16 Illegals Sue Arizona Rancher After Crossing His Land [Archive]

Questioninggeller

9th February 2009, 10:56 AM

The Washington Times, and other publications owned by the Unification Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unification_Church) usually care more about offering their bias than objective facts.

It appears the case is not only about false imprisonment (for which he was found guilty of having done before with a family living in his city), but kicking someone and detaining them based on race.

Barnett's attorney says they are illegal and shouldn't have the same rights as others seemingly showing that had he done it with a U.S. citizen he'd be in court.

It seems the Washington Times omitted those details.

Civil-rights trial starts for migrant-detaining rancher
Arizona Daily Star, AZ (http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/278558) - Feb 2, 2009

The latest suit against the controversial rancher stems from a 2004 incident in a wash near Douglas when Barnett approached a group of illegal immigrants while he was carrying a gun and accompanied by a large dog.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs — five women and 11 men who were trying to cross 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, a press release from the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund said.

The group says Barnett also kicked one of the members of the group. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund is representing the 16 people.
The federal lawsuit charges Barnett, his wife, Barbara Barnett, and his brother, Donald Barnett, with conspiring to violate the plaintiffs' civil rights, the release said.

In March 2008, U.S. District Judge John Roll rejected Barnett's efforts to have the charges thrown out. Roll ruled that there was sufficient evidence of a conspiracy — that the conspiracy denied the plaintiffs their right to interstate travel and the actions of the Barnetts were motivated by race — to allow the matter to be presented to a jury.

Barnett's attorney, David Hardy, had argued that illegal immigrants didn't have the same rights as citizens. That setback came on the heels of another judgment against Barnett in February 2008. At that time, 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.
...

Arizona Daily Star, AZ (http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/278558)

This report says the person he kicked was a woman on the ground:

Trial Begins For Rancher Who Detained Immigrants
KPHO (http://www.kpho.com/news/18629064/detail.html)
POSTED: 8:45 am MST February 3, 2009
UPDATED: 10:02 am MST February 3, 2009

TUCSON -- The trial is now under way in a civil-rights lawsuit against a southern Arizona rancher accused of holding a group of illegal immigrants at gunpoint near Douglas.
...
The group also said Barnett kicked one of the women in the group when she was on the ground.
...
Roll's ruling came on the heels of another judgment against Barnett in February 2008.

At that time, the Arizona Court of Appeals refused to throw out a jury verdict from November 2006 -- and a nearly $100,000 monetary award -- against Barnett in another civil case where a jury concluded he falsely imprisoned members of a Douglas family.
...

KPHO-TV (http://www.kpho.com/news/18629064/detail.html)

dudalb

9th February 2009, 10:57 AM

Un Freaking Believable.
If this comes to trial, I think it will be very,very,hard to find a jury that will find for the plantiffs.

tkingdoll

9th February 2009, 11:00 AM

Questioninggeller, no doubt there's more to it, but in what world is that worth $35million?

Questioninggeller

9th February 2009, 11:08 AM

Questioninggeller, no doubt there's more to it, but in what world is that worth $35million?

Where'd you get the $35 million figure?

I don't know enough about the case, but am looking for more details. Does anyone have a PDF of the lawsuit?

What I do know is the report the above people based their outrage on left out relevant facts, including that he illegally detained residents in his city and has to pay them $100,000 in another case.

Also I do note the defendant says this is part of a large pattern (he claims to have done this to "thousands (http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/hourlyupdate/278487)"). If the sheriff hasn't done enough to stop rights violations then he should also be punished to uphold people's rights. (I assume that's the bulk of money sought since the county likely has more money than the individual.)

But I can say I am not willing to put a price tag on the rights of 16 people, illegal or not. If abuse is part of a large, continual pattern then that should equate with paying large damages.

tkingdoll

9th February 2009, 11:20 AM

Where'd you get the $35 million figure?

I don't know enough about the case, but am looking for more details. Does anyone have a PDF of the lawsuit?

What I do know is the report the above people based their outrage on left out relevant facts, including that he illegally detained residents in his city and has to pay them $100,000 in another case.

Also I do note the defendant says this is part of a large pattern (he claims to have done this to "thousands"). If the sheriff hasn't done enough to stop rights violations then he should also be punished to uphold people's rights. (I assume that's the bulk of money sought since the county likely has more money than the individual.)

My mistake, it's a mere $32million.

Trial continues Monday in the federal lawsuit, which seeks $32 million in actual and punitive damages for civil rights violations, the infliction of emotional distress and other crimes. Also named are Mr. Barnett's wife, Barbara, his brother, Donald, and Larry Dever, sheriff in Cochise County, Ariz., where the Barnetts live. The civil trial is expected to continue until Friday.

Questioninggeller

9th February 2009, 11:43 AM

Here's more detail:

Cochise sheriff, rancher face suit
Mar 10, 2005
By Michael Marizco
Arizona Daily Star, AZ (http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/border/64561.php)

Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever is being sued for a share of a $32 million lawsuit filed Friday in U.S. District Court.

The suit alleges the sheriff has done nothing to stop a Cochise County rancher from apprehending illegal entrants on his own property east of Douglas.

Filed by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the suit alleges rancher Roger Barnett held a group of illegal entrants at gunpoint on his property one year ago , shouted obscenities at the group, kicked one of the women twice and threatened to shoot anybody who tried to leave. It also lists 10 un-named co-conspirators who have known of Barnett's actions in the past and did nothing to prevent them.

Calling the group "racist liars," Barnett says he doesn't recall the incident ever taking place and said he hasn't been served with a lawsuit.
...
The suit alleges that on March 7, 2004, 19 illegal entrants were resting in a wash near Douglas when Barnett pulled up on an all-terrain vehicle with a large, barking dog. It claims that Barnett waved his cocked gun at the group, and yelled obscenities at them.
...
The suit mentions that Barnett, his brother Donald and his wife, Barbara, have admitted to turning over 12,000 illegal entrants to the Border Patrol since 1998.
...
The civil rights group hopes to send a message to vigilantes that they cannot operate with impunity, Perez said.
...
She said MALDEF has the Border Patrol reports proving the entrants reported their treatment to the arriving agents but did not share them with the Arizona Daily Star when asked to.
...
"They're trying to destroy the United States like this," Barnett said.

Arizona Daily Star, AZ (http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/border/64561.php)

My mistake, it's a mere $32million.

A little more about the money:

Cochise sheriff, rancher face suit
Mar 10, 2005
By Michael Marizco
Arizona Daily Star, AZ (http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/border/64561.php)

...
The suit asks a jury to reward a total of $16 million in actual damages and $16 million in punitive damages against all the defendants, she said. The money sought is not broken up among the defendants in any particular way but lists the Barnetts, Dever and the 10 unidentified defendants.
...

Arizona Daily Star, AZ (http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/border/64561.php)

So this would mean, if the allegations are true and the jury agreed, each person illegally detained would get $1 million for actual damages and $1 million punitive paid by 14 individuals in their private or government capacity.

Do you think $2 million is worth rights violations/abuse? Or $2 million a person sends a message in preventing abuse from continuing? (If equally divided that is $142,857.14 each defendant pays to each plaintiff.)

drkitten

9th February 2009, 11:46 AM

Questioninggeller, no doubt there's more to it, but in what world is that worth $35million?

Punitive damages. Which by definition are a punishment designed to deter repeated conduct.

He was already fined $100,000 and that wasn't enough to stop him.

Maybe he'll learn his lesson if he's fined $32 million.

The lesson being, among other things, that assault with a deadly weapon is a no-no.

drkitten

9th February 2009, 11:47 AM

Or $2 million a person sends a message in preventing abuse from continuing? (If equally divided that $142,857.14 each defendant pays to each plantiff.)

Well, he demonstrably didn't get the message at only $100,000.

Questioninggeller

9th February 2009, 11:53 AM

Well, he demonstrably didn't get the message at only $100,000.
Punitive damages. Which by definition are a punishment designed to deter repeated conduct.

He was already fined $100,000 and that wasn't enough to stop him.

Maybe he'll learn his lesson if he's fined $32 million.

The lesson being, among other things, that assault with a deadly weapon is a no-no.

Read the above article I posted. The first line says, "Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever is being sued for a share of a $32 million lawsuit filed Friday in U.S. District Court." Plus the "10 un-named co-conspirators."

In fact, this suit named 14 people, including the sheriff, for the damages. It is not a matter of one man being "fined $32 million" or one man/family being sent "a message."

LTC8K6

9th February 2009, 11:53 AM

I hope the suit is thrown out, and I hope he is allowed to continue to protect his little section of our southern border, since no one else is.

I Ratant

9th February 2009, 11:54 AM

What "rights" do illegal immigrants have, other than a free peanut butter sandwich on their free trip back to the border they crossed illegally?

Questioninggeller

9th February 2009, 11:58 AM

I hope the suit is thrown out, and I hope he is allowed to continue to protect his little section of our southern border, since no one else is.

What does kicking an unarmed woman laying on the ground have to do with protecting property?

What "rights" do illegal immigrants have, other than a free peanut butter sandwich on their free trip back to the border they crossed illegally?

For one, the right not to be assaulted when laying on the ground unarmed.

Lonewulf

9th February 2009, 12:00 PM

What "rights" do illegal immigrants have, other than a free peanut butter sandwich on their free trip back to the border they crossed illegally?

Yeah, they ain't got no right.

Hanged me a few of dem illegals myself. Kicked a pregnant woman while I was at it. It's fun!

ScanningFool

9th February 2009, 12:21 PM

So you think that illegal aliens have a "right" to interstate travel and that a landowner should not be allowed to hold trespassers at gunpoint until law enforcement arrives. I agree that he had no right to kick the woman but that hardly amounts to the damage award sought. This is obviously an attempt by MALDEF to discourage anyone from exercising their right to protect their property by stopping illegal immigrants from using their land. MALDEF (mexican american legal defense and education fund) is a radical pro-unfettered immigration group that has an agenda to protect illegal aliens in every situation.

He alleges that after the INS started concentrating on blocking illegal aliens in the surrounding towns that they started using his property as regular transit and that "they started to vandalize his property, northeast of Douglas along Arizona Highway 80. He said the immigrants tore up water pumps, killed calves, destroyed fences and gates, stole trucks and broke into his home....Some of his cattle died from ingesting the plastic bottles left behind by the immigrants, he said, adding that he installed a faucet on an 8,000-gallon water tank so the immigrants would stop damaging the tank to get water. Mr. Barnett said some of the ranch´s established immigrant trails were littered with trash 10 inches deep, including human waste, used toilet paper, soiled diapers, cigarette packs, clothes, backpacks, empty 1-gallon water bottles, chewing-gum wrappers and aluminum foil." I am sure that his claims are somewhat overstated but even if it is only partially true a person ought to have the right to protect one's own property from trespassers.

I really don't have a problem with illegal immigrants coming to work in our county but I still think that a person should have the right to stop trespassers on their land without worrying if they will come back and sue them out of house and home.

slingblade

9th February 2009, 12:21 PM

Heh, I hope they win. :D

drkitten

9th February 2009, 12:25 PM

Read the above article I posted.

I did. I stand by my writing.

By his own admission, the primary defendant has abused, including assaulted, "thousands" of people. This is illegal conduct, regardless of the immigration status of the victims.

He's already been fined $100,000, and yet he continues to do it.

The county sheriff is aware of this illegal conduct and yet has done nothing to stop it. This isn't just abuse of discretion or malfeasance in office, this is outright deprivation of civil rights.

(And, yes, illegal immigrants do have rights. If you murder an immigrant, it's still murder.)

The first line says, "Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever is being sued for a share of a $32 million lawsuit filed Friday in U.S. District Court." Plus the "10 un-named co-conspirators."

It is not a matter of one man being "fined $32 million" or one man/family being sent "a message."

No, it's a matter of one man and the co-conspirators who aid and abet being sued for millions, including a large enough sum in punitive damages to keep the behavior from recurring.

drkitten

9th February 2009, 12:28 PM

I still think that a person should have the right to stop trespassers on their land without worrying if they will come back and sue them out of house and home.

Well, we're in agreement, then. You, I, and the courts all agree that you have the right to stop trespassers.

However, apparently we may be in disagreement over whether you have the right to assault them with deadly weapons.

tkingdoll

9th February 2009, 12:30 PM

I don't think you should kick anyone, illegal or not. I think if you do, you should go to prison for assault. I don't think the person you kicked should get a share of $32million (with those who weren't kicked also getting a share). I don't think 'emotional distress' should have a monetary value unless you can prove it led to a loss of income (unlikely in this case).

Questioninggeller

9th February 2009, 12:30 PM

I did. I stand by my writing.

By his own admission, the primary defendant has abused, including assaulted, "thousands" of people. This is illegal conduct, regardless of the immigration status of the victims.

He's already been fined $100,000, and yet he continues to do it.

The county sheriff is aware of this illegal conduct and yet has done nothing to stop it. This isn't just abuse of discretion or malfeasance in office, this is outright deprivation of civil rights.

(And, yes, illegal immigrants do have rights. If you murder an immigrant, it's still murder.)

The first line says, "Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever is being sued for a share of a $32 million lawsuit filed Friday in U.S. District Court." Plus the "10 un-named co-conspirators."

No, it's a matter of one man and the co-conspirators who aid and abet being sued for millions, including a large enough sum in punitive damages to keep the behavior from recurring.

We agree. My point was you didn't mention anything about the law enforcement being sued or the other 10 people who allowed this continue.

ScanningFool

9th February 2009, 12:40 PM

Drkitten, I think that you are reading things into this story that may not exist. You claim that he was fined $100,000, that was an award in a civil case not a fine. Civil law, as this case is also, has a much lower burden of proof and is not the same as a criminal fine. I agree that illegal immigrants have rights such as the right to not be killed or kicked for that matter. I do disagree that they have a right to interstate travel though as alleged by the lawsuit. You also state that he as "admitted" to abusing and assaulting thousands of people. He has only admitted to turning over thousands of illegal immigrants to the border patrol since 1998. I am sure that in your view any sort of holding of a trespasser amounts to abuse and assault but that is something that is open to interpretation (by individuals and the law). This sort of lawsuit is certainly meant to have a "chilling effect" on any border landowner that might want to "protect" his property from trespassing illegal immigrants. Anyone would be a fool not to worry about MALDEF filing suit and ruining them if they decide to try and prevent people from trespassing across their land.

As I said before, I actually have no problem with illegal immigrants. I believe they fill a need in this county and they help their home countries at the same time. It is a "win/win" situation. I do however feel that if a landowner doesn't want someone crossing their land they ought to be able to stop them and not risk their financial future to do so.

Questioninggeller

9th February 2009, 12:44 PM

This is obviously an attempt by MALDEF to discourage anyone from exercising their right to protect their property by stopping illegal immigrants from using their land. MALDEF (mexican american legal defense and education fund) is a radical pro-unfettered immigration group that has an agenda to protect illegal aliens in every situation.

Oh please. You really think that this is a conspiracy?

He alleges that after the INS started concentrating on blocking illegal aliens in the surrounding towns that they started using his property as regular transit... I am sure that his claims are somewhat overstated but even if it is only partially true a person ought to have the right to protect one's own property from trespassers.

He also said 1) he didn't remember it happening 2) then called the Mexicans/illegals "racists" and 3) the illegals "trying to destroy the United States like this." Additionally, he was found guilty of this before owing $100,000. As such, I think you should read his claims with skepticism given his attitudes and prior court activity.

I really don't have a problem with illegal immigrants coming to work in our county but I still think that a person should have the right to stop trespassers on their land without worrying if they will come back and sue them out of house and home.

Agreed. However, that is not simply the case. We agree he shouldn't have kicked the woman. Yet was it appropriate or safe to cock his gun at the group of trespassers as he was yelling obscenities?

Especially considering his past two years BEFORE this event:

Barnett guilty: Will have to pay $210,000 in damages
By Jonathan Clark
WICK NEWS SERVICE/douglasdispatch.com (http://www.douglasdispatch.com/articles/2006/11/24/news/news1.txt)
Published/Last Modified on Friday, November 24, 2006 11:25 AM MST

BISBEE - A civil jury on Wednesday ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit accusing local rancher and businessman Roger Barnett of threatening a hunting party with an assault rifle in 2004.

The jury assessed a total of $210,000 in damages, but found Barnett only partially to blame for the incident. As a result, he will have to pay approximately $98,000 to principal plaintiff Ronald Morales, his father, and three girls.
...
During the incident, Barnett took out an AR-15 assault rifle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15) from his pickup and pointed it toward the group, which included Morales' father, Arturo Morales; his daughters, Angelique and Venese Morales; and the girls' friend, Emma English.

The hunters, all of whom are Americans of Mexican decent, said Barnett insulted them with racial slurs and threatened to shoot them - charges Barnett denied. Ronald Morales said he tried to get the county attorney to press criminal charges against Barnett, but was told no jury would convict him.

Morales' attorney, Jesus Romo Vejar, said he hoped the local prosecutor would now reconsider filing criminal charges against Barnett, and he hoped others who had had problems with the rancher also would be encouraged to file civil claims.
...
The jury ruled in Barnett's favor on the trespassing charge, but awarded no damages. It ruled in favor of Morales on the assault charge.
...

douglasdispatch.com (http://www.douglasdispatch.com/articles/2006/11/24/news/news1.txt)

You don't point guns at little girls as your making racist remarks for trespassing! And you certainly don't cock your weapon at unarmed people with racist claims as you kick a woman on the ground two years later.

Anyone who owns a gun knows that is negligent and could result in a death.

drkitten

9th February 2009, 12:51 PM

I do disagree that they have a right to interstate travel though as alleged by the lawsuit.

I wish I knew where this idea that illegals somehow lack rights that citizens have came from.

It's absolutely false (with the exception of a few obvious examples like "the right to vote" that get into governance).

This sort of lawsuit is certainly meant to have a "chilling effect" on any border landowner that might want to "protect" his property from trespassing illegal immigrants.

You mean, other landowners might be discouraged from illegal conduct? ("Why, if he loses this lawsuit that means I can't illegally pistol-whip people or I might get sued, too!")

Good!

That means that the legal system is working properly. It's called deterrence.

Prometheus

9th February 2009, 01:03 PM

What "rights" do illegal immigrants have, other than a free peanut butter sandwich on their free trip back to the border they crossed illegally?

As long as they are within U.S. jurisdiction, they are granted the same right to equal protection under the law as anyone else.

ScanningFool

9th February 2009, 01:04 PM

Questioninggeller (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=492)
No, I don't think it is a "conspiracy" but I do think it is a strategy. It is obvious that MALDEF is not just looking to stop this one guy with this as they will probably lose on most of the issues. It doesn't take much of a legal mind to see the difference between the two civil suits against this guy. Even if MALDEF loses on all issues, it will have a chilling effect on both Barnett and other border area landowners. This guy is obviously a nut and you have to figure that his legal defense is probably being supplemented by all the other "minuteman" types. Other landowners may not be able to rely on this backing so they might leave the transiting immigrants alone.

DrKitten, the idea that an "illegal" alien has the right to go from "state to state" is ridiculous on it's face. Of course they have the same human rights, etc. but not the right to be here. These are not legal immigrants but illegal ones so how could they have the right to legal transit across state lines. That is just silly.

Questioninggeller

9th February 2009, 01:13 PM

Questioninggeller
No, I don't think it is a "conspiracy" but I do think it is a strategy. It is obvious that MALDEF is not just looking to stop this one guy with this as they will probably lose on most of the issues. It doesn't take much of a legal mind to see the difference between the two civil suits against this guy. Even if MALDEF loses on all issues, it will have a chilling effect on both Barnett and other border area landowners. This guy is obviously a nut and you have to figure that his legal defense is probably being supplemented by all the other "minuteman" types. Other landowners may not be able to rely on this backing so they might leave the transiting immigrants alone.

Attributing motives with vague notions of "strategy" and without direct evidence, which go against the stated purpose of the lawsuit is a conspiracy.

I'm struggling to understand how, if Barnett loses the lawsuit, how this will impact federal, state, and local laws on trespassing and immigration. I do, on the other hand, see this case reflecting the one he previously lost.

Lonewulf

9th February 2009, 01:28 PM

portlandatheist

9th February 2009, 01:41 PM

ScanningFool

9th February 2009, 01:41 PM

Prometheus

9th February 2009, 01:46 PM

I think we are making too big of an issue that these people were illegals. Even if they were legitimate American citizens, isn't it completely reasonable to expect a shotgun shoved in your face when you are on someone else's property, killing their calves, and breaking into their home regardless of your citizenship?

