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

[Patranus]

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a 2009 ruling against Arizona rancher Roger Barnett, forcing him to pay about $87,000 in damages related to his assault of illegal immigrants on his ranch in 2004.

The court ruled Thursday that Barnett was not entitled to claim self-defense because he admitted that none of the illegal immigrants had threatened or attacked him.
In February 2009, a federal jury issued a split verdict in a case against Barnett stemming from the 2004 incident. The jury found that he didn't violate the group's civil rights and that he wasn't liable on claims of battery and false imprisonment.

But the jury found him liable on four claims of assault and four claims of infliction of emotional distress and ordered Barnett to pay $77,804 in damages. The $87,000 he must pay reflects that original amount plus interest.

The 2004 incident occurred close to a wash near Douglas when Barnett approached a group of 16 illegal immigrants while he was carrying a gun and accompanied by a large dog. Attorneys for the plaintiffs - five women and 11 men who had crossed into the U.S. illegally - say that Barnett held the group captive at gunpoint, threatening that his dog would attack and that he would shoot anyone who tried to escape.

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/border/article_7885cd07-2c7c-5fdb-9c32-fb356ab50227.html

Disgusting.
Its sad when the US Government is unwilling to do its job and forces citizens to defend their country and their property and then the US Government rallies around the illegals.


You have been warned before about posting inflammatory and untrue headlines more than once before, and have not responded or cooperated well. Yet, here, you have continued your troll-lying ways. Maybe a week off will encourage you to stop doing this.

Perknose
Forum Director

 

[fskimospy]

Alternate headline: Federal appeals court rules that you cannot hold people at gunpoint and threaten to murder them if they flee for the simple act of being on your land, and self defense is not applicable against people who don't threaten you in any way.

Truly disgusting that people would think that the rancher's actions were acceptable.

 

[CycloWizard]

Alternate headline: Federal appeals court rules that you cannot hold people at gunpoint and threaten to murder them if they flee for the simple act of being on your land, and self defense is not applicable against people who don't threaten you in any way.

Truly disgusting that people would think that the rancher's actions were acceptable.

Did he actually do any of those things, or just threaten? I think his right to be safe on his own land outweighs any rights of illegal immigrants to not piss themselves by being threatened for trespassing. If he physically assaulted them, then I have no problem with him being charged accordingly. If someone is on your property, what else are you supposed to do? Ask them nicely to hold still until the police arrive?

 

[chucky2]

The ranchers actions are totally acceptable. I'd tell them the same exact thing, so they don't try and run away and/or overpower me so as to wait for the authorities to get there.

This serves as great example to others in the same situation: Shoot them so they don't sue you later.

When's that 'super smart political guy' Congress, who's apperantly been multitasking like you said they could (which, clearly, they can't), going to lock down the border? Oh, that's right....they're uh, well, um...they're...well...gee...they're multitasking....amirite?

Chuck

 

[fskimospy]

Did he actually do any of those things, or just threaten? I think his right to be safe on his own land outweighs any rights of illegal immigrants to not piss themselves by being threatened for trespassing. If he physically assaulted them, then I have no problem with him being charged accordingly. If someone is on your property, what else are you supposed to do? Ask them nicely to hold still until the police arrive?

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?

 

[Thump553]

Thread title is fraudently misleading.

 

[fskimospy]

The ranchers actions are totally acceptable. I'd tell them the same exact thing, so they don't try and run away and/or overpower me so as to wait for the authorities to get there.

This serves as great example to others in the same situation: Shoot them so they don't sue you later.

When's that 'super smart political guy' Congress, who's apperantly been multitasking like you said they could (which, clearly, they can't), going to lock down the border? Oh, that's right....they're uh, well, um...they're...well...gee...they're multitasking....amirite?

Chuck

Well, then expect a jury to find you similarly liable. If you think that the rancher would have somehow had a better outcome by murdering four people, you're awfully naive. The lesson to be had here is don't threaten to kill someone unless you have a better reason than trespassing.

Congress not passing legislation to lock down the border has nothing to do with an inability to multitask, they simply don't want to do what you want them to do. For that, I am glad, because the 'locking down the border' idea is pointless and expensive.

 

[ayabe]

Did he actually do any of those things, or just threaten? I think his right to be safe on his own land outweighs any rights of illegal immigrants to not piss themselves by being threatened for trespassing. If he physically assaulted them, then I have no problem with him being charged accordingly. If someone is on your property, what else are you supposed to do? Ask them nicely to hold still until the police arrive?

Right but your feelings aren't written into the law. If he wasn't threatened then he couldn't hold them at gunpoint. If people don't like the law as written then it should be changed.

 

[airdata]

How can he be forced to pay them if they're not citizens?

