkie-talkie.

His sprawling ranch became an illegal-immigration highway when the Border Patrol diverted its attention to several border towns in an effort to take control of the established ports of entry. That effort moved the illegal immigrants to the remote areas of the border, including the Cross Rail Ranch.

"This is my land. I´m the victim here," Mr. Barnett said. "When someone´s home and loved ones are in jeopardy and the government seemingly can´t do anything about it, I feel justified in taking matters into my own hands. And I always watch my back."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/09/16-illegals-sue-arizona-rancher/


Only in America can someone who has turned in 12,000 illegal immigrants for trespassing on his private property (nevermind sneaking into the country) be sued for violating civil rights (of non-citizens) and emotional distress. If he loses this suit (which I can see happening) he should sue the state of Arizona and US government for not providing adequate border protection.

TUCSON, Ariz. — A federal jury found Tuesday that a southern Arizona rancher didn't violate the civil rights of a group of illegal immigrants who said he detained them at gunpoint in 2004.

The eight-member civil jury also found Roger Barnett wasn't liable on claims of battery and false imprisonment.

But the jury did find him liable on four claims of assault and four claims of infliction of emotional distress and ordered Barnett to pay $77,804 in damages — $60,000 of which were punitive.

Barnett declined to comment afterward, but one of his attorneys, David Hardy, said the plaintiffs lost on the bulk of their claims and that Barnett has a good basis for appeal on the two counts on which he lost.

"They won a fraction of the damages they were seeking," Hardy said.

All six plaintiffs are citizens of Mexico, five of whom are living in the United States with visa applications pending, and the sixth resides in Mexico but was allowed into the U.S. for the trial, said Nina Perales, an attorney with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. She declined to say where in the U.S. they're residing.

Perales called the outcome "a resounding victory that sends a message that vigilante violence against immigrants will not be tolerated."

David Urias, attorney for the plaintiffs, said, "Obviously we are disappointed with some aspects of the verdict. But I think that overall this was a victory for the plaintiffs."

For years, Arizona has been the busiest point along the Mexican border for illegal immigrants entering the United States.

For more than a decade, Barnett has been a controversial figure in southern Arizona. He's known for aggressively patrolling his ranch property and along highways and roads in the area, often with his wife and brothers, on the lookout for illegal immigrants.

The plaintiffs alleged that Barnett threatened them with his dog and told them he would shoot anyone who tried to escape.

Barnett's lawyers argued that his land was inundated with illegal immigrants who left trash on his property, damaged his water supply and harmed his cattle.

Barnett's wife and a brother were dismissed as defendants; in addition, 10 more people initially named as plaintiffs were dropped from the proceedings.

Barnett has been known to wear a holstered 9-mm pistol on his hip and upon coming across groups of migrants, to flash a blue and gold badge resembling that of the highway patrol, with the wording "Barnett Ranch Patrol. Cochise County. State of Arizona."

The Barnetts detain and turn over those whom they encounter to the U.S. Border Patrol. In 2006, Barnett estimated that he had detained more than 10,000 illegal immigrants in 10 years.

His actions have resulted in formal complaints from the Mexican government against what it considers vigilante actions, and in several other lawsuits, including one stemming from an October 2004 incident.

In that case, a jury awarded a family of Mexican-Americans on a hunting trip $100,000 in damages, later upheld by the Arizona Supreme Court.

Barnett's 22,000-acre ranch, about five miles north of the Mexican border, includes private and federal lease holdings in addition to nearly 14,000 acres of state-leased land.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6267853.html

well, i think you know how i feel about this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The lawsuit said he then called his wife and two Border Patrol agents arrived at the site. It also said Mr. Barnett acknowledged that he had turned over 12,000 illegal immigrants to the Border Patrol since 1998.

HOLY SHIT

This guy is fucking awesome. I am going to be fucking pissed if he loses this case.
 
I just don't understand how you can violate the Constitutional rights of someone who isn't protected by the Constitution. Case dismissed, deport them to Southern Mexico so they have to walk the entire length of the country if they want to try it again.
 
