Larry Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 They're trespassing on his property. Threatening them with a gun and his butt-biting dog then calling border patrol does not seem suit-worthy to me...pretty appropriate if you ask me, especially considering that his property has been vandalized, cattle killed, trucks stolen, and home broken into by previous illegal immigrants trespassing on his property. Agreed. IMO, he was perfectly within his rights. I'm not aware of any criminal's "right" to commit a crime without pesky victims interfering with their crime. IMO, one of the Rights of all Citizens is the right to say "no" to a criminal. Using whatever force is necessary to make the "no" stick. Edit: Now, if one or more of said illegals had turned around and headed South, I don't know if I'd support the guy shooting the illegal in the back. It's one thing to stop a crime, another to stop a criminal from leaving. But, I don't have a problem with him threatening to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mooka Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 The lawsuit is based on a March 7, 2004, incident in a dry wash on the 22,000-acre ranch, when he approached a group of illegal immigrants while carrying a gun and accompanied by a large dog. There are actually 2 different cases. The one where he detained/assualted the US citizens on state leased land, and ...."MALDEF also represents 16 individuals who complained they were assaulted in a similar fashion by Barnett in March 2004 near a state highway in Douglas, Arizona. The case is currently pending in federal court and expected to go to trial in the Spring of 2009." Was it on his property or not? If it was I seriously wonder how they have a case. btw, dumb question but what's a dry wash? You are spot on katie....in Mexico they have a right to shoot illegals on site...so why can't we? Because you don't have your cape on. And Batman doesn't kill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 btw, dumb question but what's a dry wash? It's a place where the water goes, once every 20 years, when they have water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Edit: Now, if one or more of said illegals had turned around and headed South, I don't know if I'd support the guy shooting the illegal in the back. It's one thing to stop a crime, another to stop a criminal from leaving. But, I don't have a problem with him threatening to do so. Agreed. I have no problem with threatening either, which is why I think this case is so absurd. The illegals were threatened with a gun and a dog...they weren't shot, nor was the dog unleashed on them, so it's a stupid lawsuit in my opinion. One thing that would be interesting to find out is how many of the illegals even understood what he was saying? Honestly, I'm not being racist or anything, but with my experience with new immigrants (many being illegal), they have not had a good (actually, in many cases, ANY) grasp of the English language. I guess I'm just curious. It'd be very interesting to fully know all the specifics of the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Just adopt Michael Vicks former pitbulls and let them loose on the property they would definitely be hungry for buttocks. Though I think several rifles with laser sights and shooting them with paintball while actually blasting a benign target with real bullets is a better deterrent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Just adopt Michael Vicks former pitbulls and let them loose on the property they would definitely be hungry for buttocks. Nah, they'd still sue......even U.S. citizens sue for dog atacks occuring while the "victim" is burglarizing :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljs Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Was it on his property or not? If it was I seriously wonder how they have a case. btw, dumb question but what's a dry wash? Because you don't have your cape on. And Batman doesn't kill. I believe the first incident was on state leased land, so I think that would mean the person who is leasing the land has the same rights as if it's his own land? I could be very wrong as I am thinking from my state's land rights, which could very well differ from where this happened. And I just watched Dark Knight last night...good flick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tryfuhl Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 funny how those things work.illegals suing someone when they are entering illegally, trespassing on his land, and destroying his property. It's moreso holding them captive at gunpoint. That is illegal whether they are a citizen of the United States or Zimbabwe. All that being said, I hope that Mr. Barnett wins his case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tryfuhl Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Question - where are the illegals getting their money to pay for the attorney?This is so ****ing stupid. That man deserves a medal. Article clearly states it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 It's moreso holding them captive at gunpoint. That is illegal whether they are a citizen of the United States or Zimbabwe.All that being said, I hope that Mr. Barnett wins his case. I don't know the specifics but isn't it legal to defend your livelihood, in this case a ranch, with force ? I've heard of crab-trappers and lobster-catchers being legally allowed to shoot anyone who ***** with their traps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljs Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 It's moreso holding them captive at gunpoint. That is illegal whether they are a citizen of the United States or Zimbabwe.All that being said, I hope that Mr. Barnett wins his case. Actually no it's not. True case. Car prowler call and I responded. I get to the house, to find the homeowner and his son holding rifles. The 2 car prowlers on the ground (and nearly in tears). I had my gun out of my holster, politely instructed the home owner and son to put their guns away, and I arrested the two criminals. Not one thought of charging said homeowner. Besides, what crime? If a state really has a charge for that, I'd be curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tryfuhl Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 There are actually 2 different cases. The one where he detained/assualted the US citizens on state leased land, and ...."MALDEF also represents 16 individuals who complained they were assaulted in a similar fashion by Barnett in March 2004 near a state highway in Douglas, Arizona. The case is currently pending in federal court and expected to go to trial in the Spring of 2009." To clear up some words people are using...this guy isn't "convicted" of any crime. These are civil lawsuits only, not criminal trials. I love how the article says, "16 individuals" and not 16 Illegal immigrants" Group comes out 5 years later hoping for money because their chicos got it, pitiful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tryfuhl Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 My bad, when he said "these people" I thought he was referring to the 12k immigrants, not the particular ones in this specific lawsuit.Regardless, does that make a difference? They're trespassing on his property. Threatening them with a gun and his butt-biting dog then calling border patrol does not seem suit-worthy to me...pretty appropriate if you ask me, especially considering that his property has been vandalized, cattle killed, trucks stolen, and home broken into by previous illegal immigrants trespassing on his property. So if you walk through my yard I can hold you at gunpoint until the police arrive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 What I can't figure out is why the judge even allowed this to begin with. Judges don't get to decide in advance whether or not to allow you to file a