Man sued for $32 million by illegals

[Fear No Evil]

This landowner should be suing the federal government for refusing to secure the border.

 

[yh125d]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
This landowner should be suing the federal government for refusing to secure the border.

Actually, he'd have a pretty good case against the government at this point. He's turned over 12,000 in the last 10 years, and there's most definitely thousands more that he's missed

 

[WhipperSnapper]

We should invite the illegals to appear in court, at which time they will be taken out back and shot. Can anyone think of a better response? Perhaps the shots fired in the execution of the 16 invaders could mark the beginning of the war on illegal immigration?

 

[racolvin]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: racolvin
What standing do they have to bring an action in a US court? They're already criminals that are trespassing on private property but illegally crossing the border makes their very presence a crime.

Why the lawsuit wasn't thrown out immediately is totally beyond me ..

they were being threatened in the US. that's standing.

They weren't being threatened in any way more than your average trespasser would be threatened in my own home - told to sit still and wait for the cops, or in this case the border patrol. They were threatened at gunpoint to sit still but then so would any trespasser in my home, if they hadn't already been shot.

Yes there is a difference between breaking in my home and coming on to my property, but as foreign invaders I don't see the problem with holding them at gunpoint until the authorities arrived.

As for suing in US Federal court for money damages because he detained them and turned them over to the government, wtf?

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
We should invite the illegals to appear in court, at which time they will be taken out back and shot. Can anyone think of a better response? Perhaps the shots fired in the execution of the 16 invaders could mark the beginning of the war on illegal immigration?

Ah America, how far we have fallen when people like you are in it. Nation of laws? Not anymore, kill anyone who looks at you funny!

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
We should invite the illegals to appear in court, at which time they will be taken out back and shot. Can anyone think of a better response? Perhaps the shots fired in the execution of the 16 invaders could mark the beginning of the war on illegal immigration?

Ah America, how far we have fallen when people like you are in it. Nation of laws? Not anymore, kill anyone who looks at you funny!

'cause we all know only liberals are smart enough to make sarcastic remarks.

 

[WaTaGuMp]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
We should invite the illegals to appear in court, at which time they will be taken out back and shot. Can anyone think of a better response? Perhaps the shots fired in the execution of the 16 invaders could mark the beginning of the war on illegal immigration?

Ah America, how far we have fallen when people like you are in it. Nation of laws? Not anymore, kill anyone who looks at you funny!

'cause we all know only Smartasses are smart enough to make sarcastic remarks.

fixed

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

The ones that should be in trouble with the bar are the ones suing the landowner who WAS ONLY EXERCISING HIS CIVIL RIGHTS AS AFFORDED HIM BY THE LAW.

You're not even making sense at this point. I can't argue with you.

Shockingly enough, the people arrested, threatened with death at gunpoint, and (allegedly) beaten by a property owner have a rational basis for a case, and therefore their legal representation will not be getting in trouble with the bar. Suing someone for the act of providing legal representation, amazingly enough is not rational, and very well could get you in trouble.

I like how you dismiss the property owners claims of distruction but you have no trouble accepting the word of criminals. Wow!

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

At one point, it said, Mr. Barnett's dog barked at several of the women and he yelled at them in Spanish

I'm amazed his dog speaks Spanish!

 

[miketheidiot]

i think eskimospy is the only one posting rationally in this thread.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

The ones that should be in trouble with the bar are the ones suing the landowner who WAS ONLY EXERCISING HIS CIVIL RIGHTS AS AFFORDED HIM BY THE LAW.

You're not even making sense at this point. I can't argue with you.

Shockingly enough, the people arrested, threatened with death at gunpoint, and (allegedly) beaten by a property owner have a rational basis for a case, and therefore their legal representation will not be getting in trouble with the bar. Suing someone for the act of providing legal representation, amazingly enough is not rational, and very well could get you in trouble.

I like how you dismiss the property owners claims of distruction but you have no trouble accepting the word of criminals. Wow!

