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

[quote name='Kayden']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]

Just like finanicial institutions have evolved into entities whose sole reason for existence is to make money for executive bankers, law has evolved into a convoluded system of rules designed to make money for it's practitioners (IE lawyers).

Common sense has nothing to do with it, the idea is to settle disputes in such a way that multiple lawyers can either argue about administrivia for days (thus guaranteeing high-wage employment) or quickly agree on a settlement from which they take a juicy cut.

Before a suit is officially lauched, it should have to go through a govt-funded review to determine if it actually makes sense.
 
[quote name='Magehart']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.[/quote]

If it's HIS private property and he can't "protect" all 22,000 acres of it... it's kinda his bad. He knew what he was getting into to, you can't really MISS 22,000 acres of land...
 
[quote name='doctorfaustus']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]
By definition anyone making that crossing is a drug trafficker, a human trafficker, or a human being trafficked. And considering that the humans being trafficked are also used to carry drugs, they are themselves drug traffickers.

And don't assume that these people are all there willingly, or are simply free to go once they're brought across the border. Human trafficking is modern day slavery.
 
[quote name='VipFREAK']If it's HIS private property and he can't "protect" all 22,000 acres of it... it's kinda his bad. He knew what he was getting into to, you can't really MISS 22,000 acres of land...[/quote]

He was protecting his land. But he is being sued for doing what the government failed to do. What would you propose he do instead?
 
Probably wants him to set up a massage parlor so the guy can rub their poor feet. Sneaking into the country and vandalizing private property is hard work. They deserve to be pampered.
[quote name='Magehart']He was protecting his land. But he is being sued for doing what the government failed to do. What would you propose he do instead?[/quote]
 
[quote name='cochesecochese']HOLY SHIT

This guy is fucking awesome. I am going to be fucking pissed if he loses this case.[/QUOTE]

Hell yeah. They're illegal, they don't have rights. Deport their asses and tell them to get green cards just like everybody else.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']By definition anyone making that crossing is a drug trafficker, a human trafficker, or a human being trafficked. And considering that the humans being trafficked are also used to carry drugs, they are themselves drug traffickers.

And don't assume that these people are all there willingly, or are simply free to go once they're brought across the border. Human trafficking is modern day slavery.[/QUOTE]


I'll admit that human/drug trafficking goes on with regularity, but one can't ignore the fact that there are also honest, hardworking people risking their lives that also make the trek across the border. I'm not against efforts made against undocumented border crossings, but there needs to be a fair and humane way to deal with undocumented immigrants. Holding people at gunpoint (they are people after all, not "illegals" or "aliens") should be reserved for life and death situations.

Sorry, but I still don't think vigilantism is an adequate response to Barnett's situation. There's no way that rounding up groups of people (many of which Barnett claims to be armed) is a safer situation than alerting Border patrol agents. Rounding up undocumented immigrants creates a dangerous situation for both the undocumented immigrants and Mr. Barnett.
 
[quote name='doctorfaustus']I'll admit that human/drug trafficking goes on with regularity, but one can't ignore the fact that there are also honest, hardworking people risking their lives that also make the trek across the border. I'm not against efforts made against undocumented border crossings, but there needs to be a fair and humane way to deal with undocumented immigrants. Holding people at gunpoint (they are people after all, not "illegals" or "aliens") should be reserved for life and death situations.

Sorry, but I still don't think vigilantism is an adequate response to Barnett's situation. There's no way that rounding up groups of people (many of which Barnett claims to be armed) is a safer situation than alerting Border patrol agents. Rounding up undocumented immigrants creates a dangerous situation for both the undocumented immigrants and Mr. Barnett.[/QUOTE]

So let's hear your better ideas for deterring illegal border crossings on private property that contains less guns and more smiles.
 
[quote name='doctorfaustus']I'll admit that human/drug trafficking goes on with regularity, but one can't ignore the fact that there are also honest, hardworking people risking their lives that also make the trek across the border. I'm not against efforts made against undocumented border crossings, but there needs to be a fair and humane way to deal with undocumented immigrants. Holding people at gunpoint (they are people after all, not "illegals" or "aliens") should be reserved for life and death situations.

Sorry, but I still don't think vigilantism is an adequate response to Barnett's situation. There's no way that rounding up groups of people (many of which Barnett claims to be armed) is a safer situation than alerting Border patrol agents. Rounding up undocumented immigrants creates a dangerous situation for both the undocumented immigrants and Mr. Barnett.[/QUOTE]

yes they are people, but they are still illegals and aliens.

if he wants to round people up to protect his property thats his perogative, im sure hes more than aware of the dangers that it can create. and he does alert the border patrol, he doesnt hog tie them, throw them in his truck and drop them off at the border. he probably wouldnt give a damn but having his home broken into and his land turning into a mini-landfill has driven him to take the extreme measures that he has every right to do.
 
