Rancher Ordered To Pay Illegal Aliens Because He Assaulted Them On His Property

[zsdersw]

How is that vengeful? He threw them back, he didn't eat them...

Turning a person into a fish is a trip down the food chain that is more like a death sentence than a benefit.

 

[fskimospy]

I know they're different, that's not the point. The point is, they're wrong. Doing them is wrong. Telling you to pay me money because I did wrong things is: Wrong.

When I'm in the act of doing all those things, what are you expected to do, at night? Call the police? They're not 2 minutes away. Oh, it's not just me doing it, it's 11 others with me.

You don't think you'll be feeling just a might unsafe? As soon as you ask us to leave, and we rush you, then WTF are you going to do? Is judge boy going to appear out of no where and rescue you? No.

P.S. Pay up, you owe me money for 'mentally troubling me' by asking me to get out and not steal your car. You need my paypal address? I think $10,000 is a good amount, don't you?

The rancher admitted to the court that he did not feel threatened and that none of the immigrants threatened him in any way. So no, in this case he was not feeling 'just a might unsafe'.

Your idea that you can do something unlawful because someone else did something unlawful is schoolyard reasoning. You can in fact use detention powers similar to what the rancher did in most (if not all?) states if you caught someone stealing your car. Once again, you need to learn the law.

 

[zinfamous]

Wait, it's HIS land and he should "mind his own business" when others trespass? This country is screwed.

If only the natives had such laws prior to white man showing up.

 

[fskimospy]

Actually, in Arizona, it's also legal for misdemeanors that involve breach of peace.

And this was not a breach of the peace.

 

[zsdersw]

Get nailed to a fucking stick by a god damned mob.

Sorry, I'm not up for that.

Well, that's supposedly what happened to him.. not what he did himself.

 

[chucky2]

No, in most states citizens arrest is only permitted in the case where the citizen sees someone commit a felony, and neither trespassing nor illegal immigration is a felony. (well, illegal immigration can be if repeated but there's no way for the rancher to know). In addition, it's generally only allowed for people that you catch destroying things, stealing things, etc. ie: imminent destruction of life or property.

We don't need or want people citizens arresting each other for minor infractions for obvious reasons.

We don't want to be invaded either, but it's been happening essentially unchecked.

Tell ya what: Maybe you can get your 'super smart political guys' to, you know, do their jobs and protect the border (they are US politicians and not Mexican ones, right?), and hence the US people and US property, and maybe the US citizens won't be put in situations like this, huh?

No?

Why is that?

Because ultimately you want illegals to stream across the border, you could care less if they do it across US land owners property, and you don't care about the danger, risk, or effects it has to US citizens - at least care enough to put it over getting those illegals (sorry, undocumented workers) over here.

It's apperant in your posts...just admit it and be done with it.

Chuck

 

[thegimp03]

Bet you that next time he just shoots trespassers.

 

[iGas]

Arizona Rancher Roger Barnett Rounds Up Legal Trouble, is Sued by Illegal Immigrants he Detained

Notably, this is not the first time Barnett has faced legal consequences for his immigration enforcement actions. The Southern Poverty Law Center noted that, in 2006, "border vigilante Roger Barnett [was ordered] to pay $98,750 to a family of Mexican-Americans he terrorized in 2004". In that case, a jury ruled against Barnett for threatening two Mexican-American hunters and three young children with an assault rifle and insulting them with racial epithets...

AZ Rancher Ordered to Pay Damages to Illegals he Found on his Property

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court verdict ordering Arizona rancher Roger Barnett to pay damages of $87,000 for holding a group of undocumented immigrants at gunpoint.

The incident occurred in March 2004 when the gun-toting Barnett detained a group of 16 unauthorized immigrants -- none of them carrying weapons -- on public land near the border town of Douglas, Arizona.

He held the group captive with threats that his dog would attack them if anyone moved or tried to escape. Barnett also kicked an woman while she was on the ground.

A federal court jury in Arizona ruled in 2009 that Barnett had no cause to plead self-defense, since he admitted that no one had attacked or threatened him, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund noted.