As far as the ruling... its a gray area. They make it sound like maybe it's his back yard or something but no. It goes on to say he owns land and patrols the land for illegals as a hobby.

That's nice that you have nothing better to do... But I'm going to assume that the 16 people were simply looking for better lives and the guy should have been minding his own business.

 

[zinfamous]

Thread title is fraudently misleading.

look at who posted it...

 

[spidey07]

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.

 

[actuarial]

I think his right to be safe on his own land outweighs any rights of illegal immigrants to not piss themselves by being threatened for trespassing.

How did he know they were illegal immigrants? The last set of people he held at gunpoint weren't.

In that case, Barnett held a family of Latino U.S. citizens at gunpoint, screaming racial slurs at them, and threatened to kill them all, including two girls aged 9 and 11, according to MALDEF.

 

[Patranus]

In other news his neighbor.....

Police say Krentz, whose family has been ranching in southern Arizona since 1907, was gunned down early Saturday morning by an illegal immigrant while out on his ATV tending to fences and water lines on the family's 34,000-acre cattle ranch.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/03/30/illegal-immigrant-suspected-murder-arizona-rancher/

Holding an illegal immigrant at gun point until police arrive is an appropriate response.

 

[CPA]

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?

F Yes. It's my property, stay the fuck off of it. How difficult is that?

 

[Patranus]

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.

You would probably get sued by some illegal alien defense fund because the signs weren't in some obscure language.

 

[PokerGuy]

I'm going to assume that the 16 people were simply looking for better lives and the guy should have been minding his own business.

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

 

[CPA]

How can he be forced to pay them if they're not citizens?

As far as the ruling... its a gray area. They make it sound like maybe it's his back yard or something but no. It goes on to say he owns land and patrols the land for illegals as a hobby.

That's nice that you have nothing better to do... But I'm going to assume that the 16 people were simply looking for better lives and the guy should have been minding his own business.

Minding his own business concerning the land he owns? I don't give a flying fuck if they are trying to better their lives. Guess what? I try to better my life every day, but I do it legally. Should we let off drug dealers, or burglars or money launderers because they are looking for a better life. Get your head out of you ass you nincompoop.

 

[CPA]

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

It is screwed beyond belief. It is just down right sickening we have morons like him as part of this country.

 

[fskimospy]

How can he be forced to pay them if they're not citizens?

As far as the ruling... its a gray area. They make it sound like maybe it's his back yard or something but no. It goes on to say he owns land and patrols the land for illegals as a hobby.

That's nice that you have nothing better to do... But I'm going to assume that the 16 people were simply looking for better lives and the guy should have been minding his own business.

The US courts enforce the judgment, and non-citizens can seek relief in US courts for things that happen in the US.

 

[Patranus]

Minding his own business concerning the land he owns? I don't give a flying fuck if they are trying to better their lives. Guess what? I try to better my life every day, but I do it legally. Should we let off drug dealers, or burglars or money launderers because they are looking for a better life. Get your head out of you ass you nincompoop.

I want to better my own life, give me your TV!!!

 

[fskimospy]

F Yes. It's my property, stay the fuck off of it. How difficult is that?

Uhmm, it's called proportionate response. It's what sane human beings use as a standard for action.

Also, if people here think you can shoot those who walk onto your property so long as you post a sign, you're hilariously wrong.

 

[CPA]

Uhmm, it's called proportionate response. It's what sane human beings use as a standard for action.

Also, if people here think you can shoot those who walk onto your property so long as you post a sign, you're hilariously wrong.

Guess what, I don't need a friggin sign to shoot someone who is on my property where I live.

 

[jackstar7]

Meh.

 

[fskimospy]

Guess what, I don't need a friggin sign to shoot someone who is on my property where I live.

You're right that the sign is irrelevant. If you think you can shoot someone for the simple act of trespassing alone, you are sorely mistaken. I would educate myself immediately if I were you so that you may avoid both the tragedy of a needless killing, and the tragedy of you spending a long time in jail.

 

[Craig234]

Nice guy.

This is the second ruling against Barnett upheld by an appeals court. In February 2008, the Arizona Court of Appeals refused to throw out a jury verdict of guilty from November 2006 - and a nearly $100,000 monetary award - against Barnett in another civil case in which a jury concluded he falsely imprisoned members of a Douglas family.

In that case, Barnett held a family of Latino U.S. citizens at gunpoint, screaming racial slurs at them, and threatened to kill them all, including two girls aged 9 and 11, according to MALDEF.

Barnett is credited with helping to start the Minuteman movement in Arizona in the late 1990s when he began patrolling ranch lands near Douglas, looking to stop illegal immigrants. Barnett has said he's detained thousands of border crossers on property he owns or leases near Douglas in the last decade, and then turning them over to Border Patrol officials.