[quote name='doctorfaustus']I'll admit that human/drug trafficking goes on with regularity, but one can't ignore the fact that there are also honest, hardworking people risking their lives that also make the trek across the border. I'm not against efforts made against undocumented border crossings, but there needs to be a fair and humane way to deal with undocumented immigrants. Holding people at gunpoint (they are people after all, not "illegals" or "aliens") should be reserved for life and death situations.

Sorry, but I still don't think vigilantism is an adequate response to Barnett's situation. There's no way that rounding up groups of people (many of which Barnett claims to be armed) is a safer situation than alerting Border patrol agents. Rounding up undocumented immigrants creates a dangerous situation for both the undocumented immigrants and Mr. Barnett.[/QUOTE]
There are decent, honest people who are willing to break the law to enter the country. Not just by entering the country illegally, but by also smuggling drugs for the people that bring them across.

These people aren't simply paying for the privilege of walking across the border by themselves. The people bringing them across are some of the most violent and dangerous in the world, and they are heavily armed to protect their investment. The part that people often fail to understand, is that once they're across, many of them are not simply free to go. Many are kept under control and used as slave labor, in anything from agriculture to the sex trade. They can't ask for help because they don't speak the language, they won't go to the authorities since they're accustomed to police being on the take, and out of fear that even honest authorities will deport them.

Its for their own good that undocumented border crossings must stop. The border patrol for political reasons will not take a proactive approach in this case of stopping these people. These gangs use the same paths and the same areas for rest and pickup consistently, if the political will were there, it could be stopped. They won't. So what is this man to do? I would not hesitate to hold a group of people being smuggled across the border, who are being escorted by gang members who are potentially heavily armed, at gunpoint until the authorities arrive.

Arizona law expressly allows the use of force in order to prevent criminal trespass, theft, or criminal damage to your property, and allows the use of deadly force to prevent arson, burglary, kidnapping, aggravated assault, murder, armed robbery, child molestation and rape.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
trial is over...

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.
Click to expand...


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

absolutely unbelieveable. (i say that, but in america its completely believeable)
 
I don't know all the details, but if the allegations of assault and emotional distress are legit then why's it unreasonable to hold him accountable? Just because they're criminals and not Americans doesn't mean it's okay to harm them.. it's wholly just to have laws protecting all people from wrongful harm, not just American law-abiding citizens.
 
I guess the justice system is teaching the lesson that you are better off killing and burying bodies than just brandishing a weapon and scaring people to protect your property.
 
yeah pretty much, the same way when you get a speeding ticket they're trying to teach you "just outrun the cop next time"

way to make sense of things
 
If you don't know all the details, please look into it before passing judgment.

Basically what this jury said is that he probably assaulted two people and emotionally distressed two others in the process of legally detaining a large group of illegal aliens trespassing on his land. Its not an overly large sum of money, and I think even that will be overturned on appeal.
 
[quote name='Koggit']yeah pretty much, the same way when you get a speeding ticket they're trying to teach you "just outrun the cop next time"

way to make sense of things[/QUOTE]
Not the same thing at all. Your example is a direct conflict with authority.

This story is about a guy being victimized by people breaking the law on his property. We have empowered the criminal to such an extent in this country that it's laughable.
 
No, Koggit, it's actually the exact opposite.

[quote name='Koggit']it's actually the exact same thing but w/e[/quote]
 
break a law
-> get punished
--> punishment seen as "don't get caught" lesson, getting caught would have been less likely if the crime had been more extreme

harm illegal trespassers
-> get fined
--> should've killed them and hid the bodies

speed
-> get a ticket
--> should've outrun the cop
 
[quote name='Koggit']it's actually the exact same thing but w/e[/QUOTE]

No it's not. The law was not being enforced around his area which would've prevented or minimized this NONSENSE to begin with. The man has to deal with these people day in and out. If the number of people this man had constantly came through your property and dumped all that shit would you be happy? Or even put your life at risk by transporting drugs and having a firearm on your property. Let us not forgot illegal's had also stolen his property too.
If he wasn't so vigilant about protecting himself he'd probably already be dead and what would happen then? Oh yeah the story would be swept under the rug unless someone like Lou Dobbs caught it.
I can understand the assault charge possibly but emotional distress? How the fuck would they feel in this situation? This isn't like they were on a public street trying to get somewhere, this was his private property.
edit: Koggit how often when that cop pulls you over for speeding do you think he's going to point that gun at you and try to kill you or you know that expectation could very well be in the cards.
 
