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

[chucky2]

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?

Tell me, 'super smart political guy', what message does it send to every other US citizen who's being overrun, while their government does nothing - and will continue to do nothing, that their own government will fine them when they challenge trespassers - and we all know the vast majority, by far, of these trespassers are illegals - and get to pay the illegal alien trespassers for the audacity of challenging them?

Does that seem like a good message our courts are sending our citizens? How about the message it sends the illegals invading our country?

As far as the whiteboy comments, I grew up in the south suburbs of Chicago, and I'm white. Believe me, your total attitude and comments in this thread are exactly the same as the clueless whiteboys who got played constantly by the brothers around here. It was both pathetic and cynically funny at the same time watching them help the brothers F them over.

You = those whiteboys
Illegals = those brothers

I know you're too 'smart' and 'elite' to admit that to yourself...just like all the other 'super smart political guys' we have "Leading" the country. Right off a cliff....

Chuck

 

[fskimospy]

Actually, it does ...

Pretty sure the rancher had a right to be on his land.

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.

You aren't reading the statute correctly. In order for the action to be reasonable, the actor and the situation must fulfill ALL those requirements. (ie: (1),(2),(3))

Of particular note, the persons against whom force would be used would not be violating section (1) by merely trespassing, so actually the statute is specifically requiring the person to be in their residence/car/business, ie: the castle doctrine.

It says the exact opposite of what you think its saying.

 

[Sinsear]

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.

In NY citizen's arrests can be for violations, misdemeanors, and felonies.

 

[IBMer]

Lesson to ranchers - just shoot them for trespassing and they can't sue. Think I'm kidding, I'm not. As long as you post signs you're fine legally.

Guess who would get charged with 1st Degree Murder?

 

[Patranus]

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?

By the way, the denies the charge that he kicked one of them and pictures taken by authorities right after the incident show now bruising.

 

[IBMer]

You aren't reading the statute correctly. In order for the action to be reasonable, the actor and the situation must fulfill ALL those requirements. (ie: (1),(2),(3))

Of particular note, the persons against whom force would be used would not be violating section (1) by merely trespassing, so actually the statute is specifically requiring the person to be in their residence/car/business, ie: the castle doctrine.

It says the exact opposite of what you think its saying.

You are you talking to the wrong crowd. Some people here don't know about elements of law and they think their emotions trump law.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

http://nation.foxnews.com/illegal-i...ed-pay-damages-illegals-he-found-his-property

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

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.

So which is it, his property or public land? If it's the former I don't think any action should have been taken against him, if the latter he ought to go to jail.

Edit: Didn't see that he kicked a woman, the ass should go to jail for that either way.

 

[chucky2]

There it is again...the diminishing of Reality: "...16 unauthorized immigrants..."

The correct term is: "...16 illegal aliens..."

 

[darkewaffle]

Actually, it does ...

*snip*

The qualifier to all that being that the entire section is applicable if and only if the actor has reasonable belief that the suspect (for lack of a better word) is using or attempting to use unlawful force to effect A, B, or C. And there is zero evidence of force or reasonable belief.

 

[fskimospy]

Tell me, 'super smart political guy', what message does it send to every other US citizen who's being overrun, while their government does nothing - and will continue to do nothing, that their own government will fine them when they challenge trespassers - and we all know the vast majority, by far, of these trespassers are illegals - and get to pay the illegal alien trespassers for the audacity of challenging them?

Does that seem like a good message our courts are sending our citizens? How about the message it sends the illegals invading our country?

As far as the whiteboy comments, I grew up in the south suburbs of Chicago, and I'm white. Believe me, your total attitude and comments in this thread are exactly the same as the clueless whiteboys who got played constantly by the brothers around here. It was both pathetic and cynically funny at the same time watching them help the brothers F them over.

You = those whiteboys
Illegals = those brothers

I know you're too 'smart' and 'elite' to admit that to yourself...just like all the other 'super smart political guys' we have "Leading" the country. Right off a cliff....

Chuck

He was not found liable for challenging trespassers, he was found liable for threatening to murder trespassers if they attempted to flee from his property. (ie: stop committing the crime he was trying to detain them for) He needs to be held responsible for his violation of the law.

