Arizona rancher ordered to pay damages of $87,000 to illegals!

[Varmintmist]

If Barnett was protecting his land, life, or property, he would have prevailed in the lawsuit.

Don't bet on it.
The lawsuit was civil, he was not charged with nor convicted of a crime. He was within the law to do what he did, apparently he had done it 12000 times before and had a working relationship with the LEO's.
If you shoot a perp in your house, threatining you or hurting one of your family, his family will likely sue you. If you defend yourself legally, you are likely to be sued civily. That is a fact, and that is what happened here. That is why "Castle doctrine" laws are becoming more popular.
He ran afoul of the "make up a civil right" crowd.

[Ferris Leets]

This is the most persuasive and important post on this thread. If correct it was a civil suit.  Not criminal.  Whole different set of rules.  I do not agree with the court but you can bet that this will be appealed to death, sure hope he wins in the end.

Ferris Leets


[/quote]
>>Don't bet on it.
The lawsuit was civil, he was not charged with nor convicted of a crime. He was within the law to do what he did, apparently he had done it 12000 times before and had a working relationship with the LEO's.
If you shoot a perp in your house, threatining you or hurting one of your family, his family will likely sue you. If you defend yourself legally, you are likely to be sued civily. That is a fact, and that is what happened here. That is why "Castle doctrine" laws are becoming more popular.
He ran afoul of the "make up a civil right" crowd.


[/quote]

[Skinhead]

This is the most persuasive and important post on this thread. If correct it was a civil suit.  Not criminal.  Whole different set of rules.  I do not agree with the court but you can bet that this will be appealed to death, sure hope he wins in the end.

Ferris Leets

>>Don't bet on it.
The lawsuit was civil, he was not charged with nor convicted of a crime. He was within the law to do what he did, apparently he had done it 12000 times before and had a working relationship with the LEO's.
If you shoot a perp in your house, threatining you or hurting one of your family, his family will likely sue you. If you defend yourself legally, you are likely to be sued civily. That is a fact, and that is what happened here. That is why "Castle doctrine" laws are becoming more popular.
He ran afoul of the "make up a civil right" crowd.


[/quote]
[/quote]


'xactly!!

[x]

Right to carry doesn't mean that you can pull your gun out of your pants/holster/waistband and point it indiscriminately at anyone you want to.  Anyone that has been to a CCW class should know this, and if you aint been to a CCW class, you might ought to read up about the liabilities of pulling a gun on someone.
 

[Ferris Leets]

Right to carry doesn't mean that you can pull your gun out of your pants/holster/waistband and point it indiscriminately at anyone you want to.  Anyone that has been to a CCW class should know this, and if you aint been to a CCW class, you might ought to read up about the liabilities of pulling a gun on someone.
 

What is your question or point here.  He did not do anything ilegal.  He was not arrested. He was not charged.  He was not convicted.

[Bobbo]

Don't bet on it.
The lawsuit was civil, he was not charged with nor convicted of a crime. He was within the law to do what he did, apparently he had done it 12000 times before and had a working relationship with the LEO's.
If you shoot a perp in your house, threatining you or hurting one of your family, his family will likely sue you. If you defend yourself legally, you are likely to be sued civily. That is a fact, and that is what happened here. That is why "Castle doctrine" laws are becoming more popular.
He ran afoul of the "make up a civil right" crowd.

This was a case of civil rights violations, and these are almost always processed in a civil setting.  Courts with juries of your peers are never perfect, but it’s the best thing we can come up with so far.

[Chrisj CMA]

I think thats the BIG kicker....."civil rights"  It would be nice to see our govenment back OUR citizens.  The answer should have been "you do not have the civil right to illegally enter the United States and start demanding things.  Go back home and submit proper immigration requests and be blessed and feel lucky the guy didnt shoot you" 

No law suit, no trial, no 87K awarded.....just have a nice day and a smile

PERIOD

[Titan]

I think thats the BIG kicker....."civil rights"  It would be nice to see our govenment back OUR citizens.  The answer should have been "you do not have the civil right to illegally enter the United States and start demanding things.  Go back home and submit proper immigration requests and be blessed and feel lucky the guy didnt shoot you" 

No law suit, no trial, no 87K awarded.....just have a nice day and a smile

PERIOD

Well there ya go! Thank you Mr. ChrisJ! My sentiments exactly!