With speeding, you're being punished for breaking the law.

With these illegals, he is being punished for THEM breaking the law. Only a whiny liberal twat would see the Mexicans as the victims and say, "if he'd just let them go there wouldn't have been an issue." fucking NO! If they would have stayed on their own fucking side of the fucking border, there wouldn't be a fucking issue.

It's not like he bound them with razor wire and raped the women. He pointed a gun at them and said, "don't fucking move."

Can I sue the police for shooting me if I pull a gun on them? I mean, how was I supposed to know? They could have just talked to me politely. I'm now mentally scarred by their harsh language and physically scarred by their bullets. I'M the victim here.

[quote name='Koggit']break a law
-> get punished
--> punishment seen as "don't get caught" lesson, getting caught would have been less likely if the crime had been more extreme

harm illegal trespassers
-> get fined
--> should've killed them and hid the bodies

speed
-> get a ticket
--> should've outrun the cop[/quote]
 
Way to OVERLOOK what I stated.

You KNOW being pulled over for a speeding ticket is clearly not the same thing as having to worry about armed drug traffickers trespassing on your property who might kill you.

I re-iterate the law enforcement KNEW Illegal's were traveling through his area at a steady pace and they could've done their jobs. I wonder why he really has an obligation to pay taxes for them when they're not doing their job.
 
It has nothing to do with them being illegal and everything to do with them being criminals.

This sets a precedent that if you harm someone while preventing them from committing a crime against you, you can be held fiscally accountable for their emotion stress. It's bullshit. There wouldn't be any stress if they hadn't tried to break the fucking law.

In this case, you really are better off killing any criminal and saying it's self defense. The dead can't sue you for punitive damages. The family can try, but "boo hoo, you shot my son when he assaulted you in your own home" really doesn't make as good a defense as, "you punched me in the face when I was "inspecting" your windows."


[quote name='Koggit']lol okay fine guys let's kill the illegals i'm with you, lets do this, murder is the answer[/quote]
 
Someone's gotta pay of the $800B in spending coming down the pipe and it sure isn't going to be the assholes responsible for it.
[quote name='Sarang01']
I re-iterate the law enforcement KNEW Illegal's were traveling through his area at a steady pace and they could've done their jobs. I wonder why he really has an obligation to pay taxes for them when they're not doing their job.[/quote]
 
[quote name='Kayden']With speeding, you're being punished for breaking the law.

With these illegals, he is being punished for THEM breaking the law. Only a whiny liberal twat would see the Mexicans as the victims and say, "if he'd just let them go there wouldn't have been an issue." fucking NO! If they would have stayed on their own fucking side of the fucking border, there wouldn't be a fucking issue.

It's not like he bound them with razor wire and raped the women. He pointed a gun at them and said, "don't fucking move."

Can I sue the police for shooting me if I pull a gun on them? I mean, how was I supposed to know? They could have just talked to me politely. I'm now mentally scarred by their harsh language and physically scarred by their bullets. I'M the victim here.[/QUOTE]

it's not a liberal view it's the view of someone with respect for law.. do you understand the purpose of law? do you understand the problem with vigilante "justice" (completely regardless of whether or not justice was reached)?

those are rhetorical questions as i don't actually care about the answer.

the point is his fine isn't some bleeding heart sympathy for the criminals he stopped, it's rather punishment for his reckless vigilantism (60k is, at least). if he's got a problem with the legal system not doing its job (and surely he does) then he needs to go through the proper channels: protip #1 don't be judge dredd.
 
I suspect he HAD gone through the channels and it got him nowhere. Why else would he still have people coming through his property if the Law Enforcement stepped up their game around his area?
 
[quote name='Koggit']it's not a liberal view it's the view of someone with respect for law.. do you understand the purpose of law? do you understand the problem with vigilante "justice" (completely regardless of whether or not justice was reached)?

those are rhetorical questions as i don't actually care about the answer.

the point is his fine isn't some bleeding heart sympathy for the criminals he stopped, it's rather punishment for his reckless vigilantism (60k is, at least). if he's got a problem with the legal system not doing its job (and surely he does) then he needs to go through the proper channels: protip #1 don't be judge dredd.[/QUOTE]

Esto...


Err..

I mean, this.
 
Judge Dredd isn't the appropriate metaphor here: the ruling isn't "anti-vigilantism" (do you think a jury of Texans would rule against that?!?!) - it's "anti-kidnapping and assaulting."