This guy is a true American hero...
that said, I'm sure he'll lose this lawsuit and his ranch will ironically soon be in possession of the illegals...
 
I'm all for reform on the immigration policies in this country and I am against how Americans look down upon illegal immigrants, but WTF is up with this lawsuit? ..this whole story is too funny and depressing at the same time knowing that the Mexican government may actually have a case.
 
MALDEF...why am I not surprised? I wouldn't be shocked if he loses the case though, which would be a joke. What circuit does Arizona appeal to? If it's the 9th he'd better hope the lower courts find in his favor and MALDEF doesn't appeal, or that the Supreme Court is willing to take the case.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']Only in America can someone who has turned in 12,000 illegal immigrants for trespassing on his private property (nevermind sneaking into the country) be sued for violating civil rights (of non-citizens) and emotional distress. If he loses this suit (which I can see happening) he should sue the state of Arizona and US government for not providing adequate border protection.[/QUOTE]

In the US, a civil suit can be filed for any reason. So why get outraged by this? If this doesn't get thrown out - if it goes to a full trial or ends with Barnett losing, then let's talk outrage (keeping in mind that one does *not* have the right as a citizen to detain/kidnap other peoples, even if they are illegal or on your property).

As for the article itself:
His Cross Rail Ranch near Douglas, Ariz., is known by federal and county law enforcement authorities as "the avenue of choice" for immigrants seeking to enter the United States illegally.

So why aren't the fuckers patrolling it?

Trial continues Monday in the federal lawsuit, which seeks $32 million in actual and punitive damages for civil rights violations, the infliction of emotional distress and other crimes. Also named are Mr. Barnett's wife, Barbara, his brother, Donald, and Larry Dever, sheriff in Cochise County, Ariz., where the Barnetts live. The civil trial is expected to continue until Friday.

Big deal. I can sue LinkinPrime tomorrow for having taste in music so bad it causes me emotional distress. It's the United States.

Attorneys for the immigrants - five women and 11 men who were trying to cross illegally into the United States - have accused Mr. Barnett of holding the group captive at gunpoint, threatening to turn his dog loose on them and saying he would shoot anyone who tried to escape.

Well, some of that could very well violate their civil rights - and they *DO* have them, folks, like it or not. Law of the land rules the land, not John McClain/Dirty Harry law.

"My dog is hungry and he's hungry for buttocks."

Thank for, Washington Times. Thank you.

It also said Mr. Barnett acknowledged that he had turned over 12,000 illegal immigrants to the Border Patrol since 1998.

I'm skeptical of that number. Just throwing that out there.

In March, U.S. District Judge John Roll rejected a motion by Mr. Barnett to have the charges dropped, ruling there was sufficient evidence to allow the matter to be presented to a jury. Mr. Barnett's attorney, David Hardy, had argued that illegal immigrants did not have the same rights as U.S. citizens.

Mr. Barnett needs a new attorney, I'm afraid. Law on the books, not in the motion pictures, folks. On the books.

Mr. Barnett told The Washington Times in a 2002 interview that he began rounding up illegal immigrants after they started to vandalize his property, northeast of Douglas along Arizona Highway 80. He said the immigrants tore up water pumps, killed calves, destroyed fences and gates, stole trucks and broke into his home.

Some of his cattle died from ingesting the plastic bottles left behind by the immigrants, he said, adding that he installed a faucet on an 8,000-gallon water tank so the immigrants would stop damaging the tank to get water.

Mr. Barnett said some of the ranch´s established immigrant trails were littered with trash 10 inches deep, including human waste, used toilet paper, soiled diapers, cigarette packs, clothes, backpacks, empty 1-gallon water bottles, chewing-gum wrappers and aluminum foil - which supposedly is used to pack the drugs the immigrant smugglers give their "clients" to keep them running.

For all of this: pics or GTFO. Some of it sounds plausible, but some of it sounds sensationalized and overstated. And this *IS* the Washington Times.

"This is my land. I´m the victim here," Mr. Barnett said. "When someone´s home and loved ones are in jeopardy and the government seemingly can´t do anything about it, I feel justified in taking matters into my own hands. And I always watch my back."