Would you also say that it's completely reasonable to have a shotgun shoved in your face even though you are not killing their calves and breaking into their home, but you happen to look like someone who did so in the past?

rwguinn

9th February 2009, 01:50 PM

I am having a real difficulty defending this guy. I feel like the ACLU defending the Nazi's in Skokie, Ill. I will say that it is easy to look at the two lawsuits and see a connection. There are, however, many distinguishing features. In the first case he pointed an assault rifle (semi-automatic version of the M-16) at a young girl. This party was a group of US citizens on a hunting expedition that claimed to accidentally go onto Barnett's land. He used a pistol in the second case with no allegations of pointing at anyone in particular. He did cock the pistol. These illegal aliens cannot make the case that they were accidentally on Barnett's land however. He did assault the woman which is definately actionable and should be pursued. I just think that that alone is the only thing that has a case. At least that is my humble opinion.

One more thing, about the "strategy" or "conspiracy" issue. "The civil rights group hopes to send a message to vigilantes that they cannot operate with impunity, Perez said. " from an earlier reply in this thread. I am a little defensive about the conspiracy charge as I don't like being lumped with the 911 trufers, etc.

I find myself with you, to an extent.
Rancers in the West have a pretty wide lattitude in dealing with tresspass; in fact, there is (was?--she was pretty old) who routinely greeted hot-air ballooners with a rifle and shotgun when they landed on her property near Roswell, NM. Even though they could not avoid the situation (landing), they were, indeed, tresspassing, and were held at gunpoint when caught till the sheriff arrived.
Whey you have several sections of land, far from "civilization", you cannot know what the tresspasser may be up to, and often the "coyotes" are armed.
And in the US, a citizen may make an arrest, and can, under some circumstances, enforce that arrest by force of arms.
He did go out of his way to provide sources of water, so it's not like he was totally out to kill folks.
I likely would not be allowed on that jury:)

portlandatheist

9th February 2009, 01:54 PM

Would you also say that it's completely reasonable to have a shotgun shoved in your face even though you are not killing their calves and breaking into their home, but you happen to look like someone who did so in the past?
Yup.

AWPrime

9th February 2009, 02:04 PM

Would you also say that it's completely reasonable to have a shotgun shoved in your face even though you are not killing their calves and breaking into their home[snip
Well the snipped part was irrelevant because even if they were white then the answer would still be yes. Cocking the gun and aiming it is completely legal mains to hold them.

So if you are stupid enough to trespass on somebodies property in the US......

drkitten

9th February 2009, 02:20 PM

Well the snipped part was irrelevant because even if they were white then the answer would still be yes. Cocking the gun and aiming it is completely legal mains to hold them.

Not in most US jurisdictions. Cocking a gun and aiming it at them is "assault with a deadly weapon" and it can get you in more trouble than a simple trespass complaint.

First of all, holding someone against their will is illegal unless you make a citizen's arrest -- which you can typically only do (legally) if they are committing a felony. Simple trespassing is usually only a misdemeanor. (This is specifically true in Arizona; I checked.)

Second, even when making a citizen's arrest, you are usually only empowered to use minimum force. Pointing a gun at a bunch of unarmed, unresisting civilians does not qualify as "minimum force", and is in fact "assault."

Third, for what it's worth, the relevant Federal law (8 U.S.C. section 1324 (3)(B)(c)) specifically forbids citizens' arrests in enforcement of laws against illegal immigration, I suspect in large part to cut down on this sort of vigilante abuse.

Prometheus

9th February 2009, 02:47 PM

Yup.

Why?

WildCat

9th February 2009, 03:18 PM

What does kicking an unarmed woman laying on the ground have to do with protecting property?

For one, the right not to be assaulted when laying on the ground unarmed.
There is no evidence that actually happened, only an accusation.

He certainly has the right to perform a citizen's arrest on people trespassing on his property.

BPSCG

9th February 2009, 03:23 PM

Saw on the boob tube a while ago about citizen vigilante groups that do nothing more than patrol the border with binoculars, walkie-talkies, and cell phones; when they spot illegals crossing, they alert the local border patrol agents, who swoop in. The vigilantes (for lack of a better word) do not attempt to actually apprehend or hold the illegals.

You'd think that if this guy has turned over thousands of illegals to CBP, they'd have someone within a two-minute walk of his ranch at all times. Target-rich environment and all that. Maybe he just got fed up.

WildCat

9th February 2009, 03:23 PM

I wish I knew where this idea that illegals somehow lack rights that citizens have came from.
I had no idea that US citizens had the right to trespass on other people's property. :rolleyes:

WildCat

9th February 2009, 03:30 PM

Not in most US jurisdictions. Cocking a gun and aiming it at them is "assault with a deadly weapon" and it can get you in more trouble than a simple trespass complaint.
Evidence?

Third, for what it's worth, the relevant Federal law (8 U.S.C. section 1324 (3)(B)(c)) specifically forbids citizens' arrests in enforcement of laws against illegal immigration, I suspect in large part to cut down on this sort of vigilante abuse.
He held them for trespassing. He wasn't going around arresting illegals working on a construction site somewhere.

Questioninggeller

9th February 2009, 03:33 PM

One more thing, about the "strategy" or "conspiracy" issue. "The civil rights group hopes to send a message to vigilantes that they cannot operate with impunity, Perez said. " from an earlier reply in this thread. I am a little defensive about the conspiracy charge as I don't like being lumped with the 911 trufers, etc.

Huh? So you think "vigilantes" should be able to do whatever they want regardless of the consequences?

If you have a problem with the lawsuit then you have a problem with federal and state law. Thus, then it is wrong to accuse the civil rights group of motivation to harm the U.S. or immigration law rather than accept they are protecting human rights and state/federal law. To claim that this is part of a conspiracy to do anything else is to ignore the facts of the case and the law.

If Barnett placed these people under citizen's arrest or held them against their will for trespassing then BARNETT BROKE THE LAW!

Arizona law allows a citizen's arrest "When the person to be arrested has in his presence committed a misdemeanor amounting to a breach of the peace, or a felony." (13-3884) (http://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03884.htm) And trespassing on fenced/unfenced property is a misdemeanor in Arizona. (13-1504 - Criminal trespass in the first degree; classification (http://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/01504.htm))

Not to mention the assault and possiblity of discrimination/hate crime (as both lawsuits alleged).

Questioninggeller

9th February 2009, 03:35 PM

He held them for trespassing. He wasn't going around arresting illegals working on a construction site somewhere.

Is was illegal. See the direct links to Arizona state law in my above post.

pipelineaudio

9th February 2009, 03:35 PM

This is a daily occurance here. Things get a lot more sinister. The foot traffic is bad enough, but the ranchers have found that placing water stations strategically will keep the illegals on a path that causes the least harm.

Of course our government should be using the tax money they take from us at gunpoint to deal with the illegals, but thats another thread.

Far worse than the foot traffic are the professionals, the coyotes and narcodistas, the people and drug movers and guides. They cut the fences, exposing highways and towns to loose cattle, horses and other livestock, they poison the cattle ponds to show who's in charge and they openly phone in threats to the ranchers to "stay inside tonite" while they move thru their property.

Until recently we could just buy beer or presents for one gang and be pretty much treated somewhat decently by the coyotes, but now there are so many groups fighting for the same area we just don't know what to do

WildCat

9th February 2009, 03:38 PM

See the direct links to Arizona state law in my above post.
Was it "simple trespassing"?

WildCat

9th February 2009, 03:40 PM

See the direct links to Arizona state law in my above post.
??? Your quote says a citizens arrest can be made for a misdemeanor.

pipelineaudio

9th February 2009, 03:41 PM

See the direct links to Arizona state law in my above post.

Be advised that much of this area is also under Free Range jurisdiction, where tampering with cattle and/or transportation (car, horse or otherwise) can be met with deadly force. The fact that we are leaving out water and aid stations, instead of BLASTING these crooks I think says volumes about who is in the right here.

pipelineaudio

9th February 2009, 03:46 PM

Was it "simple trespassing"?

No

The very act of crossing an international border with mud on your feet from one country into a cattle pond of the USA is a potential for the FDA to shut down your cattle sales. With mad cow and anthrax scares popping up and the recent allegations of foot traffic causing mad cow in the UK, this is a SERIOUS matter

The act of cutting down fences of unbranded kept cattle where they can intermingle with branded free range cattle is called "rustling" also a pretty serious offense, as is crossing onto private ranchland armed or "in force of numbers"

Questioninggeller

9th February 2009, 03:48 PM

Was it "simple trespassing"?

I don't see Barnett's lawyer or the plaintiff's even using the word "trespass." But can you give us any reason as to what crime Barnett might have legally held them and kicked a woman laying on the ground as he yelled racist rhetoric at them for?

Or perhaps, a crime why he pointed a gun at a little girl threatening to shoot her while making racist remarks?

??? Your quote says a citizens arrest can be made for a misdemeanor.

Trespassing, as far as I can see, is not a "breach of the peace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_the_peace)."

Questioninggeller

9th February 2009, 03:54 PM

No

The very act of crossing an international border with mud on your feet from one country into a cattle pond of the USA is a potential for the FDA to shut down your cattle sales.
...

That's a stretch.

Considering he was yelling racist obcentities at these people and is not a member of the border patrol, nor has such a thing been mentioned by his lawyer, I think we can conclude his concern wasn't the FDA.

Moreover, how did he know they were illegal aliens by looking at them? He previously illegally detained an American family of Mexican descent.

I could be wrong, but can we see evidence that your scenario was his concern? And how it gave him the right to kick an unarmed woman laying on the ground?

WildCat

9th February 2009, 03:57 PM

I don't see Barnett's lawyer or the plaintiff's even using the word "trespass." But can you give us any reason as to what crime Barnett might have legally held them and kicked a woman laying on the ground as he yelled racist rhetoric at them for?

Or perhaps, a crime why he pointed a gun at a little girl threatening to shoot her with racist rhetoric?
I don't condone kicking or yelling racist comments, but they are accusations and fall into the "he said, she said" category.

Trespassing, as far as I can see, is not a "breach of the peace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_the_peace)."
You didn't actually read your link, did you? If you had you'd have seen this:

The concept of a "breach of the peace" is more widely used in English law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_law), however. Theoretically all criminal offences cognizable by English law involve "a breach of the Queen's peace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen%27s_peace)", and all indictments conclude "against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity".

Historically this phrase, now legally superfluous, represents the last trace of the process by which the royal courts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court) assume jurisdiction over all offences, and gradually extruded the jurisdiction of the sheriff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheriff) and of lords of manor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Manor) and franchises (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_right), making crime a matter of national concern as distinguished from civil wrongs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort) or infractions of the rights of local magnates. The Peace of the King was sworn on his accession or full recognition, and the jurisdiction of his courts to punish all violations of that peace was gradually asserted. The completion of this process is marked by the institution of the office of Justice of the Peace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_of_the_Peace).

In the United Kingdom, although not a statutory offence but a common law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law) offence, "breach of the peace" is widely used.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_the_peace#cite_note-0) In the United Kingdom, constables (not just police) are also permitted to arrest a person to "prevent a further breach of the peace" which allows police constables to arrest a person before a breach of the peace has occurred. This is permitted when a constable holds a reasonable belief that should the person remain, that they would continue with their course of conduct and that a Breach of the Peace would occur. Breach of the Peace is usually used to remove violent or potentially violent offenders from a scene rapidly; the only punishment that can be inflicted by a court for this offence is to bind over (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bind_over) the offender to keep the peace. There are some minor differences between English law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_law) and Scots law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_law) in relation to breach of the peace.

The conclusion has also found its way into constitutional law in many United States state constitutions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_constitution_(United_States)), which mandate that indictments within the state end in a similar manner to the above, usually omitting the "crown" part or substituting "government". For example New Jersey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey)'s is "against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same.
I've bolded the relevant sections. All misdemeanors are a "breach of the peace".

pipelineaudio

9th February 2009, 04:09 PM

So wait, the possibility that he *uttered words in a certain sequence* (as protected by the first amendment) trumps an illegal invasion into a sovereign nation with the intent to commit crime?

ok

And your allegations of "just trespassing" need a reaility check here. These aren't some coyotes peeing on your lawn while walking from the drop house.

As a rancher you have a set of responsibilities to your neighbors and your country. Almost every ranch on the sonoran watershed has a riparian impact zone with a pretty draconian set of responsibilities placed on the rancher to protect it. In my herpetology club we help to manage these zones in a few ranches, as does the WWF, Siearra Club, and especially moreso than us, the birders. These are areas of the ranch that the rancher pays taxes on, has only limited use, but is 100% responsible for its protection.

Another responsibility is maintaining your fences

You, in your far removed world may think it is a simple matter to place gates on these fences so that the illegals can more easily trespass onto your land, but it never works out that way. Once your fence is cut you are threatening not only everyone's livelihood but their health as well. Smacking a cow on the highway at 60 does NOT feel good, and unless its a free range cow, the rancher is responsible for the carnage.

Try as you might, you cannot herd illegals. They often are closest to the border at night when it is hard to see and unless they have a coyote they will miss the trails and aid stations. At that point they will often follow the first south facing fence they find and stay on it until it crosses a wash, at which point they cut or tear down the fence. That wash makes a nice funnel for the cows and they go right out the cut fence

Questioninggeller

9th February 2009, 04:24 PM

I don't condone kicking or yelling racist comments, but they are accusations and fall into the "he said, she said" category.

From multiple, unrelated parties over several years. On the other hand, he did not deny kicking the woman.

You didn't actually read your link, did you? If you had you'd have seen this:

I've bolded the relevant sections. All misdemeanors are a "breach of the peace".

It's the only dictionary link I found and it has nothing about Arizona. Furthermore, you are reading it overly broadly.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/breach-of-the-peace.html can be:

Fighting in public,
Acting in a threatening way in public,
Assaulting or hitting another person,
Threatening to commit a crime,
Publicly displaying an offensive, indecent, or abusive advertisement,
Rioting,
Creating an unreasonable noise, or
Using obscene language or gestures in public

Can you show that trespassing in the state of Arizona is a "breach of the peace"? I couldn't find it defined on Arizona's law website. If citizen's arrest meant any crime or misdemeanor then why qualify misdemeanor?

Secondly, you did read how Barnett was previously found guilty and ordered to pay $100,00 for assaulting people even though they trespassed on his land (http://www.douglasdispatch.com/articles/2006/11/24/news/news1.txt)? Clearly, your reading of the law was not accepted by the jury.

If you're right then I wonder why he was found guilty in the first case (2006) and the 2009 case wasn't throw out?

So wait, the possibility that he *uttered words in a certain sequence* (as protected by the first amendment) trumps an illegal invasion into a sovereign nation with the intent to commit crime?
...
And your allegations of "just trespassing" need a reaility check here. These aren't some coyotes peeing on your lawn while walking from the drop house.

Look your over-generalizations and hypotheticals don't interest me. If you want to discuss this case and what we know that's fine.

Right now, this thread is about 16 people detained by a controversial person with a long history of detaining people. It is not about listing scenarios of illegal, or even legal entry (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/15/pzn.01.html), that could be harmful to the U.S.

Clearly, you wish to change the subject to include broader political issues, which effectively white washes the specifics in this case about these individuals. My original reason for posting in this thread was to correct the misinformation posted in the OP.

pipelineaudio

9th February 2009, 04:34 PM

Look your over-generalizations and hypotheticals don't interest me. If you want to discuss this case and what we know that's fine.

No, I'm discussing this case, you are the one seeming to advocate ripping down the first amendment.

Right now, this thread is about 16 people detained by a controversial person with a long history of detaining people. It is not about listing scenarios of illegal, or even legal entry (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/15/pzn.01.html), that could be harmful to the U.S.

Clearly, you wish to change the subject to include broader political issues, which effectively white washes the specifics in this case about these individuals.

If you live in the border area and still own your ranch, you will most likely have a "long history of detaining people". It is not just your *right* to detain trespassers, it is your *legal and civil responsibility* to do so under the conditions for keeping your ranch. Watch how fast the government gets your property if you do not police your ranch.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if this rancher wasn't within his rights to shoot these people, no questions asked. I don't think you have an appreciation for just how serious and deadly of a problem this is. When everyday, people come thru your property shooting at you, shooting your animals, especially your dogs, leaving threatening notes, harassing, threatening phone calls, telling you when you can and cannot travel on your own property, you may not feel so smug about blaming a rancher for defending himself.

rwguinn

9th February 2009, 04:42 PM

No, I'm discussing this case, you are the one seeming to advocate ripping down the first amendment.

If you live in the border area and still own your ranch, you will most likely have a "long history of detaining people". It is not just your *right* to detain trespassers, it is your *legal and civil responsibility* to do so under the conditions for keeping your ranch. Watch how fast the government gets your property if you do not police your ranch.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if this rancher wasn't within his rights to shoot these people, no questions asked. I don't think you have an appreciation for just how serious and deadly of a problem this is. When everyday, people come thru your property shooting at you, shooting your animals, especially your dogs, leaving threatening notes, harassing, threatening phone calls, telling you when you can and cannot travel on your own property, you may not feel so smug about blaming a rancher for defending himself.
I swear, these folks are generally big-city types. Most of 'em think there is no place in the US without phone service, the cops are just down the street, and anybody who says they can drive 50 miles on a dirt road is lying.
They think the customs of Lost Angeles, DC, and Neuva York are the way things are everywhere...

Zep

9th February 2009, 04:45 PM

As I see it, the rancher may have been trying to defend himself and his property. I can appreciate his frustration, and don't hold at all with dealing lightly with the coyotes, etc. But he took action in a highly illegal way. And he has a history of acting illegally under similar circumstances in the past that is working against him now. So he has done himself no favours at all and has bolstered the cache of his "enemies" besides.

Perhaps if he tried something more legal he might not be being sued today. Working with the proper law-enforcement, not instead of - let the professionals deal with this. And if he didn't like what protection the law provides, he and like-minded folks are certainly encouraged to instigate change thereto (personally, I think it does need review, but I'm not USAian). His belief that his problems could be solved with blatant racism, violence and a gun don't seem to have worked out too well for him so far...

Questioninggeller

9th February 2009, 04:51 PM

No, I'm discussing this case, you are the one seeming to advocate ripping down the first amendment.

Start a thread about it, I'm not stopping you. However, for this thread your hypotheticals are bizarre (mud to Mad Cow to FDA closure).

If you live in the border area and still own your ranch, you will most likely have a "long history of detaining people". It is not just your *right* to detain trespassers, it is your *legal and civil responsibility* to do so under the conditions for keeping your ranch. Watch how fast the government gets your property if you do not police your ranch.

Legal responsibility? Source? (Once we establish that we can move on to civil.)

It wouldn't surprise me at all if this rancher wasn't within his rights to shoot these people, no questions asked. I don't think you have an appreciation for just how serious and deadly of a problem this is.

You go from talking about mud to Mad Cow to shooting people? So if someone has mud on their shoes they can be shot since they might have Mad Cow? And for the record, you know NOTHING about my lifestyle, where I have lived, or places I've been to. Thus, don't make assumptions.

When everyday, people come thru your property shooting at you, shooting your animals, especially your dogs, leaving threatening notes, harassing, threatening phone calls, telling you when you can and cannot travel on your own property, you may not feel so smug about blaming a rancher for defending himself.

Do you have any evidence of this happening in this particular case? I don't see any mention of anyone being armed, making threats, making physical contact, or using their dog other than the person being sued.

Again if you want to make hypotheticals, fine. With wild hypotheticals you can make cases for or against most things. However, you haven't related it to this case.

I swear, these folks are generally big-city types. Most of 'em think there is no place in the US without phone service, the cops are just down the street, and anybody who says they can drive 50 miles on a dirt road is lying.
They think the customs of Lost Angeles, DC, and Neuva York are the way things are everywhere...

Usually people who end up using false allegations/personal attacks do it because they care not to discuss the facts of the case.

WildCat

9th February 2009, 04:54 PM

It's the only dictionary link I found and it has nothing about Arizona. Furthermore, you are reading it overly broadly.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/breach-of-the-peace.html can be:

From your own link, it can also be:
States use broad definitions capture any type of disruption, which can include:

Inconvenience to another person,
Annoying another person,
Alarming another person, or
Recklessly creating a risk.

