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

[quote name='VipFREAK']Yeah, that wouldn't have anything to do with having... 22,000 ACRES either. :roll:[/quote]

So it becomes more acceptable for people to transgress upon your property the more you have? Would it be better if there were 22,000 1 acre lots? Would that make it less acceptable for them to trespass? Is it less wrong rape a fat woman because she wouldn't get laid anyways?

I don't understand what your fixation with the size of his land is. He has 35 square miles of desert rubbing nuts with Mexico.

[quote name='mykevermin']Lotsa people. There are specific legal definitions for each of those phrases, so it's not something that can be taken as ambiguous.

That's the point I'm trying to make; y'all don't really understand the law. It's shown by the collective attitude that it's absolutely implausible that Barnett was guilty, as opposed to determining guilt based on the definitions of the charges filed against him, and the legal meaning of the terminology used in that definition.

Finding out is "is" really does mean "is," so to speak. ;)[/quote]

If that's the case, why are we allowing random people to decide his level of not-innocence? If I don't understand the law, 12 of his local yokel peers sure don't.
 
[quote name='Kayden']Would it be better if there were 22,000 1 acre lots?[/quote]

At least if there were a report of a trespasser they could narrow it down to 1 acre and 1 home owner instead of 22,000 acres and 1 owner...
 
Slavery was the law once. Should we have followed that too?

If the law is wrong but you support it's enforcement then you're just as guilty as the corrupt/lazy politicians who wrote it.

Jury nullification, refuse to convict.
 
:wall:

Really?

Really?

Oh, for fuck's sake. I'm going to go hang out with bmulligan. At least he pretends to act rationally, instead of y'all "let's just ignore the laws we don't like in a court of law" fellers.

I don't think murder is a violation of the law if the victim is a registered Republican. Jury nullification, refuse to convict!

Jaysis. We have laws, man. The ones we like and the ones we hate. Those who choose to go outside the law are subject to it. You gonna start hangin' out with and high-fivin' Abortion Clinic Bombers now because they're doing what they believe, camoor?
 
i hate when people sue for emotional distress...

but he also got sued for assault, and as far as i can tell there have been no criminal charges hes been found guilty of. so thats equally maddening. if he had been arrested for assault, tried & convicted, and then sued, i wouldnt have nearly as much of a problem with it as i do with the case just being civil.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']On what grounds, Mister Attorney?[/quote]
Not an attorney, never claimed to be one.

In this case it's more of me donning a short skirt, pom poms and a bad dye job. I had that last one typed up as 'can-do attitude' but chickened out at the last second.

I understand the law as it currently stands do not permit his actions. He technically committed assault. Ok, fine. He has to pay. It just seems like the 60k in punitive damages is a bit excessive for being detained at gunpoint and being told his dog is hungry for ass.
 
Hey, that's all I'm lookin' for, cochese. I'm not sure I've convinced anyone here that I've been omitting my personal take on this situation. If you don't like the law, then change it. And it's wholly plausible, even prior to the guilty finding, that he was guilty. But we can't decide on a whim which laws to follow and which to ignore. Of course, we kinda do every time we speed, every time we get high or know someone who gets high/has a stash - but that, legally, makes us criminals. All of us.

If you have ethical objections to his conviction, great. Have ethical convictions; I'm glad people have passionate opinions about current events other than "hurr hurr michael phelps got high." But all I ask is that folks recognize that ethical convictions are as meaningful as a pocketful of lint in a court of law. So we can be disappointed in the outcome, we can be bothered by the law, but we should not be shocked that the law was applied as it was. That's all I'm sayin'.

[quote name='RAMSTORIA']i hate when people sue for emotional distress...

but he also got sued for assault, and as far as i can tell there have been no criminal charges hes been found guilty of. so thats equally maddening. if he had been arrested for assault, tried & convicted, and then sued, i wouldnt have nearly as much of a problem with it as i do with the case just being civil.[/QUOTE]

OJ Simpson was not criminally guilty, but found civilly guilty. (for the murders, not whatever football heist thing he recently did).
 
[quote name='mykevermin']


OJ Simpson was not criminally guilty, but found civilly guilty. (for the murders, not whatever football heist thing he recently did).[/QUOTE]

im aware, and even though i think he did it, i think its absurd that the goldman family was able to sue him for all that money after he was found NOT GUILTY. what was the ruling on that again, wrongful death? give me a break.
 