As for me, I grew up outside of Philly and I know exactly what you're talking about. Not only that but I've been all over the world, to far more places than you I'd bet, and you always need to have your guard up because everywhere you go people try to play you. Trust me, I almost certainly know more about it than you.

It's pretty clear that you have some sort of personal problem with me, probably because I so frequently demean you. It's not personal for me, I honestly couldn't care less about it. These constant attempts to bait me, to insult me, or whatever are never going to work, because I don't care what you think. In fact my refusal to participate will probably just make you angrier, so for your own sake you might just want to quit.

 

[fskimospy]

By the way, the denies the charge that he kicked one of them and pictures taken by authorities right after the incident show now bruising.

I imagine you meant 'show no bruising'. He was cleared of any charges of assaulting them, it's not part of the verdict against him.

 

[Red Dawn]

IMO the Rancher only had the right to force them off his property and if it was by gunpoint so be it. He had no right to detain them.

Fucking punk kicked a woman who was on the ground. Now that's a fucking coward.

 

[xj0hnx]

You aren't reading the statute correctly. In order for the action to be reasonable, the actor and the situation must fulfill ALL those requirements. (ie: (1),(2),(3))

Of particular note, the persons against whom force would be used would not be violating section (1) by merely trespassing, so actually the statute is specifically requiring the person to be in their residence/car/business, ie: the castle doctrine.

It says the exact opposite of what you think its saying.

No, it says EXACTLY what I said it says. If you aren't commiting a crime, did not provoke the aggressor, and have a right to be somewhere, you have the right to use deadly force, I am not talking about this case, I am simply pointing out that the Castle Doctrine does in FACT extend outside of your house, or a building on your property.

 

[iGas]

http://nation.foxnews.com/illegal-i...ed-pay-damages-illegals-he-found-his-property



So which is it, his property or public land? If it's the former I don't think any action should have been taken against him, if the latter he ought to go to jail.

Edit: Didn't see that he kicked a woman, the ass should go to jail for that either way.

Other articles mentioned that it was "livestock grazing on public rangelands". The rancher have permit and he pay somewhere around $2.50 per month per cattle for the privilege.

 

[chucky2]

He was not found liable for challenging trespassers, he was found liable for threatening to murder trespassers if they attempted to flee from his property. (ie: stop committing the crime he was trying to detain them for) He needs to be held responsible for his violation of the law.

And so, when he goes up to them and says, Stop, I'm calling the authorities, and they all get up, laugh at him, and leave, then WTF happens? The authorities take an hour to get there, WhereTF are the illegals??? Who knows, that's where. How incredibly F'ing dumb would that be? To have illegals detained and then just let them go. So now, the message that just got sent/reinforced to every illegal is: Just continue to do whatever the F you want, if they detain you, sue, you'll get the beloved patriot's money. And the message that just got sent to every US citizen down there is: a.) shoot them and bury them or b.) do nothing. Congrats. Your 'rule of law' doesn't work so hot in the face of Reality, does it?

As for me, I grew up outside of Philly and I know exactly what you're talking about. Not only that but I've been all over the world, to far more places than you I'd bet, and you always need to have your guard up because everywhere you go people try to play you. Trust me, I almost certainly know more about it than you.

If you know about it, you certainly haven't learned much - or you've forgotten. Everyone should be working to follow The Rules. I think we can both agree on that. The problem is, when there are groups of people not following The Rules, continuing yourself to keep playing by The Rules F's you, not them. So I am mystified, given your comments in this thread, and your supposed knowledge of not getting played, how you could possibly know this, yet, still make these comments as if you think The Rules - and these are US rules now, there to protect US citizens - are somehow going to keep US citizens property and persons safe in the midst of an invasion by people who a.) don't follow The Rules, and b.) don't give a F about The Rules? Explain that to me please, how following The Rules while others don't follow The Rules is going to benefit the people following The Rules when the system in place to catch and punish the people not following The Rules has totally and completely failed.