Huh? I didn't dismiss anything. I just said that in order to sue someone for something, you have to be able to prove that they are responsible somehow. How else would you have it? It's not like since 'a Mexican' killed your cow you get to sue the next Mexican who stops by.

I'm not taking the word of criminals at all, the facts that he detained them and held them at gunpoint are not in dispute as they are freely admitted to by both parties. The Mexicans say he kicked one of them, which he denies, which is why I put (allegedly) in front of that accusation. It bears mentioning however, as it is part of their suit against him. I have no idea if it's true or not.

On a side note: Some of the comments in this thread... wow. Just wow. Illegal immigrants shouldn't have rights, we should kill them, etc... etc. I hope some of those are just bad jokes, because some people on here are seriously creeping me the fuck out.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
i think eskimospy is the only one posting rationally in this thread.

Then perhaps you could explain to me exactly what the landowner did wrong to end up defending himself against a $32 millon lawsuit?

He's had what, 12,000 illegals in 10 years that he's caught? If he's caught 12,000, how many people are coming through his property, wrecking his fences, leaving his gates open, and stealing anything that isn't nailed down? Not to mention the mess that many people leave.

I can't believe how naive you people are. I'm sure this rancher has other more important things to do when operating a 22,000 acre ranch then clean up after trespassers.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
i think eskimospy is the only one posting rationally in this thread.

Then perhaps you could explain to me exactly what the landowner did wrong to end up defending himself against a $32 millon lawsuit?

He's had what, 12,000 illegals in 10 years that he's caught? If he's caught 12,000, how many people are coming through his property, wrecking his fences, leaving his gates open, and stealing anything that isn't nailed down? Not to mention the mess that many people leave.

I can't believe how naive you people are. I'm sure this rancher has other more important things to do when operating a 22,000 acre ranch then clean up after trespassers.

Nobody is saying he did anything wrong. We don't know enough. It would seem from the limited information in the article however that the Mexicans have a rational basis for their suit. I find it unlikely that they will win, but again we don't really have much information.

Your problem seems to be with the federal and local government's response to his property issues. I would certainly agree that having tens of thousands of people trespassing on your property is a big problem, and one that should be addressed. While that might be a good reason for him to sue the government, it doesn't really have much bearing on the ability or right of people to bring suit against him for what happened.

I don't even know what you want from this. Are you trying to say that the illegal immigrants shouldn't be allowed to file suit, period? Or that this suit in particular has no merit? The first one, as raised by other people in this thread, I think is pretty indefensible. As for the second one, I can't see how we have enough information to say that this suit has merit or not. The district judge, who does have all the information, seems to think that it has enough merit to proceed.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

At one point, it said, Mr. Barnett's dog barked at several of the women and he yelled at them in Spanish

I'm amazed his dog speaks Spanish!

when you have a craving for buttocks, anything is possible

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
i think eskimospy is the only one posting rationally in this thread.

Then perhaps you could explain to me exactly what the landowner did wrong to end up defending himself against a $32 millon lawsuit?

He's had what, 12,000 illegals in 10 years that he's caught? If he's caught 12,000, how many people are coming through his property, wrecking his fences, leaving his gates open, and stealing anything that isn't nailed down? Not to mention the mess that many people leave.

I can't believe how naive you people are. I'm sure this rancher has other more important things to do when operating a 22,000 acre ranch then clean up after trespassers.

Nobody is saying he did anything wrong. We don't know enough. It would seem from the limited information in the article however that the Mexicans have a rational basis for their suit. I find it unlikely that they will win, but again we don't really have much information.

Your problem seems to be with the federal and local government's response to his property issues. I would certainly agree that having tens of thousands of people trespassing on your property is a big problem, and one that should be addressed. While that might be a good reason for him to sue the government, it doesn't really have much bearing on the ability or right of people to bring suit against him for what happened.

I don't even know what you want from this. Are you trying to say that the illegal immigrants shouldn't be allowed to file suit, period? Or that this suit in particular has no merit? The first one, as raised by other people in this thread, I think is pretty indefensible. As for the second one, I can't see how we have enough information to say that this suit has merit or not. The district judge, who does have all the information, seems to think that it has enough merit to proceed.