Did you think I wouldn't click on it?

WildCat

9th February 2009, 04:57 PM

Questioninggeller

9th February 2009, 05:01 PM

From your own link, it can also be:

And that has to with trespassing, how?

Did you think I wouldn't click on it?

Actually, I was hoping you would and actually make a case, and tie what you saying to the issue at hand. However, you didn't, but simply quoted broad categories and ignored my other questions.

Specifically, you ignored:

It's the only dictionary link I found and it has nothing about Arizona. Furthermore, you are reading it overly broadly.
...
Can you show that trespassing in the state of Arizona is a "breach of the peace"? I couldn't find it defined on Arizona's law website. If citizen's arrest meant any crime or misdemeanor then why qualify misdemeanor?

Secondly, you did read how Barnett was previously found guilty and ordered to pay $100,00 for assaulting people even though they trespassed on his land (http://www.douglasdispatch.com/articles/2006/11/24/news/news1.txt)? Clearly, your reading of the law was not accepted by the jury.

If you're right then I wonder why he was found guilty in the first case (2006) and the 2009 case wasn't throw out?

How so? What law did he break?

So you deny he hit the woman? Or you're saying illegal migrant women can be hit? Or that his behavior changed between the two civil cases?

fuelair

9th February 2009, 05:12 PM

I hope the suit is thrown out, and I hope he is allowed to continue to protect his little section of our southern border, since no one else is.

I must agree with you on this - his property, they are trespassers AND illegally/unlawfully in the country. Unless American (U. S.) law has changed, he is absolutely in his rights to citizen's arrest them and, given large group, certainly should have the right to hold them with the assistance of weaponry/other as needed for pickup.

BUT It's a shame someone wasn't there to kick his ass from one end of his property to the other if he did indeed kick the woman as stated unless she was pointing a gun or knife his way at the time or was refusing to drop such she was holding.

ponderingturtle

9th February 2009, 05:13 PM

What "rights" do illegal immigrants have, other than a free peanut butter sandwich on their free trip back to the border they crossed illegally?
Some people mistakenly think that they have human rights. But you apparently you need to be able to commit all kinds of crimes against them.

He should have taken notes from those noble officers who got pardoned recently. Shoot more.

EeneyMinnieMoe

9th February 2009, 05:17 PM

If I had it my way, the "Minutemen" would be the ones arrested before the illegal immigrants.

How in the world do a bunch of guys in Arizona appoint themselves the police and patrol the borders of the country with dogs and guns? How is this allowed in America?

Citizens are not allowed to take the law into their own hands. If you point a gun at a Mexican, you should be arrested. Better yet, you should mind your own business.

It's one thing to call the cops if you happen to see someone cutting open a fence. It's another to plant yourself in front of the fence with binoculars and trucks.

Edit: If illegal immigrants cross into your private property, you have a full right to call the authorities and even to defend yourself and your land. Even a starving man who has just crossed thousands of miles on foot doesn't have the right to loot or kill livestock.

Otherwise, leave them alone.

ponderingturtle

9th February 2009, 05:18 PM

I think we are making too big of an issue that these people were illegals. Even if they were legitimate American citizens, isn't it completely reasonable to expect a shotgun shoved in your face when you are on someone else's property, killing their calves, and breaking into their home regardless of your citizenship?

Or you know just being in the same ethnicity as people who likely did that.

ponderingturtle

9th February 2009, 05:24 PM

He held them for trespassing. He wasn't going around arresting illegals working on a construction site somewhere.

What law authorized him to do so?

WildCat

9th February 2009, 05:25 PM

And that has to with trespassing, how?
Because damned near any misdemeanor is a "breach of the peace". That wasn't an inclusive list, it only illustrated how broad the definition is.

You have completely failed in your attempt to show that he violated Arizona law by detaining the trespassers with use of a firearm. It's your claim, you prove it.

I will note that he hasn't been charged with any crimes.

Actually, I was hoping you would and actually make a case, and tie what you saying to the issue at hand. However, you didn't, but simply quoted broad categories and ignored my other questions.

Specifically, you ignored:
If those things helped your case you'd have a point.

Once again, you have to show he violated Arizona law, you have so far failed to do that.

So you deny he hit the woman?
I said I have seen no evidence that he did, we have only her claim to go on.People claim all kinds of things, especially when there's money to be had.

Or you're saying illegal migrant women can be hit?
Too stupid of a statement for further comment.

Or that his behavior changed between the two civil cases?
Did he hit someone in the civil case he lost?

I'll note that on 2 occasions in which I got in a traffic accident (none of which I was found to be at fault) with a black driver everything was civil until the cops showed up. At which point they claimed I called them a n***** and other racial epithets and threatened them, none of which was true. Because of this first-hand experience I take such claims with a heavy dose of skepticism.

Zep

9th February 2009, 05:25 PM

How so? What law did he break?Assault with a weapon, and racist abuse.

Put it this way: If you trespassed in Mexico, got caught by an incensed Mexican rancher and he stuck a loaded, cocked gun in your face, knocked you down and kicked you, wouldn't you complain too? Or would you accept you were just "fair game" and this was allowed?

As I said, I agree they were illegals, they are frustrating, and needed to be dealt with appropriately. And I agree the coyotes are a serious problem that definitely need more powerful responses.

But that does not excuse this guy in any way from obeying the law of the land. He didn't - and so he's charged.

WildCat

9th February 2009, 05:30 PM

What law authorized him to do so?
Arizona's citizen's arrest law quoted earlier in this thread..

I Ratant

9th February 2009, 05:32 PM

I wish I knew where this idea that illegals somehow lack rights that citizens have came from.
It's absolutely false (with the exception of a few obvious examples like "the right to vote" that get into governance).
You mean, other landowners might be discouraged from illegal conduct? ("Why, if he loses this lawsuit that means I can't illegally pistol-whip people or I might get sued, too!")
Good!

That means that the legal system is working properly. It's called deterrence.
.
Illegals have the right to humane behavior by the law, as they are conveyed back to the border they violated.
Either when captured on entry, or arrested later when violating laws*, or over-crowding our ERs. Treat'em, bus 'em back to the border.
* the numbers of unlicensed and uninsured illegals here in SoCal is alarming!
Unlicensed means little if any knowledge of the rules of the road, and uninsured means higher rates for those of us that are insured.
A recent grade-crossing accident with the Metro-link was caused by one of these.

Scootch

9th February 2009, 05:33 PM

I Ratant

9th February 2009, 05:35 PM

Assault with a weapon, and racist abuse.

Put it this way: If you trespassed in Mexico, got caught by an incensed Mexican rancher and he stuck a loaded, cocked gun in your face, knocked you down and kicked you, wouldn't you complain too? Or would you accept you were just "fair game" and this was allowed?
..
.
.
Complain in Mexico about bad treatment by a Mexican citizen!?!
To who?
Mexico follows the Napoleonic code for one. You are guilty until proven innocent.
Second, you're a gringo.
Fat chance of anything more than getting beaten up by the cops when they show up to arrest and strip you of everything you have.

WildCat

9th February 2009, 05:37 PM

Assault with a weapon,
Not a crime in the context of making a citizen's arrest. The gun wasn't fired.

and racist abuse.
No law against that here. You can be a racist jackass if you wish. If you're referring to the kicking it's an accusation, there isn't any evidence other than a claim. He hasn't been charged with any crime, has he?

Put it this way: If you trespassed in Mexico, got caught by an incensed Mexican rancher and he stuck a loaded, cocked gun in your face, knocked you down and kicked you, wouldn't you complain too? Or would you accept you were just "fair game" and this was allowed?
Frankly I'd expect that if caught trespassing. Not the roughing up part, but I'd expect to be shown a gun. Hell, that very thing happened to me when I was little and my dad took me on a hike that ended up going through some farmer's field. He showed us out at the end of a shotgun.

We never sued anybody.

As I said, I agree they were illegals, they are frustrating, and needed to be dealt with appropriately. And I agree the coyotes are a serious problem that definitely need more powerful responses.

But that does not excuse this guy in any way from obeying the law of the land.
No one has shown that he didn't obey the law.

He didn't - and so he's charged.
No, he's not been charged. He's being sued by an illegal immigrant advocacy group.

drkitten

9th February 2009, 05:44 PM

Evidence?.

Already provided.

Or were you asking for the specific Arizona statutes and case law that define the limits of "citizen's arrest," "aggravated assault," and "felony"?

drkitten

9th February 2009, 05:46 PM

Not a crime in the context of making a citizen's arrest. The gun wasn't fired.

A gun doesn't have to be fired to be "assault."

"Assault" is any action that makes a reasonable person afraid that they will be hurt. Merely brandishing suffices.

If a "deadly weapon" is involved -- and a gun is definitely one of those -- it turns into "aggravated assault" or "assault with a deadly weapon." Sometimes both.

In fact, if a gun is fired, the charge usually turns into "attempted homicide."

And "citizens' arrest" doesn't help. Citizens are not allowed to use or threaten force during an arrest except in self-defense.

EeneyMinnieMoe

9th February 2009, 06:08 PM

Hey long time luker, first time poster. I am responding to the minutemen post by EneyMinnieMoe. The minutemen dont act like vigilantes. They patrol the border and if they witness an illegal border crossing, they alert the border patrol. They dont approach the illegals or detain them in any way. It acts much like a neighborhood watch program. Now I may be wrong on this but i have never read a story detailing how the minutemen were involved in violence or have taken the law into their own hands by arresting the said alleged illegals. If you find one, please link it here (again I am not saying it didnt happen, I have just never heard of it)
Please pardon this post, it is my first attempt at posting. Thank you for your time and god bless (just kidding about that part)
Scootch:)

Welcome to the forum. I'm flattered that you choose your first post to respond to me. :)

There is one case where it was alleged that a MM detained individuals on his own:

http://www.aclu.org/immigrants/gen/21241prs20051024.html

There's also a story that smells of a volunteer attempting to trick immigrants to get into his car and deliver them to the cops himself:

http://www.redorbit.com/news/politics/277057/minuteman_gave_migrants_a_lift__group_expels_colo_ volunteer/index.html

Of course, he just could have been that dumb and unlucky to pick up two hitch hikers who happened to be illegal. Or had some kind of a wish to help them.

drkitten

9th February 2009, 06:09 PM

I don't condone kicking or yelling racist comments, but they are accusations and fall into the "he said, she said" category.

You didn't actually read your link, did you? If you had you'd have seen this:

I've bolded the relevant sections. All misdemeanors are a "breach of the peace".

None of what you bolded was relevant. In case you haven't noticed, Arizona isn't part of the UK.

There are two relevant cases for Arizona law; 1 CA-JV 98-0218, which cites ARS §13-2904 as the primary determinant of what "breach of the peace" entails : Here's the relevant statute .

A. A person commits disorderly conduct if, with intent to disturb the peace or quiet of a neighborhood, family or person, or with knowledge of doing so, such person:

1. Engages in fighting, violent or seriously disruptive behavior; or

2. Makes unreasonable noise; or

3. Uses abusive or offensive language or gestures to any person present in a manner likely to provoke immediate physical retaliation by such person; or

4. Makes any protracted commotion, utterance or display with the intent to prevent the transaction of the business of a lawful meeting, gathering or procession; or

5. Refuses to obey a lawful order to disperse issued to maintain public safety in dangerous proximity to a fire, a hazard or any other emergency; or

6. Recklessly handles, displays or discharges a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.

Notice that "trespass" doesn't make the list.

The second case of interest is 2 CA-CR 2002-0202, a self-described case of first impression, which holds that " a breach of the peace in Arizona is [not] confined to the six instances of disorderly conduct enumerated in § 13- 2904(A)," but also holds that behavior that "is egregious enough to threaten disaster and disorder or pose a potentially perilous public risk . . . may constitute a breach of the peace."

Simple trespass hardly threatens disaster and disorder or poses a "potentially perilous public risk."

Since trespass is not, by statute, a felony, and doesn't rise to the level of a breach of the peace, citizen's arrest is not allowed for simple trespass.

So let's see what illegal conduct was committed:

Assault: ARS 13-1203 A. A person commits assault by:

[...] 2. Intentionally placing another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury;

Aggravated assault: ARS 13-1204. A. A person commits aggravated assault if the person commits assault as defined in section 13-1203 under any of the following circumstances:

[...]

2. If the person uses a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.

WildCat

9th February 2009, 06:09 PM

Already provided.

Or were you asking for the specific Arizona statutes and case law that define the limits of "citizen's arrest," "aggravated assault," and "felony"?
No, it hasn't been "already provided". All you have made are assertions without links to Arizona law.

A gun doesn't have to be fired to be "assault."

"Assault" is any action that makes a reasonable person afraid that they will be hurt. Merely brandishing suffices.

If a "deadly weapon" is involved -- and a gun is definitely one of those -- it turns into "aggravated assault" or "assault with a deadly weapon." Sometimes both.

In fact, if a gun is fired, the charge usually turns into "attempted homicide."

And "citizens' arrest" doesn't help. Citizens are not allowed to use or threaten force during an arrest except in self-defense.
I have seen no evidence that brandishing a gun while making a citizen's arrest constitutes a crime in Arizona, much less assault.

Your claim is not evidence.

And how many times do I need to point out he has never been charged with a crime relating to his detentions of illegal aliens trespassing on his property?

rwguinn

9th February 2009, 06:20 PM

Welcome to the forum. I'm flattered that you choose your first post to respond to me. :)

There is one case where it was alleged that a MM detained individuals on his own:

http://www.aclu.org/immigrants/gen/21241prs20051024.html

There's also a story that smells of a volunteer attempting to trick immigrants to get into his car and deliver them to the cops himself:

http://www.redorbit.com/news/politics/277057/minuteman_gave_migrants_a_lift__group_expels_colo_ volunteer/index.html

Of course, he just could have been that dumb and unlucky to pick up two hitch hikers who happened to be illegal. Or had some kind of a wish to help them.
Boy, There's hard evidence!!
"alleged that..."
"Smells of..."
I suggest that you learn a little bit about somewhere other than your downtown area.
In the West, rustling is a felony. Cutting fences is a felony. Hell, in a couple of states, carrying a pair of wire cutters was considered evidence you were cutting fences.
And 99.9% of all the ranches are on leased Federal land. The feds can pull your lease in an instant if the fences are cut, the riparian areas trashed, and/or there is destruction of what is, actually, a fairly fragile environment.
Again, notice that the guy is not charged with a crime of any kind!

Björn Toulouse

9th February 2009, 06:24 PM

Assault with a weapon, and racist abuse.

Put it this way: If you trespassed in Mexico, got caught by an incensed Mexican rancher and he stuck a loaded, cocked gun in your face, knocked you down and kicked you, wouldn't you complain too? Or would you accept you were just "fair game" and this was allowed?

As I said, I agree they were illegals, they are frustrating, and needed to be dealt with appropriately. And I agree the coyotes are a serious problem that definitely need more powerful responses.

But that does not excuse this guy in any way from obeying the law of the land. He didn't - and so he's charged.

Somebody abused a racist?

This is the funniest one so far.

Keep 'em coming, guys. I needed a laugh after reading this thread.

pipelineaudio

9th February 2009, 10:48 PM

pipelineaudio

9th February 2009, 10:55 PM

With all the New York quarterbacking going on, I think it would be educational to see just how serious some of the self defense and property rights laws are here. In the land of cameras and cops every 50 feet you might find these a little harsh, but out here you can be hours from any help (weather permitting, otherwise days)

I will happily provide any doubters with a pick and shovel and will be happy to drop you off in front of any site with a Federal Registered Mining Claim sign or cairn in front of it. While you are chunking away, feel free to help yourself to any of the Free Range cattle wondering the area if you get hungry

Zep

9th February 2009, 11:02 PM

.
Complain in Mexico about bad treatment by a Mexican citizen!?!
To who?
Mexico follows the Napoleonic code for one. You are guilty until proven innocent.
Second, you're a gringo.
Fat chance of anything more than getting beaten up by the cops when they show up to arrest and strip you of everything you have.Please keep up - that's the point. The question was: If it were you being beaten up in Mexico, would you as a US citizen accept that?

Zep

9th February 2009, 11:04 PM

Somebody abused a racist?

This is the funniest one so far.

Keep 'em coming, guys. I needed a laugh after reading this thread.Try reading the post again, but more carefully. I think you missed a step there.

LTC8K6

9th February 2009, 11:15 PM

This is a civil suit, so why are people quoting criminal laws?

No one is charged with a crime.

This is merely a claim by one party against another in an attempt to collect money a long time after the alleged incident.

If someone was assaulted with a gun, or kicked and beaten, then the police should have been called at the time, and the crimes reported to them.

KoihimeNakamura

10th February 2009, 12:43 AM

WildCat

10th February 2009, 05:01 AM

Björn Toulouse

10th February 2009, 05:18 AM

Try reading the post again, but more carefully. I think you missed a step there.

The funny part I was speaking of came after this:

racist abuse

I was being intentionally sarcastic. Hopefully you will read the other part of the text I embolded in the morning and see how ridiculous it sounds.

I suppose if a 64 year old guy balled up his fists to confront 16 trespassers on his land that would constitute the "minimum force necessary". It's been pointed out that this is repetitive property abuse and personal threats that these border ranchers are enduring. How was he to know whether or not one of the really bad guys was not among the group he detained?

This is an old man who has seen his American dream go up in smoke while many lawbreakers in pursuit of the new "perverted American dream" go unpunished. If he does not take steps to protect his property, then he would be consenting and contributing to the pussification of the USA. This in no way is to be an excuse if he did indeed kick an unthreatening woman on the ground (I still would like to hear the whole story from the courtroom) but I wonder how many of us would be able to stay on the right side of the law at all times in his situation?

BPSCG

10th February 2009, 05:40 AM

...but I suppose people are free to continue on their preconcieved prejudicesIs there some other kind of prejudice?

drkitten

10th February 2009, 07:08 AM

This is a civil suit, so why are people quoting criminal laws?

No one is charged with a crime.

[...]

If someone was assaulted with a gun, or kicked and beaten, then the police should have been called at the time, and the crimes reported to them.

And that is why the local sheriff, who is responsible for enforcing the laws, is also named as a defendant in the suit. Because the local government responsible for enforcing criminal laws is failing do to so -- and selectively failing on the basis of race, which is both a violation of federal law as well as a civil tort.

rwguinn

10th February 2009, 07:20 AM

And that is why the local sheriff, who is responsible for enforcing the laws, is also named as a defendant in the suit. Because the local government responsible for enforcing criminal laws is failing do to so -- and selectively failing on the basis of race, which is both a violation of federal law as well as a civil tort.
That's quite a jump, there
Did you consider that there may have been no evidence of such a violation? He said/she said is not reason to arrest, absent something like bruises, black eye, blood, etc.
And you claim to be a critical thinker? How in hells do you assume it was on the basis of race?
What a load of ******** from a "skeptic". Start with a conclusion, form a hypothesis around it, select facts to fit...

drkitten

10th February 2009, 07:36 AM

That's quite a jump, there

Not really.

Did you consider that there may have been no evidence of such a violation? He said/she said is not reason to arrest, absent something like bruises, black eye, blood, etc.

Actually, "he said/she said" is ample reason to arrest. It's not reason to convict, but it can certainly be probable cause.

And you claim to be a critical thinker? How in hells do you assume it was on the basis of race?

Party admission. Specifically, the rancher has admitted to a ten-year campaign against "illegal immigrants." Tell me about all the illegal Haitian and Thai immigrants involved and I may change my assumption.

rwguinn

10th February 2009, 07:52 AM

Not really.

Actually, "he said/she said" is ample reason to arrest. It's not reason to convict, but it can certainly be probable cause.

Party admission. Specifically, the rancher has admitted to a ten-year campaign against "illegal immigrants." Tell me about all the illegal Haitian and Thai immigrants involved and I may change my assumption.

Oh, I can see that one.
"Hello, Sheriff? I have some illegals here on my property" (gives Location). "Wanna come get 'em?"
"Be there in an hour" (its a ways out there
later..
"Where y'all from"
"no comprende Ingles"
"¡Este hombre da mi un patada en el trasero!"
"well, shucks, y'all jist meskins, no harm done. Git in th truck!"