Rustle 'em up and report 'em. Homeboy did it (literally!) 10,000 times before, right? 10,000 times the right way. This one wasn't 10,001, and as much as you might want to relish in the violently orgasmic concept of being able to kidnap, detain, and abuse human beings - it is a violation of the law.
 
Not that I care either way, but how is it that illegal immigrants break the law by coming into the country are currently living in the U.S. with visas pending. Shouldn't they be deported since they broke the law?
 
I think the biggest absurdity is the emotional distress. THEY'RE emotionally distressed?! What about him?

Oh and Myke when are you gonna get those Mutton Chops like your avatar? Check out P90X by the way. It's an exercise program that is really suppose to help you gain muscles, bulk up. I think it would be awesome if you looked as bulked out as that guy.
 
I wasn't saying that murder was the answer. I was simply illustrating how the system often has greater consequences for anything more civil than murder, as fucked up as that seems, it's the truth a lot of the time.

The only real "Reward" to not do the easy thing that can't come back and bite your ass later is appeasing your own conscience.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']absolutely unbelieveable. (i say that, but in america its completely believeable)[/quote]

That's fucking hilarious, it's like tonight's hockey game where the refs didn't have a clue so they just threw everyone in the box. Nice.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']
Oh and Myke when are you gonna get those Mutton Chops like your avatar? [/QUOTE]

I don't....think you know what mutton chops are.
 
How do you keep thinking this is kidnapping? They are both on his property and in the country illegally. He detained them for the cops. He didn't go to Mexico and grab them, bring them to the US, and then call the cops.

Another thing I forgot to mention was the other article I listed mentions the illegals had a fairly intimate working knowledge of our laws-- well beyond that of most naturals. There are allegations that some bleeding heart foundation heard about how racist this was and told the illegals what to say to teach the big bigot a lesson.

[quote name='mykevermin']Judge Dredd isn't the appropriate metaphor here: the ruling isn't "anti-vigilantism" (do you think a jury of Texans would rule against that?!?!) - it's "anti-kidnapping and assaulting."

Rustle 'em up and report 'em. Homeboy did it (literally!) 10,000 times before, right? 10,000 times the right way. This one wasn't 10,001, and as much as you might want to relish in the violently orgasmic concept of being able to kidnap, detain, and abuse human beings - it is a violation of the law.[/quote]
 
So bets are on: how long until this guy sues whoever government agents weren't actively patrolling his land?

I think that's the most likely outcome. I'd actually be all for that.

Also, he needs to hire Dale Gribble as a bounty hunter to protect his land - he'll build a fence with motion controlled machine guns every forty feet.
 
Emotional distress is one of the most BS charges to ever hit the legal/civil courts. It's right behind hate crime.

Before, either you commited a crime or you didn't. Except now apparently you have to tiptoe around everyone's feelings or you could get sued. Since when did we become a nation of emos.
 
[quote name='DarkSageRK']This is so bullshit, but I gotta love the apologists. Is Koggit drunk on RAGEahol every day?[/quote]

If Myke is living in the ivory tower, then Koggit is the crazy deformed creature they keep chained up in the attic.
 
[quote name='Kayden']How do you keep thinking this is kidnapping? They are both on his property and in the country illegally. He detained them for the cops. He didn't go to Mexico and grab them, bring them to the US, and then call the cops.

Another thing I forgot to mention was the other article I listed mentions the illegals had a fairly intimate working knowledge of our laws-- well beyond that of most naturals. There are allegations that some bleeding heart foundation heard about how racist this was and told the illegals what to say to teach the big bigot a lesson.[/QUOTE]

You're right. It wasn't kidnapping. It was 4 counts of assault he was found civilly guilty of. Big difference.

But what I implore you to do is this: think of this like a judge, a jury, an attorney: find the legal definition of assault in Arizone. Here it is, I did the work for ya.

A. A person commits assault by:

1. Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causing any physical injury to another person; or

2. Intentionally placing another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury; or

3. Knowingly touching another person with the intent to injure, insult or provoke such person.
Click to expand...

With that definition in hand, ABANDON YOUR EMOTIONAL RESPONSES (the judiciary are like Jedi, I suppose), take that definition and the actions of Barnett, and demonstrate to me how, based on what little we know, he did not satisfy the legal definition of assault.