It's pretty clear that you have some sort of personal problem with me, probably because I so frequently demean you. It's not personal for me, I honestly couldn't care less about it. These constant attempts to bait me, to insult me, or whatever are never going to work, because I don't care what you think. In fact my refusal to participate will probably just make you angrier, so for your own sake you might just want to quit.

What I have a problem with is dumbF's who ignore Reality and think The Rules are the only Rules that life/life situation is being lived by. These are the same people that tout Rules and Regulations on how sh1ttons of people can't play the system they want to expand (and fund with others money), yet, lawdy lawdy, surprise surprise, just sit, watch, and listen, and wowzers!, corruption of the system abounds. But, hey, it's merely anecdotal because it's not a written Rule or Regulation.

You yourself professed yourself to be a 'super smart political guy', I didn't put those words in your mouth, you did - and worse, you actually believe it. Stop referring to The Rules as something people should follow when reacting to others not following The Rules: Sometimes you can't do that, you have to go by what the situation dictates. Which is how and why I have the whiteboy example....they're being overrun down there, and are sick of it. You tout rules to be followed, are happy the guy is paying a fine to invaders.

Awesome.

Chuck

 

[fskimospy]

No, it says EXACTLY what I said it says. If you aren't commiting a crime, did not provoke the aggressor, and have a right to be somewhere, you have the right to use deadly force, I am not talking about this case, I am simply pointing out that the Castle Doctrine does in FACT extend outside of your house, or a building on your property.

... no it doesn't. Read section (1). You most certainly do NOT have the protection of the castle doctrine simply due to the fact that you have the right do be somewhere.

There's no hedging here, you're simply wrong.

 

[bfdd]

The rancher ADMITTED that he was not threatened in any way by them, so his safety is not in question here.

This was not his house, this was land that he owned. Do you believe that if someone was cutting across your back yard, it would be acceptable for you to grab your gun and hold them there under threat of death until the police arrived, threatening to kill them even if they attempted to flee off of your property?

Well yes, I would expect to keep someone in my backyard if they were just strolling through. What the fuck are they doing strolling through my backyard? What else did they fuck with? Better to keep them where they are until the authorities can arrive to work out a solution and make sure nothing crazy went on. I would also be more inclined to shoot someone for fleeing my property because how the fuck do I know they didn't steal shit or mess things up? I can't go CHECK everything, I have to keep an eye on them to make sure they don't mess anything else up, steal anything or escape with whatever they already did steal/mess up.

You're just being overly sympathetic for no reason. Now if he was beating the fools the whole time waiting for the cops, then yea sure I could see a penalty. Other than that, what I just described and what you said are exactly the kind of thing ANY RATIONAL PERSON SHOULD DO.

 

[Patranus]

There it is again...the diminishing of Reality: "...16 unauthorized immigrants..."

The correct term is: "...16 illegal immigrants..."

No, its illegal aliens.

 

[brandonb]

Funny that an illegal immigrant can actually sue a legal residence under their own laws.

These people are invaders, nothing more, nothing less. Anybody who invades my property while being in an illegal status (be it an illegal immigrant, drug smuggler, or poacher) I will assume they were up to no good as they were not invited and have already proved they do not respect the law. I will consider them as hostiles, and I will take whatever actions that I feel necessary.

They are vagabonds, and they have no right to drift through my property on their journey to opportunity.

 

[chucky2]

No, its illegal aliens.

Sorry, you're right, corrected.

Chuck

 

[xj0hnx]

... no it doesn't. Read section (1). You most certainly do NOT have the protection of the castle doctrine simply due to the fact that you have the right do be somewhere.

There's no hedging here, you're simply wrong.

That is EXACTLY why it was changed, to insure that you had the right to defend yourself with lethal force where you have the right to be.

There's no hedging here, you are simply wrong.

 

[Ldir]

No, it says EXACTLY what I said it says. If you aren't commiting a crime, did not provoke the aggressor, and have a right to be somewhere, you have the right to use deadly force, I am not talking about this case, I am simply pointing out that the Castle Doctrine does in FACT extend outside of your house, or a building on your property.

You are wrong. Section e says you don't have to try to run away first. You still can use force only if the other sections of the law are met.