A sheriff (or deputy) is supposed to take the word of people admittedly commiting a crime (Illegal immigration!), who have a vested interest in getting off the hook?
What color is the sky on your planet?
And even though most people sneaking through the desert are of Mexican (indio) heritage, many are Chinese, Cuban, Guatamalan, and other South and Central American--including some from the Middle East.
Some are even blond and blue-eyed...

Ocelot

10th February 2009, 07:56 AM

pipelineaudio

10th February 2009, 08:17 AM

And thatBecause the local government responsible for enforcing criminal laws is failing do to so

You said it! The federal government that is tasked with protecting our borders has failed utterly, and local law enforcement has been forced by political pressure to selectively allow Mexicans to break the law on the basis of race

-- and selectively failing on the basis of race, which is both a violation of federal law as well as a civil tort.

As much as I can't stand Sherrif Joe, this is the situation

http://news.ktar.com/?nid=6&sid=797001

Local politicians are actively telling law enforcement to selectively ignore laws on the basis of race (if the perpetrator appears to be Mexican)

What the media always seems to ignore, is how the legal Mexican residents and hispanic Americans feel about the illegals

rwguinn

10th February 2009, 08:17 AM

pipelineaudio

10th February 2009, 08:21 AM

I'm glad to hear that illegal people have no rights, I'm interested in human anatomy and just can't get enough information from these text books. My late night sorties into the hear of the Whitechappel red light district used to have a frisson of naughtiness but given the the workign ladies are there illegaly I now haw the confidence to slaughter them with impunity. I'm sure this knowledge will be great benefit to my studies.

Your's sincerely,

Jack

I'm glad to hear that citizens have no rights, I'm interested in human anatomy and just can't get enough information from these text books. My late night sorties into the hear of the Van Buren red light district used to have a frisson of naughtiness but given the the working ladies are there because that's where the money is, I now have the confidence to slaughter them with impunity. I'm sure this knowledge will be great benefit to my studies.

Your's sincerely,

Get a Grip

drkitten

10th February 2009, 08:25 AM

As much as I can't stand Sherrif Joe, this is the situation

http://news.ktar.com/?nid=6&sid=797001

Local politicians are actively telling law enforcement to selectively ignore laws on the basis of race (if the perpetrator appears to be Mexican)

Local politicians say a lot of things, many of them things that would be outright illegal if taken seriously. This may be one of them.

... hence the lawsuit. Because even if the mayor orders the chief of police to take a bribe, it's still illegal and the cop can still catch hell for it.

But it sounds to me that she is NOT telling the sheriff to ignore laws on the basis of race. Quite the contrary. She's specifically concerned that he's ignoring the rest of his responsibilities to enforce law....

drkitten

10th February 2009, 08:28 AM

A sheriff (or deputy) is supposed to take the word of people admittedly commiting a crime (Illegal immigration!), who have a vested interest in getting off the hook?

Not at all. By the book, he's supposed to bring them all in and let the bail judge sort it out.

Lonewulf

10th February 2009, 08:41 AM

I'm glad to hear that citizens have no rights, I'm interested in human anatomy and just can't get enough information from these text books. My late night sorties into the hear of the Van Buren red light district used to have a frisson of naughtiness but given the the working ladies are there because that's where the money is, I now have the confidence to slaughter them with impunity. I'm sure this knowledge will be great benefit to my studies.

Your's sincerely,

Get a Grip

Talk about not getting the point.

If you had a point to make yourself, it was lost with the rest of the fail.

I Ratant

10th February 2009, 08:58 AM

Please keep up - that's the point. The question was: If it were you being beaten up in Mexico, would you as a US citizen accept that?
.
Presuming I could get my sorry ass back into God's country, I might sue by long-distance, but I would never go back there.
It's a disintegrating country, the rule of law is barely holding on.
When illegals come here, and according to the right-wing nuts that fill my mail box with horror stories, soon to be -entitled- to welfare and aid, just by crossing into this country, the aid to them coming from my Social Security benefits, I'm starting to lean more rightwards, and feeling less tolerant towards opportunists that take advantage of soft-headed leftish mind farts.

Lonewulf

10th February 2009, 09:01 AM

How do you get there from here?
That is the stupidest argument I've seen since "the clap of thunder could only be caused by explosives"

What "rights" do illegal immigrants have, other than a free peanut butter sandwich on their free trip back to the border they crossed illegally?

No similarity at all. Nope.

Lonewulf

10th February 2009, 09:02 AM

.
Presuming I could get my sorry ass back into God's country, I might sue by long-distance, but I would never go back there.
It's a disintegrating country, the rule of law is barely holding on.
When illegals come here, and according to the right-wing nuts that fill my mail box with horror stories, soon to be -entitled- to welfare and aid, just by crossing into this country, the aid to them coming from my Social Security benefits, I'm starting to lean more rightwards, and feeling less tolerant towards opportunists that take advantage of soft-headed leftish mind farts.

"God's country"?

Bwahahahaha. :D

Ocelot

10th February 2009, 09:04 AM

How do you get there from here?

I'm suprised you missed it but there was a claim that people who break laws don't have human rights.

Attorney David Hardy made the claim as reported by Questioninggeller.

Barnett's attorney says they are illegal and shouldn't have the same rights as others seemingly showing that had he done it with a U.S. citizen he'd be in court.

I Ratant made it here.

What "rights" do illegal immigrants have, other than a free peanut butter sandwich on their free trip back to the border they crossed illegally?

I see that other have already addressed it but "my friend Jack" thought he could add something.

I Ratant

10th February 2009, 09:04 AM

I'm glad to hear that illegal people have no rights, I'm interested in human anatomy and just can't get enough information from these text books. My late night sorties into the hear of the Whitechappel red light district used to have a frisson of naughtiness but given the the workign ladies are there illegaly I now haw the confidence to slaughter them with impunity. I'm sure this knowledge will be great benefit to my studies.

Yours sincerely,

Jack
.
I don't care what you say, that's funny, there! :)
Slaughter is kinda the ultimate deprivation of rights, innit?
A few days in the slammer, then prohibited from frequenting Whitechapel would be similar to bussing the illegals with the pb&J sammich back to the border.
There are few public demands for terminating the illegals. But the e-mails I get come close.

I Ratant

10th February 2009, 09:08 AM

"God's country"?

Bwahahahaha. :D
.
The rest of the world is NOT God's country. Been there, won't be back.
Shoot, I seldom leave LA County any more!
One might note the number of folk fleeing -from- the US to the less-fortunate parts of the world.. which is the rest of it.
Even Polanski wants back in here!

Lonewulf

10th February 2009, 09:13 AM

.
The rest of the world is NOT God's country. Been there, won't be back.
Shoot, I seldom leave LA County any more!
One might note the number of folk fleeing -from- the US to the less-fortunate parts of the world.. which is the rest of it.
Even Polanski wants back in here!
Wow.

Seriously. Wow. It's an interesting perspective into your mind, there. Things make more sense, now. Gotta love ultranationalism. I've been to other parts of the world, too; I'll be back many times. Singapore is the next place I want to visit; I've already lived a while in South Korea and Germany. I'm not sure what makes those countries so awful (though I'm not in a rush to go back to South Korea, that place had positives). It's natural to be proud of one's country, but "God's country" is definitely stretching it. ;)

By the way, did you know that before Texas became ours, people were illegally emigrating from the U.S. into what is now Texas, which was the property of Mexico? I found this an interesting part of history. Apparently, illegal immigration is what partially helped us to keep Texas in the end. I wonder why they crossed the border from "God's country"... and why God would decide to have put Texas in the hands of those Mexicans. ;)

I do find this perspective curious, though. You think that this is "God's land" -- so what does that mean? That God "meant" it for us? Did God "mean" it for the Native Americans, or was wiping them almost completely off the face of the earth part of God's plan?

BPSCG

10th February 2009, 09:13 AM

...soon to be -entitled- to welfare and aid, just by crossing into this country, the aid to them coming from my Social Security benefits, I'm starting to lean more rightwards, and feeling less tolerant towards opportunists that take advantage of soft-headed leftish mind farts.Bolded part is untrue. I'm getting tired of shooting this canard down.

BPSCG

10th February 2009, 09:20 AM

By the way, did you know that before the Spanish-American war, people were illegally emigrating from the U.S. into what is now Texas, which was the property of Mexico? I found this an interesting part of history.I find it an interesting revision of history.

1821 - Mexico wins independence from Spain
Texas was part of Mexico until 1835.
1835 - Texas declared its independence from Mexico (Alamo, San Jacinto)
1845 - Texas admitted to the United States
1898 - Spanish-American war. Texas was still part of the U.S.

Next you'll be telling us the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077975/quotes), and that December 7, 1941 was the day the U.S. bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki (http://www.getreligion.org/?p=4330).

Lonewulf

10th February 2009, 09:31 AM

I find it an interesting revision of history.

1821 - Mexico wins independence from Spain
Texas was part of Mexico until 1835.
1835 - Texas declared its independence from Mexico (Alamo, San Jacinto)
1845 - Texas admitted to the United States
1898 - Spanish-American war. Texas was still part of the U.S.

Next you'll be telling us the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077975/quotes), and that December 7, 1941 was the day the U.S. bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki (http://www.getreligion.org/?p=4330).

Thanks for correcting my post, though I'll add that I had already edited it by the time that you responded. However, I thank you for your ... *enthusiasm*... for correcting my mistake. I will keep in mind your dates.

Before Texas was a part of the U.S., U.S. citizens snuck over the border into Texas illegally, Pearl Harbor or not. Of course, you're free to show where I went wrong there, and you're free to write your own history book to demonstrate how wrong modern historians are about the situation. The date was around the 1820s, which I do believe was "before the Spanish-American war", but what do I know?

I'm sorry if I made a mistake about "God's country". Think I'll get hit with lightning? ;) Or maybe God will infect me with smallpox, like the Native Americans.

I Ratant

10th February 2009, 09:42 AM

Wow.

Seriously. Wow. It's an interesting perspective into your mind, there. Things make more sense, now. Gotta love ultranationalism. I've been to other parts of the world, too; I'll be back many times. Singapore is the next place I want to visit; I've already lived a while in South Korea and Germany. I'm not sure what makes those countries so awful (though I'm not in a rush to go back to South Korea, that place had positives). It's natural to be proud of one's country, but "God's country" is definitely stretching it. ;)

By the way, did you know that before Texas became ours, people were illegally emigrating from the U.S. into what is now Texas, which was the property of Mexico? I found this an interesting part of history. Apparently, illegal immigration is what partially helped us to keep Texas in the end. I wonder why they crossed the border from "God's country"... and why God would decide to have put Texas in the hands of those Mexicans. ;)

I do find this perspective curious, though. You think that this is "God's land" -- so what does that mean? That God "meant" it for us? Did God "mean" it for the Native Americans, or was wiping them almost completely off the face of the earth part of God's plan?
.
"You think that this is "God's land" "..
Not really, that's just an exaggeration for effect.
On the whole, the rest of the world sucks.
I don't mind meeting people from other countries.
The Mall is full of merchants from the rest of world, most of whom I know and talk to.
Iran, Israel, Sri Lanka, Namibia... makes for a nice cultural mix to keep one's mind open.
Watching the kids acclimate to the US.. Talking the home language to the parents, and English to each other. I saw one child getting instructions in the home language, and replying in English!
Were there the tolerance for multi-cultural existence all over the world, maybe many of the intolerant behaviors would evaporate, as long as there wasn't that demand for self-ghettoization that appears to be common in Europe.
But I prefer to not have to press "1" for English. Press "1" for what other language you may wish, but English, that's square one, everything is presumed to start there.

I Ratant

10th February 2009, 09:45 AM

Bolded part is untrue. I'm getting tired of shooting this canard down.
.
I'd send you the e-mail that my right wingnut friend shoots my way, allegedly from Nancy Pelosi herself promoting that, but it's so transparent, and I'm sure you've seen it.
But it is a prevalent idea, if not that exactly, leaning over beyond common sense to give lawbreakers "rights" no one has, or should have to -earn-.

Lonewulf

10th February 2009, 09:45 AM

.
"You think that this is "God's land" "..
Not really, that's just an exaggeration for effect.
On the whole, the rest of the world sucks.
I don't mind meeting people from other countries.
The Mall is full of merchants from the rest of world, most of whom I know and talk to.
Iran, Israel, Sri Lanka, Namibia... makes for a nice cultural mix to keep one's mind open.

That's funny; I had much the same experience in Germany. In fact, I'd say that I saw far more of it in Heidelberg, Germany than I did in Corpus Christi, Texas, or in Alabama.

Watching the kids acclimate to the US.. Talking the home language to the parents, and English to each other. I saw one child getting instructions in the home language, and replying in English!
Were there the tolerance for multi-cultural existence all over the world, maybe many of the intolerant behaviors would evaporate, as long as there wasn't that demand for self-ghettoization that appears to be common in Europe.

Like "The Projects", or "segregation"?

But I prefer to not have to press "1" for English. Press "1" for what other language you may wish, but English, that's square one, everything is presumed to start there.

Uh huh...

what was your point here? ---^

You do realize that, in both legal and illegal immigrants, the first generation is less likely to speak English than the second or third, right?

pipelineaudio

10th February 2009, 09:54 AM

Bolded part is untrue. I'm getting tired of shooting this canard down.

Depends what the claim is. There's certainly a benefit to making one of your first stops in the US at the south east corner of 32nd St and McDowell in Phoenix and obtaining a stolen social security number, on a prelaminated card for your convenience. Its not such a good deal for the legal holder of that card of course. Contractors purchase these en masse for their crews in order to keep the flow of worthless stucco houses wrecking pristine wilderness and tanking the US economy because noone wants these damn things. But that's again a whole nother thread

Questioninggeller

10th February 2009, 09:56 AM

None of what you bolded was relevant. In case you haven't noticed, Arizona isn't part of the UK.
...

My thoughts as well. He seems to think because there wasn't an arrest or a gun fired there was no crime.

Exactly. Odd that no one reported the "assault" until an advocacy group dangled dollar signs over their head long after the fact.

How do you know it wasn't reported? The article clearly says their treatment per the files were reported to border control. Until we know what's in those files you should make such a claim.

No, it hasn't been "already provided". All you have made are assertions without links to Arizona law.

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/26/01128.htm

Any person who is subject to this chapter and who attempts or offers with unlawful force or violence to do bodily harm to another person, whether or not the attempt or offer is consummated, is guilty of assault and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

It is assault to threaten harm, but no harm has to take place.

I have seen no evidence that brandishing a gun while making a citizen's arrest constitutes a crime in Arizona, much less assault.

You still haven't proved it was a citizen's arrest. You bolded wikipedia about U.K. law and then claimed breach of peace includes all law. Your claim is not evidence.

You say its a citizen's arrest. Prove it. So far, Barnett nor his attorny have even made such a claim.

And how many times do I need to point out he has never been charged with a crime relating to his detentions of illegal aliens trespassing on his property?

As explained to you earlier and mentioned in the article, the lawsuit includes the sheriff, who knew about Barnett's behavior, because the plaintiffs want to see the laws enforced.

A crime can happen could have occurred without a person being charged.

That's not quite true. Due to my dark complexion, many's the time a Minuteman offered me a bottle of water and asked if I needed assistance as I was herping the Douglas area :)

The Minutemen have been photographed red-handed plenty of times assaulting illegals by giving them bottled water and band aids

In case bigots do not want to do any research for themselves, the Minutemen's goal is NOT to shoot illegals, it is to bring enough attention to the problem that our government will have to do something about it, but I suppose people are free to continue on their preconcieved prejudices

The Minutemen have also been photographed doing other things. Such as, paying for billboards (http://www.splcenter.org/intel/news/item.jsp?aid=13) promoting the National Alliance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Alliance_(United_States)), founded by William Pierce author of the Turner Diaries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Turner_Diaries), in the same instance wanting to "stop immigration". (Click on the link for a picture of the billboard.)

Or the San Diego case, where members of the Minutemen made a faked video of them KILLING AN ILLEGAL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minuteman_Project#August_2007_fake_murder_video). Hardly the activity of a respectable, water-giving people.

And for the record, George W. Bush was asked about the Minutemen Project and replied"I'm against vigilantes in the United States of America," Bush said. "I'm for enforcing the law in a rational way." (http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=557)

You seem unwilling to conceed groups such as the Minutemen attract racists, who no doubt want to "stop immigration," but have deeper motivations based on skin color.

BPSCG

10th February 2009, 10:03 AM

Thanks for correcting my post, though I'll add that I had already edited it by the time that you responded. :rolleyes:

I notice that I got the date of Texas independence wrong; it was 1836, not 1835. You should have jumped on that like it was a fifty-dollar bill, being in San Antonio and all...

Before Texas was a part of the U.S., U.S. citizens snuck over the border into Texas illegally, Pearl Harbor or not. Actually, Mexico encouraged immigration from the U.S. and other countries, until the combination of a large population that was resistant to speaking Spanish, resistant to mandatory conversion to Catholicism, and the remoteness of the Texas population centers from Mexico's population centers made governance of Texas from Mexico City very difficult. Read up on Stephen Austin and the empresario system; an excellent reference is T.R. Fehrenbach's Lone Star: A History of Texas and the Texans (http://www.amazon.com/Lone-Star-History-Texas-Texans/dp/0306809427/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234288766&sr=1-1).

Anyway, getting back to your point, Mexico lost Texas because it was unable to control a flood of immigrants. They were betting that immigrants from the U.S. and Europe would willingly become assimilated into Mexican culture. But those immigrants, mostly Americans, failed to assimilate, and eventually decided they didn't want to be part of Mexico any more.

pipelineaudio

10th February 2009, 10:04 AM

You seem unwilling to conceed groups such as the Minutemen attract racists, who no doubt want to "stop immigration," but have deeper motivations based on skin color.

The actions of a few idiots don't sway me against the Minutemen's noble cause.

Nice media manipulation there. As an organization the Minutemen are in no way oppsed to immigration. They are opposed to illegal immigration. The media loves to mix these two up, but it is the direct equivalent of saying you are opposed to "sex" when in reality you are opposed to rape.

I will believe your claims about the Minutemen being a racist organization when all my Mexican and other hispanic friends quit the organization

Questioninggeller

10th February 2009, 10:04 AM

I found another article of interest:

A Border Watcher Finds Himself Under Scrutiny
Published: November 24, 2006
New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/24/us/24border.html)

...
Mr. Vejar said he would ask the state attorney general and the county attorney, who had cited a lack of evidence in declining to prosecute Mr. Barnett, to take another look at the case. He also said he would ask the state to revoke Mr. Barnett’s leases on its land.
...
Mr. Barnett prevailed in a suit in the summer when a jury ruled against a fellow rancher who had sued, accusing him of trespassing on his property as he pursued immigrants. Another suit last year was dropped when the plaintiff, who had returned to Mexico, decided not to return to press the case.
...
Mr. Barnett, a retired Cochise County sheriff’s deputy and the owner of a towing business, acquired his ranch in the mid-1990s, buying or leasing from the state more than 22,000 acres.

Almost from the start he took up a campaign against the people crossing the border from Mexico, sometimes detaining large groups and radioing for the Border Patrol to pick them up.
...
Mr. Barnett has had several encounters with local law enforcement officials over detaining illegal immigrants, some of whom complained that he pointed guns at them. The local authorities have declined to prosecute him, citing a lack of evidence or ambiguity about whether he had violated any laws.
...

and in another case of people:

They have won civil judgments in Texas, and this year two illegal Salvadoran immigrants who had been held against their will took possession of a 70-acre ranch in southern Arizona after winning a case last year.

Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/24/us/24border.html)

BPSCG

10th February 2009, 10:06 AM

Depends what the claim is.The claim (at least the versions of it that I've seen) is that illegals come to the U.S. and immediately get Social Security benefits. Which is arrant nonsense.

Lonewulf

10th February 2009, 10:09 AM

:rolleyes:

I notice that I got the date of Texas independence wrong; it was 1836, not 1835. You should have jumped on that like it was a fifty-dollar bill, being in San Antonio and all...Why? It's not like it really benefits me to do so.

Besides, this may surprise you, but it's not a requirement to know everything about a state before you move to it. ;)

Actually, Mexico encouraged immigration from the U.S. and other countries, until the combination of a large population that was resistant to speaking Spanish, resistant to mandatory conversion to Catholicism, and the remoteness of the Texas population centers from Mexico's population centers made governance of Texas from Mexico City very difficult. Read up on Stephen Austin and the empresario system; an excellent reference is T.R. Fehrenbach's Lone Star: A History of Texas and the Texans (http://www.amazon.com/Lone-Star-History-Texas-Texans/dp/0306809427/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234288766&sr=1-1).

