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

[Titan]

Different people have different opinions and different perspectives on most subjects.

Personally I find this absolutely offensive to Americans!
Obviously I'm wrong since our amazing judicial system and brilliant judges find otherwise!


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.

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2011/02/04/arizona-rancher-ordered-second-court-pay-undocumented-immigrants-holding/#ixzz1D1Wb1mrY

[Gear Jammer]

I agree.  Buy I"ll not post any further  personal thoughts here in a public forum.

[Walküre]

Two sides to ANY story - turn of Faux News, and turn to something else, and get a little different perspective. This isn't the ONLY time Roger Barnett has had problems with people on public lands...

http://immigrationclearinghouse.org/mixed-verdict-for-roger-barnett-trial/

Now, as he is NOT an LEO, or has any other authority, what if the undocumented's had been Y0UR family?

All immigrants are not Mexican. And all Mexicans are not immigrants. And all immigrants are not illegal. It's well established that Roger Barnett has something against Mexicans, in general. Legal or not. And acts on those feelings. $87,000 worth of acting on those feelings. Next time, bet he thinks twice.

Granted, we need to get the immigration problem under control. But this isn't the way.

And that's all I'LL say on this public forum...


R

[Willow]

While I'm strongly in favor of our getting the illegal immigration problem under control, I read the brief story and cannot agree that justice wasn't served in this instance.

I'm sure there was a lot more that the jury heard that wasn't in the brief news clip. 

[Chrisj CMA]

It seems to me that as soon as "certain" politicians and judges stop thinking first about how their stance on immigration will affect their career (re-election) or party agenda; and start enforcing the law...the sooner we will be able to address the issue.  Right now we are forced to be so dang politically correct so as not to offend anyone that nothing can be done properly.

[Titan]

The story I read showed the folks were illegal immigrants. That means they were criminals. And you point out that they were on "public" property and the guy should know better than to have taken such action and was wrong to do so.

Here's a (maybe not exactly fair) comparison. Let's say you see a couple of burglars coming out of the window of your neighbor's house. You decide they are criminals. They get as far as into the "public" street where you stop them by pointing a gun at them and dialing 911. The burglars sue you and the court orders you to pay up.

I'm definitely against outright vigilanteism and this guy is probably a very prejudiced and dangerous idiot who thinks it's just fine to do this kind of thing. But I've always had a problem with cases where a criminal can sue you and collect damages if you do anything to harm them while they are committing a crime.

[f6john]

    I think I would have to live on the border for a while before I made a call, and I have not read anything about this particular story. I have an opinion but that's all it is so I'll just keep it to myself.

[donaldcc]

I read the brief story and cannot agree that justice wasn't served

 ??? ??? ???

does that mean "I agree that justice was served"?  

[Varmintmist]

Two sides to ANY story - turn of Faux News, and turn to something else, and get a little different perspective. This isn't the ONLY time Roger Barnett has had problems with people on public lands...

http://immigrationclearinghouse.org/mixed-verdict-for-roger-barnett-trial/

Now, as he is NOT an LEO, or has any other authority, what if the undocumented's had been Y0UR family?

All immigrants are not Mexican. And all Mexicans are not immigrants. And all immigrants are not illegal. It's well established that Roger Barnett has something against Mexicans, in general. Legal or not. And acts on those feelings. $87,000 worth of acting on those feelings. Next time, bet he thinks twice.

Granted, we need to get the immigration problem under control. But this isn't the way.

And that's all I'LL say on this public forum...


R

for another perspective
http://www.helpingroger.com/

Sounds to me like 16 were put up to it and funded by a bleeding heart criminal assister.

And another

The lawsuit said he then called his wife and two Border Patrol agents arrived at the site. It also said Mr. Barnett acknowledged that he had turned over 12,000 illegal immigrants to the Border Patrol since 1998.
Attorneys for the immigrants - five women and 11 men who were trying to cross illegally into the United States -
Guess these were illegal
The immigrants are represented at trial by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), which also charged that Sheriff Dever did nothing to prevent Mr. Barnett from holding their clients at “gunpoint, yelling obscenities at them and kicking one of the women.”
Seems the sherriff wasn't all that concerned with his actions either.

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

[Bobbo]

The story I read showed the folks were illegal immigrants. That means they were criminals. And you point out that they were on "public" property and the guy should know better than to have taken such action and was wrong to do so.