Some of the posters on here seem to be from the same group of folks who served on that jury!

[Varmintmist]

Right to carry doesn't mean that you can pull your gun out of your pants/holster/waistband and point it indiscriminately at anyone you want to.  Anyone that has been to a CCW class should know this, and if you aint been to a CCW class, you might ought to read up about the liabilities of pulling a gun on someone.
 

Thanks for the advice. They are not required in PA, you have to go look it up yourself.

Since this wasn't PA I don't know what the rules were. However, since the rancher had a working relationship with the sheriff, and the BP, and had done this on many occasions, my guess is he knows what he can and can't do. Since he wasn't arrested for brandishing, terroristic threats, or playing with his gun in public, odds are good he did nothing illegal.

Second, he was pretty discriminating, he pointed it at criminals.

Hey, thanks for making me look this up. IAW AZ's castle doctrine, which is not specifically applied to homes. Looks like the rancher was legal. This is ambulance chasing at its finest.

[Varmintmist]

This was a case of civil rights violations, and these are almost always processed in a civil setting.  Courts with juries of your peers are never perfect, but it’s the best thing we can come up with so far.

So, the rancher was legal. The aliens were violating the law. What civil right was broken? If AZ is like PA, the landowner has the right to detain trespassers for the police and it is pretty liberal on the force end.

The 9th circus is going to get overturned again.

BTW, if he was leasingland, then he is the owner and has control over that property weather it is public or private.

[Bobbo]

So, the rancher was legal. The aliens were violating the law. What civil right was broken? If AZ is like PA, the landowner has the right to detain trespassers for the police and it is pretty liberal on the force end.

The 9th circus is going to get overturned again.

BTW, if he was leasingland, then he is the owner and has control over that property weather it is public or private.

The link in the OP states that Barnett unjustly threatened bodily harm with a firearm, and also threatened them with his dog on public land.  I’m not sure how this morphed to him being the lessee of public land and protecting his personal or property rights.  Bottom line is he overstepped his legal bounds again, and was found liable, not only by a lower court, but upheld by the Court of Appeals.

[fudgie]

Maybe the illegals cannot speak or read english. Maybe the rancher cannot speak whatever language the illegals spoke. A gun drawn means the same thing in every language.

What sux is that alot us could not be on a jury. We know what is right and wrong and that will get us booted from the jury pool.

[Bobbo]

Maybe the illegals cannot speak or read english. Maybe the rancher cannot speak whatever language the illegals spoke. A gun drawn means the same thing in every language.

What sux is that alot us could not be on a jury. We know what is right and wrong and that will get us booted from the jury pool.

For what it’s worth, other news articles say he threatened them in English and Spanish.

If, by “right and wrong” you mean ignoring laws and endorsing street justice, then yes, those people are usually excused from jury duty.

[f6john]

    This may be getting off point a little bit but it does go to the actions of the rancher. The only rule my dad taught me as a young boy about firearms was simply this: "never point a firearm at anything you don't intend to kill". That instruction alone will cover almost every situation. It won't make you in the right if you kill someone or something but there won't be any "oops" or "it was an accident" BS. Too much TV showing guns being drawn and used as a prop and some people think it's OK. If someone pulls a gun on me they better be planning on a possible attack of lead poisoning.

[blotar]

I really hate to be divisive here, but after all, we are all descended from immigrants and each were subjected to prejudice and vigilante acts that were largely unnoticed or ignored until a different group was the ‘goat’ for our alien society to deride and brutalize. It is painfully obvious that our elected politicians need to create a policy for what has been allowed to happen for many years, but it is political suicide to take a stand either way on the issue of immigration.  Imagine for just a second how extremely difficult it is to trek across the desert to find a way to improve the lifestyle of your family and face the many trials of coming across illegally.  These individuals are part of the success of the United States.  Even though they are a net loss on the tax and social services systems, they are a benefit to our economy as a whole in the Billions of dollars. They are hard working, for the most part and afford the rest of us a nice bargain in the meantime, giving us a better standard of living. Our highest government officials have used them to care for their most precious possessions. (their children) Right now we are under immigration rules from the depression era and have allowed the influx of Latinos by covering one eye and allowing them to flourish without the proper immigration documents.  In some states they can legally get most of the benefits that everyone else can get. We are a Global Economy now and there is no turning back without much sacrifice. I don’t think that things are so bad as to begin a Civil War to make a point about our Global Objectives.  We Americans are in a really good place and I cannot understand why we cannot simply enjoy our fate. We are 10 times the next largest economy.  Our elected officials owe us an immigration policy that is clearly understood. We could repatriate 10 million illegals or cut some of them some sort of deal. Illegal immigration is not inexorable. It is for our Lawmakers to decide and soon.
Blotar