Barnett appealed to the Nirth Circuit, which upheld the original verdict.

Title should change to Red Neck charged for intimidate and abused illegal Mexican migrants at gun point.

 

[fskimospy]

We don't want to be invaded either, but it's been happening essentially unchecked.

Tell ya what: Maybe you can get your 'super smart political guys' to, you know, do their jobs and protect the border (they are US politicians and not Mexican ones, right?), and hence the US people and US property, and maybe the US citizens won't be put in situations like this, huh?

No?

Why is that?

Because ultimately you want illegals to stream across the border, you could care less if they do it across US land owners property, and you don't care about the danger, risk, or effects it has to US citizens - at least care enough to put it over getting those illegals (sorry, undocumented workers) over here.

It's apperant in your posts...just admit it and be done with it.

Chuck

No, I'm not going to respond to or defend the opinions that you've invented in your head for me to hold. Don't you have some reading on the law to be doing?

 

[chucky2]

Turning a person into a fish is a trip down the food chain that is more like a death sentence than a benefit.

Well, I'd rather be turned into a fish to swim free than thrown into a life of servitude as an exploited illegal so senseamp can have produce .10c cheaper.

Really what I'd rather have is the Federal government doing their job and stopping the invasion they've been letting happen.

And I'd rather have the US courts recognize it's an invasion, and just toss BS like this out, rather than kowtowing to it to appear to remain impartial. When it's reached this level, I don't want the US courts impartial, I want them protecting US citizens - which they're obviously failing to do in this case.

Chuck

 

[darkewaffle]

Goddamnit I really need get more Pizza and Nachos in my daily reading, this is awesomely, hilariously awful.

In other news, if this same thing happened to legal citizens none of the rancher-defenders would so much as blink when they won the settlement :awe:

 

[chucky2]

No, I'm not going to respond to or defend the opinions that you've invented in your head for me to hold. Don't you have some reading on the law to be doing?

Exactly. You won't admit it. Coward.

I've done all the reading I need to do, and that's my gun manual. You can rely on the police, the courts, and groups of illegals good will. I'll rely on what keeps me safe thanks.

Chuck

 

[chucky2]

"the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund noted."

Lets see, lets change that title to something more accurate:

"the Illegal Latino Legal Defense and Get Americans Money Fund noted."

There we go...fixed.

 

[iGas]

Mad About Illegal Border Crossings…And Roger Barnett’s Plight! -- By Zanne Booker, at DavidDuke.com (Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan)

Apparently America has moved on and Roger Barnett is no longer newsworthy. He only had to pay $70,000 instead of the earlier $32 million stated in his lawsuit. Well, snap out of it America! When a 64 year old senior citizen has to round up 12,000 illegal aliens in ten years time…there is something seriously wrong here. Do the math people. THAT EQUATES TO 100 PER MONTH!

 

[fskimospy]

Exactly. You won't admit it. Coward.

I've done all the reading I need to do, and that's my gun manual. You can rely on the police, the courts, and groups of illegals good will. I'll rely on keeps me safe thanks.

Chuck

I gotta say, it's not easy to make me laugh but you did it. (not even an internet laugh, that really got an actual chuckle out of me) I now have a picture of you shooting your guns into the air like Yosemite Sam while saying that.

Clearly I am a coward for not agreeing with your invented opinions that you want me to have. Another airtight ruling from the Court of chucky2!

 

[chucky2]

If that bolded is true, this guy should take the US Gov to court for complete and total failure to protect his property or his rights. That's beyond even 'super smart political guy' sick.

 

[iGas]

If that bolded is true, this guy should take the US Gov to court for complete and total failure to protect his property or his rights. That's beyond even 'super smart political guy' sick.

Are you on crack?

Single handedly round up 83.33 illigal immigrants per month for 12 years. It would take a team of rambo to take on such a daunting task.

Hence the shen call, and as you can see people like you and David Duke always blow things out of proportion.