Here's a (maybe not exactly fair) comparison. Let's say you see a couple of burglars coming out of the window of your neighbor's house. You decide they are criminals. They get as far as into the "public" street where you stop them by pointing a gun at them and dialing 911. The burglars sue you and the court orders you to pay up.

I'm definitely against outright vigilanteism and this guy is probably a very prejudiced and dangerous idiot who thinks it's just fine to do this kind of thing. But I've always had a problem with cases where a criminal can sue you and collect damages if you do anything to harm them while they are committing a crime.

I’m not an attorney, but the advice I was taught during both citizen’s police academy and CCW classes was to not hold anyone at gunpoint, unless they have made immediate life or limb threats to you or your family.  Holding someone at gunpoint otherwise would most likely result in charges of unlawful detention, flourishing a weapon, and assault.
Firearm owners and carriers need to be vigilant about the proper use of weapons.  We need to prove our forefathers were correct in creating a right to do so.

[Chrisj CMA]

I’m not an attorney, but the advice I was taught during both citizen’s police academy and CCW classes was to not hold anyone at gunpoint, unless they have made immediate life or limb threats to you or your family.  Holding someone at gunpoint otherwise would most likely result in charges of unlawful detention, flourishing a weapon, and assault.
Firearm owners and carriers need to be vigilant about the proper use of weapons.  We need to prove our forefathers were correct in creating a right to do so.

Ok, assuming the rancher was wrong for brandishing a weapon and unlawfully detaining these criminals.  A couple hundred dollar fine to OUR GOVERNMENT sounds about right.  NOT 87K to a bunch of criminals stopped in the act of breaking the law......its a crock

[Bobbo]

I’m not an attorney, but the advice I was taught during both citizen’s police academy and CCW classes was to not hold anyone at gunpoint, unless they have made immediate life or limb threats to you or your family.  Holding someone at gunpoint otherwise would most likely result in charges of unlawful detention, flourishing a weapon, and assault.
Firearm owners and carriers need to be vigilant about the proper use of weapons.  We need to prove our forefathers were correct in creating a right to do so.

Ok, assuming the rancher was wrong for brandishing a weapon and unlawfully detaining these criminals.  A couple hundred dollar fine to OUR GOVERNMENT sounds about right.  NOT 87K to a bunch of criminals stopped in the act of breaking the law......its a crock

Our legal system punishes repeat offenders exponentially.

[Chrisj CMA]

Our legal system punishes repeat offenders exponentially.

[/quote]

Well at a couple hundred dollars a pop many many repeat offenders stopping illegals over and over till they stop coming would be a good thing and worth it...Im sure people like me would send money to help pay the citations

[Bobbo]

Well at a couple hundred dollars a pop many many repeat offenders stopping illegals over and over till they stop coming would be a good thing and worth it...Im sure people like me would send money to help pay the citations

I don’t agree that vigilantism and violating American laws would help solve the immigration problem.  If you believe someone is violating our laws, the last thing you want to do is join them in more violations.

[RoadKill]

Vigilantism is just a symptom of the problem and it will continue to grow . Apparently our Gov't and legal systems see the root of the problem is that people come hear illegally wanting Americans dollars and if we just give it to them they will go away. Soon we can all be 1 big happy third world continent ...unless Canada decides to regulate their border with us and keep the poor starving Americans from going up there and doing all the jobs they dont want,in our desperate search for a better life as productive undocumented workers.

  Follow the money!

[Chrisj CMA]

very funny bobbo....."If you believe SOMEONE is violating US laws"  Millions and millions of illegal aliens sneak into America....happens EACH AND EVERY DAY many times a day.  many are not peace loving farm workers here to save us from the blisters we dont want...........and the Feds (whos responsibility it is to stop) refuses to do anything, in fact goes after individuals and states that DO TRY to do something............so maybe its time for those that can and have the b@lls to just say enough.............oh, but we wouldnt want to break any laws....lol very funny

[Willow]

I read the brief story and cannot agree that justice wasn't served

 ??? ??? ???

does that mean "I agree that justice was served"?  

Not necessarily.  It seems to me we don't have enough details to just go off on the judge and the legal system.  I'll admit I was more than a little troubled that the story, in one of its few details, reported that he'd kicked one of the women. 

I think in this sort of civil case the only real winners are the attorneys.  I'm pretty sure that we, the taxpayers, spent a bundle and that the illegal aliens will not see, or at least retain, much, if any, of the $87,000.

I'm conflicted.  I read some of the other reports of the event and some say he was on his ranch while the story referenced by the original post says he was on public land.

