Man sued for $32 million by illegals

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
As other criminals in the US have found out, one can not be held in false imprisonment by a citizen

Regretfully, the rancher did cause false imprisonment by not allowing the people to leave voluntarily. Holding them at gunpoint in other jurisdictions may be grounds for state prosecution.

What? I don't follow that line of thinking at all?

They were trespassing. What is he supposed to do, ask them for their drivers license numbers?

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

This happened a year ago I thought? Are they still in federal custody? I highly doubt it.

Well even if they aren't, there are frequently ways you can get people into the country to appear in court proceedings, and even if there were not there are other ways for them to submit their testimony.

Can't the "accused" demand to question them in person? This is a 32 million dollar lawsuit here you know.

BTW, you must have missed this question I asked earlier:

Answer one simple question. If in fact he did lose it and kick the lady does that justify a $32 million lawsuit?

Maybe, that would be up to the jury. It would certainly justify jail time for battery.

Not necessarily, because she may have did something to force his hand.

This whole thing is nothing but political pollyanna because they are illegals and this guy has a highway going through his property. A highway the illegals and their sympathizers want to keep open.

No, the whole is about a thug vigilante illegally harassing brown skinned people.

Yeah because clearly a racist like this guy purposely bought property on the border so he could hate on "brown people"... :roll:

Gosh you're dumb. You didn't even read the articles did you?

Uhhh.. I read it. What exactly is your point if not trying to make this an emotional argument about racism with your comments?

The guy was found guilty by a jury of violating people's rights based on...wait for it...here it comes.....race.

In the link you provided it didn't go to trial so no jury was involved?

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
If I was this guy I would make a nice little walkway for them that they have to buy a ticket to use and put up vending machines along the way "welcome to america"

LOL, yeah, sell them bottled water at $3 a bottle. He could put up pay toilets every 1/2 mile too.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

This happened a year ago I thought? Are they still in federal custody? I highly doubt it.

Well even if they aren't, there are frequently ways you can get people into the country to appear in court proceedings, and even if there were not there are other ways for them to submit their testimony.

Can't the "accused" demand to question them in person? This is a 32 million dollar lawsuit here you know.

BTW, you must have missed this question I asked earlier:

Answer one simple question. If in fact he did lose it and kick the lady does that justify a $32 million lawsuit?

Maybe, that would be up to the jury. It would certainly justify jail time for battery.

Not necessarily, because she may have did something to force his hand.

This whole thing is nothing but political pollyanna because they are illegals and this guy has a highway going through his property. A highway the illegals and their sympathizers want to keep open.

No, the whole is about a thug vigilante illegally harassing brown skinned people.

Yeah because clearly a racist like this guy purposely bought property on the border so he could hate on "brown people"... :roll:

Gosh you're dumb. You didn't even read the articles did you?

Uhhh.. I read it. What exactly is your point if not trying to make this an emotional argument about racism with your comments?

The guy was found guilty by a jury of violating people's rights based on...wait for it...here it comes.....race.

He supposedly accosted some people that were on land he owned/controlled. There were allegation of epithets but your link is full of rhetoric and hyperbole. It looks like it's nothing more than some bleeding heart group that wants amnesty or the like. They also make other claims about the guy but it doesn't look like this group is one you can just take their word for it since it's obvious they have an agenda. Maybe the guy is a racist - I don't know, but you don't know either. So you can continue on with your rhetoric about "harassment" if you wish but it sure as hell isn't harassment if it is an ILLEGAL ALIEN TRESPASSING - which is what the original link is about. Seems to me, that it's the illegals that are harassing the land owner with their trespassing, but I'm sure an apologist like you can't see that...

You were wrong, deal with it. He does not own or control the land. He rents some of the grass, that all. The jury who heard the facts sided with the plaintiffs.

That case never went to trial so no jury was involved.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: ironwing

You were wrong, deal with it. He does not own or control the land. He rents some of the grass, that all. The jury who heard the facts sided with the plaintiffs.

That case never went to trial so no jury was involved.

You're sailing into the Isles of Pawnage, Captain!

First line of story I linked above:

Nov. 27, 2006 -- An Arizona jury, acting in a lawsuit sponsored by the Southern Poverty Law Center, ordered border vigilante Roger Barnett to pay $98,750 to a family of Mexican-Americans he terrorized in 2004.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: ironwing

You were wrong, deal with it. He does not own or control the land. He rents some of the grass, that all. The jury who heard the facts sided with the plaintiffs.

That case never went to trial so no jury was involved.

You're sailing into the Isles of Pawnage, Captain!

First line of story I linked above:

Nov. 27, 2006 -- An Arizona jury, acting in a lawsuit sponsored by the Southern Poverty Law Center, ordered border vigilante Roger Barnett to pay $98,750 to a family of Mexican-Americans he terrorized in 2004.