 

[chucky2]

I gotta say, it's not easy to make me laugh but you did it. (not even an internet laugh, that really got an actual chuckle out of me) I now have a picture of you shooting your guns into the air like Yosemite Sam while saying that.

Clearly I am a coward for not agreeing with your invented opinions that you want me to have. Another airtight ruling from the Court of chucky2!

It's odd that you laugh at a US citizen having to do that - I sure hope you're not ever in a position to influence US public policy with an attitude like that.

As for shooting my gun into the air, why would I ever do that? It's sort of telling that given this thread, your statements in this thread (basically of happiness that a US citizen is paying illegals to illegally invade the country and his property, and of happiness that our court system has failed him), that you arrive at that mental image.

The mental image I arrive at of you is a sucker who gets played like a dumb whiteboy while everyone around him playing him smiles and laughs at him...while he laughs along like a dumb whiteboy.

Given your statements, and the situation in the thread, I think we can all see who's got a more accurate mental image going on.

Wake up whiteboy....

 

[chucky2]

Are you on crack?

You're asking me if I'm on crack that the guy sue the US Government, who's job it is to secure the borders, if the bolded is true that they guy has had to round up 12k illegal aliens in ten years time?

If the bolded is true, then No, I'm not on crack.

 

[Scotteq]

Mad About Illegal Border Crossings…And Roger Barnett’s Plight! -- By Zanne Booker, at DavidDuke.com (Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan)

I like to think I'm reasonablly liberal about giving published sources the benefit of the doubt... But in this case, I categorically reject these statistics and the assertions base sole~ly on the source. 'Evidence' from card carrying bigots and hate mongers is something I will not consider under any circumstances.

Find us some real information from a legitimate source.

 

[PokerGuy]

If only the natives had such laws prior to white man showing up.

Yep, then perhaps they might not have gotten overrun. We should learn from that.....

 

[fskimospy]

It's odd that you laugh at a US citizen having to do that - I sure hope you're not ever in a position to influence US public policy with an attitude like that.

As for shooting my gun into the air, why would I ever do that? It's sort of telling that given this thread, your statements in this thread (basically of happiness that a US citizen is paying illegals to illegally invade the country and his property, and of happiness that our court system has failed him), that you arrive at that mental image.

The mental image I arrive at of you is a sucker who gets played like a dumb whiteboy while everyone around him playing him smiles and laughs at him...while he laughs along like a dumb whiteboy.

Given your statements, and the situation in the thread, I think we can all see who's got a more accurate mental image going on.

Wake up whiteboy....

The court system didn't fail him, he failed himself by not acting in accordance with the law. He is not paying them to illegally immigrate here, he is paying them because his poor choice of actions made him liable to them. EDIT: It's all about personal accountability.

Don't worry though, my area of specialization is not in immigration, so it's exceedingly unlikely that I'll ever have any ability to influence US immigration policy. (in all honesty it's pretty unlikely that I will ever significantly influence US policy even in my chosen area)

You're trying to call me a 'dumb whiteboy' now because I've made you mad by pointing out how silly and ignorant your postings have been. Haven't you learned that you can't get under my skin yet?

 

[chucky2]

Yep, then perhaps they might not have gotten overrun. We should learn from that.....

Exactly.

 

[xj0hnx]

I'm pretty sure that in NO US state is it legal to kill or detain someone who is trespassing on your property. Castle doctrine does not extend outside of buildings on the property.

Actually, it does ...

SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as follows:
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

Pretty sure the rancher had a right to be on his land. As a matter of fact, this was the entire point of the latest Castle Doctrine, to insure that any place you legally had the right to be, that you could use deadly force to protect yourself. There was issue here because it was completely legal to carry a firearm in your vehicle, but the Castle Doctrine didn't really protect you if you weren't in your home. It was extended to vehicles, and other places not covered with the broad language I bolded.

 

[Murloc]

he could have ordered them to get off his land.
It's not his task to protect the borders, and they weren't threatening him.
Since he probably is nuts (all this vigilantes mentality) they had the right to feel threatened by him.