I'm just troubled by knee jerk reactions that assume anyone who uses a gun is automatically correct.  Truly, I'm troubled by knee jerk reactions on several fronts.     

[Michael K (Az.)]

Willow, I find that as I age I have fewer knee-jerk reactions. Of course, this just may be arthritis setting in.  

[fudgie]

Correct me if I am wrong but isnt entering the country illegally a felony? Is AZ one of the States where you are allowed to use your firearm to do a citizens arrest to stop/hault a felony?

I agree with mase, dead men tell no tales. 

I'd pay them off $1 at a time. As far as what if its my family, so what. If I or they do something illegal we both know the conciquences of getting caught. If we wont like the outcome then we better not do it.

[KW]

I’m also conflicted on this one, but for different reasons. Personally, I would NOT pull one of my weapons for anything short of lethal force being justified.

How we instructed our Officers, in a VERY politically correct Department, was; the mere action of drawing your weapon CAN and WILL be construed as lethal force, post incident. So, unless you can legitimately pull the trigger, leave it snapped in. This is also the rule I abide by in my retired life. And yes, I KNOW people can come up with various scenarios in which banishing a weapon could serve the purpose. . .

Having said all that, I have to say a couple things. These were LAW BREAKERS here and not a college science class collecting coyote poop. And, ANY citizen has a right (some would say an obligation) to make a citizen arrest. It’s legal in nearly ever State, including Arizona.

The best comment so far was “until you live along the boarder, shut up!” (ok, I paraphrased it a little.)

BTW: The ninth U.S District Court of Appeals is full of moonbats. They’ve been overturned by the Supreme Court more than any other Court in U.S. history and recently (last week in fact) one of their decisions was anonymously rejected. It was the fourth time that’s been done. Even the liberals on the Supreme Court are tired of these loons ignoring legal precedent and making up laws. . .

[The Purple Haze]

I'm conflicted.  I read some of the other reports of the event and some say he was on his ranch while the story referenced by the original post says he was on public land.

Probably both are somewhat correct.......most large ranches in Arizona lease the grazing rights to vast areas of "public land".    

[Bobbo]

Correct me if I am wrong but isnt entering the country illegally a felony? Is AZ one of the States where you are allowed to use your firearm to do a citizens arrest to stop/hault a felony?

I agree with mase, dead men tell no tales. 

I'd pay them off $1 at a time. As far as what if its my family, so what. If I or they do something illegal we both know the conciquences of getting caught. If we wont like the outcome then we better not do it.

Your ideas follow exactly the definition of vigilantism.  You suspect someone of a crime, and become the arresting officer, prosecutor, judge, jury, and deliver the sentence.  Lest you forgot, we are a nation of laws, with due process.  I know some want to just ignore inconvenient laws, but that only satisfies until YOUR rights are taken away by a different vigilantly.  Before you claim an illegal has no humanitarian rights, you should consult someone knowledgeable with US laws.

[Bobbo]

Having said all that, I have to say a couple things. These were LAW BREAKERS here and not a college science class collecting coyote poop. And, ANY citizen has a right (some would say an obligation) to make a citizen arrest. It’s legal in nearly ever State, including Arizona.

As a retired officer, you should know that a citizen’s arrest is not without risk.  If that arrest is judged unwarranted, you open yourself to civil litigation.

[KW]

Wow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[fiddle mike]

Two sides to ANY story - turn of Faux News, and turn to something else, and get a little different perspective. This isn't the ONLY time Roger Barnett has had problems with people on public lands...

http://immigrationclearinghouse.org/mixed-verdict-for-roger-barnett-trial/

Now, as he is NOT an LEO, or has any other authority, what if the undocumented's had been Y0UR family?

All immigrants are not Mexican. And all Mexicans are not immigrants. And all immigrants are not illegal. It's well established that Roger Barnett has something against Mexicans, in general. Legal or not. And acts on those feelings. $87,000 worth of acting on those feelings. Next time, bet he thinks twice.
Granted, we need to get the immigration problem under control. But this isn't the way.

And that's all I'LL say on this public forum...


R

edited
What part of "illegal" or "trespassing" don't you understand? I was told that
illegals have killed every dog and have broken into every shed and storage building in the town of Driscoll, TX. You've got a bunch of liberals protecting foreign criminals. Not that Obama and Clinton haven't been a shining example for such shameless treason.

[Farther]

Correct me if I am wrong but isnt entering the country illegally a felony?

You are wrong.

[Skinhead]

I find several things disturbing in this case:

The article says they were illegals, we need to not forget that, they were ILLEGALS!

