16 illegals sue Arizona rancher

[Antonio the Sixth]

Am I the only one to think that pointing a gun at someone is a crime ? No matter how much Mr Barnett loves his property, he should find another way to "defend" it.
The suit is fully justified.

See, in a free country, like the US, we have the right to defend our property with a firearm.

Of course ! There's no problem with threatening people with a gun as long as you are "defending your property" ! Plus, they are not American, i.e. under-men : they don't have the same rights as a true (white) Amercian partiot, isn't it ?

[Franzl]

Am I the only one to think that pointing a gun at someone is a crime ? No matter how much Mr Barnett loves his property, he should find another way to "defend" it.
The suit is fully justified.

I strongly disagree. They have no legal right to be in the country, let alone on this man's property. He acted fully within his rights, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm in no way an immigration nut (as many are in that part of the country), but come on....pro-immigrationists can take it too far.

[HappyWarrior]

Am I the only one to think that pointing a gun at someone is a crime ? No matter how much Mr Barnett loves his property, he should find another way to "defend" it.
The suit is fully justified.

I strongly disagree. They have no legal right to be in the country, let alone on this man's property. He acted fully within his rights, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm in no way an immigration nut (as many are in that part of the country), but come on....pro-immigrationists can take it too far.

I am totally in agreement with this statement.

[dead0man]

Am I the only one to think that pointing a gun at someone is a crime ? No matter how much Mr Barnett loves his property, he should find another way to "defend" it.
The suit is fully justified.

How should he protect his property?

[Franzl]

Am I the only one to think that pointing a gun at someone is a crime ? No matter how much Mr Barnett loves his property, he should find another way to "defend" it.
The suit is fully justified.

How should he protect his property?

not at all! he should surrender.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Am I the only one to think that pointing a gun at someone is a crime ? No matter how much Mr Barnett loves his property, he should find another way to "defend" it.
The suit is fully justified.

I strongly disagree. They have no legal right to be in the country, let alone on this man's property. He acted fully within his rights, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm in no way an immigration nut (as many are in that part of the country), but come on....pro-immigrationists can take it too far.

It's not about immigration policies. The illegals were undoubtedly in their wrong when they entered in the rancher's property, but whatever they were doing they don't deserve to be threatened with a gun. As long as the rancher's life wasn't in danger (and according to the article it wasn't), he doesn't have any right to use violence or coercition to "defend his property". If he wanted them to go away, he could simply call the police. It's a bit longer, but at least it doesn't violate basic human rights.

[Franzl]

It's not about immigration policies. The illegals were undoubtedly in their wrong when they entered in the rancher's property, but whatever they were doing they don't deserve to be threatened with a gun. As long as the rancher's life wasn't in danger (and according to the article it wasn't), he doesn't have any right to use violence or coercition to "defend his property". If he wanted them to go away, he could simply call the police. It's a bit longer, but at least it doesn't violate basic human rights.

I'm not sure you're familiar with what people go through down there. There is a reasonable justification for assuming that one is in danger, considering all the violence that comes from south of the border.

I'm pretty conservative here...this man doesn't have a right to kill them unless they pose an imminent danger....but I see no reason he shouldn't be able to show a weapon in his defense.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It's not about immigration policies. The illegals were undoubtedly in their wrong when they entered in the rancher's property, but whatever they were doing they don't deserve to be threatened with a gun. As long as the rancher's life wasn't in danger (and according to the article it wasn't), he doesn't have any right to use violence or coercition to "defend his property". If he wanted them to go away, he could simply call the police. It's a bit longer, but at least it doesn't violate basic human rights.

I'm not sure you're familiar with what people go through down there. There is a reasonable justification for assuming that one is in danger, considering all the violence that comes from south of the border.

I'm pretty conservative here...this man doesn't have a right to kill them unless they pose an imminent danger....but I see no reason he shouldn't be able to show a weapon in his defense.

The article speaks about  "holding the group captive at gunpoint"... Which is totally different to "showing a weapon in his defense" (the latte may be legitimate indeed, as long as you don't use it). Using coercition with the help of a weapon is unjustifiable, whatever the guy thought about the intentions of the illegals.
And please, don't come with the "violence that comes from south" argument. Of course, there is more criminality among illegal immigrates than among American citizens, but you can't defend the rancher based on such prejudices. The illegals were maybe dangerous murderers and drug dealers, or maybe they were just 16 poor guys who came in America to work and improve their standars of living. It's disappointing to hear such things coming from you...

[dead0man]

Look, it's great that you feel pointing a gun at somebody doing something illegal is wrong, but until you come up with a way for this guy to defend his property that makes you happy and is effective, you're just pissing into the wind.

[Franzl]

So what if the people illegally on his property were in fact dangerous criminals? What if they actually harm the rancher? Bad luck for him?

I see absolutely no reason to give the illegals the benefit of the doubt.