lawsuit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljs Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Judges don't get to decide in advance whether or not to allow you to file a lawsuit. Sorry I should have been more specific. There is a part in the article which says the judge didn't dismiss or ruled that there was sufficient evidence to allow the civil trial. That is the part I was talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 I don't know the specifics but isn't it legal to defend your livelihood, in this case a ranch, with force ?I've heard of crab-trappers and lobster-catchers being legally allowed to shoot anyone who ***** with their traps. Link please. I find that difficult to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Sorry I should have been more specific. There is a part in the article which says the judge didn't dismiss or ruled that there was sufficient evidence to allow the civil trial. That is the part I was talking about. Basically, the rule is - if you allege facts that (if believed by the jury) would create a viable cause of action, then you get to ask the jury to rule on your case. Chances are, the jury will laugh this case out of court. But it is not absolutely certain that they will do so. There may be more facts of which we are not aware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Wrong. Neither the illegal immigrants nor the detainees are seeking the right to vote, sit on juries, get welfare benefits, etc. So, please spare us your hyperbole.Contrary to what some people think or want, you do not have the right to do whatever you please with illegal immigrants. You can and should report them to ICE, but you can't hold them against their will, rape them, murder them, etc. I don't know whether the rancher did anything wrong, that will be left to 12 people or so like you and me. That's how it is and how it should be. Sorry friend. You just broke the first rule of the Tailgate. No hyperbole from liberals. Even if what you said makes perfect sense (and it does) and is an entirely logical response to the post you were quoting (and it was)... people here who are mad about illegal immigration and propoerty rights are going to get up in arms and claim that you unfairly said this rancher was ACTUALLY raping and murdering illegals. Because they are justifiably outraged that you dared to disagree with them while they wax philosophically about good ideas like ripping illegals to shreds with guard dogs or shooting them on sight. You can't say anything about that. It would be rude. I hope it all clear for you now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljs Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Predicto...gotcha on that one. What I was thinking, is how could the case even go to trial? I'm not well versed on civil trials, but confused at how it could pass the litmus test of jursidiction. I could be way off though...so thanks for your input! P.S.- what's wrong w/ a dog shredding an illegal?:whoknows: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Predicto...gotcha on that one. What I was thinking, is how could the case even go to trial? I'm not well versed on civil trials, but confused at how it could pass the litmus test of jursidiction. I could be way off though...so thanks for your input! Because non-citizens do have the right to sue in our courts if they were injured on American land. Let's assume that this guy actually did really bad things. Even though the illegals were trespassers, they still have the right to sue him. They may be trespassers and lawbreakers, but that doesn't mean they are no longer human beings. Just like if you went to France and some Frenchman maliciously poked you in the eye with a stale baguette and your eye fell out. You could sue in French courts, even though you are not French and he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljs Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Because non-citizens do have the right to sue in our courts if they were injured on American land. Let's assume that this guy actually did really bad things. Even though the illegals were trespassers, they still have the right to sue him. They may be trespassers and lawbreakers, but that doesn't mean they are no longer human beings. Just like if you went to France and some Frenchman maliciously poked you in the eye with a stale baguette and your eye fell out. You could sue in French courts, even though you are not French and he is. ok, I lol'd at the French Baguette....don't you know I wouldn't sue, I'd beat him up...!!! Anyway, does it make a difference w/ the arguement of "defending your land." Or is that just something the landowner will have to 'prove' in court? I can see in a way why this went to court, so it's probably just my emotion thinking on this one. Although, if the landowner really did more than just detain them til the BP got there, I do agree that he should be held accountable. And to define, "do more than detain them." I mean did he actaully commit a crime? I can't really see the civil case, if there was no crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 ok, I lol'd at the French Baguette....don't you know I wouldn't sue, I'd beat him up...!!!Anyway, does it make a difference w/ the arguement of "defending your land." Or is that just something the landowner will have to 'prove' in court? I can see in a way why this went to court, so it's probably just my emotion thinking on this one. Although, if the landowner really did more than just detain them til the BP got there, I do agree that he should be held accountable. And to define, "do more than detain them." I mean did he actaully commit a crime? I can't really see the civil case, if there was no crime. Like I said, I seriously doubt that we have all the facts (and I doubt that the Washington Times wants to give us all the facts even if THEY have them). Defending your land is a defense, but it is not a perfect defense to every possible thing one might do to defend one's land. And no, you don't have to commit a crime to be liable for civil damages. For example, if you accidentally run over someone with your car, you can be liable even if you didn't commit a crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tryfuhl Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 I don't know the specifics but isn't it legal to defend your livelihood, in this case a ranch, with force ?I've heard of crab-trappers and lobster-catchers being legally allowed to shoot anyone who ***** with their traps. As far as I can tell he didn't catch them doing anything but trespassing, this being on a 22,000 acre ranch, so they might not have been anywhere near his house. Either way, you can not hold someone captive at gunpoint as far as I know. You can put a gun up and say get the hell out of here, but you can't hold them hostage nor threaten to shoot if they try to escape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tryfuhl Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Actually no it's not.True case. Car prowler call and I responded. I get to the house, to find the homeowner and his son holding rifles. The 2 car prowlers on the ground (and nearly in tears). I had my gun out of my holster, politely instructed the home owner and son to put their guns away, and I arrested the two criminals. Not one thought of charging said homeowner. Besides, what crime? If a state really has a charge for that, I'd be curious. Well the car thieves obviously didn't press charges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el gorilla Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 As long as he didn't torture them or abuse them in any form, I believe the property owner has the right to defend his property. I guess the illegals will have to prove their case but doesn't look like they will if all they have are stories and no solid proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.