How many times do the police order a suspect to comply with their orders at gunpoint until they have the situation under control?  they say it is to insure their safety, is Mr. Barrett not entitled to the same safety when dealing with (suspects) illegals?  I realize he is not a LEO, but if these admitted criminals (illegals as stated in the article, trespassers) had killed Mr Barrett because he did not have control of the situation, who would protect his rights.

I think Barnett should become a border patrol officer or aux.BPO, even though that should not be a requirement to protect your property.

When did it become okay for a group to fragrantly violate the laws of this country, without fear of consequences?

This BS must stop!

Barrett would most likely not pursue these individuals if the government officials appointed to do so would step up and enforce the laws, and there by protect his property.  I'm sure he probably has better things to do with his time.

There is not enough information in the articles for me to decide if Barnett committed a crime, and I don't believe illegals have the same rights as US citizens.  If they were illegals, on his property, they should be treated as criminals.

[Bobbo]

There is not enough information in the articles for me to decide if Barnett committed a crime, and I don't believe illegals have the same rights as US citizens.  If they were illegals, on his property, they should be treated as criminals.

Oh, that pesky 14th Amendment…

Amendment 14 (1868)

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person [Note 1] of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Note 1:  Notice how the wording specifically gives privileges and immunities to US citizens, but uses the word "person" to include the right of life, liberty, or property, and equal protection of the laws. 

This part of our Constitution is what disallows these “Barney Fife” vigilantes from threatening or detaining illegals if they are not trespassing on private property or causing an immediate life or limb threat.

[NiteRiderF6]

While you don't agree with much of anything Bobbo, except for our country and the tax paying citizens of it to be used as door mats for and by any group of interlopers who wish to do so, are there any limits for you personally on this subject of the ruination of the American society by outside influences?

Well at a couple hundred dollars a pop many many repeat offenders stopping illegals over and over till they stop coming would be a good thing and worth it...Im sure people like me would send money to help pay the citations

I don’t agree that vigilantism and violating American laws would help solve the immigration problem.  If you believe someone is violating our laws, the last thing you want to do is join them in more violations.

[fudgie]

There is not enough information in the articles for me to decide if Barnett committed a crime, and I don't believe illegals have the same rights as US citizens.  If they were illegals, on his property, they should be treated as criminals.

Oh, that pesky 14th Amendment…

Amendment 14 (1868)

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person [Note 1] of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Note 1:  Notice how the wording specifically gives privileges and immunities to US citizens, but uses the word "person" to include the right of life, liberty, or property, and equal protection of the laws. 

This part of our Constitution is what disallows these “Barney Fife” vigilantes from threatening or detaining illegals if they are not trespassing on private property or causing an immediate life or limb threat.

Your right, this is the US constitution. Its a document for legal Americans.

[Skinhead]

There is not enough information in the articles for me to decide if Barnett committed a crime, and I don't believe illegals have the same rights as US citizens.  If they were illegals, on his property, they should be treated as criminals.

Bobbo, I said I Don't believe

Oh, that pesky 14th Amendment…

Amendment 14 (1868)

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person [Note 1] of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Note 1:  Notice how the wording specifically gives privileges and immunities to US citizens, but uses the word "person" to include the right of life, liberty, or property, and equal protection of the laws. 

This part of our Constitution is what disallows these “Barney Fife” vigilantes from threatening or detaining illegals if they are not trespassing on private property or causing an immediate life or limb threat.

Bobbo,

I don't need you to quote constitutional amendments to me.  I said "I don't believe"  There is a second amendment that some members our own government are trying to take away from us, besides no one is denying their right of life, liberty, property, or equal protection of the laws.  Part of the problem is they are being granted UNEQUAL protection of the law.  And as far as property goes, do they have the right to destroy or damage the property of legal citizens of this country?  The illegals have no property except that which they bring across the border with them, I don't see any one depriving them of their property.  And until they respect our laws and the property of the citizens of the US I have no use or pity for them.  Let them LEGALLY enter this country, and I will welcome them.  I'm tired of our government confiscating MY property and giving it to these criminals.

[Bobbo]

Bobbo,

I don't need you to quote constitutional amendments to me.  I said "I don't believe"  There is a second amendment that some members our own government are trying to take away from us, besides no one is denying their right of life, liberty, property, or equal protection of the laws.  Part of the problem is they are being granted UNEQUAL protection of the law.  And as far as property goes, do they have the right to destroy or damage the property of legal citizens of this country?  The illegals have no property except that which they bring across the border with them, I don't see any one depriving them of their property.  And until they respect our laws and the property of the citizens of the US I have no use or pity for them.  Let them LEGALLY enter this country, and I will welcome them.

