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

[trenchfoot]

Whatever.....Barnett was tried in front of a jury of his fellow Arizonans, was found guilty by his fellow Arizonans, and confirmed on appeal.

Sounds good to me, the idea of being tried by a jury of your peers, and that his fellow Arizonans convicted him and confirmed on appeal makes it righteous.

I couldn't have asked for a fairer trial and appeal.

 

[Red Dawn]

Ah. so now Fox News is a perfectly reputable source for information? That's not the article that was included in the OP, and a lot of its information conflicts with the original article. If he assaulted someone, he should have been charged with assault in a criminal court. Ordering him to pay civil damages to a group which should have no recourse to our legal system in the first place is stupid. Period.

Yeah I agree that any and all info from Faux should be taken with a grain of salt but I figured since they, like this guy, are reactionary fucks it might be credible in this instance. But it is Faux so I could be wrong.

I also agree awarding this illegals any money is bullshit, but I do think this pin head vigilante needs to suffer the consequences of his actions and if it's paying out $87K then so be it

Anyway... You accused me of making up facts and I was just pointing out to you that I wasn't you idiot.

 

[chucky2]

Right. And if the same jury had found him not guilty, the same people in here talking up about follow The Rules would be screaming about racist xenophob blah blah blah white Arizonans.

 

[Red Dawn]

Actually most of the states are following Texas' castle laws so they must be doing something right. The ability to defend your property from trespass and crime is only growing, not the other way around.

Admit it freak, you are just chomping at the bit to be able to shoot someone and get away with it.

 

[her209]

Super idea you have there.... :thumbsup:

Chuck

Shooting on sight wasn't my idea. I'm just merely an implementer.

 

[Red Dawn]

Right. And if the same jury had found him not guilty, the same people in here talking up about follow The Rules would be screaming about racist xenophob blah blah blah white Arizonans.

You mean they'd be going full Red Ass like yourself? Possibly but then if that were the case I'm sure Patranus would have posted the thread as it wouldn't satisfy his and your daily urge for Faux Outrage.

 

[Zebo]

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.

How can you imprison someone without use of force or threats thereof? If it's okay as the jury ruled to hold and imprison them seems inconsistent to rule his brandishing and threatening was over the line.

Help me understand that? It's like saying cops can arrest people but can't use force.

 

[KlokWyze]

I also agree awarding this illegals any money is bullshit, but I do think this pin head vigilante needs to suffer the consequences of his actions and if it's paying out $87K then so be it

Indeed. :thumbsup:

 

[thraashman]

Yeah I agree that any and all info from Faux should be taken with a grain of salt but I figured since they, like this guy, are reactionary fucks it might be credible in this instance. But it is Faux so I could be wrong.

I also agree awarding this illegals any money is bullshit, but I do think this pin head vigilante needs to suffer the consequences of his actions and if it's paying out $87K then so be it

Anyway... You accused me of making up facts and I was just pointing out to you that I wasn't you idiot.

I think that the awarded money should be held in escrow and available to the plaintiffs upon them legally becoming citizens. But I still think he should have to pay it.

 

[HumblePie]

I think that the awarded money should be held in escrow and available to the plaintiffs upon them legally becoming citizens. But I still think he should have to pay it.

I don't. They were on his land. They knew they were not suppose to be there. Hell they knew they weren't even suppose to be in this country, let alone his land. The fact they got threatened in a language I doubt any of the spoke matters not. The fact that he was brandishing a fire arm at them shouldn't matter as they were not were they were suppose to be. He did not shoot or injure any of them. If I was them I would have been glad I didn't get shot for being where I was not suppose to be.

Be hey, if you don't agree with this, I suggest trying this on for size. Pick a military base near where you live. Then try to trespass. See what happens. If you don't end up with any additional holes in your body I'd be surprised.

 

[Red Dawn]

I think that the awarded money should be held in escrow and available to the plaintiffs upon them legally becoming citizens. But I still think he should have to pay it.

Sounds reasonable

 

[thraashman]

I don't. They were on his land. They knew they were not suppose to be there. Hell they knew they weren't even suppose to be in this country, let alone his land. The fact they got threatened in a language I doubt any of the spoke matters not. The fact that he was brandishing a fire arm at them shouldn't matter as they were not were they were suppose to be. He did not shoot or injure any of them. If I was them I would have been glad I didn't get shot for being where I was not suppose to be.

Be hey, if you don't agree with this, I suggest trying this on for size. Pick a military base near where you live. Then try to trespass. See what happens. If you don't end up with any additional holes in your body I'd be surprised.

The law is the law. Like it or not you have to accept consequences for breaking it. He broke it. The law for military bases is different than the law for a private citizen's property.

 

[Red Dawn]

I don't. They were on his land. They knew they were not suppose to be there. Hell they knew they weren't even suppose to be in this country, let alone his land. The fact they got threatened in a language I doubt any of the spoke matters not. The fact that he was brandishing a fire arm at them shouldn't matter as they were not were they were suppose to be. He did not shoot or injure any of them. If I was them I would have been glad I didn't get shot for being where I was not suppose to be.

Be hey, if you don't agree with this, I suggest trying this on for size. Pick a military base near where you live. Then try to trespass. See what happens. If you don't end up with any additional holes in your body I'd be surprised.

Pssst, it wasn't his land, it was public land. The header for this thread and the article is false.

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.

 

[Ldir]

I don't. They were on his land. They knew they were not suppose to be there. Hell they knew they weren't even suppose to be in this country, let alone his land. The fact they got threatened in a language I doubt any of the spoke matters not. The fact that he was brandishing a fire arm at them shouldn't matter as they were not were they were suppose to be. He did not shoot or injure any of them. If I was them I would have been glad I didn't get shot for being where I was not suppose to be.