[hueco]

What in the world is going on? This is an open and shut case. What has happened to our country? Illegal aliens? That means they should not be here on US soil. They are here illegally and trespassing on a US citizens property without his consent.That is considered trespassing and crossing the border illegally. But. He stops and holds them for the authorities and that makes him the bad guy. It has all turned upside down.  I ain't against wetbacks trying to make it better for them selfs. But when their rights trump US citizens. I have a problem with that.

[Bobbo]

blotar->  I hope you have an industrial strength flame suit!   

[Bobbo]

What in the world is going on? This is an open and shut case. What has happened to our country? Illegal aliens? That means they should not be here on US soil. They are here illegally and trespassing on a US citizens property without his consent.That is considered trespassing and crossing the border illegally. But. He stops and holds them for the authorities and that makes him the bad guy. It has all turned upside down.  I ain't against <censored> trying to make it better for them selfs. But when their rights trump US citizens. I have a problem with that.

If you read the OP link, it says they were on public land, not private property.  Can anyone provide a definitive answer to where they were when confronted?  Maybe it will help settle this thread.

[Serk]

What in the world is going on? This is an open and shut case. What has happened to our country? Illegal aliens? That means they should not be here on US soil. They are here illegally and trespassing on a US citizens property without his consent.That is considered trespassing and crossing the border illegally. But. He stops and holds them for the authorities and that makes him the bad guy. It has all turned upside down.  I ain't against <censored> trying to make it better for them selfs. But when their rights trump US citizens. I have a problem with that.

If you read the OP link, it says they were on public land, not private property.  Can anyone provide a definitive answer to where they were when confronted?  Maybe it will help settle this thread.

Not sure how definitive this is, but some quick googling turned up these links:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/09/16-illegals-sue-arizona-rancher/

An Arizona man who has waged a 10-year campaign to stop a flood of illegal immigrants from crossing his property is being sued by 16 Mexican nationals who accuse him of conspiring to violate their civil rights when he stopped them at gunpoint on his ranch on the U.S.-Mexico border.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/04/nation/la-na-arizona-rancher-20110205

A federal appeals court has upheld a controversial verdict that an Arizona rancher must pay $87,000 to four illegal immigrants he detained at gunpoint while they were crossing his property.

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

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.

[Varmintmist]

If you read the OP link, it says they were on public land, not private property.  Can anyone provide a definitive answer to where they were when confronted?  Maybe it will help settle this thread.

FYI, If you put a little effort into it you will find out that the JURY found him NOT GUILTY of civil rights violations.
The people taking advantage of the illegals (MALDEF) wanted 37M, they lost.

A federal jury in Tucson ruled Tuesday that an Arizona rancher did not violate the civil rights of 16 Mexican nationals he stopped after they sneaked illegally into the United States, but awarded $78,000 in actual and punitive damages on claims of assault and the infliction of emotional distress.

A rancher and successful businessman, Mr. Barnett owns the Cross Rail Ranch near Douglas, where he maintains cattle on 22,000 acres of private and leased land.

“Since drug smugglers are frequently armed, I drew my handgun,” Mr. Barnett said in an April 18, 2007, deposition. “I holstered it after assuring myself they were not armed. I then called Border Patrol on my cell phone, and my wife, Barbara, on my radio, and waited until Border Patrol arrived and took them into custody.”