The only thing that might have merit is that he alledly kicked one lady. Even if he did it's not sufficient basis for a 32 million dollar suit.

This case is obviously politically motivated and has nothing whatsoever to do with justice.

 

[racolvin]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

I don't even know what you want from this. Are you trying to say that the illegal immigrants shouldn't be allowed to file suit, period? Or that this suit in particular has no merit? The first one, as raised by other people in this thread, I think is pretty indefensible. As for the second one, I can't see how we have enough information to say that this suit has merit or not. The district judge, who does have all the information, seems to think that it has enough merit to proceed.

I think the problem comes down to the following:

1) Illegals shouldn't be allowed to file a US Civil Rights case - they are not US Citizens and therefore aren't entitled to any US Civil Rights. (this stance may not be technically correct legally speaking but from a laymans perspective it makes perfect sense)

2) If they have a grievance about being "illegally" detained by a civilian before being turned over to Border Patrol, they should take it up with their consulate after they're deported back to Mexico. From the layman perspective the rancher did nothing but detain them and make intimidating statements as part of a "citizens arrest" of illegal immigrants and trespassers. He may have kicked someone but we don't know the truth of it. Even if he did, I personally wouldn't blame him for a bit of frustration over the situation. As long as the "illegals" weren't killed or permanently injured during their "detention", the claim should be tossed out completely.

While I certainly make no claim to knowledge of the law, I too am appalled that this suit got past the judge at first glance. It defies common sense to the average, non-lawyer, American that someone blatantly breaking the law by illegally entering suddenly gets endowed with a full plate of Civil Rights that 10 minutes and 50 yards prior they didn't have.

If this really has been going on for 10 yrs on his 22,000 acre ranch, I can't say I wouldn't have mentally snapped and lost all faith in my government and started shooting them with rifle and night-vision scope. On a ranch that size nobody would ever know the difference. I'm NOT endorsing that course of action because at present I'm still sane but it doesn't seem like too much of leap if you've been dealing with it for a decade, had property damaged, and your own home broken into multiple times.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
i think eskimospy is the only one posting rationally in this thread.

what have i done irrationally?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

The only thing that might have merit is that he alledly kicked one lady. Even if he did it's not sufficient basis for a 32 million dollar suit.

This case is obviously politically motivated and has nothing whatsoever to do with justice.

How do you know this? Have you seen the evidence? Have you read the police reports? Have you seen any witness statements? That, and who cares about the dollar amount? You can sue for whatever amount you want. I could sue you for a zillion billion dollars if I felt like it and I could fit all the zeros onto the proper forms.

It seems to me like you're mad about the immigration situation. I can understand that. I personally don't have a problem with our immigration situation despite living about 15 miles from the busiest border crossing on the planet, but I can definitely see how someone could think differently on the subject. Getting mad about the simple filing of a lawsuit that we don't have much information on doesn't really seem very reasonable to me though.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: racolvin

Originally posted by: eskimospy

I don't even know what you want from this. Are you trying to say that the illegal immigrants shouldn't be allowed to file suit, period? Or that this suit in particular has no merit? The first one, as raised by other people in this thread, I think is pretty indefensible. As for the second one, I can't see how we have enough information to say that this suit has merit or not. The district judge, who does have all the information, seems to think that it has enough merit to proceed.

I think the problem comes down to the following:

1) Illegals shouldn't be allowed to file a US Civil Rights case - they are not US Citizens and therefore aren't entitled to any US Civil Rights. (this stance may not be technically correct legally speaking but from a laymans perspective it makes perfect sense)

2) If they have a grievance about being "illegally" detained by a civilian before being turned over to Border Patrol, they should take it up with their consulate after they're deported back to Mexico. From the layman perspective the rancher did nothing but detain them and make intimidating statements as part of a "citizens arrest" of illegal immigrants and trespassers. He may have kicked someone but we don't know the truth of it. Even if he did, I personally wouldn't blame him for a bit of frustration over the situation. As long as the "illegals" weren't killed or permanently injured during their "detention", the claim should be tossed out completely.