Be hey, if you don't agree with this, I suggest trying this on for size. Pick a military base near where you live. Then try to trespass. See what happens. If you don't end up with any additional holes in your body I'd be surprised.

It was public land. He just had a grazing permit.

^^ What Red said.

 

[Zebo]

Whatever.....Barnett was tried in front of a jury of his fellow Arizonans, was found guilty by his fellow Arizonans, and confirmed on appeal.

Sounds good to me, the idea of being tried by a jury of your peers, and that his fellow Arizonans convicted him and confirmed on appeal makes it righteous.

I couldn't have asked for a fairer trial and appeal.

9th is most overruled court in the country. This won't hold up on appeal because of inconsistency I talked about earlier. You can't detain without force since people just walk away.

 

[HumblePie]

Pssst, it wasn't his land, it was public land. The header for this thread and the article is false.

Ahh doh, then yep, on public land he shouldn't be doing that unless he felt threatened by them or thought another was threatened by them. Even in Texas you can't get away with that.

So he got what he deserves. Still doesn't change my opinion that if it was on his land I do not think he should be punished. Which is glad I don't live in a state that doesn't allow me the right to protect my person and property as I see fit. Not that I own a gun, but if I did and I shot someone for trespassing I wouldn't be liable for it.

 

[feralkid]

No, I treat criminals, or people so likely as criminals, caught in the act as a threat. If I live next to a bank (US border) that is constantly being robbed only by brown skinned people (illegal aliens), and I'm out in the yard with my gun, and the bank bells are going off (illegal immigration not stemmed a bit), and I, wow, gee golly gosh, find a group of brown skinned people running across my yard (strongly suspected illegal aliens based on past robberies ((illegal border crossings))), then I should:

a.) Hold them at gunpoint until the authorities show up - because they sure as F didn't stop them from robbing the bank (illegally crossing the border).

b.) Sternly scold them and say, Bad robber, Bad robber, while they laugh and walk away say, No Habla Ingleis...whiteboy!

c.) Sue myself and give them money for the really harsh mental treatment of telling them Bad robbers, Bad robbers...

d.) Have 'super smart political guys' do their job and secure the border properly so I'm not invaded and put in situation a - c

e.) Cock-punch myself for making up such an improbable scenario just to try to make a really weak legal argument.

Chuck

f.) Kill them all and go to prison, learn the meaning of "poetic justice" from cell-mate Julio.

 

[feralkid]

Let me make sure I understand your position:

You think someone who's had to tolerate an invasion of illegal aliens for years, while his federal government, who's primary job is to secure the borders and has totally failed the region he lives in, tells him to pay illegals money for what in effect is detaining them, should not have a "infantile ersatz-patriotic tantrum"?

I must have misread your post somehow...could you confirm how said person should feel? Glee about seeing illegals? Give them money for illegally invading prior to them sueing him? Just wondering what you want guys like this to do, given their Fed government has done basically nothing. Thanks ahead of the clarification.

Chuck

I was referring to you.

 

[drebo]

So were the illegals bussed home or are they still staying here on our dime?

Also, what about a citizen's arrest? These people were clearly breaking the law.

 

[fskimospy]

9th is most overruled court in the country. This won't hold up on appeal because of inconsistency I talked about earlier. You can't detain without force since people just walk away.

9th is most overruled due to the quantity of cases they hear more than the quality. If you check out percentages of cases overruled it's a far better indicator.

It will be upheld easily. Hell I'd be amaze if it was even heard by the ussc.

 

[HumblePie]

So were the illegals bussed home or are they still staying here on our dime?

Also, what about a citizen's arrest? These people were clearly breaking the law.

Citizens arrest in most states is only applicable for certain types of crimes. For example, it's illegal to jaywalk in just about all 50 states. But if you try to arrest someone for jaywalking, chances are you'll be the one in jail.

Trespassing on PUBLIC lands is not considered usually a major enough offense to allow for citizen arrest.

 

[chucky2]

f.) Kill them all and go to prison, learn the meaning of "poetic justice" from cell-mate Julio.

Mmmm...I like how you added e. to my quote, and then your f (for your Failure to provide any other plausible option). So....essentially...you've got nothing.

Which means you basically agree with what this guy did, else you'd have proposed it.

Glad you came around! :thumbsup:

 

[chucky2]

You mean they'd be going full Red Ass like yourself? Possibly but then if that were the case I'm sure Patranus would have posted the thread as it wouldn't satisfy his and your daily urge for Faux Outrage.

I'm not "Red Ass'd", but I'm sure the guy who was detaining illegals where the Fed's failed to and now is personally paying for it is. You must like Faux to call it Faux and bring it up...I myself never watch it.

Chuck

 

[drebo]

Citizens arrest in most states is only applicable for certain types of crimes. For example, it's illegal to jaywalk in just about all 50 states. But if you try to arrest someone for jaywalking, chances are you'll be the one in jail.

Trespassing on PUBLIC lands is not considered usually a major enough offense to allow for citizen arrest.

A quick Google search turns up that citizen's arrests are accepted in all states but North Carolina for felonies. Pretty sure that being an illegal alien is a felony or greater charge.

Jay walking isn't really a valid comparison because it's typically an infraction (fine) rather than an offense punishable by jail time. I would hope that being a border-jumper is an offense that would lead to jail time and ultimately deportation (although we all know that it isn't).

 

[her209]

A quick Google search turns up that citizen's arrests are accepted in all states but North Carolina for felonies. Pretty sure that being an illegal alien is a felony or greater charge.

How does one determine who is and isn't an illegal alien prior to detaining them?