Anyway, getting back to your point, Mexico lost Texas because it was unable to control a flood of immigrants. They were betting that immigrants from the U.S. and Europe would willingly become assimilated into Mexican culture. But those immigrants, mostly Americans, failed to assimilate, and eventually decided they didn't want to be part of Mexico any more.

Thank you for the history lesson.

Do WE want them to assimilate into the local religion? The U.S. was advertised as a secular nation ("God's country" and other silly epithets notwithstanding).

And like I said, the first generation tends to find it difficult (or doesn't bother to) assimilate into the local language.

I recall that there similar concerns from the time when it was the Irish we were worried about, and that was legal. I don't recall the U.S. collapsing thanks to immigration, though. Or them carving out a huge chunk of the U.S. called "New Ireland", independent of the U.S.

BPSCG

10th February 2009, 10:09 AM

As explained to you earlier and mentioned in the article, the lawsuit includes the sheriff, who knew about Barnett's behavior, because the plaintiffs want to see the laws enforced.Which one?

The law against threatening a person with a gun?

Or the law against entering the U.S. illegally?

Or do they want to see both laws enforced?

Questioninggeller

10th February 2009, 10:17 AM

The actions of a few idiots don't sway me against the Minutemen's noble cause.

So the actions of the Minutemen are noble only when they are noble? Any negative actions should be ignored?

Nice media manipulation there. As an organization the Minutemen are in no way oppsed to immigration. They are opposed to illegal immigration. The media loves to mix these two up, but it is the direct equivalent of saying you are opposed to "sex" when in reality you are opposed to rape.

Manipulation? So you didn't look at the link, huh? Well I attached it to this post. Where do you see "illegal"?

I will believe your claims about the Minutemen being a racist organization when all my Mexican and other hispanic friends quit the organization

First, I did not claim the Minutemen Project was racist. I said you seem unwilling to see that 1) it attracts some racists and 2) some members are racist. Secondly, I didn't even bring to the group's ties to the Council of Conservative Citizens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Conservative_Citizens) and American Renaissance into this conversation.

There are Mexican-Americans in the group, I understand that, though by media reports they are a small fraction. On the other hand, do you understand there are racists in the group who want to "enforce" immigration for their beliefs?

Questioninggeller

10th February 2009, 10:22 AM

Which one?

The law against threatening a person with a gun?

Or the law against entering the U.S. illegally?

Or do they want to see both laws enforced?

Do we really have to keep repeating ourselves? For example, a quote from an article in #24 of this thread:

...
The hunters, all of whom are Americans of Mexican decent, said Barnett insulted them with racial slurs and threatened to shoot them - charges Barnett denied. Ronald Morales said he tried to get the county attorney to press criminal charges against Barnett, but was told no jury would convict him.
...
Morales' attorney, Jesus Romo Vejar, said he hoped the local prosecutor would now reconsider filing criminal charges against Barnett, and he hoped others who had had problems with the rancher also would be encouraged to file civil claims.
...

http://www.douglasdispatch.com/articles/2006/11/24/news/news1.txt

For the specific laws, you'll have to contact their lawyer and read their lawsuits.

BPSCG

10th February 2009, 10:39 AM

Why? It's not like it really benefits me to do so.

Besides, this may surprise you, but it's not a requirement to know everything about a state before you move to it. ;)I wouldn't go noising about that opinion too much around your neighborhood if I were you. Texans are... different. I know - I married one.

Do WE want them to assimilate into the local religion? The U.S. was advertised as a secular nation ("God's country" and other silly epithets notwithstanding).

And like I said, the first generation tends to find it difficult (or doesn't bother to) assimilate into the local language.

I recall that there similar concerns from the time when it was the Irish we were worried about, and that was legal. I don't recall the U.S. collapsing thanks to immigration, though. Or them carving out a huge chunk of the U.S. called "New Ireland", independent of the U.S.

I think the biggest concern most people have with Mexican illegals is their failure to assimilate. There are a number of other issues, but that's the biggest one. There's also what I consider to be an equally important issue - that the U.S. doesn't need such a large supply of unskilled labor. Once upon a time, we did, because the country was still growing quickly.

But we don't need millions of workers to build railroads any more, and manufacturing - the sector that can make the quickest use of unskilled workers - is becoming a smaller and smaller part of our economy. Our economy is more and more a service economy, and demands more and more skilled and professional workers. It makes no sense to allow an unrestricted flood of unskilled, uneducated, non-English-speaking people into the country while putting hard limits on the number of skilled, educated, English-speaking professionals. We need Indian computer programmers a lot more than we need Mexican ditch diggers.

BPSCG

10th February 2009, 10:41 AM

Do we really have to keep repeating ourselves? For example, a quote from an article in #24 of this thread:

http://www.douglasdispatch.com/articles/2006/11/24/news/news1.txt

For the specific laws, you'll have to contact their lawyer and read their lawsuits.You didn't answer the question. Do the plaintiffs also want the laws against illegal immigration enforced? Yes or no?

AWPrime

10th February 2009, 10:49 AM

A gun doesn't have to be fired to be "assault."
"Assault" is any action that makes a reasonable person afraid that they will be hurt. Merely brandishing suffices.
If a "deadly weapon" is involved -- and a gun is definitely one of those -- it turns into "aggravated assault" or "assault with a deadly weapon." Sometimes both.By that logic if I knew you were a very bad and unhygienic cook then I could sue you if you come near me with one of your creations.

Also he used his gun to detain, not to attack therefore they can't assume that they will be hurt.

And "citizens' arrest" doesn't help. Citizens are not allowed to use or threaten force during an arrest except in self-defense.Actually they may use equal force. And without a gun such a group can easily beat him to death. And he also couldn't have know if the group had any armed coyotes, so he had to take a gun along.

Questioninggeller

10th February 2009, 11:06 AM

You didn't answer the question. Do the plaintiffs also want the laws against illegal immigration enforced? Yes or no?

I don't know. As I stated, you should contact their counsel as the handful of articles don't fully addrress what specific laws they are suing. Perhaps, if you show me a link to the lawsuit I can read it and help you.

The SPLC, the co-counsel for the plainitffs in the 2006, posted an article:

...
Failure to Prosecute
While there's no hard evidence Barnett has drawn blood, reports of Barnett and his brother Donald holding illegal immigrants at gunpoint, chasing them on ATVs, and using their dogs to intimidate and attack, have trickled into the Cochise County Sheriff's Office for years. Four months before the Morales incident, for instance, a group of immigrants reported that Barnett held them at gunpoint, yanked a woman by her hair and stuck a pistol in her ribs. Another member of the group said the rancher threw him over the front rack of his ATV and sicced a dog on them.
...
'Dirty Mexicans!'
Before the children take the stand, Roger Barnett and his wife leave the courtroom. Kelliher stresses that they volunteered to do so as a courtesy.

Of the three girls who testify, Emma English, now 13, is the most articulate and polished. The emotional eighth-grader tells the jury that Roger Barnett "started getting really red, his whole body started twitching, 'You better get the f**k off my land, you f**king dirty Mexicans!'"

Barnett backers in the courtroom scoff loudly at the girl's tearful statements.

Later, the testimony of both Morales girls is strikingly similar to Emma's. Vanese and Angelique both cite Barnett's red-faced rage, his twitching, and their fear that he would kill them.
...
The Verdict
With 15 counts to weigh, the jury begins deliberations. Ed English and Ron Morales head down to a café to wait. Roger Barnett and his wife remain in the courtroom. Camera crews hover outside.

When the jury files back into the courtroom after just three hours of deliberation, the plaintiffs are stiff in their chairs. An ashen Ron Morales seems to stop breathing entirely as the jury foreman rises to read the verdicts, one by one.

The jury finds for the plaintiffs on 14 of 15 counts, and orders Barnett to pay the Morales and English families nearly $99,000.
...

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=758

Right now, I can't find the lawsuit to post what the 15 counts were.

BPSCG

10th February 2009, 11:11 AM

You didn't answer the question. Do the plaintiffs also want the laws against illegal immigration enforced? Yes or no?

I don't know. Don't be ridiculous, of course you do. If the laws against entering the U.S. illegally were effectively enforced, they would be turned back the moment they set foot in the U.S.

Go head, tell me they want that law enforced.

rwguinn

10th February 2009, 11:14 AM

Which one?

The law against threatening a person with a gun?

Or the law against entering the U.S. illegally?

Or do they want to see both laws enforced?
US Persons Evil.
US Landowners more eviler.
People sneaking across the border illegally==> Angels.

pipelineaudio

10th February 2009, 11:47 AM

On the other hand, do you understand there are racists in the group who want to "enforce" immigration for their beliefs?

I understand that there are racists in every group who want to do all sorts of things for their beliefs. SHould we void the democratic party just because so many of them are homophobes? No we deal with our problems bytaking them on a case by case basis

LTC8K6

10th February 2009, 11:47 AM

Party admission. Specifically, the rancher has admitted to a ten-year campaign against "illegal immigrants." Tell me about all the illegal Haitian and Thai immigrants involved and I may change my assumption.

Hello? His property is on the Mexican border...

Tap, tap, tap...

Is this thing on?

LTC8K6

10th February 2009, 11:49 AM

Why are people quoting what the complainants/defendants say as if it's automatically factual?

pipelineaudio

10th February 2009, 11:53 AM

Go head, tell me they want that law enforced.

Bingo, this selective enforcement must be nice.

Try as I might I cant get the media to back me to ignore laws about driving without insurance. Its the weirdest thing

BPSCG

10th February 2009, 12:12 PM

Why are people quoting what the complainants/defendants say as if it's automatically factual?See post no. 128 above.

Cobalt

10th February 2009, 03:46 PM

US Persons Evil.
US Landowners more eviler.
People sneaking across the border illegally==> Angels.

Ding ding ding ding ding! We have the winner!

Remember, no matter what the situation, America = Wrong. :rolleyes:

"Sure, they broke the law, but he shouldn't do that to them!"

Lonewulf

10th February 2009, 03:52 PM

Ding ding ding ding ding! We have the winner!

Remember, no matter what the situation, America = Wrong. :rolleyes:

"Sure, they broke the law, but he shouldn't do that to them!"So, when someone breaks the law, one can do as he wills to them? That really seems to be what you're suggesting here.

One could say that it goes the other way around -- "No matter what the situation, illegal immigrant = wrong (and abusable)." I'll spare you the rolling of the eyes, as I'm pretty sure you know I'm doing it.

pipelineaudio

10th February 2009, 04:18 PM

One could say that it goes the other way around -- "No matter what the situation, illegal immigrant = wrong (and abusable)." I'll spare you the rolling of the eyes, as I'm pretty sure you know I'm doing it.

With about the same weight as being the rear car in a collision I'd say.

WildCat

10th February 2009, 04:23 PM

My thoughts as well. He seems to think because there wasn't an arrest or a gun fired there was no crime.
No, there was no evidence of a crime because there was no evidence of a crime.

How do you know it wasn't reported? The article clearly says their treatment per the files were reported to border control. Until we know what's in those files you should make such a claim.
No, they claimed they told border control. What has border control said about it?

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/26/01128.htm
You'd have a point if that was applicable, too bad for you it's not.

It is assault to threaten harm, but no harm has to take place.
Not in the context of making a citizen's arrest. Hell, there must be a dozen episodes of COPS where someone calls 911 after catching someone trying to break into their car or house, and when the cops show up the perp is being held at gunpoint. Guess who gets arrested, every single time? Hint: it's not the man with the gun. So your definition of assault is clearly a load of bovine excrement.

You still haven't proved it was a citizen's arrest. You bolded wikipedia about U.K. law and then claimed breach of peace includes all law. Your claim is not evidence.
The Wiki article said this phrase has been incorporated into US law as a largely superfluous phrase. Not my fault your reading comprehension skills are lacking.

You say its a citizen's arrest. Prove it. So far, Barnett nor his attorny have even made such a claim.
WTF? He held them until law enforcement picked them up. That's the definition of a citizen's arrest.

As explained to you earlier and mentioned in the article, the lawsuit includes the sheriff, who knew about Barnett's behavior, because the plaintiffs want to see the laws enforced.
The law was enforced. The trespassers were picked up, found to be illegal aliens, and deported rather than charged.

A crime can happen could have occurred without a person being charged.
No kidding. Problem for you is you haven't shown that any laws were broken. In fact, you have resorted to ignoring the very law you quoted regarding a citizen's arrest in Arizona.

Cobalt

10th February 2009, 04:31 PM

So, when someone breaks the law, one can do as he wills to them? That really seems to be what you're suggesting here.

One could say that it goes the other way around -- "No matter what the situation, illegal immigrant = wrong (and abusable)." I'll spare you the rolling of the eyes, as I'm pretty sure you know I'm doing it.

As much as you'd love for it to be true, it's been shown that holding them at gunpoint isn't abuse. Had he blown off a kneecap or two, then yes, it would be.

And as much as you'd love for him to be wrong, he has the right to protect his property.

And in fact, illegal immigration is wrong, since it's, oh, what's the word I'm looking for....ILLEGAL.

Lonewulf

10th February 2009, 04:44 PM

With about the same weight as being the rear car in a collision I'd say.

So, if I hit someone with my car by accident, the other person can legitimately get out of his car, drag me out of mine, and point a firearm at me, with no repercussions whatsoever?

I'm not sure where you live, but it certainly doesn't seem to be anywhere like where I do.

Lonewulf

10th February 2009, 04:45 PM

As much as you'd love for it to be true, it's been shown that holding them at gunpoint isn't abuse. Had he blown off a kneecap or two, then yes, it would be.

And as much as you'd love for him to be wrong, he has the right to protect his property.

And in fact, illegal immigration is wrong, since it's, oh, what's the word I'm looking for....ILLEGAL.

Either way, I'm letting the courts decide.

Cobalt

10th February 2009, 04:55 PM

Either way, I'm letting the courts decide.

Which is perfectly reasonable.

Zep

10th February 2009, 05:11 PM

I was being intentionally sarcastic. Hopefully you will read the other part of the text I embolded in the morning and see how ridiculous it sounds.I did; it still doesn't.

I suppose if a 64 year old guy balled up his fists to confront 16 trespassers on his land that would constitute the "minimum force necessary". It's been pointed out that this is repetitive property abuse and personal threats that these border ranchers are enduring. How was he to know whether or not one of the really bad guys was not among the group he detained?So call the cops or border guards or whatever. They are paid and trained and legally enabled to deal with "the really bad guys". And if they don't do their job, kick ass until they do. You really think it would be smart one guy taking on a bunch of possibly armed and dangerous coyotes? Who is he - John Wayne?

This is an old man who has seen his American dream go up in smoke while many lawbreakers in pursuit of the new "perverted American dream" go unpunished. If he does not take steps to protect his property, then he would be consenting and contributing to the pussification of the USA. This in no way is to be an excuse if he did indeed kick an unthreatening woman on the ground (I still would like to hear the whole story from the courtroom) but I wonder how many of us would be able to stay on the right side of the law at all times in his situation?Pussification... I'll leave it with the legal eagles here to say, but I rather doubt that "not wanting to the USA be pussified" is a valid legal defense just now.

Again, I'll repeat: he has my sympathy over the blatant abuse of his property by illegals. But his response was just not legal. Two wrongs, etc.

If the illegals are wearing a rut through his place they use it so much, get the border guards to stake out his fence for a period and scoop them up in bulk. Go to the state and federal authorities and raise hell to get improvements. Tread on toes, yell over desks, kick ass. Now would be a good time. There's upheaval in politics and an economic downturn just now, so everyone in public service is on their toes and all are watching their backs. Threat of job-loss seems to do wonders for getting such things done... ;)

Polaris

10th February 2009, 05:15 PM

MALDEF (mexican american legal defense and education fund) is a radical pro-unfettered immigration group that has an agenda to protect illegal aliens in every situation.

Do you think they'd protect a few million gringos who crossed the border without visas or permission and refused to leave? Just askin'.

rwguinn

10th February 2009, 05:27 PM

I did; it still doesn't.

So call the cops or border guards or whatever. They are paid and trained and legally enabled to deal with "the really bad guys". And if they don't do their job, kick ass until they do. You really think it would be smart one guy taking on a bunch of possibly armed and dangerous coyotes? Who is he - John Wayne?

Pussification... I'll leave it with the legal eagles here to say, but I rather doubt that "not wanting to the USA be pussified" is a valid legal defense just now.

Again, I'll repeat: he has my sympathy over the blatant abuse of his property by illegals. But his response was just not legal. Two wrongs, etc.

If the illegals are wearing a rut through his place they use it so much, get the border guards to stake out his fence for a period and scoop them up in bulk. Go to the state and federal authorities and raise hell to get improvements. Tread on toes, yell over desks, kick ass. Now would be a good time. There's upheaval in politics and an economic downturn just now, so everyone in public service is on their toes and all are watching their backs. Threat of job-loss seems to do wonders for getting such things done... ;)
SHOW
ME
WHERE
HE
COMMITTED
A
CRIME
Or crawl back under your rock, and dwell in your ideal society till the rest of us are gone.
Because, that is what ILLEGAL means. Breaking the law.
He was SUED--for $$$$$--in CIVIL *********** COURT, and the standard of evidence is how sympathetic the jurors are, not what the law is.

pipelineaudio

10th February 2009, 05:44 PM

So, if I hit someone with my car by accident, the other person can legitimately get out of his car, drag me out of mine, and point a firearm at me, with no repercussions whatsoever?

I'm not sure where you live, but it certainly doesn't seem to be anywhere like where I do.

No, being the car in the rear, the law assumes you are guilty. By the same token, committing the crime of violation of sovereign national borders, in addition to committing the crime of trespassing in force of numbers onto private property might be grounds to assume you are a criminal. Oh wait, committing crimes makes you a criminal, wait what was the point?

pipelineaudio

10th February 2009, 05:47 PM

You really think it would be smart one guy taking on a bunch of possibly armed and dangerous coyotes? Who is he - John Wayne?

No, John Wayne is dead. This guy is still alive and staying on his property. Chances are he has some experience in this area.

Lonewulf

10th February 2009, 05:48 PM

No, being the car in the rear, the law assumes you are guilty. By the same token, committing the crime of violation of sovereign national borders, in addition to committing the crime of trespassing in force of numbers onto private property might be grounds to assume you are a criminal. Oh wait, committing crimes makes you a criminal, wait what was the point?

I think the point, yours notably, was along the same lines of reasoning that defends police brutality.

pipelineaudio

10th February 2009, 05:50 PM

I think the point, yours notably, was along the same lines of reasoning that defends police brutality.

Mixed metaphors time. You are grasping at strawmen

Lonewulf

10th February 2009, 05:57 PM

Mixed metaphors time. You are grasping at strawmen

Or perhaps I simply am capable of remembering what the original claims of the defendants were in this case, and you were led astray by this assumption that I was saying that illegal immigration was not a crime or something. In fact, I don't know what your point is anymore.

Zep

10th February 2009, 05:58 PM

SHOW
ME
WHERE
HE
COMMITTED
A
CRIME
Or crawl back under your rock, and dwell in your ideal society till the rest of us are gone.
Because, that is what ILLEGAL means. Breaking the law.
He was SUED--for $$$$$--in CIVIL *********** COURT, and the standard of evidence is how sympathetic the jurors are, not what the law is.You don't think common assault is illegal? OK then... :boggled:

If the civil suit succeeds, it creates a precedent. He may be then taken to criminal charges for the assault, having been already convicted for the same incident and others of similar actions. See, brandishing loaded guns at people and kicking them doesn't actually work out too well, except in the movies.

Lonewulf

10th February 2009, 05:59 PM

Zep

10th February 2009, 06:00 PM

No, John Wayne is dead. This guy is still alive and staying on his property. Chances are he has some experience in this area.Yeah, guess you're right. You read that he has already been arraigned on similar charges previously?

And John Wayne is dead, eh? Someone should tell this guy...

rwguinn

10th February 2009, 06:03 PM

You don't think common assault is illegal? OK then... :boggled:

If the civil suit succeeds, it creates a precedent. He may be then taken to criminal charges for the assault, having been already convicted for the same incident and others of similar actions. See, brandishing loaded guns at people and kicking them doesn't actually work out too well, except in the movies.