I posted the amendment since you showed uncertainty regarding protection under US law for non-citizens.

By “UNEQUAL protection” do you mean more?  Where have illegal aliens been granted more protection?  If you mean they’re not systematically rounded up and deported, you would have to find the huge amount of money needed to do this.

I'm tired of our government confiscating MY property and giving it to these criminals.

Can you explain this further?  What was taken from you and given to an illegal alien?

[fudgie]

I dont see where the amendment is for ilegals.

Welfare is given to illegals as is healthcare.

[Bobbo]

I dont see where the amendment is for ilegals.

Welfare is given to illegals as is healthcare.

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the 14th amendment covers all people, regardless of their immigration status.  If you don’t agree, you can petition the Supreme Court.

[fudgie]

Ah, the same court that said the police has no duty to respond to a call. Got ya! 

[KW]

That’s NOT correct Bobbo . . . Opinions are like armpits; everyone has two and they both stink, but we HAVE to share the same set of facts. Post away on your opinions. I actually LOVE reading them. I grab a bowl of popcorn and laugh my butt off when I read them. It’s fun, but please stop posting “so much that ain’t so. . . ”

Keep in mind, as a future reference, since you like to (mis)quote the Supreme Court, it once ruled in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), that blacks could not be citizens of the United States. Using the Court as ‘final authoiry’ in any matter is never correct. The Constitution CLEARLY assigns the power to govern, regulate, and make laws to the Congress, NOT the Court.

BTW – The 14th amenment was meant to asign citizenship to slaves after the Civil war. Nothing else. And, the Court has CONSISTNETLY rule on the “Citizenship Clause” UPHOLDING first sentence of Section 1, which says “All persons BORN or NATURALIZED in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

[Bobbo]

That’s NOT correct Bobbo . . . Opinions are like armpits; everyone has two and they both stink, but we HAVE to share the same set of facts. Post away on your opinions. I actually LOVE reading them. I grab a bowl of popcorn and laugh my butt off when I read them. It’s fun, but please stop posting “so much that ain’t so. . . ”

Keep in mind, as a future reference, since you like to (mis)quote the Supreme Court, it once ruled in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), that blacks could not be citizens of the United States. Using the Court as ‘final authoiry’ in any matter is never correct. The Constitution CLEARLY assigns the power to govern, regulate, and make laws to the Congress, NOT the Court.

BTW – The 14th amenment was meant to asign citizenship to slaves after the Civil war. Nothing else. And, the Court has CONSISTNETLY rule on the “Citizenship Clause” UPHOLDING first sentence of Section 1, which says “All persons BORN or NATURALIZED in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Start with United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), and continue from there.

Congress makes laws, courts interpret them.  Those are two of our three branches of government.

[Skinhead]

I'm tired of our government confiscating MY property and giving it to these criminals.

Can you explain this further?  What was taken from you and given to an illegal alien?

Sure thing.  What I'm talking about is MY money that the government confiscates in the form of taxes, Obama was all about redistribution of wealth, I don't believe in it.  I believe in helping those I want to, not those the politicians think they will get the most votes from.  

And yes I meant more when I said unequal protection.  They don't care about the property rights of the rancher, but they sure care about the civil rights of the criminals.  MY HO.

[Bobbo]

Sure thing.  What I'm talking about is MY money that the government confiscates in the form of taxes, Obama was all about redistribution of wealth, I don't believe in it.  I believe in helping those I want to, not those the politicians think they will get the most votes from.  

While I would agree with you on this point, it would be extremely difficult to reverse the process.

And yes I meant more when I said unequal protection.  They don't care about the property rights of the rancher, but they sure care about the civil rights of the criminals.  MY HO.

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

[RoadKill]

Sure thing.  What I'm talking about is MY money that the government confiscates in the form of taxes, Obama was all about redistribution of wealth, I don't believe in it.  I believe in helping those I want to, not those the politicians think they will get the most votes from.  

While I would agree with you on this point, it would be extremely difficult to reverse the process.

And yes I meant more when I said unequal protection.  They don't care about the property rights of the rancher, but they sure care about the civil rights of the criminals.  MY HO.

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

That is right! Because our legal system is 100% right and not flawed in any way.....AT ALL! ! !! Just ask Bobbo...He is smarter