One of the 16 illegal immigrants allowed to bring the lawsuit is a convicted felon deported from the U.S. after a 1993 arrest on federal drug charges, court records show. Gerardo Gonzalez, 38, was convicted in September 1993 of possession of a controlled substance for sale and ordered deported to his home country.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/18/rancher-cleared-in-rights-case/

Whos rights were violated again?

[Titan]

This just in!
This case is not over. He's gonna appeal it.

“Basically they said he took his pistol out and kept his pistol out longer than necessary,”

Arizona Rancher Will Fight Court Order To Pay Damages to Undocumented Immigrants


http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2011/02/09/arizona-rancher-fight-court-ruling-ordering-pay-damages-undocument-immigrants/

[fudgie]

Saw him on the news yesterday. He had his gun out cause of previous run in with coyotes and drug runners. Coyotes had just dropped them off when they heard the ranchers vehicle coming and bolted. His property he should be allowed to have a gun out. Jeez, even we answer the door with shot gun in hand. 

[Bobbo]

FYI, If you put a little effort into it you will find out that the JURY found him NOT GUILTY of civil rights violations.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/18/rancher-cleared-in-rights-case/

Whos rights were violated again?

From your link:

…but awarded $78,000 in actual and punitive damages on claims of assault and the infliction of emotional distress.

The jury awarded $7,500 each in actual damages to two of the plaintiffs for the infliction of emotional distress and $1,400 each to two others for assault.

The jury found Mr. Barnett guilty of two charges, and awarded punitive damages, most likely since he has repeatedly done this.

[Hoser]

Saw him on the news yesterday. He had his gun out cause of previous run in with coyotes and drug runners. Coyotes had just dropped them off when they heard the ranchers vehicle coming and bolted. His property he should be allowed to have a gun out. Jeez, even we answer the door with shot gun in hand.  

That's how I answer the door late at night, usually with no pants.  They usually take off on a run!   Unless it's a cop, I put the shotgun down for them!  Hoser   

[Skinhead]

The jury found Mr. Barnett guilty of two charges, and awarded punitive damages, most likely since he has repeatedly done this.

Why do you think he "has repeatedly done this"?  Could it be because our laws are being scoffed at not only by the ILLEGALS, but by our own government?  Law enforcement is one of the few things our government should be responsible for, along with protecting us from foreign powers.  They should not be involved in saving the planet, running auto companies, bailing out banks, telling state governments what they can and can't do, feeding your kids, buying you cell phones, insuring that you can buy a house you can't afford, etc.

Enough is enough already..

[Chrisj CMA]

The jury found Mr. Barnett guilty of two charges, and awarded punitive damages, most likely since he has repeatedly done this.

Why do you think he "has repeatedly done this"?  Could it be because our laws are being scoffed at not only by the ILLEGALS, but by our own government?  Law enforcement is one of the few things our government should be responsible for, along with protecting us from foreign powers.  They should not be involved in saving the planet, running auto companies, bailing out banks, telling state governments what they can and can't do, feeding your kids, buying you cell phones, insuring that you can buy a house you can't afford, etc.

Enough is enough already..

AMEN

[Bobbo]

Why do you think he "has repeatedly done this"?  Could it be because our laws are being scoffed at not only by the ILLEGALS, but by our own government?  Law enforcement is one of the few things our government should be responsible for, along with protecting us from foreign powers.  They should not be involved in saving the planet, running auto companies, bailing out banks, telling state governments what they can and can't do, feeding your kids, buying you cell phones, insuring that you can buy a house you can't afford, etc.

Enough is enough already..

We all want our borders secure and would like to stop anyone from crossing illegally.  The cost to do this would be prohibitive at best, even if we canceled other programs.  Our government weighs the costs and benefits of tax expenditures, and every administration seems to agree that border control is low on the list.

Mr. Barnett has apparently assaulted or mistreated people he confronts before, and surpassed his legal right to do so.  Courts, judges, and juries take that into consideration when delivering a verdict and punishment.

Like I said before, we don’t need people trying to solve law breaking by breaking more laws.

[RoadKill]

"If Barnett was protecting his land, life, or property, he would have prevailed in the lawsuit."

Because the Jury is always right ? So we can start implementing immediate capitol punishment on all convicted ? Does this apply to civil court convictions on your planet as well?  I'm with you! Lets start shootin! 