He may think he's the victim, and he may *deserve* to be the victim; but he, like those of you who don't feel that he's done anything wrong, should at least look at the laws on the books before passing judgment. *Especially* if you're the kind of person who advocates against "legislating from the bench." Like it or not, there's a very, very good chance that this man could be found guilty.
 
[quote name='mykevermin'] Like it or not, there's a very, very good chance that this man could be found guilty.[/QUOTE]

Question: What would be the penalties if he were found guilty?

Hypothetic side observation: Let's say he gets found guilty, but it's a slap on the wrist since he didn't do anything outright violent, so perhaps a fine and some community service. What happens when this pisses him off and instead of rounding up illegals, he just opts to shoot them instead?

C'mon, don't say you can't see the logic there. His land + attempting to defend it from illegals = fine? My land + silencing voices = no chance for fine. 'Cuz who is going to complain then? The families back at home who won't know what happened to their fathers/sons/husbands?

Maybe the dude is a humanitarian at heart and just wants his damn land to be his damn land. But I could see the tweak happening here just enough, or at least the potential for it. I mean you spend several years trying to do it on the up and up, it might just break the camel's back.

As for the story at hand: I'm in agreement as to why no one is patrolling the place if it is so well known as an entry point. Likewise, while you bring up a good point of law of the land trumping everything else, but I dunno. If this thing got national attention, it's not going to end in a nice way.
 
I can see holding someone , but for 32 million....

He shouldn't have done it to begin with.

But installing a solar powered electric fence may have worked.
 
Penalties? It's a civil suit, so whatever the damages that are sought. It's not a criminal suit, so he doesn't face any probation/jail/prison/service.

They're seeking $32 million. Which leads to...I dunno. Imagine what would happen to you if I sued you for $32 million and won. You'd be in the shit somehow, and I'd...never see anything close to $32 million. This cat can't afford anything close to that. And, of course, don't forget that the vulture-like litigators will tear up the carcass of any fines/fees actually paid, leaving, at best, a little marrow for the plaintiffs.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Imagine what would happen to you if I sued you for $32 million and won. You'd be in the shit somehow, and I'd...never see anything close to $32 million. [/quote]

Half right. Imagine how many assassins could be hired for $32 million.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']In the US, a civil suit can be filed for any reason. So why get outraged by this? If this doesn't get thrown out - if it goes to a full trial or ends with Barnett losing, then let's talk outrage (keeping in mind that one does *not* have the right as a citizen to detain/kidnap other peoples, even if they are illegal or on your property).

[/QUOTE]

i know its civil, but its still absurd.
 
Citizen's arrest?
It's not kidnapping. Kidnapping implies they were taken against their wills for no reason. Now who's sensationalizing? They're trespassing on both his land and our country. By all means should he be able to detain them at the point of infraction.

I can't imagine what will happen if he actually loses. What kind of precedent does this set?

Why don't we just change the term to "undocumented exulted guest" and drop and all semblance of law? It's all just racism anyways. :roll:
[quote name='mykevermin']We should be able to detain and kidnap people?[/quote]




It's doing community service that got him in this mess.

[quote name='Strell']
Hypothetic side observation: Let's say he gets found guilty, but it's a slap on the wrist since he didn't do anything outright violent, so perhaps a fine and some community service. What happens when this pisses him off and instead of rounding up illegals, he just opts to shoot them instead?[/quote]
 
[quote name='mykevermin']We should be able to detain and kidnap people?[/QUOTE]

what kayden said. of course he should be able to detain illegal immigrants that tresspass on his land.
 
I once knew a guy that said if you have unwanted people on your property, and they won't leave when you tell them to, and especially if they are vandalizing, you are better off killing them because anything lesser and they will just come back and sue you.

I thought he was a nutjob at the time....
 
Apparently, he was already sued in 2004 for $100K for much the same thing: http://www.splcenter.org/center/splcreport/article.jsp?aid=225

This is a better article on this story: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=87988

This part really pisses me off:
Many of the aliens are residents of Michoacan, Mexico. Four live in Illinois, one resides in Georgia and another in Michigan. All of the plaintiffs currently living in the U.S. listed pseudonyms in the lawsuit due to "fear of adverse action based on immigration status."