Ok, that is a stupid idea....
Civil courts dO NOT set precedent for criminal courts...
ANd show me a law he broke.
I'm done. The stupid burns, bad...

Zep

10th February 2009, 06:04 PM

No, being the car in the rear [that hit someone else], the law assumes you are guilty.So that means they are well within their rights to drag you out of your car, brandish a loaded weapon at you, and kick you? Your part of the world sounds a bit...primitive and uncivilised, if you ask me. Unlike the USA, which is generally the opposite.

Zep

10th February 2009, 06:09 PM

Ok, that is a stupid idea....
Civil courts dO NOT set precedent for criminal courts...
ANd show me a law he broke.
I'm done. The stupid burns, bad...Why is it stupid? Because you disagree with it?

Actually, court convictions do set precedents, and can be called as evidence. He may be arrested on criminal charges as well as civil charges. Who knows.

He committed common assault. Unless you call kicking people "slander" or "extortion" or "an affront to common decency".

Have a lie down and come back when you are rested. ;)

pipelineaudio

10th February 2009, 06:12 PM

So that means they are well within their rights to drag you out of your car, brandish a loaded weapon at you, and kick you? Your part of the world sounds a bit...primitive and uncivilised, if you ask me. Unlike the USA, which is generally the opposite.

Where did I say anything like that?

Questioninggeller

10th February 2009, 06:27 PM

No, there was no evidence of a crime because there was no evidence of a crime.

So I guess you know more about the case than the judge who found:

...
In March 2008, U.S. District Judge John Roll rejected Barnett's efforts to have the charges thrown out. Roll ruled that there was sufficient evidence of a conspiracy — that the conspiracy denied the plaintiffs their right to interstate travel and the actions of the Barnetts were motivated by race — to allow the matter to be presented to a jury.
...

http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/278558

This is just ridiculous. If you want to keep ignoring facts, expect your posts to be ignored.
You have not shown 1) It was a citizen's arrest 2) citizen's arrest applies here and 3) discussed the issue of assaulting a women on the ground being legal. However, you keep claiming this was a citizen's arrest. Give proof that is what he did.

I understand that there are racists in every group who want to do all sorts of things for their beliefs.

Miss the point much?

You read that he has already been arraigned on similar charges previously?

And a third case was dropped when the planitiff in Mexico decided not to pursue it.

Questioninggeller

10th February 2009, 06:35 PM

Don't be ridiculous, of course you do.

If the laws against entering the U.S. illegally were effectively enforced, they would be turned back the moment they set foot in the U.S.

Go head, tell me they want that law enforced.

If border enforcement occurred then the woman suing would have never been assaulted on the ground. So yes, I do think they want ENFORCEMENT TO OCCUR BY THE PROPER AUTHORITIES to prevent them being abused/threatened.

quixotecoyote

10th February 2009, 06:38 PM

If border enforcement occurred then the woman suing would have never been assaulted on the ground. So yes, I do think they want ENFORCEMENT TO OCCUR MY THE PROPER AUTHORITIES to prevent them being abused/threatened.

FORUM PSA:

When it gets to the point that in order to defend your argument, you claim that illegal immigrants want to have immigration laws enforced, ask yourself, is it really worth it?

Roboramma

10th February 2009, 06:41 PM

Go head, tell me they want that law enforced.
What does that have to do with anything?

WildCat

10th February 2009, 06:50 PM

Yeah, guess you're right. You read that he has already been arraigned on similar charges previously?

And John Wayne is dead, eh? Someone should tell this guy...
Zep, I don't know how it works down under but in these parts you don't get arraigned in civil court, nor do you get charged in a civil court. In fact, you don't even have to have evidence to file a lawsuit. All you need is is to go to the court and pay the filing fee.

Anyone can sue anyone else for pretty much anything.

I could go downtown tomorrow and file a lawsuit against you, and claim you flew to Chicago and kicked my cat and defecated on my front lawn before spray painting "Zep Rules" on my garage door.

None of this would set a precedent for a criminal case against you, nor would the clerk refuse to file my lawsuit despite the fact that the claims made in it were silly, false, wrong, ridiculous, and lacking in any sort of evidence.

Remember Judge Pearson and the $54 million lawsuit over the lost pants? It took several court hearings and over a year before it was resolved, and that is about as frivolous and silly as a lawsuit can get.

Note the police did not arrest the dry cleaner for stealing Pearson's property based on the lawsuit.

WildCat

10th February 2009, 06:58 PM

So I guess you know more about the case than the judge who found:

http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/278558
That is a completely different case!

This case has yet to be decided.

This is just ridiculous. If you want to keep ignoring facts, expect your posts to be ignored.
You have not shown 1) It was a citizen's arrest 2) citizen's arrest applies here and
So you're claiming he didn't detain them until the police arrived?

3) discussed the issue of assaulting a women on the ground being legal.
I have said I have seen no evidence he kicked a woman, all we have is a claim that he did.

Kevin_Lowe

10th February 2009, 07:06 PM

FORUM PSA:

When it gets to the point that in order to defend your argument, you claim that illegal immigrants want to have immigration laws enforced, ask yourself, is it really worth it?

You might want to back up a bit, actually read what was written, and post something different.

You wouldn't want to attack a straw man, after all.

quixotecoyote

10th February 2009, 07:11 PM

You might want to back up a bit, actually read what was written, and post something different.

You wouldn't want to attack a straw man, after all.

Oh I'm quite aware he tried to twist the question into wanting to be apprehended by police instead of landowners. Doesn't change anything.

BPSCG

10th February 2009, 07:18 PM

Why is it stupid? Because you disagree with it?

Actually, court convictions do set precedents, and can be called as evidence. He may be arrested on criminal charges as well as civil charges. Who knows.Zep, it sounds like you're mixing things up here. A civil suit in the US does not result in a conviction. It results in a judgment either for the plaintiff or the defendant. And the standards for the judgment are much lower in a civil case than in a criminal one. In a criminal one, the defendant is found guilty only if the evidence is convincing beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil case, the judgment is for the plaintiff if he simply proves his case by a preponderance of the evidence, i.e., tips the scales slightly in his favor.

People lose civil cases all the time without being convicted in the corresponding criminal case. Ever hear of O.J. Simpson?

BPSCG

10th February 2009, 07:28 PM

If the laws against entering the U.S. illegally were effectively enforced, they would be turned back the moment they set foot in the U.S.

Go head, tell me they want that law enforced.
If border enforcement occurred then the woman suing would have never been assaulted on the ground. So yes, I do think they want ENFORCEMENT TO OCCUR BY THE PROPER AUTHORITIES to prevent them being abused/threatened.Okay, you just drove off the cliff here.

I wrote, "Go head, tell me they want that law" (i.e., the law that says you can't enter the US illegally) "enforced."

And you reply, yes, they do want the authorities to prevent them being abused.

If you intended that to be a serious reply, then you have forfeited any right to be taken seriously here. Please tell me you misread/misunderstood my question, because otherwise, your presence in this thread is a bad joke.

Soapy Sam

11th February 2009, 05:40 AM

Given that illegal immigrants do have a tendency to be foreigners, it's hard to see how one might kick an illegal immigrant without doing so on grounds of nationality.

WildCat

11th February 2009, 06:16 AM

BTW:

13-407. Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises

A. A person or his agent in lawful possession or control of premises is justified in threatening to use deadly physical force or in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent that a reasonable person would believe it immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon the premises.

B. A person may use deadly physical force under subsection A only in the defense of himself or third persons as described in sections 13-405 and 13-406.

C. In this section, "premises" means any real property and any structure, movable or immovable, permanent or temporary, adapted for both human residence and lodging whether occupied or not.
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/00407.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS

pipelineaudio

11th February 2009, 09:00 AM

Given that illegal immigrants do have a tendency to be foreigners, it's hard to see how one might kick an illegal immigrant without doing so on grounds of nationality.

Its hard to see how opening the refrigerator could be done without grounds of oragami

wait...what???

Questioninggeller

11th February 2009, 03:29 PM

That is a completely different case!

No, you are wrong. READ THE LINK---It's the same link I've posted several times. The judge weighed if there was enough evidence for the TRIAL and concluded there was. This lawsuit has been on-going for several years.

More of the article:

Civil-rights trial starts for migrant-detaining rancher
Lawsuit alleges he held 16 crossers captive at gunpoint
By Brady McCombs
Arizona Daily Star
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 02.03.2009

Trial in a civil rights lawsuit against Cochise County rancher Roger Barnett began Monday in federal court in Tucson.

The latest suit against the controversial rancher stems from a 2004 incident in a wash near Douglas when Barnett approached a group of illegal immigrants while he was carrying a gun and accompanied by a large dog.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs — five women and 11 men who were trying to cross 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, a press release from the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund said.

The group says Barnett also kicked one of the members of the group. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund is representing the 16 people.

The federal lawsuit charges Barnett, his wife, Barbara Barnett, and his brother, Donald Barnett, with conspiring to violate the plaintiffs' civil rights, the release said.

In March 2008, U.S. District Judge John Roll rejected Barnett's efforts to have the charges thrown out. Roll ruled that there was sufficient evidence of a conspiracy — that the conspiracy denied the plaintiffs their right to interstate travel and the actions of the Barnetts were motivated by race — to allow the matter to be presented to a jury.
...
The trial is scheduled to go through Feb. 13, the press release from the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund said.

Source (http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/278558)

This case has yet to be decided.

Agreed. But you said there was no evidence, the judge decided there was.

I have said I have seen no evidence he kicked a woman, all we have is a claim that he did.

It has not been denied by the defendant. But I guess we'll how it unfolds in court. So you'll agree he comitted a crime if this is true.

Questioninggeller

11th February 2009, 03:36 PM

Okay, you just drove off the cliff here.

I wrote, "Go head, tell me they want that law" (i.e., the law that says you can't enter the US illegally) "enforced."

And you reply, yes, they do want the authorities to prevent them being abused.

Not quite.

People who break the law running stop signs, still want the law enforced despite the fact they were caught. (Maybe you disagree?) That is, while in their particular case they were caught breaking the law, the law still needs to be there and enforced, for a greater good.

Your question seems to shift any discussion whether the person defendant actually committed a crime. As someone asked:

What does that have to do with anything?

Questioninggeller

11th February 2009, 03:38 PM

BTW:

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/00407.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS

Um, are you alleging these people entered a "human residence" or "lodging," which is what you cited is discussing (per "C.")?

WildCat

11th February 2009, 03:39 PM

No, you are wrong. READ THE LINK---It's the same link I've posted several times. The judge weighed if there was enough evidence for the TRIAL and concluded there was. This lawsuit has been on-going for several years.

More of the article:

Source (http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/278558)

Barnett either has a crap lawyer, or an incompetent judge. Because if that is held to be true then no illegal alien could be detained ever, not even by actual law enforcement officers. They'd have more rights than actual American citizens, who can certainly be detained for trespassing.

It has not been denied by the defendant. But I guess we'll how it unfolds in court. So you'll agree he comitted a crime if this is true.
I'll agree he committed a crime if he's ever actually tried and convicted in a criminal court. Barnett did not deny it because he doesn't even remember that particular incident, one of hundreds of similar incidents he was involved in.

Questioninggeller

11th February 2009, 03:49 PM

Barnett either has a crap lawyer, or an incompetent judge. Because if that is held to be true then no illegal alien could be detained ever, not even by actual law enforcement officers. They'd have more rights than actual American citizens, who can certainly be detained for trespassing.

So you didn't read the NY Times article I posted earlier (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4423248&postcount=117) talking about other people who were successfully sued for detaining illegals in Texas?

So I guess you'll call that judge "incompetent" as well.

As I wrote before:
So I guess you know more about the case than the judge ...

This is just ridiculous. If you want to keep ignoring facts, expect your posts to be ignored.
You have not shown 1) It was a citizen's arrest 2) citizen's arrest applies here and 3) discussed the issue of assaulting a women on the ground being legal. However, you keep claiming this was a citizen's arrest. Give proof that is what he did.

WildCat

11th February 2009, 04:01 PM

So you didn't read the NY Times article I posted earlier (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4423248&postcount=117) talking about other people who were successfully sued for detaining illegals in Texas?
No details at all were mentioned in that article, so there is no way to tell if the circumstances are comparable.

Do you think it's OK to detain people for trespassing on your land, unless they happen to be illegal aliens in which case they can't be held for law enforcement officers?

drkitten

11th February 2009, 04:03 PM

They'd have more rights than actual American citizens, who can certainly be detained for trespassing.

Detained, yes.

Assaulted, no.

BPSCG

11th February 2009, 04:08 PM

Not quite.

People who break the law running a stop sign, still want the law enforced despite the fact they were caught. That is, while in their particular case they were caught breaking the law, the law still needs to be there and enforced, for a greater good.

Your question seems to shift any discussion whether the person defendant actually committed a crime. As someone asked:Okay, I'll ask you the question one more time before I write you off as hopeless:

Do the illegals who are suing want the laws against entering the U.S. illegally to be effectively enforced?

It's a simple question. Try not to blow it.

If the first word in your answer isn't "Yes" or "No," then I'll have nothing more to discuss with you.

Questioninggeller

11th February 2009, 04:14 PM

Okay, I'll ask you the question one more time before I write you off as hopeless:

Do the illegals who are suing want the laws against entering the U.S. illegally to be effectively enforced?

Your original question (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4423267&postcount=120) was an attempt to shift the focus away from the discussion on assault. Thus, I want to ask you:

Do citizens who detain Mexicans want laws against assault to be enforced?

It's a simple question. Try not to blow it.

If the first word in your answer isn't "Yes" or "No," then I'll have nothing more to discuss with you.

Like I care.

WildCat

11th February 2009, 04:17 PM

Detained, yes.

Assaulted, no.
Never said they could be assaulted.

pipelineaudio

11th February 2009, 04:20 PM

It has to be understood that here in this state there are also ongoing lawsuits about giving illegal aliens resident status when it comes to college tuition and lawsuits to stop the enforcement of laws punishing knowing employers of illegals, even as far as to stop the prosecution of employers who provide their illegal employees with stolen documents

Gwtting a lawsuit going is not the hardest thing in the world, and winning one is a LOT easier than a successful prosecution, which is why these groups go around criminal law and try and do it by lawsuits or mob rule referendums

quixotecoyote

11th February 2009, 04:27 PM

Your original question (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4423267&postcount=120) was an attempt to shift the focus away from the discussion on assault.

There is no discussion on assault. No one is saying its ok to assault anyone else. No one has evidence beyond an unsubstantiated allegation that any assault took place. Given those two facts, any attempt to shift the focus of the discussion to assault is a red herring to draw attention away from indefensible positions, such as claiming that illegal immigrants want laws against illegal immigration to be enforced.

Questioninggeller

11th February 2009, 04:31 PM

No details at all were mentioned in that article, so there is no way to tell if the circumstances are comparable.

Try google. It seems similiar. Two illegals caught on someone's property who assaulted an illegal:

2 Illegal Immigrants Win Arizona Ranch in Court
NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/19/national/19ranch.html)
By ANDREW POLLACK
Published: August 19, 2005
Correction Appended

DOUGLAS, Ariz., Aug. 18 - Spent shells litter the ground at what is left of the firing range, and camouflage outfits still hang in a storeroom. Just a few months ago, this ranch was known as Camp Thunderbird, the headquarters of a paramilitary group that promised to use force to keep illegal immigrants from sneaking across the border with Mexico.

Now, in a turnabout, the 70-acre property about two miles from the border is being given to two immigrants whom the group caught trying to enter the United States illegally.

The land transfer is being made to satisfy judgments in a lawsuit in which the immigrants had said that Casey Nethercott, the owner of the ranch and a former leader of the vigilante group Ranch Rescue, had harmed them.
...
Bill Dore, a Douglas resident briefly affiliated with Ranch Rescue who is still active in the border-patrolling Minuteman Project, called the land transfer "ridiculous."
...
Ms. Bruner said that Mr. Mancía and Ms. Leiva, who are from El Salvador but are not related, would not live at the ranch and would probably sell it. Mr. Nethercott bought the ranch in 2003 for $120,000.
...
Mr. Mancía and Ms. Leiva were caught on a ranch in Hebbronville, Tex., in March 2003 by Mr. Nethercott and other members of Ranch Rescue. The two immigrants later accused Mr. Nethercott of threatening them and of hitting Mr. Mancía with a pistol, charges that Mr. Nethercott denied. The immigrants also said the group gave them cookies, water and a blanket and let them go after an hour or so.
...

NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/19/national/19ranch.html)

Do you think the judge who let the trial occur was "incompetent" too?

quixotecoyote

11th February 2009, 04:35 PM

This is off topic, bur can someone explain to me how the courts can award property to someone who doesn't have the right to enter that property?

I suppose I can see it because foreign ownership of land is possible, but it strikes me as truly bizarre that you can, as an illegal immigrant, walk into a court of law and not only have the laws against your presence be ignored, but be awarded land in a country you aren't supposed to be in.

Questioninggeller

11th February 2009, 04:40 PM

There is no discussion on assault. No one is saying its ok to assault anyone else.

Wrong.

1) BPSCG's original post starter (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4420363&postcount=1) mentioned nothing about one being abused. That is why I cited it from a more unbias news source, which discussed it was part of the lawsuit! Clearly, the assault was not his concern or Barnett's history and the assault would have been mentioned.

The fact that ANY discussion on this was omitted by BPSCG and his source is interesting.

2) The OP and posts like the one below show a narrow-mindedness putting importance on the "illegal" aspect over the human aspect:

What "rights" do illegal immigrants have, other than a free peanut butter sandwich on their free trip back to the border they crossed illegally?

WildCat

11th February 2009, 04:40 PM

Try google. It seems similiar. Two illegals caught on someone's property who assaulted an illegal:

NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/19/national/19ranch.html)

Do you think the judge who let the trial occur was "incompetent" too?
As much as you keep trying to change the subject, this case isn't about assault.

The judge's ruling was that there was evidence of a conspiracy to deny them their right of interstate travel based on race, which seems ridiculous to me.

Questioninggeller

11th February 2009, 04:44 PM

As much as you keep trying to change the subject, this case isn't about assault.

The judge's ruling was that there was evidence of a conspiracy to deny them their right of interstate travel based on race, which seems ridiculous to me.

I'm trying to change the subject? So I'll relink to my above question (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4427604&postcount=172).

Cobalt

11th February 2009, 04:55 PM

Your original question (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4423267&postcount=120) was an attempt to shift the focus away from the discussion on assault. Thus, I want to ask you:

Do citizens who detain Mexicans want laws against assault to be enforced?

Like I care.
Clearly you don't care about the facts, since it's been stated over and over again that the claim of assault came afterward.

It isn't a trial about an assault charge.

quixotecoyote

11th February 2009, 04:58 PM

Yeah, proprety laws are pretty inadequate, you're right there. Never had to deal with illegal immigrants where I lived, but we had problems with ATV and snowmobile riders who loved to run through backyards messing up the place.

After they broke the fences and cut a trail, and after the cops wouldn't help, Grandpa used to go up on the hill and peg 'em with an air rifle. :D Maybe it convinced a few of them to leave. ********** up bit is that if he'd ever got caught, he'd have been in trouble.

In this case, I'm not sure he's using that defense. I do wonder why they worded the statue that way. "any real property" makes it ambiguous and/or redundant.

pipelineaudio

11th February 2009, 05:05 PM

This is off topic, but can someone explain to me how the courts can award property to someone who doesn't have the right to enter that property?

Crazy huh?

As stated before, if you can't or wont police your land, in addition to all the other regulations and responsibilites you have as a rancher, the government will send men with guns to take it away from you

Squatting laws are also still in effect, but there are far more insidious ones.

If a free ranger cuts your fence and his cattle graze upon your land without you filing a grievance about it, the free ranger can then take your land!

You can think of free range cows as roving claim stakes and fence cutting illegals as unintentional ( though not always!) land brokers http://www.cowcrap.org/

WildCat

11th February 2009, 05:46 PM

Um, are you alleging these people entered a "human residence" or "lodging," which is what you cited is discussing (per "C.")?
Nothing in the statute requires that to be the case.

WildCat

11th February 2009, 05:49 PM

In this case, I'm not sure he's using that defense. I do wonder why they worded the statue that way. "any real property" makes it ambiguous and/or redundant.
I did take a real estate class in college. The term "real property" simply refers to land and any improvements made to it. Your house and yard are "real property", your car is not.