While I certainly make no claim to knowledge of the law, I too am appalled that this suit got past the judge at first glance. It defies common sense to the average, non-lawyer, American that someone blatantly breaking the law by illegally entering suddenly gets endowed with a full plate of Civil Rights that 10 minutes and 50 yards prior they didn't have.

If this really has been going on for 10 yrs on his 22,000 acre ranch, I can't say I wouldn't have mentally snapped and lost all faith in my government and started shooting them with rifle and night-vision scope. On a ranch that size nobody would ever know the difference. I'm NOT endorsing that course of action because at present I'm still sane but it doesn't seem like too much of leap if you've been dealing with it for a decade, had property damaged, and your own home broken into multiple times.

1.) I'm not a lawyer either, but I know that the US Constitution applies to everyone within the borders/jurisdiction of the United States. So yes, the instant they step onto US soil they are fully protected by it. I don't see how a layman's perspective really matters, because he's wrong. Since illegal immigrants are protected by US civil rights law, that pretty much requires them to be able to take active steps to enforce their rights. (If they had to depend on someone else to safeguard their rights for them, how long would they last? Not long.)

2.) Again, I'm sorry but I don't see how the layman's perspective matters. We don't have all the information, but the fact that he was frustrated with the situation on his ranch isn't going to excuse him from assault and battery. (if that's what happened). Can I punch someone and then get off because I had a bad day at work? Of course not.

I'm really down with the people that say he should sue the government. They have a duty to enforce the laws on the books, and it's pretty clear that they aren't doing it if tens of thousands of people are being caught by him alone on his property. I don't happen to agree with our immigration laws, but he certainly would have good reason to compel the government to greater action. None of this makes him not liable for his own actions however. We'll just have to wait and see how this turns out. I don't expect the immigrants to win, but only time will tell.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

The only thing that might have merit is that he alledly kicked one lady. Even if he did it's not sufficient basis for a 32 million dollar suit.

This case is obviously politically motivated and has nothing whatsoever to do with justice.

How do you know this? Have you seen the evidence? Have you read the police reports? Have you seen any witness statements? That, and who cares about the dollar amount? You can sue for whatever amount you want. I could sue you for a zillion billion dollars if I felt like it and I could fit all the zeros onto the proper forms.

It seems to me like you're mad about the immigration situation. I can understand that. I personally don't have a problem with our immigration situation despite living about 15 miles from the busiest border crossing on the planet, but I can definitely see how someone could think differently on the subject. Getting mad about the simple filing of a lawsuit that we don't have much information on doesn't really seem very reasonable to me though.

The man is in court and the trial is expected to last all week. Based on what? Some illegal trespassers who have absolutely nothing to lose but stand a chance of getting rich by lying?

I put it to you that your the one who's stance on immigration is affecting their judgment on this matter. You obviously could give a rat's ass about anybody's rights except the trespassers.

No one was hurt, send their asses back and forget these assinie lawsuits. I would pay/donate money to see this rancher sue the asses off of MALDEF.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

The man is in court and the trial is expected to last all week. Based on what? Some illegal trespassers who have absolutely nothing to lose but stand a chance of getting rich by lying?

I put it to you that your the one who's stance on immigration is affecting their judgment on this matter. You obviously could give a rat's ass about anybody's rights except the trespassers.

No one was hurt, send their asses back and forget these assinie lawsuits. I would pay/donate money to see this rancher sue the asses off of MALDEF.

How do you know they are lying? What are you basing this on? On the contrary I give a rat's ass about everyone's rights, trespassers included. I've asked you repeatedly what you want out of this, what rules you think should apply, and you haven't answered. Furthermore what would you like the rancher to sue MALDEF for?