"is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section"

 

[fskimospy]

And so, when he goes up to them and says, Stop, I'm calling the authorities, and they all get up, laugh at him, and leave, then WTF happens? The authorities take an hour to get there, WhereTF are the illegals??? Who knows, that's where. How incredibly F'ing dumb would that be? To have illegals detained and then just let them go. So now, the message that just got sent/reinforced to every illegal is: Just continue to do whatever the F you want, if they detain you, sue, you'll get the beloved patriot's money. And the message that just got sent to every US citizen down there is: a.) shoot them and bury them or b.) do nothing. Congrats. Your 'rule of law' doesn't work so hot in the face of Reality, does it?

If you know about it, you certainly haven't learned much - or you've forgotten. Everyone should be working to follow The Rules. I think we can both agree on that. The problem is, when there are groups of people not following The Rules, continuing yourself to keep playing by The Rules F's you, not them. So I am mystified, given your comments in this thread, and your supposed knowledge of not getting played, how you could possibly know this, yet, still make these comments as if you think The Rules - and these are US rules now, there to protect US citizens - are somehow going to keep US citizens property and persons safe in the midst of an invasion by people who a.) don't follow The Rules, and b.) don't give a F about The Rules? Explain that to me please, how following The Rules while others don't follow The Rules is going to benefit the people following The Rules when the system in place to catch and punish the people not following The Rules has totally and completely failed.

What I have a problem with is dumbF's who ignore Reality and think The Rules are the only Rules that life/life situation is being lived by. These are the same people that tout Rules and Regulations on how sh1ttons of people can't play the system they want to expand (and fund with others money), yet, lawdy lawdy, surprise surprise, just sit, watch, and listen, and wowzers!, corruption of the system abounds. But, hey, it's merely anecdotal because it's not a written Rule or Regulation.

You yourself professed yourself to be a 'super smart political guy', I didn't put those words in your mouth, you did - and worse, you actually believe it. Stop referring to The Rules as something people should follow when reacting to others not following The Rules: Sometimes you can't do that, you have to go by what the situation dictates. Which is how and why I have the whiteboy example....they're being overrun down there, and are sick of it. You tout rules to be followed, are happy the guy is paying a fine to invaders.

Awesome.

Chuck

Wow, that's a pretty impressive stream of consciousness crazy rant there. The argument you are making could be made for literally every other criminal action that exists. I'm not impressed. The law already allows US persons to protect their lives and property. Neither was at stake here, which of course was the whole problem to begin with.

As for calling myself a super smart political guy, I have no idea what you're talking about. I've noticed you keep saying it over and over again, but I'm not sure what it refers to. If I did say it, that sounds an awful lot like sarcasm, doesn't it?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Other articles mentioned that it was "livestock grazing on public rangelands". The rancher have permit and he pay somewhere around $2.50 per month per cattle for the privilege.

This guy had no business doing what he did then IMO. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[trenchfoot]

No jobs, no reason to immigrate. It's not the government that's failing to stop lillegal immigration, it's those huge agribusinesses and others that just love the extra profits from hiring illegals and paying them slave wages that is the problem. The moment they and everone else stop hiring illegals, the problem will mostly be solved.

They're the ones who are applying all the pressure on their legislators to back off on enforcing immigration laws and they're the ones who have all the money and power to make it stick.

Oh, but wait! How can most conservatives be for plugging up the borders when it's those very people who own and operate their political party that want the borders to be as wide open as ever to insure the cheap labor train keeps chugging across the borders?

Can you just imagine the uproar the conservatives would make when the government starts enforcing the laws like they're demanding in this thread, and raid every single conservative-owned business that hire illegals, when in their own words they say "they have to run that way to survive"?

You conservatives have a real problem on your hands as there's no way you're going to convince the very rich and powerful owners of your party that they can't have cheap slave labor any more.

Make up your minds...Do you or don't you want Big Brother to tell your conservative-owned businesses who they can and cannot hire and do you or don't you want the government to enforce the letter of the law against yourselves or......maybe just the liberal-owned ones?

I'm assuming the rancher being referred to is a conservative. So it's rather odd that on the one hand, you conservatives want the government to enforce the law, yet on the other hand you just don't want it enforced against your own self interests.