Look; we're having two different conversations. Not you and I, but the frothing "I can't believe he did anything wrong" folks. And unlike whackjob mccallahan above who insists I'm an apologist, or Koggit is, you have no idea what my personal opinion on this issue is. At all. I assure you of that. I'm taking the legal definition and the recognition that humans in the United States have civil rights (even the illegal ones). I'm the one simply saying that the law doesn't allow you to do whatever you want to illegal immigrants.

Don't like it? Well, don't get mad at me or hung up on me. I ain't doin' nothin'. I'm just living in the world that's shattering your "Hostel"-like fantasy world wherein you very, very, very, very incorrectly think that you have legal dominion to do anything you want to anybody who's on your land.

Like I said; don't get mad at me, get mad at the law. Then again, y'all just like to make up the law when it suits your needs. After all, this same kind of "buh-buh-buh-buh-WHAT!?!?!?!" boring "why can't we all be cops like Bruce Willis in Die Hard and blow shit up and arbitrarily shoot everything, so long as we get the "bad guy"?" incredulity showed up during the Ramos and Compean trial and commutation. Guess what? THEY BROKE THE LAW TOO.

Sorry your TV shoot-em-up heroes weren't found to be in compliance with the law. And, I hate to continue to shatter your dreams y'all...
John Wayne wasn't a real cowboy; he was an actor.
 
Why do you think I want them viciously tortured? According to the story I read, he sat there and held them at gun point. On of the officials on site first was of Mexican decent and said there was no racism or abuse.

Do I know what happened? No. All we have to go on are the accounts of people that shouldn't be here and a guy that has a full time job keeping people off his land because the government finds it easier to sit on their hands. Both accounts are going to be biased as well as my own opinion.

Did a jury find him guilty? Yes, but with a definition like, "intentionally placing another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury;," who isn't guilty of assault? Just because a jury found him guilty doesn't mean he did anything wrong, it just means they thought the illegals had a better case. A jury found OJ innocent, that alone should be proof the legal system is fucked. (Uh oh, I mentioned a black guy, I'm racist.)

I don't think he should be let off scott free because he's a 'good ol' boy whoopin some stinking Mexicans'. I'm not a yee-haw redneck like that. If he did rough them needlessly, he does deserve to be punished. If he was by nature a hostile person, you'd think this issue would have arisen more than twice in a decade. Maybe he thought they were going for a weapon? It's all speculation for everyone.

The part that makes me angry is that he was even put in this position. The ever growing ineptitude of our government is just utterly rage inducing.

[quote name='mykevermin']You're right. It wasn't kidnapping. It was 4 counts of assault he was found civilly guilty of. Big difference.

But what I implore you to do is this: think of this like a judge, a jury, an attorney: find the legal definition of assault in Arizone. Here it is, I did the work for ya.



With that definition in hand, ABANDON YOUR EMOTIONAL RESPONSES (the judiciary are like Jedi, I suppose), take that definition and the actions of Barnett, and demonstrate to me how, based on what little we know, he did not satisfy the legal definition of assault.

Look; we're having two different conversations. Not you and I, but the frothing "I can't believe he did anything wrong" folks. And unlike whackjob mccallahan above who insists I'm an apologist, or Koggit is, you have no idea what my personal opinion on this issue is. At all. I assure you of that. I'm taking the legal definition and the recognition that humans in the United States have civil rights (even the illegal ones). I'm the one simply saying that the law doesn't allow you to do whatever you want to illegal immigrants.

Don't like it? Well, don't get mad at me or hung up on me. I ain't doin' nothin'. I'm just living in the world that's shattering your "Hostel"-like fantasy world wherein you very, very, very, very incorrectly think that you have legal dominion to do anything you want to anybody who's on your land.

Like I said; don't get mad at me, get mad at the law. Then again, y'all just like to make up the law when it suits your needs. After all, this same kind of "buh-buh-buh-buh-WHAT!?!?!?!" boring "why can't we all be cops like Bruce Willis in Die Hard and blow shit up and arbitrarily shoot everything, so long as we get the "bad guy"?" incredulity showed up during the Ramos and Compean trial and commutation. Guess what? THEY BROKE THE LAW TOO.

Sorry your TV shoot-em-up heroes weren't found to be in compliance with the law. And, I hate to continue to shatter your dreams y'all...
John Wayne wasn't a real cowboy; he was an actor.
[/quote]
 
[quote name='Kayden']a guy that has a full time job keeping people off his land [/quote]

Yeah, that wouldn't have anything to do with having... 22,000 ACRES either. :roll:
 
[quote name='Kayden']Did a jury find him guilty? Yes, but with a definition like, "intentionally placing another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury;," who isn't guilty of assault?[/QUOTE]

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. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top