So, instead of being in jail, these illegals are living across the country using fake names. How are they no locked up? What have they been doing for the past 11 months? Win or lose, is there any way in hell they're going back to Mexico?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']For all of this: pics or GTFO. Some of it sounds plausible, but some of it sounds sensationalized and overstated. And this *IS* the Washington Times.[/QUOTE]
Its not that hard to imagine, here's a scene from elsewhere in Arizona.

pic_three_points_copper_glance_mine1_2006apr.jpg



I don't think its unreasonable to hold armed drug and human traffickers at gunpoint. I don't think its unreasonable to assume drug and human traffickers are armed until the authorities arrive. I don't think its reasonable that this man's country should fail to live up to its primary responsibility to him, to protect his family and home from foreign invasion.

Its unfortunate that our prior president and both recent candidates were all very soft on this issue. These aren't simply huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the reality is very ugly, very violent, and unfortunately its making too many people too much money for there to be any real change.

What would you have this man do? Some of the most violent criminal organizations in the world are smuggling drugs and people through his land, they're breaking into his home, stealing his vehicles, killing his cattle, and destroying his property. The authorities are unwilling to prevent this from happening for political reasons.

Do you know what Mexico does to these people on their border with Guatemala? They shoot them dead. And they raise hell whenever we talk about our border security.
 
I don't really understand all the patting on the back that's going on for this vigilante. It's one thing to defend yourself when you're threatened, but it's another thing to detain people at gunpoint people due to trespassing.
 
[quote name='doctorfaustus']I don't really understand all the patting on the back that's going on for this vigilante. It's one thing to defend yourself when you're threatened, but it's another thing to detain people at gunpoint people due to trespassing.[/quote]
What would you do in the guy's situation? Hmm... ?
 
[quote name='doctorfaustus']I don't really understand all the patting on the back that's going on for this vigilante. It's one thing to defend yourself when you're threatened, but it's another thing to detain people at gunpoint people due to trespassing.[/QUOTE]

Obviously to you having armed drug and human traffickers invading your land, vandalizing your property and even breaking into your home isn't being "threatened." :roll:
 
Don't you have the right to face your accusers in civil court?

If so, why not have the INS sitting in the court room?

...

In another scenario, why didn't the land owner, the local cops and drug traffickers come to an agreement?

Make a toll booth and charge $5 a head to not be seen. Give $4 to the Man and $1 to the landowner and everybody is happy.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Obviously to you having armed drug and human traffickers invading your land, vandalizing your property and even breaking into your home isn't being "threatened." :roll:[/QUOTE]

So, these people that are suing him are "armed drug and human traffickers," vandals, and burglars? And I'm assuming that the 1200 others he's detained were also violent "armed drug and human traffickers?" I'd think that there would be some people passing through this property that weren't violent drug traffickers, but I guess not.

Damn, I'm surprised he's still alive.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']

I'm skeptical of that number. Just throwing that out there.
[/quote]

12,000 over 11 years isn't that far fetched, if you do the math.

Break it down. That comes to just under 1,100 (1090 to be exact) a year, divide that by 52 weeks in a year, that brings us to 21 (rounding up). Now let's say he takes the weekend off, so divide by 5. What do we get? 4.2 illegal immigrants a day.

Considering this incident in question nabbed 15 in one pop, that's almost his weekly quota right there. So, yeah, that number is entirely feasible.
 
[quote name='VipFREAK']1. Move...
2. Not live next to Mexico...
3. Not own 22,000 acre of land...

That's all the obvious ones I got...[/quote]

1) I don't think anybody should live in the south. A hurricane will hit you. You should move.
2) I live in California. It's next to Mexico. I should move too.
3) Since you don't need your 3 bedroom house down there in Alabama since you're moving and you're only one person have an apartment up here in Wisconsin where it's safe. It's only one bedroom but you're only one person.


Please. If there are people trespassing you have a right to question them. If they are breaking the law you have the right to detain them. In a time where everyone says we're giving up rights I can't believe people are still saying we don't have the right to protect our land. Lets just give it away to China, Mexico and Canada so we can be done with it already.
 