Well, criminal/civil trials don't meet the standards of 'double jeopardy.'

I see your point, but I want to be able to collect from PCA (when that inevitable class action action occurs) irrespective of whether they are held criminally liable or not (they ought to be charged with 9 counts of manslaughter at the least, but you and I know they won't be charged with anything criminally).
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']im aware, and even though i think he did it, i think its absurd that the goldman family was able to sue him for all that money after he was found NOT GUILTY. what was the ruling on that again, wrongful death? give me a break.[/QUOTE]

Yep. Also the burden of proof is different. Beyond a reasonable doubt for criminal court vs. preponderance of evidence for civil court.

But I agree it's silly. For stuff that's a crime (i.e. not a divorce, child custody etc. etc.) civil court shouldn't be an option until after a person has been found guilty in criminal court.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Well, criminal/civil trials don't meet the standards of 'double jeopardy.'

I see your point, but I want to be able to collect from PCA (when that inevitable class action action occurs) irrespective of whether they are held criminally liable or not (they ought to be charged with 9 counts of manslaughter at the least, but you and I know they won't be charged with anything criminally).[/QUOTE]

well shame on you. im sure a suit will be brought against them eventually, but what exactly would you be looking for, a refund on your cookies in the form of a 5 dollar check?
 
I eat local organic peanut butter, but this whole ordeal has made me mistrusting of all corporate entities. I can no longer go out shopping feeling multi national conglomerates have my best interests in mind. I'm suing for punitive damages and emotional stresses totaling 37.432 million dollars.

[quote name='mykevermin']Well, criminal/civil trials don't meet the standards of 'double jeopardy.'

I see your point, but I want to be able to collect from PCA (when that inevitable class action action occurs) irrespective of whether they are held criminally liable or not (they ought to be charged with 9 counts of manslaughter at the least, but you and I know they won't be charged with anything criminally).[/quote]
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']well shame on you. im sure a suit will be brought against them eventually, but what exactly would you be looking for, a refund on your cookies in the form of a 5 dollar check?[/QUOTE]

Who says I don't want the $5 check for my protein bars?

...cookies...:lol:
 
;)[quote name='mykevermin']Who says I don't want the $5 check for my protein bars?

...cookies...:lol:[/QUOTE]

protein bars? my bad, carry on then.
 
:lol: We had a conversation about their liability in my CJ class, and some people were fuming that entire *cases* of those peanut-butter-cheese-cracker-snack-pack things (they're college students on a college diet, after all) were recalled.

Um...boy howdy, have we strayed. My bad.
 
[quote name='Kayden']I eat local organic peanut butter, but this whole ordeal has made me mistrusting of all corporate entities. I can no longer go out shopping feeling multi national conglomerates have my best interests in mind. I'm suing for punitive damages and emotional stresses totaling 37.432 million dollars.[/quote]

Your mistake is suing someone who is powerful.

You've got to pick on a weaker target like a small farmer protecting his land, it's harder for the poor guy to fight back. What's the farmer going to do - lobby for a change in law, trust the American judicial system to have his back? Yeah right, good luck!
 
I agree with the statement you cant violate the constitutional rights of someone not protected by the constitution......there are better ways this could be handled i believe but who knows....if i just went wandering through peoples yards on my street that does not know me I would fully expect to eventually have a gun pulled on me since I am trespassing and it would not be an issue of where I am from or my skin tone or anything like that, it would just be because I was wandering around on other peoples property
 
[quote name='bigdaddy']They are illegally here they should have no right to sue, end of story.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for chiming in with your expert advice, Legal Eagle. :roll:
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']i hate when people sue for emotional distress...

but he also got sued for assault, and as far as i can tell there have been no criminal charges hes been found guilty of. so thats equally maddening. if he had been arrested for assault, tried & convicted, and then sued, i wouldnt have nearly as much of a problem with it as i do with the case just being civil.[/quote]

Yeah, criminal and civil are totally different. Criminally OJ Simpson was found not guilty of murder but when he got sued for murder he was found guilty.

I was arrested for dealing pot when I was 16. Criminally I was found not guilty. But in the civil case to get the money back they took from me as "evidence" I was found guilty and didn't get my money back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top