WildCat

11th February 2009, 05:54 PM

This is off topic, bur can someone explain to me how the courts can award property to someone who doesn't have the right to enter that property?
If you assault someone you can be held liable for damages. And you can own property without ever setting foot on it. Also note you can own a car even if you can't legally drive.

quixotecoyote

11th February 2009, 06:05 PM

I did take a real estate class in college. The term "real property" simply refers to land and any improvements made to it. Your house and yard are "real property", your car is not.

Yeah, I looked up the term, but the way the statute is written it's unclear whether people are allowed to defend premises that are real property and also defend premises that are residential structures or that people are only allowed to defend premises that must be both real property and a residential structure.

quixotecoyote

11th February 2009, 06:06 PM

If you assault someone you can be held liable for damages. And you can own property without ever setting foot on it. Also note you can own a car even if you can't legally drive.

You're right, I noted that in the second half of the post.

What really boggles me is that you can walk into a courthouse, say "Hi there, I'm an illegal alien" and the response isn't a variant of "Well, enjoy your court date, this nice officer will escort you to the border following the hearing."

drkitten

11th February 2009, 06:12 PM

Yeah, I looked up the term, but the way the statute is written it's unclear whether people are allowed to defend premises that are real property and also defend premises that are residential structures or that people are only allowed to defend premises that must be both real property and a residential structure.

So look to the legislative history and the case law.

They're very clear that it must be both real property and a residential structure.

I believe there are people on death row in AZ right now who followed WildCat's line of reasoning. Unfortunately, neither the DA nor the judge did.

BPSCG

11th February 2009, 06:12 PM

Your original question (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4423267&postcount=120) was an attempt to shift the focus away from the discussion on assault. Thus, I want to ask you:

Do citizens who detain Mexicans want laws against assault to be enforced?

It's a simple question. Try not to blow it.

Like I care.Your surrender of your ridiculous assertion that "the plaintiffs want to see the laws enforced" is hereby accepted.

You are now free to leave.

WildCat

11th February 2009, 06:16 PM

Yeah, I looked up the term, but the way the statute is written it's unclear whether people are allowed to defend premises that are real property and also defend premises that are residential structures or that people are only allowed to defend premises that must be both real property and a residential structure.
It's quite clear that real property is included, the second part "any structure, movable or immovable, permanent or temporary, adapted for both human residence and lodging whether occupied or not" appears to be aimed at trailers and motor homes.

WildCat

11th February 2009, 06:18 PM

They're very clear that it must be both real property and a residential structure.
It's very clear you didn't comprehend the statute.

quixotecoyote

11th February 2009, 06:21 PM

So look to the legislative history and the case law.

They're very clear that it must be both real property and a residential structure.

I believe there are people on death row in AZ right now who followed WildCat's line of reasoning. Unfortunately, neither the DA nor the judge did.

My google-fu is weak. Do you have any links?

WildCat

11th February 2009, 06:23 PM

My google-fu is weak. Do you have any links?
No, she doesn't. She's playing the "because I said so" game again.

Roboramma

11th February 2009, 06:27 PM

Okay, I'll ask you the question one more time before I write you off as hopeless:

Do the illegals who are suing want the laws against entering the U.S. illegally to be effectively enforced?

It's a simple question. Try not to blow it.

If the first word in your answer isn't "Yes" or "No," then I'll have nothing more to discuss with you.

Cool, since you're asking questions that are completely irrellevant to the issue under discussion, I don't see why he would want to continue the discussion with you.

Unless you think that someone who doesn't like a particular law is somehow free game and has no right to protection under the law. If someone j-walks, for instance, I should be able to hit them with my car because, after all, they clearly don't like the law.
I doubt you feel that way, however, which is why I asked, "what does that have to do with anything?"

GreNME

11th February 2009, 06:30 PM

First, I did not claim the Minutemen Project was racist.

Then allow me to say it: they are a group that was started by an anti-hispanic racist and funded by an ultra-conservative organization taking advantage of 1) extreme interpretations of conservatives' views (see BPSCG's comments about immigrants and Social Security hoaxes) and 2) location, location, location-- taking a hot-button issue in an area and letting a prejudiced interpretation dictate the activism. These people are not the law, they are not enforcing the law with any authority, and they have a higher chance of interfering with the law or poisoning a case if they mosey on over to a group and pull their cowboy BS and the people crossing illegally mistake them for ICE.

They're worse than mall cops.

-----

Don't be ridiculous, of course you do. If the laws against entering the U.S. illegally were effectively enforced, they would be turned back the moment they set foot in the U.S.

Go head, tell me they want that law enforced.

Okay, I'll ask you the question one more time before I write you off as hopeless:

Do the illegals who are suing want the laws against entering the U.S. illegally to be effectively enforced?

It's a simple question. Try not to blow it.

If the first word in your answer isn't "Yes" or "No," then I'll have nothing more to discuss with you.

If they have done any homework before crossing, then I would easily venture to say "yes." At least if the laws are enforced they stand a chance of fighting immediate deportation and avoiding any racist cowboy treatment from vigilantes. If they wanted to be subject to "extra-legal" treatment they'd have just stayed in Mexico, where it's far more common.

-----

As for the OP and the topic that began this thread, I hope the rancher and his associates lose, as well as having the plaintiffs deported. Call me crazy, but I'd rather have the actual laws enforced and justice served on both sides than just picking one side and running with it blindly. What the plaintiffs did was against the law and they deserve to face those consequences. What the defendants did was also against the law and they should equally face the consequences.

Oh, but I do so love the one or two posts I've seen telling me I don't know what the hell I'm talking about because I'm a city-slicker. Do provide me with another quaint treatise on why this country's rural backwaters get some kind of "get out of consequences free" card again. I do so very much love the reminders that not confirm that there are parts of this country that very much resemble third world nations.

quixotecoyote

11th February 2009, 06:33 PM

As for the OP and the topic that began this thread, I hope the rancher and his associates lose, as well as having the plaintiffs deported. Call me crazy, but I'd rather have the actual laws enforced and justice served on both sides than just picking one side and running with it blindly. What the plaintiffs did was against the law and they deserve to face those consequences. What the defendants did was also against the law and they should equally face the consequences.

I'll one-up you and say that I hope the outcome of the suit is based on what facts and evidence show most likely happened rather than believing the claims of the plaintiff or defendant at face value. There doesn't seem to be a question about the legal status of the plaintiffs, so after the legal proceedings end, they should get the boot regardless of the outcome.

GreNME

11th February 2009, 06:35 PM

I'll one-up you and say that I hope the outcome of the suit is based on what facts and evidence show most likely happened rather than believing the claims of the plaintiff or defendant at face value. There doesn't seem to be a question about the legal status of the plaintiffs, so after the legal proceedings end, they should get the boot regardless of the outcome.

Indeed, and very good point.

WildCat

11th February 2009, 06:38 PM

What the plaintiffs did was against the law
Everyone on your side keeps saying that, but no one has been able to cite the law that was broken.

Maybe you'll be the first one?

This is not about the alleged kick btw. We all agree that was wrong if it happened.

pipelineaudio

11th February 2009, 06:38 PM

Then allow me to say it: they are a group that was started by an anti-hispanic racist and funded by an ultra-conservative organization taking advantage of 1) extreme interpretations of conservatives' views (see BPSCG's comments about immigrants and Social Security hoaxes)

Come on down and I'll introduce you to the Minutemen who will be amused to hear that they are anti-hispanic conservatives (well some are political conservatives, but most that I know are liberal environmental activists, especially since Organ Pipe national monument got wrecked), some of them are white, but as most of the people in the area are at least partly hispanic, the group represents that about as well as the local population.

and 2) location, location, location-- taking a hot-button issue in an area and letting a prejudiced interpretation dictate the activism.

Oh the irony

GreNME

11th February 2009, 06:45 PM

Everyone on your side keeps saying that, but no one has been able to cite the law that was broken.

Maybe you'll be the first one?

This is not about the alleged kick btw. We all agree that was wrong if it happened.

Read more than just what you quoted, including my reply to quixotecoyote.

Also, I submit it is about the alleged kick, regardless of wanting to get all bent out of shape about illegal immigration. There are procedures and laws to protect everyone's rights, not just those who feel they are being wronged and want to do something about it. If the law existed to protect only those who felt inclined to do something about it, then the myth of the "wild wild west" would be standard procedure in law enforcement.

GreNME

11th February 2009, 06:51 PM

Come on down and I'll introduce you to the Minutemen who will be amused to hear that they are anti-hispanic conservatives (well some are political conservatives, but most that I know are liberal environmental activists, especially since Organ Pipe national monument got wrecked), some of them are white, but as most of the people in the area are at least partly hispanic, the group represents that about as well as the local population.

Ahh, the good-old variation on the "some of my best friends are black" motif. Splendid. If I pointed out that almost every Minuteman I've met here in Texas is practically a haircut shy of being a skinhead, does my anecdote cancel yours out?

Oh the irony

The only irony is in you thinking I don't know anything about that area because I don't live there. I will admit that I prefer New Mexico to Arizona by a longshot, though. ;)

The irony is where rants like yours about dem darn city-slickers says more about your lack of perspective than it does that of others.

pipelineaudio

11th February 2009, 07:48 PM

the irony was this

taking a hot-button issue in an area and letting a prejudiced interpretation dictate the activism.

As it is the basis for most of the mob rule malarchy that we have to deal with. One especially sore point is when media uses the term "immigration" to mean both legal immigration and criminal invasion. The legal immigrants are up in arms being thrown into the same category as the criminals, while the prejudiced rallyers keep saying "immigration"

WildCat

11th February 2009, 08:03 PM

GreNME

11th February 2009, 08:17 PM

criminal invasion

With straw men like that I can see this conversation is going nowhere.

Believe it or not, the most dangerous threats stemming from illegal crossings are not coming from the Mexican border. The drugs are bad and the jobs issue definitely needs to be addressed, but in case you misremembered all 19 attackers on 9/11 came into the country in ways other than the Mexican border. Gun running? Trust me, that ain't coming from illegals crossing over Arizona farmland. Money laundering? Yeah, (many of) those are off-shore all right, but not in Mexico. Even the drugs and the majority of slave labor that may use Mexico as a vector aren't using ways that the vigilantes in pickups on the AZ border are going to catch or even make any useful contribution to.

Comparing illegal border crossers to those criminals-- which is exactly what groups like the Minutemen and their associated orgs do in their propaganda-- is what has been and continues to be objectionable.

But go ahead: keep calling them "invaders" and assuming that I'm the one with lack of perspective here. This is the last time I'll bother dignifying it with a response, though.

GreNME

11th February 2009, 08:23 PM

Hey, I actually found a legal document about this case: http://www.irli.org/Barnett_UndispFacts.pdf

It's interesting to not Barnett's version of the "kick": He says she appeared to be asleep or "comatose", and he tapped her foot with his toe toe until she awoke. He also denies threatening or insulting anyone.

There's also some depositions of the plaintiffs there.

I am unable to find the plaintiff's suit online. Maybe a lawyer can dig it up? It's case No. 05-CV-00157-JMR in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.

His motion for summary judgement (which was rejected) is here: http://www.irli.org/Barnett_SummaryJudgmt.pdf (http://www.irli.org/Barnett_SummaryJudgmt.pdf)

The "legal document" you found is Barnett's argument that he's innocent. Not exactly any more reliable than the accusations from the other side.

And the IRLI? I doubt they're going to provide objective data:The Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) is America's only public interest law organization working exclusively to protect the legal rights, privileges, and property of U.S. citizens and their communities from injuries and damages caused by unlawful immigration.

Riiiight, they're the only one working to protect US citizens on this matter. :rolleyes:

pipelineaudio

11th February 2009, 08:30 PM

Wow I didn't know that calling the criminal act of violating the border of a sovereign nation with the intent to commit crime "criminal invasion" was a strawman

With biases like yours I can see this conversation going nowhere.

WildCat

11th February 2009, 08:35 PM

The "legal document" you found is Barnett's argument that he's innocent. Not exactly any more reliable than the accusations from the other side.
Why is "legal document" in scare quotes? It is an actual legal document filed in a court of law. And I never said it was anything but depositions from his side.

And the IRLI? I doubt they're going to provide objective data:

Riiiight, they're the only one working to protect US citizens on this matter. :rolleyes:
Isw it your claim that those weren't legal documents filed in court?

What does it matter who hosts the docs?

tyr_13

11th February 2009, 08:47 PM

But go ahead: keep calling them "invaders" and assuming that I'm the one with lack of perspective here. This is the last time I'll bother dignifying it with a response, though.

I have to admit that I haven't been keeping up with this thread, mostly because I knew pretty much where it was heading. However, GreNME, while you don't have to agree with everything the 'other side' believes, rock knows I don't, I seriously don't see how you can claim that your perspective isn't lacking an aspect that those 'country folk' have. Sure, they might be too close to the issue, but they are also physically close to the issue.

It gets me angry enough when people throw trash (sometimes entire trash bags) out their cars onto my land. It downright pisses me off when those ATV morons come onto my property, run over my young trees, and leave ruts all over the place. Now, to imagine that people walking through, 'invaders' or just city 'environmentalists' my land, killing my animals, damaging my property, stealing from me, and leaving trash everywhere, it doesn't surprise me in any way that these landowners would react in this way. It isn't like they can put up security systems and have the cops arrest these people.

Now I'm not saying they're right, but yeah, you lack their perspective, and they lack yours. You're coming off just a little high and mighty.

GreNME

11th February 2009, 08:49 PM

I just finished reading the records of some of the interrogations in that PDF, and they seem incomplete and chopped up. However, with what testimony is there, it seems that Mrs. Barnett and Mr. Rodriguez aren't being completely truthful. On the other hand, that doesn't mean that they're lying about the abuses in this incident, but the things they're being unnecessarily untruthful about (their reaction to being told about Barnett catching illegal crossers) don't reflect well upon their testimonies. I'd be more interested in seeing the entirety of their testimonies for better context, though, because they could also be defensive based on preceding questions. Interrogators typically mix up the intensity of their questions to gauge the responses from the people being interrogated, so the questions in the PDF are likely not even close to the entire interrogations.

WildCat

11th February 2009, 09:07 PM

GreNME

11th February 2009, 09:12 PM

I have to admit that I haven't been keeping up with this thread, mostly because I knew pretty much where it was heading. However, GreNME, while you don't have to agree with everything the 'other side' believes, rock knows I don't, I seriously don't see how you can claim that your perspective isn't lacking an aspect that those 'country folk' have. Sure, they might be too close to the issue, but they are also physically close to the issue.

It gets me angry enough when people throw trash (sometimes entire trash bags) out their cars onto my land. It downright pisses me off when those ATV morons come onto my property, run over my young trees, and leave ruts all over the place. Now, to imagine that people walking through, 'invaders' or just city 'environmentalists' my land, killing my animals, damaging my property, stealing from me, and leaving trash everywhere, it doesn't surprise me in any way that these landowners would react in this way. It isn't like they can put up security systems and have the cops arrest these people.

Now I'm not saying they're right, but yeah, you lack their perspective, and they lack yours. You're coming off just a little high and mighty.

Well, since you've got me all figured out I suppose I should be suitably chastened, no?

You see, the problem is assuming that I have no connection to anyone living elsewhere in the southwest, particularly close to the border. Personally, I do know people who practically live a stone's throw from the border. I even know a guy who married a person who crossed illegally, who ironically also thinks that the amount of illegal crossings are wrong even though she did it twenty-odd years ago. I know that most of the Mexican-Americans in the southwest also don't look favorably on illegal crossing. However, I'd easily agree that most Americans don't look favorably on illegal crossing.

The difference is in how it's approached, and to assume I don't understand the approaches that are different from what I feel are preferable assumes a lot of things, most of which are untrue. It's not that I don't understand that point of view, it's also not that I think it's "too close" to be reasonable. There are plenty of people close to the border who have very reasonable views on the issue, some of which I don't think would be useful but none of them involving taking their trucks out on patrols. Equally unreasonable are the types who go out and harass the guys taking their trucks out on patrols, whom I've also met. Both of those two extremes are doing worse than not helping the public discourse, they're hurting the discourse.

The problem, tyr_13, is that the whole discussion here has consisted primarily of people drawing figurative lines in the sand and choosing sides. My main accusations of missing perspectives are based on those types of comments. Trying to pin me on one side or the other isn't helpful in any sense, and if the main problem is with me pushing a few buttons then that's a problem with my style, not my substance, so the guessing or assuming exactly what "side" I might stand on is improperly focused.

GreNME

11th February 2009, 09:13 PM

I'd like to see them in their entirety also. That's why I gave the case number and court info in hopes a lawyer here will post it. I don't subscribe to the search engines law offices pay big bucks for, so I'm limited to what I can find for free.

Yeah, that's a good point. I'll see if I can use the case number you mention to find anything. I have some minor access to search resources, but nothing like what law firms do.

pipelineaudio

11th February 2009, 10:11 PM

It downright pisses me off when those ATV morons come onto my property, run over my young trees, and leave ruts all over the place.

Do you have a Jeep club in your area? A lot of them have tread lightly programs and tend to police any land that is graciously opened to them by the owners. Mountain bike clubs are good at cleaning up trash other pecks leave, but they tend not to come by as often. Even some of the ATV groups are good. When people realize areas might be closed off to them forever, some of them are apt to deal with the offenders.

In my area there are a lot of signs where washes cross private property that say things like " Private Property - keep it clean or get off" that change to "no trespassing" if people don't respect it. Our Jeep club (AZVJC) works with the issues a lot and we even drive in the town parade

quixotecoyote

11th February 2009, 11:11 PM

There are plenty of people close to the border who have very reasonable views on the issue, some of which I don't think would be useful but none of them involving taking their trucks out on patrols.

See, this bit I don't understand. If people are coming into your yard, dumping trash, cutting fences, killing animals, endangering property, etc. it seems like it would be your responsibility to do your best to stop them. If you can't afford to hire private security, it seems like the only way is to go out and keep an eye on things yourself.

BPSCG

12th February 2009, 05:17 AM

Do the illegals who are suing want the laws against entering the U.S. illegally to be effectively enforced?

If they have done any homework before crossing, then I would easily venture to say "yes." At least if the laws are enforced they stand a chance of fighting immediate deportation and avoiding any racist cowboy treatment from vigilantes.
No, they don't "stand a chance of fighting immediate deportation." No passport = no entry, period, full stop, case closed, turn around, exit's that way, don't let the door hit you in the butt on your way out, have a nice day, adios!

But thank you for your "yes" answer. You realize it comes with crushing baggage, of course.

You're saying the illegal immigrants want to be turned back immediately when they cross the border.

Doesn't that strike you as absurd?

GreNME

12th February 2009, 08:26 AM

See, this bit I don't understand. If people are coming into your yard, dumping trash, cutting fences, killing animals, endangering property, etc. it seems like it would be your responsibility to do your best to stop them. If you can't afford to hire private security, it seems like the only way is to go out and keep an eye on things yourself.

I understand the situation. I have a similar problem where I live, though on a smaller scale-- I don't have anywhere close to a rancher's acreage and instead of livestock I have dogs. However, the problem is one of security measures and not of stopping people. Security happens to be a subject I know reasonably well. No matter how many steps are going into stopping people, there will always be those with the will and the ingenuity to get past those steps. The goal is to make the situation such that it's less work for those trying to breach whatever security you have to move on to the next possible location.

The worst way to try to handle this is to raise the threat level after a breach has already occurred, because it doesn't lead to prevention of breaches but increases the chances that someone is going to get hurt after a breach occurs. The best way is to create deterrents at the entry points. This is more difficult on the southern border because of two main things-- the vast size and the large amount of unregulated space-- but the challenges aren't insurmountable. The recent practice of putting barrier posts into the ground in some areas, to make it unpassable by vehicles, was the kind of step in the right direction, while the proposed "border fence" really won't do much without some other methods of deterrent to go along with it. There have been attempts at implementing more hi-tech types of solutions, that would not only see crossings but also alert border guards, but those have thus far proved troublesome. If they can work out the technical kinks, however, those would also be a step in the right direction.