One of the arguments in that other article I listed was that he couldn't detain them because he didn't have a no trespassing sign.

How stupid do you think someone would have to be to believe anyone would buy that?

You're entering the country illegally. Even if you had the owner's explicit permission or were on public land, you'd still be here illegally.
Had he posted the sign, they wouldn't have been able to read it.
Even if they could read the sign, they sure as fuck wouldn't pay it any heed.
 
[quote name='Kayden']Had he posted the sign, they wouldn't have been able to read it.[/quote]

In the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia we post all signs in Spanish and English to avoid this problem. Sometimes we only post them in Spanish since if you speak English you have enough common sense not to do that stupid act. For instance a fence with barbed wire that's electrified only had Spanish warning signs.
 
[quote name='Magehart']In the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia we post all signs in Spanish and English to avoid this problem. Sometimes we only post them in Spanish since if you speak English you have enough common sense not to do that stupid act. For instance a fence with barbed wire that's electrified only had Spanish warning signs.[/quote]

I don't mind people coming here, but there is a better way than illegally. Even if it's messed up slow or stupid, if you really want to come over, it'll have to be worth it.
 
Officially, we don't want the people that sneak in because they offer nothing. They can't afford to immigrate because they're unskilled and essentially have no value.

Unofficially, we can't get enough of them because they're worthless and take matching pay.

[quote name='xycury']I don't mind people coming here, but there is a better way than illegally. Even if it's messed up slow or stupid, if you really want to come over, it'll have to be worth it.[/quote]
 
[quote name='xycury']I don't mind people coming here, but there is a better way than illegally. Even if it's messed up slow or stupid, if you really want to come over, it'll have to be worth it.[/quote]

I love the fact that one of my friends, illegal, was deported from the country and within 3 days he was back to work here.

After looking through the immigration site I couldn't believe how long it takes to become a citizen. I don't blame them for trying to come here illegally. But I will never condone their actions. They're criminals and as such have no rights. Otherwise a prisoner could sue their warden for detaining them against their will. (trying to keep post on topic... did it work?)
 
[quote name='Kayden']Officially, we don't want the people that sneak in because they offer nothing. They can't afford to immigrate because they're unskilled and essentially have no value.

Unofficially, we can't get enough of them because they're worthless and take matching pay.[/quote]

Indeed, both the Immigration and the public workforce need an overhaul.

Only reason we have illegals, jobs aplenty, and the inherit rights to public support.

[quote name='Magehart']I love the fact that one of my friends, illegal, was deported from the country and within 3 days he was back to work here.

After looking through the immigration site I couldn't believe how long it takes to become a citizen. I don't blame them for trying to come here illegally. But I will never condone their actions. They're criminals and as such have no rights. Otherwise a prisoner could sue their warden for detaining them against their will. (trying to keep post on topic... did it work?)[/quote]

My Father-in-law got in legally, it was a headache, and it was at least 2 years but he's making great money, got sponsorship and been doing fine.

it's not the case for every Juan or Jesus, but the system is there to do it right.
 
[quote name='Magehart']1) I don't think anybody should live in the south. A hurricane will hit you. You should move.
2) I live in California. It's next to Mexico. I should move too.
3) Since you don't need your 3 bedroom house down there in Alabama since you're moving and you're only one person have an apartment up here in Wisconsin where it's safe. It's only one bedroom but you're only one person.
[/quote]

The first two were... kinda a joke, but last time I checked this was 2009 not Medevil times. 1. how the hell does someone own that much. 2. why the hell would someone want that much. 3. 22,000 ACRES is a bit bigger than going from an apartment to a house. :roll:

[quote name='The Crotch']Dibs on Seattle.[/quote]

Damn it... I guess I'll settle for Portland.
 
Yes but if you want to own 22,000 acres of land in the ass of the Arizona desert then it's your American right to do so. It's also 22,000 acres of land... you can't expect police or ice to be there in short order so you have to do what it takes to uphold your safety. I want this guy to win so we can legally detain illegals without fear of repercussion.
 
bread's done
Back
Top