[Ferris Leets]

It was a CIVIL suit.  He was not CONVICTED of anything.  He was ordered to pay the plaintiffs by the jury.  He was not fined by the court.  Civil cases have a much lower standard for findings than criminal cases.  We are talking about the ninth circuit here so they will almost certainly be reversed at the next level.

[Jess from VA]

I wouldn't pay damages for doing as a citizen exactly what the Feds are required by law to do.

[Skinhead]

Why do you think he "has repeatedly done this"?  Could it be because our laws are being scoffed at not only by the ILLEGALS, but by our own government?  Law enforcement is one of the few things our government should be responsible for, along with protecting us from foreign powers.  They should not be involved in saving the planet, running auto companies, bailing out banks, telling state governments what they can and can't do, feeding your kids, buying you cell phones, insuring that you can buy a house you can't afford, etc.

Enough is enough already..

We all want our borders secure and would like to stop anyone from crossing illegally.  The cost to do this would be prohibitive at best, even if we canceled other programs.  Our government weighs the costs and benefits of tax expenditures, and every administration seems to agree that border control is low on the list.

Mr. Barnett has apparently assaulted or mistreated people he confronts before, and surpassed his legal right to do so.  Courts, judges, and juries take that into consideration when delivering a verdict and punishment.

Like I said before, we don’t need people trying to solve law breaking by breaking more laws.

If it is cost prohibitive for the government to secure the borders, deputize civilians and let them do it as Mr. Barnett appears to be doing.  

If you ever watch COPS, you will see US citizens treated no differently during apprhension than these criminals were treated by MB.  Occasionally I guess there are some complaints of police brutality and civil right infractions, but I think most of those cases are more severe infractions than what happened here.  Of course I didn't see any of it so I can't offer a definitive opinion, but based on the description of the event, it sounds like a minority group that supports the illegals is trying to remove a thorn in their side.  

[Bobbo]

If it is cost prohibitive for the government to secure the borders, deputize civilians and let them do it as Mr. Barnett appears to be doing.  

Your suggestion would mean more here:
http://azgovernor.gov/contact.asp

[Bobbo]

I wouldn't pay damages for doing as a citizen exactly what the Feds are required by law to do.

Citizens don’t have the authority to step in on behalf of the Federal Government. 

[Bobbo]

It was a CIVIL suit.  He was not CONVICTED of anything.  He was ordered to pay the plaintiffs by the jury.  He was not fined by the court.  Civil cases have a much lower standard for findings than criminal cases.  We are talking about the ninth circuit here so they will almost certainly be reversed at the next level.

No one has claimed he was criminally convicted.  He was found liable in a case that was tried by a jury.  Remember, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals only upheld the verdict of a lower court.  Overturning a verdict becomes more difficult as more courts agree with the original verdict.

[Ferris Leets]

This is a quote from your post.  Saying he was found guilty of 2 charges.  He was not. 


[/quote]
[The jury found Mr. Barnett guilty of two charges, and awarded punitive damages, most likely since he has repeatedly done this.

[/quote]

[Bobbo]

This is a quote from your post.  Saying he was found guilty of 2 charges.  He was not. 

[The jury found Mr. Barnett guilty of two charges, and awarded punitive damages, most likely since he has repeatedly done this.

You are misconstruing the word “guilty” as exclusively used in criminal offenses.  Here is a dictionary definition (emphasis mine)

having committed an offense, crime, violation, or wrong, especially against moral or penal law; justly subject to a certain accusation or penalty; culpable:

He was found guilty of assault and inflicting emotional distress.

[Jess from VA]

I wouldn't pay damages for doing as a citizen exactly what the Feds are required by law to do.

Citizens don’t have the authority to step in on behalf of the Federal Government. 

I don't need their stinking authority. 

The border could easily be secured like the Korean DMZ, just 20 million land mines... no fence necessary. 

And save your outrage for someone who gives a sh!t.

[Bobbo]

I don't need their stinking authority. 

The border could easily be secured like the Korean DMZ, just 20 million land mines... no fence necessary. 

And save your outrage for someone who gives a sh!t.

The delusion of being above the law is probably what caused this rancher to be in the pickle he’s in.

Outrage?  Not me.