Those aren't the only options, though. To turn back to the hypothetical "what would I do" aspect, I'd again compare it to my micro-scale efforts at reducing the risk of people coming onto my property unwanted. I don't live in a bubble, I live in a community, which requires more work on my end in dealing with neighbors but also provides the benefit of being able to add to or even multiply the amount of deterrence accomplished. My relationship with my neighbors is pretty good, and while it's not the 1950's TV-show kind of good it's a more than amiable relationship all around. We work together to keep our neighborhood safe, within our individual means, and we enjoy more safety as a result. It's not like we don't already work diplomatically with the Mexican government, but it goes back to what I said about "within individual means" in this case: Mexico is known to be fairly corrupt in regional politics, making it more difficult to count on assistance from the other side of the border on much more than a federal level. However, it's not like there isn't a nationalism or national pride in that country, so what's the big problem causing people to cross into the US? The answer, naturally, is wealth. This is where the micro-scale comparisons become insufficient with regard to details, but the principle still applies.

We have far fewer border problems with our northern border because of two main reasons: 1) there's not as often an overwhelming (financial) reason to cross over into the US (illegally) and 2) there's far more efficient self-regulation in Canada. We (in the US) can't do a whole lot about the latter (sovereignty and all that), but the former we can certainly improve. What this country needs, as was pointed out earlier, is not an influx of manual labor but an influx of talented educated and skilled workers. NAFTA does nothing to address that, and there isn't much in the way of incentives aimed at Mexico for paying well to bring in highly skilled workers. There are the typical worker programs that apply to many foreign nations, but if we were able to sweeten the pot for our immediate neighbors (unfair, it's true) the result could be mutually beneficial fairly quickly. Additionally, while it's definitely in the advantage of using Filipino or Indian call centers currently-- because they have the infrastructure and the sheer number of willing workers-- US companies could easily within a few years have at least some of those call centers set up in Mexico and bringing in revenue to areas closer to home that provide added benefits (call them diplomatic value-adds) in the form of a greater percent of the population gaining at least some wealth for the same or similar lower costs that India or other nations overseas provide American companies. Basically, there are service industries that require warm bodies that currently get staffed overseas that could equally be staffed closer to home with even more benefits than the obvious one provided by some off-shoring. More close to actual legislation that's been proposed, though, would be the improvements to the guest-worker programs that have been bandied about in Congress and the House, which could provide not only an immediate address to changing the manner in which people come into the country to work, but could also increase government revenues by creating taxable statuses for a whole lot more people coming into the country to work (imagine 11 million more people a year paying more than just sales taxes).

People (in the US) would most likely oppose those types of things, though (in general), especially considering the rancor at the current practices of it presently. It would probably never fly as any kind of useful measure because not only would it raise the "they're shipping jobs overseas" bells with people, but it also touches on that "Mexicans are stealing our jobs" meme that's so popular in the public discourse regarding our southern border-- even though there's nowhere near such rancor about our northern border, where higher-paying jobs are being legally farmed out to Canadians, both outsourcing into Canada and paying Canadians to move into the US. The reality, though, is that the contradiction already exists because we have very close to that kind of relationship with Canada already and it's turned out being very beneficial. The reason why this isn't the case with Mexico has more to do with years of growing bad faith on the subject in public-- usually in the form of the "they're taking out jobs" and the "they're doing jobs you don't want to" arguments, as well as the large amount of disregard for the way that the corruption in our neighbor's politics directly affects us (the "not my problem" syndrome, as I like to dub it)-- and it's continually muddied the waters on the discussion in American politics until it doesn't even remotely address the core problem of "how can we stop so many people from crossing illegally in the first place?"

To answer your post in shorter form, it's basically that taking the libertarian "it's my private property" approach hasn't worked, and is mostly increasing the probability of more people getting hurt than actually addressing the problem in the first place. If the problem were addressed using the more complex and "neighborly" approach in the first place, then the libertarian goal of keeping the private property protected from abuse is achieved as well. That's the funny thing about complex problems: simple (attempted) solutions tend to just make the problems worse.

GreNME

12th February 2009, 08:33 AM

No, they don't "stand a chance of fighting immediate deportation." No passport = no entry, period, full stop, case closed, turn around, exit's that way, don't let the door hit you in the butt on your way out, have a nice day, adios!

But thank you for your "yes" answer. You realize it comes with crushing baggage, of course.

You're saying the illegal immigrants want to be turned back immediately when they cross the border.

Doesn't that strike you as absurd?

It strikes me as a horribly inaccurate rendition of what actually occurs when ICE takes an illegal crossing into custody, actually. I do realize that the answer comes with baggage, but I wouldn't call it "crushing" when compared to actual real-world situations. Turning those back who are caught at the border is one thing, but that's not really how it works. As I mentioned in the above post, the border is way too large to just have someone stand there with a hand up telling the person attempting to cross to turn back. That works in some areas, but in many others it requires all people taken into custody by ICE to bring them to an actual entry point, record their information for records, and turn them over to Mexican authorities. During this process, many people are afforded an opportunity to fight being deported immediately, while others take the equally illegal route of leaving ICE custody while awaiting deportation-- you'd be surprised how many get away with that.

So, yeah, believe it or not many do stand a chance at fighting immediate deportation based on the way our process works. If you don't believe me, see if you know anyone who's a border guard or works for ICE and ask them yourself.

BPSCG

12th February 2009, 12:16 PM

It strikes me as a horribly inaccurate rendition of what actually occurs when ICE takes an illegal crossing into custody, actually. I do realize that the answer comes with baggage, but I wouldn't call it "crushing" when compared to actual real-world situations. Turning those back who are caught at the border is one thing, but that's not really how it works. As I mentioned in the above post, the border is way too large to just have someone stand there with a hand up telling the person attempting to cross to turn back. That works in some areas, but in many others it requires all people taken into custody by ICE to bring them to an actual entry point, record their information for records, and turn them over to Mexican authorities. During this process, many people are afforded an opportunity to fight being deported immediately, while others take the equally illegal route of leaving ICE custody while awaiting deportation-- you'd be surprised how many get away with that.

So, yeah, believe it or not many do stand a chance at fighting immediate deportation based on the way our process works. If you don't believe me, see if you know anyone who's a border guard or works for ICE and ask them yourself.But the point is, if the immigration laws were effectively enforced (questioninggeller's phrase), illegals would not be able to legally enter the country. You can't just waltz in without a passport or a visa. You're going to be stopped, and unless something very unusual happens, you're going to be sent back - if not immediately, fairly quickly, and before any private citizen has any opportunity to break any laws in the process of stopping you. Questioninggeller apparently doesn't want to acknowledge that, hence his dancing around my question and trying to get me to look at the squirrels in his pockets.

GreNME

12th February 2009, 02:08 PM

But the point is, if the immigration laws were effectively enforced (questioninggeller's phrase), illegals would not be able to legally enter the country. You can't just waltz in without a passport or a visa. You're going to be stopped, and unless something very unusual happens, you're going to be sent back - if not immediately, fairly quickly, and before any private citizen has any opportunity to break any laws in the process of stopping you. Questioninggeller apparently doesn't want to acknowledge that, hence his dancing around my question and trying to get me to look at the squirrels in his pockets.

Well, efficacy is really the main problem with immigration laws already. If we were able to efficiently enforce the laws already in place we'd see a massive drop in the number of illegal border crossers already in the country. However, that still won't stop people from crossing over. That goes back to what I was saying earlier about security-- the only way to accomplish that is to make it less worth the while of someone trying to get in. Guards enforcing the law can help, but there aren't enough guards to do the whole border.

Prometheus

12th February 2009, 02:28 PM

Well, efficacy is really the main problem with immigration laws already. If we were able to efficiently enforce the laws already in place we'd see a massive drop in the number of illegal border crossers already in the country. However, that still won't stop people from crossing over. That goes back to what I was saying earlier about security-- the only way to accomplish that is to make it less worth the while of someone trying to get in. Guards enforcing the law can help, but there aren't enough guards to do the whole border.

So, instead of outsourcing all our good jobs to India, we should be sending them to Mexico. :rolleyes: :)

GreNME

12th February 2009, 02:29 PM

Way to totally miss the point, there.

Prometheus

12th February 2009, 03:11 PM

Way to totally miss the point, there.

Way to totally miss the smiley denoting sarcasm, there.

GreNME

12th February 2009, 03:14 PM

Way to totally point out what a dolt I am to everyone, there.

Roboramma

12th February 2009, 07:40 PM

But the point is, if the immigration laws were effectively enforced (questioninggeller's phrase), illegals would not be able to legally enter the country. You can't just waltz in without a passport or a visa. You're going to be stopped, and unless something very unusual happens, you're going to be sent back - if not immediately, fairly quickly, and before any private citizen has any opportunity to break any laws in the process of stopping you. Questioninggeller apparently doesn't want to acknowledge that, hence his dancing around my question and trying to get me to look at the squirrels in his pockets.

Once again, what does this have to do with the topic of this thread?

Does the fact that illegal immigrants are breaking a law suggest that their rights can be ignored?
If not, what exactly is your point here?

If it isn't related to the topic of the thread, may I suggest that you start a new thread to deal with whether or not illegal immigrant like immigration laws?

WildCat

12th February 2009, 08:58 PM

Does the fact that illegal immigrants are breaking a law suggest that their rights can be ignored?
Where did he suggest that?

And which of their rights were ignored?

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Not much news today from the trial, the local paper reported that the plaintiff claimed to be a "citizen of Pennsylvania" in the complaint is actually a convicted drug dealer deported some years ago who was committing a felony by re-entering the country. The plaintiffs failed to prevent the defense from bringing this up in court.

WildCat

12th February 2009, 09:00 PM

BTW Roboramma, the irony of someone posting from China complaining about rights of immigrants being ignored has not been missed.

GreNME

13th February 2009, 09:51 AM

There's really no reason to bring the conversation down to semi-personal attacks, Wildcat.

tyr_13

13th February 2009, 10:16 AM

Do you have a Jeep club in your area? A lot of them have tread lightly programs and tend to police any land that is graciously opened to them by the owners. Mountain bike clubs are good at cleaning up trash other pecks leave, but they tend not to come by as often. Even some of the ATV groups are good. When people realize areas might be closed off to them forever, some of them are apt to deal with the offenders.

In my area there are a lot of signs where washes cross private property that say things like " Private Property - keep it clean or get off" that change to "no trespassing" if people don't respect it. Our Jeep club (AZVJC) works with the issues a lot and we even drive in the town parade

Yeah, we kicked the Jeep club off our trails too. They said that they weren't doing anything wrong, except they wouldn't kick out the members that kept driving all over our land. Then their was the entire 'drunk driving' thing. The Snowmobilers don't wreck stuff, and we would have let them stay, but their new trail doesn't cross our land.

It doesn't help that we're surrounded by ATV people. Thankfully one of them just surround almost all of his 20 acres we sold him with an electric fence to keep his horses in. No his kids and his kid's idiot friends can't exactly cross all over my newly planted apple trees around my slowly dieing very old apple trees without being cloths lined by a wire with 10 amps running through it.

WildCat

13th February 2009, 03:29 PM

There's really no reason to bring the conversation down to semi-personal attacks, Wildcat.
How is that a "semi-personal attack"?

Fact: China sends N. Korean refugees they catch (and they do actively seek them out) back to N. Korea where they are imprisoned (often with their entire family), starved, tortured, and killed. This is in violation of treaties China has signed btw.

You'd think he'd have bigger fish to fry than Roger Barnett.

GreNME

13th February 2009, 03:42 PM

How is that a "semi-personal attack"?

Fact: China sends N. Korean refugees they catch (and they do actively seek them out) back to N. Korea where they are imprisoned (often with their entire family), starved, tortured, and killed. This is in violation of treaties China has signed btw.

You'd think he'd have bigger fish to fry than Roger Barnett.

I'm not trying to start a fight over it. What you brought up s a red herring to the discussion, and whether anyone should be more concerned about China or N. Korea than Barnett is really not any kind of useful condemnation in the conversation. There are loads of things I'm more concerned about than this case, but that doesn't change my feelings about the case. I'm fairly certain that the same applies with you, and I'm equally certain the same applies with Roboramma.

I'm just pointing it out because I don't want it to become another line of argument in the thread. I'm not convinced you want it either.

WildCat

13th February 2009, 03:55 PM

I'm just pointing it out because I don't want it to become another line of argument in the thread. I'm not convinced you want it either.
I just noted the irony, didn't want to discuss it here.

WildCat

13th February 2009, 05:16 PM

Apparently the trial portion of this case is over, it is now in the hands of the jury.

bigred

13th February 2009, 05:29 PM

I think a different bold-facing is more appropriate:

Civil-rights trial starts for migrant-detaining rancher
Arizona Daily Star, AZ - Feb 2, 2009

The latest suit against the controversial rancher stems from a 2004 incident in a wash near Douglas when Barnett approached a group of illegal immigrants while he was carrying a gun and accompanied by a large dog.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs — five women and 11 men who were trying to cross 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, a press release from the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund said.

The group says Barnett also kicked one of the members of the group. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund is representing the 16 people.

The federal lawsuit charges Barnett, his wife, Barbara Barnett, and his brother, Donald Barnett, with conspiring to violate the plaintiffs' civil rights, the release said.

In March 2008, U.S. District Judge John Roll rejected Barnett's efforts to have the charges thrown out. Roll ruled that there was sufficient evidence of a conspiracy — that the conspiracy denied the plaintiffs their right to interstate travel and the actions of the Barnetts were motivated by race — to allow the matter to be presented to a jury.

Barnett's attorney, David Hardy, had argued that illegal immigrants didn't have the same rights as citizens. That setback came on the heels of another judgment against Barnett in February 2008. At that time, 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.

Talk about comedy of the absurd. And LMAO @ "interstate travel." I'm pretty sure Mexico isn't a state.

Un Freaking Believable. To put it mildly.

If this comes to trial, I think it will be very,very,hard to find a jury that will find for the plantiffs. Read again, one already did earlier. And is anyone surprised? I love a legal system that says it's OK for illegal immigrants to tresspass (and do God knows what all on your turf) any time they want. Next I suspect you'll get sued if you don't let them camp out in your backyard, you racist bastard.

These are truly the crazy years.

bigred

13th February 2009, 05:39 PM

pchams

13th February 2009, 06:02 PM

Why is the U.S. wringing its hands about defending its own sovereignty?

Why does it let polarized activist groups set its laws?

Bizarre to say the least. But not much different how Canada and the UK allow immigrants to demand changes to the laws as opposed to assimilating into the societies they supposedly wanted to join so badly.

It's a very quiet invasion of the west, this one. Muffled by the bleeding of teary left hearts.

FlamingMoe

13th February 2009, 06:14 PM

Everyone on your side keeps saying that, but no one has been able to cite the law that was broken.
Criminal trespass: Arizona Revised Statutes §13-1502
Improper entry: 8 USC §1325(a)(1) & (2)

WildCat

13th February 2009, 06:34 PM

Criminal trespass: Arizona Revised Statutes §13-1502
Improper entry: 8 USC §1325(a)(1) & (2)
No, no, no! You're not supposed to cite those laws!

GreNME

13th February 2009, 07:31 PM

That's cool, Wildcat. I apologize for harping on you over it.

No, no, no! You're not supposed to cite those laws!

How about these laws?

Federal:
US Code : Title 18 : Section 113 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/7/sections/section_113.html) - Assaults within maritime and territorial jurisdiction
US Code : Title 18 : Section 371 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/19/sections/section_371.html) - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

Arizona State:
13-301 (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/00301.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS) - Definition of accomplice (if his wife or the officer are complicit)
13-1201 (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/01201.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS) - Endangerment
13-1202 (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/01202.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS) - Threatening or intimidating
13-1203 (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/01203.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS) - Assault

Those are just the laws a cursory search comes up with. It's already been reported that they're being charged with conspiracy, but whether they are charging assault and threatening/intimidating or not is not clear from the documentation Wildcat found.

Just to note: assuming that people crossing illegally are not covered by any rights that citizens or legal aliens enjoy is not correct. It's less incorrect in states like California, but I'm unaware of those lowered legal protections have spread to AZ or other border states. Illegal aliens do not have the privileges that legal aliens or citizens have, but the protections stem from them "inhabiting" United States territory-- this is so also to protect cases where border crossing might not be part of the equation, like in the case that a person (like a child) is found with no record of where they were born.

Also, keep in mind that I am not a lawyer and I am not a law enforcement official, so this information is based on interpretations I've learned from those who are lawyers or law enforcement. The key area of contention here is two-fold: 1) if an assault and/or conspiracy occurred, and 2) whether the illegal crossers had any inherent rights infringed in the first place. The answer to the first is at this point unsettled, but if it turns out that the answer to the first is yes then the second answer would be absolutely.

WildCat

13th February 2009, 07:46 PM

That's cool, Wildcat. I apologize for harping on you over it.

How about these laws?

Federal:
US Code : Title 18 : Section 113 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/7/sections/section_113.html) - Assaults within maritime and territorial jurisdiction

US Code : Title 18 : Section 371 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/19/sections/section_371.html) - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

Arizona State:
13-301 (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/00301.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS) - Definition of accomplice (if his wife or the officer are complicit)
13-1201 (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/01201.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS) - Endangerment
13-1202 (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/01202.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS) - Threatening or intimidating
13-1203 (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/01203.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS) - Assault

Those are just the laws a cursory search comes up with.
It's not assault if they were tresspassing. I've already cited the Arizona law allowing the brandishing of firearms and threats in apprehending trespassers.

It's already been reported that they're being charged with conspiracy, but whether they are charging assault and threatening/intimidating or not is not clear from the documentation Wildcat found.
The conspiracy is deprivation of the right to interstate travel, which seems bizarre for people not even allowed to be in the country.

Just to note: assuming that people crossing illegally are not covered by any rights that citizens or legal aliens enjoy is not correct. It's less incorrect in states like California, but I'm unaware of those lowered legal protections have spread to AZ or other border states. Illegal aliens do not have the privileges that legal aliens or citizens have, but the protections stem from them "inhabiting" United States territory-- this is so also to protect cases where border crossing might not be part of the equation, like in the case that a person (like a child) is found with no record of where they were born.

Also, keep in mind that I am not a lawyer and I am not a law enforcement official, so this information is based on interpretations I've learned from those who are lawyers or law enforcement. The key area of contention here is two-fold: 1) if an assault and/or conspiracy occurred, and 2) whether the illegal crossers had any inherent rights infringed in the first place. The answer to the first is at this point unsettled, but if it turns out that the answer to the first is yes then the second answer would be absolutely.
I think the plaintiff's strategy is to claim that Barnett had no reason to think the plaintiffs were illegal aliens, and therefore he had no right to detain them. However, illegal or not he has the right to detain them merely for trespassing on his land.

I'll be astonished if he's found liable by the jury, but jury's do crazy things sometimes, especially in civil cases.

GreNME

13th February 2009, 08:02 PM

It's not assault if they were tresspassing. I've already cited the Arizona law allowing the brandishing of firearms and threats in apprehending trespassers.

That doesn't cover assault. They were detained by the Barnett. There's a line where the threatening behavior passes between self-defense and criminal. States like Arizona (and here in Texas) have that line in a different place than, say, New York or Delaware, but again it's going to be a court to decide first whether the accused incidents happened at all and then whether those incidents crossed the line.

Side note: if an intruder came onto my property or into my home and I wound up sneaking them upside the head with a baseball bat, I'm still going to say to the authorities that the girlfriend did it because I know for a fact that she'll more likely fall on the "okay" side of that line than I would.

The conspiracy is deprivation of the right to interstate travel, which seems bizarre for people not even allowed to be in the country.

Again, this falls under the fact that just because they are not citizens it does not automatically remove their rights. This applies to protect legal aliens and not just illegal aliens.

I think the plaintiff's strategy is to claim that Barnett had no reason to think the plaintiffs were illegal aliens, and therefore he had no right to detain them. However, illegal or not he has the right to detain them merely for trespassing on his land.

I agree he would have the right to detain them-- at least, from what I know he would have that right excluding physically roughing them up to do so (if they fled), which would cross over into assault-- but the accusations are that he assaulted them once he had them detained, and that he joked about it with at least his wife and possibly the officer (which the accomplice statutes would apply to).

I'll be astonished if he's found liable by the jury, but jury's do crazy things sometimes, especially in civil cases.

It's all about whether that line was crossed. I won't be astonished either way unless the details of the case when its over-- still can't seem to find anything, which may indicate the information is protected while the case is pending-- show that the evidence was horrendously balanced the other direction. So far all we know indicates a "he said / she said" situation, which despite not being enough data could still go either way.