[Bacon King]

Let's see here. I don't know the details of this case, but I don't think this should automatically be thrown out so please allow me to play devil's advocate here.

First off, everyone, remember that crossing the border "illegally" is not, in itself, a crime. You don't get arrested for it, you don't go to jail for it. When you get caught, you get taken back across the border by immigration agents that act in their function as customs enforcement officials, not officers of the law.

Regardless, committing a crime does not automatically eliminate someone's civil rights anyway. Due process still exists, convicted criminals can still successfully sue police officers for mistreatment. What these people were doing on the guy's property is entirely irrelevant to the case at hand.

Also, this may be arguable by some, but an American isn't entitled to basic human rights because they're an American, but because they are a human, and in this amazing country we aim to treat all humans with basic rights given to them by God. An illegal alien doesn't have all their rights forfeit just by not being an American.

Having made that preface, the facts of the case definitely warrant some sort of action. Sixteen people are trespassing, and are caught by the landowner- there's nothing wrong with that. Threatening to shoot them, making acts of intimidation and violence, holding them extralegally- these are valid points of legal contention.

I'm not saying the sixteen are in the right at all. But I see no reason why extraneous factors about this case don't warrant a trial. Yes, the damages they seek are really excessive- but such is the legal system.

That's really all that needs saying, I think.

PS- Good to see you back, States

[Antonio the Sixth]

Thanks BK, nice to see someone shares my view.

So what if the people illegally on his property were in fact dangerous criminals? What if they actually harm the rancher? Bad luck for him?

I see absolutely no reason to give the illegals the benefit of the doubt.

In this case, the rancher may use his gun, only if he is under an effective threat. And everybody should be given the benefit of the doubt.

[Franzl]

Thanks BK, nice to see someone shares my view.

So what if the people illegally on his property were in fact dangerous criminals? What if they actually harm the rancher? Bad luck for him?

I see absolutely no reason to give the illegals the benefit of the doubt.

In this case, the rancher may use his gun, only if he is under an effective threat. And everybody should be given the benefit of the doubt.

I think that's quite a naive way to see it...but alright

[Vepres]

Thanks BK, nice to see someone shares my view.

So what if the people illegally on his property were in fact dangerous criminals? What if they actually harm the rancher? Bad luck for him?

I see absolutely no reason to give the illegals the benefit of the doubt.

In this case, the rancher may use his gun, only if he is under an effective threat. And everybody should be given the benefit of the doubt.

I think that's quite a naive way to see it...but alright

I was about to write an angry response to your post, Franzl, then I read it again

[??????????]

They're not threat a Antonio?

http://www.drovers.com/news_editorial.asp?pgID=675&ed_id=7123&news_id=19707

http://beforeitsnews.com/news/34868/Arizona_Sheriff_Says_Cops_Are_Being_Killed_by_Illegal_Aliens;_Joins_Call_for_U.S._Troops_at_Border.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciudad_Ju%C3%A1rez#Drug_cartel_violence

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2010/0314/Mexico-killings-Gunmen-kill-3-with-ties-to-US-consulate

16 vs 1. BK, citizens do have the RIGHT to preform a citizens arrest.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Let's see here. I don't know the details of this case, but I don't think this should automatically be thrown out so please allow me to play devil's advocate here.

First off, everyone, remember that crossing the border "illegally" is not, in itself, a crime. You don't get arrested for it, you don't go to jail for it. When you get caught, you get taken back across the border by immigration agents that act in their function as customs enforcement officials, not officers of the law.

Regardless, committing a crime does not automatically eliminate someone's civil rights anyway. Due process still exists, convicted criminals can still successfully sue police officers for mistreatment. What these people were doing on the guy's property is entirely irrelevant to the case at hand.

Also, this may be arguable by some, but an American isn't entitled to basic human rights because they're an American, but because they are a human, and in this amazing country we aim to treat all humans with basic rights given to them by God. An illegal alien doesn't have all their rights forfeit just by not being an American.

Having made that preface, the facts of the case definitely warrant some sort of action. Sixteen people are trespassing, and are caught by the landowner- there's nothing wrong with that. Threatening to shoot them, making acts of intimidation and violence, holding them extralegally- these are valid points of legal contention.

I'm not saying the sixteen are in the right at all. But I see no reason why extraneous factors about this case don't warrant a trial. Yes, the damages they seek are really excessive- but such is the legal system.

That's really all that needs saying, I think.

PS- Good to see you back, States

BK,

You made a number of assertions which need correction.

First, illegally entering the United States IS a crime, and some persons doing so are being prosecuted, convicted and serving time.

Second, yes, the status of the accusers IS relevant in evaluating the veracity of the accusations.  You really should examine the Rules of Evidence.

Third, I don't know what you are referring to about "holding them extralegally," as a 'citizens arrest' is certainly legal, and holding a prisoner until law enforcement personnel can arrive to incarcerate them is certainly legal.