 

[PieIsAwesome]

Originally posted by: racolvin

Originally posted by: eskimospy

I don't even know what you want from this. Are you trying to say that the illegal immigrants shouldn't be allowed to file suit, period? Or that this suit in particular has no merit? The first one, as raised by other people in this thread, I think is pretty indefensible. As for the second one, I can't see how we have enough information to say that this suit has merit or not. The district judge, who does have all the information, seems to think that it has enough merit to proceed.

I think the problem comes down to the following:

1) Illegals shouldn't be allowed to file a US Civil Rights case - they are not US Citizens and therefore aren't entitled to any US Civil Rights. (this stance may not be technically correct legally speaking but from a laymans perspective it makes perfect sense)

EVERYONE has rights, endowed by NATURE, not the government (but protected by the government), which cannot be justly denied without due process of law.

With that said, the case does sound silly, I doubt it will get anywhere.

 

[racolvin]

Originally posted by: eskimospy


1.) I'm not a lawyer either, but I know that the US Constitution applies to everyone within the borders/jurisdiction of the United States. So yes, the instant they step onto US soil they are fully protected by it. I don't see how a layman's perspective really matters, because he's wrong. Since illegal immigrants are protected by US civil rights law, that pretty much requires them to be able to take active steps to enforce their rights. (If they had to depend on someone else to safeguard their rights for them, how long would they last? Not long.)

2.) Again, I'm sorry but I don't see how the layman's perspective matters. We don't have all the information, but the fact that he was frustrated with the situation on his ranch isn't going to excuse him from assault and battery. (if that's what happened). Can I punch someone and then get off because I had a bad day at work? Of course not.

I'm really down with the people that say he should sue the government. They have a duty to enforce the laws on the books, and it's pretty clear that they aren't doing it if tens of thousands of people are being caught by him alone on his property. I don't happen to agree with our immigration laws, but he certainly would have good reason to compel the government to greater action. None of this makes him not liable for his own actions however. We'll just have to wait and see how this turns out. I don't expect the immigrants to win, but only time will tell.

I think you may have missed the point of my statement. Based on what you know of the Constitution and admitting that neither of us is a lawyer, the average layman opinion that you're seeing here is that US Civil Rights should NOT apply to anyone that enters the country illegally and should only apply in limited basis to non-US Citizens. I'm not saying that stance is right or wrong but that seems to be the general opinion and arguing legal facts against popular opinion is a losing proposition on your part and it seems that the prevailing popular opinion on the rights of illegals seems to run strongly in the "they shouldn't have any" category.

As for punching someone because you had a bad day and getting away with it? As a matter of fact you can. If you had been harassed, threatened, mentally abused, etc for the last decade as this rancher had, you can easily get off scott-free from a charge of simple assault and battery by claiming things like "temporary emotional disturbance", "Office Rage", and other psychological mess that any decent lawyer could conjure up. It happens alot, sadly enough.

 

[BoomerD]

This guy should be given a medal.

The US Government needs to pay him by the head for the illegals he catches...kind of like a bounty.

The government needs to protect this man's land from the illegal criminals who are breaking our laws and violating HIS civil rights.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

The man is in court and the trial is expected to last all week. Based on what? Some illegal trespassers who have absolutely nothing to lose but stand a chance of getting rich by lying?

I put it to you that your the one who's stance on immigration is affecting their judgment on this matter. You obviously could give a rat's ass about anybody's rights except the trespassers.

No one was hurt, send their asses back and forget these assinie lawsuits. I would pay/donate money to see this rancher sue the asses off of MALDEF.

How do you know they are lying? What are you basing this on? On the contrary I give a rat's ass about everyone's rights, trespassers included. I've asked you repeatedly what you want out of this, what rules you think should apply, and you haven't answered. Furthermore what would you like the rancher to sue MALDEF for?

I never said they were lying, I said they had nothing to lose by doing so and a lot to gain.

Don't try and turn the table by making this about me. I have my opinion and I've clearly stated it. Answer my question, realistically speaking what is this rancher supposed to do? Run away whenever he sees illegals crossing his land out of fear of being sued?

Quit being such a punk, I thought better of you but your true colors are really showing.