I stand corrected.

I swear to God I saw an article someplace that stated it was settled before it went to trial?

Of course in that case he was dealing with american citizens who had every right to be hunting that land.

 

[SSSnail]

Wait, so this is what I don't get, if someone is breaking the law on MY property, I can't hold him there until the authorities show up?

Let's say it's a robbery, and I somehow manage to hold a gun to the perps and call the police, I will get sued later for false imprisonment? LOL. Now apply the same logic to the situation at hand, how is this even considered as a basis for a case?

Wait, maybe it's Bundy's law "I sued him for hurting my fists with his face". That's gotta be it.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: SSSnail
Wait, so this is what I don't get, if someone is breaking the law on MY property, I can't hold him there until the authorities show up?

Let's say it's a robbery, and I somehow manage to hold a gun to the perps and call the police, I will get sued later for false imprisonment? LOL. Now apply the same logic to the situation at hand, how is this even considered as a basis for a case?

Wait, maybe it's Bundy's law "I sued him for hurting my fists with his face". That's gotta be it.

I agree, if they don't want to be held captive then don't trespass. It's just that plain and simple. As I stated earlier, what was he supposed to do, ask them for their drivers license?

This should never have went to trial.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Atheus
If an American was stuck overseas without a visa, say here in Britain, you people would want them to have all the human rights granted by the local govornment wouldn't you? You would want them to able to begin legal proceedings if they wish. Even if they were an unsavoury character, or a minor criminal, right?

Seems like a very different situation doesn't it. Now why does it seem so different to you? Could it be the way they act, the way they speak, the color of their skin? Be very careful.

Yea except one thing these illegals don't want to go home... apples and oranges...

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: Skoorb
He's turned over 12,000? Damn.

we need to get this guy on the payroll!

Originally posted by: AAjax
Lawyers, well you know what they say about them....

Shoot the ACLU ones first?

Ah...ANOTHER hater of the Bill of Rights.

WTF is it about our Constitution and the Bill of Rights that you folks on the right hate so much?

That's like the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[dbk]

What if we use the bailout money to build a fence across the border instead of giving it to wall street? - infrastructure stimulus
Then we can kick out the illegals and give those jobs to those that need'em. What are the economic implications of that?
How much would that even cost? $50 billion?

 

[IronWing]

The border fence has been running about $5 million/mile so far. "So far" being the flat, accessible, easy-to-build-on terrain. Expect the costs to sky rocket in the mountains. $50 billion would likely get it finished.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: dbk
What if we use the bailout money to build a fence across the border instead of giving it to wall street? - infrastructure stimulus
Then we can kick out the illegals and give those jobs to those that need'em. What are the economic implications of that?
How much would that even cost? $50 billion?

Not if we

A) use prison labor instead of let them out early.
B) use people illegally in our boarders.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: dbk
What if we use the bailout money to build a fence across the border instead of giving it to wall street? - infrastructure stimulus
Then we can kick out the illegals and give those jobs to those that need'em. What are the economic implications of that?
How much would that even cost? $50 billion?

Not if we

A) use prison labor instead of let them out early.
B) use people illegally in our boarders.

Use people like yourself to do it.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: dbk
What if we use the bailout money to build a fence across the border instead of giving it to wall street? - infrastructure stimulus
Then we can kick out the illegals and give those jobs to those that need'em. What are the economic implications of that?
How much would that even cost? $50 billion?

Not if we

A) use prison labor instead of let them out early.
B) use people illegally in our boarders.

Use people like yourself to do it.

What a lamer!

Message Posts: 790
Joined: 7/6/2000 1:45:34 AM
Last Visited On: 2/11/2009 2:06:03 PM

 

[cwjerome]

THE VERDICT

 

[CRXican]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
THE VERDICT

"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."

 

[Drako]

Originally posted by: CRXican

Originally posted by: cwjerome
THE VERDICT

"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."

What a joke - he should sue for "infliction of emotional distress" that these assholes put him through for this trial.

 

[nobodyknows]

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.

Phony bastards. Look at how they treat the illegals sneaking into their country.

 

[OCGuy]

Awesome. $32million to ~70k? And he will appeal that.


:thumbsup: to the real American.

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

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.

Phony bastards. Look at how they treat the illegals sneaking into their country.

No doubt, ask any central American how they are treated on their way to the US via Mexico. Robbed, raped, and ransomed.

 

[wwswimming]

there was a story in the National Enquirer a few days ago about a guy in a wheelchair
in LA. he makes his living suing companies for not complying with the Americans
with Disabilities Act. he knows all the codes, so if a company has a surface that's
a 1/2" off, he sues them. he files about 100 $1000 lawsuits a year - that's how he
makes a living.