Finally, you are wise to be suspicious on the facts as illegals have been coached to always claim they were apprehended in a group.  The belief is that if several of them tell the same lie, it will have some credibility.  However, in a number of cases where this has been alledged, both forensic evidence and cameras have proven they were lying.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Thanks BK, nice to see someone shares my view.

So what if the people illegally on his property were in fact dangerous criminals? What if they actually harm the rancher? Bad luck for him?

I see absolutely no reason to give the illegals the benefit of the doubt.

In this case, the rancher may use his gun, only if he is under an effective threat. And everybody should be given the benefit of the doubt.

I think that's quite a naive way to see it...but alright

Well, I think sometimes naivety is the lesser of the two evils.

They're not threat a Antonio?

Learn to read my posts.

[dead0man]

Have you came up with an effective way to help this rancher out and at the same time make it so these poor people never have to have a gun pointed at them again?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Have you came up with an effective way to help this rancher out and at the same time make it so these poor people never have to have a gun pointed at them again?

The rancher could start simply calling the police, and telling them to go away. Since illegals are, illegals, they supposedly don't want to be caught by the police. Thus, they would most likely run away before the guy could type the phone number.

[dead0man]

See, he's tried that.  It doesn't work.  They still litter his property with trash and human poop, breaking into his home and killing his livestock.  He's been doing this since 1998.  He even put a convenient faucet on a water tank of his so they'd stop breaking it trying to get to the water, still they trash his land.

What is he to do?  And why is the onus on him anyway, he isn't the one initiating these activities.  Shouldn't the onus be on the ones breaking the law initially?  I know it's hard to see the land owning white guy with a gun as a victim so he simply must be guilty of something, but come on, you can see past these prejudices if you try hard enough.

[ScottM]

See, he's tried that.  It doesn't work.  They still litter his property with trash and human poop, breaking into his home and killing his livestock.  He's been doing this since 1998.  He even put a convenient faucet on a water tank of his so they'd stop breaking it trying to get to the water, still they trash his land.

What is he to do?  And why is the onus on him anyway, he isn't the one initiating these activities.  Shouldn't the onus be on the ones breaking the law initially?  I know it's hard to see the land owning white guy with a gun as a victim so he simply must be guilty of something, but come on, you can see past these prejudices if you try hard enough.

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

[Antonio the Sixth]

See, he's tried that.  It doesn't work.  They still litter his property with trash and human poop, breaking into his home and killing his livestock.  He's been doing this since 1998.  He even put a convenient faucet on a water tank of his so they'd stop breaking it trying to get to the water, still they trash his land.

What is he to do?  And why is the onus on him anyway, he isn't the one initiating these activities.  Shouldn't the onus be on the ones breaking the law initially?  I know it's hard to see the land owning white guy with a gun as a victim so he simply must be guilty of something, but come on, you can see past these prejudices if you try hard enough.

We're not talking about who is "guilty" and is "the victim", as you may notice the issue is a bit more complicated. Sorry, but whatever was the rancher's situation, there are principles that should be respected. And though I'm sure that in his view he was certain to be in his right, the same can work for the illegals.

[dead0man]

I know it's complicated, if it wasn't complicated we wouldn't even know about it.  But we're still left with what should the land owning white guy do?  The govt isn't helping him.  The people breaking the law and ruining his sh**t ain't helping him.  Being sued by well funded lawyers isn't helping him (nor does it help past, current or future illegals).  You telling him he shouldn't hold a gun on them isn't helping him.  What is he to do?  You might not like his actions, but if you (or anybody else) can't come up with something better for him to do then your bitching about his actions don't really hold much water.  (and neither does his water tank because some illegals just broke it again)

..and your last sentence is kind of funny.  I'm assuming the illegals know what they are doing is illegal (why else would they be crossing in the middle of the desert) so I'm guessing they know they ain't "in the right".

[Franzl]

See, he's tried that.  It doesn't work.  They still litter his property with trash and human poop, breaking into his home and killing his livestock.  He's been doing this since 1998.  He even put a convenient faucet on a water tank of his so they'd stop breaking it trying to get to the water, still they trash his land.

What is he to do?  And why is the onus on him anyway, he isn't the one initiating these activities.  Shouldn't the onus be on the ones breaking the law initially?  I know it's hard to see the land owning white guy with a gun as a victim so he simply must be guilty of something, but come on, you can see past these prejudices if you try hard enough.

We're not talking about who is "guilty" and is "the victim", as you may notice the issue is a bit more complicated. Sorry, but whatever was the rancher's situation, there are principles that should be respected. And though I'm sure that in his view he was certain to be in his right, the same can work for the illegals.

You think illegals are that dumb?

[Antonio the Sixth]

I meant that on a moral point of view, both the rancher's and the illegal's attitude could be justified. As for law, they both broke it.