16 illegals sue Arizona rancher

[Hugabear]

Source: Washington Times

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

Roger Barnett, 64, began rounding up illegal immigrants in 1998 and turning them over to the U.S. Border Patrol, he said, after they destroyed his property, killed his calves and broke into his home.

His Cross Rail Ranch near Douglas, Ariz., is known by federal and county law enforcement authorities as "the avenue of choice" for immigrants seeking to enter the United States illegally.

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.

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

---

Good for these people. According to this article, this armed vigilante has turned over 12,000 people over to the Border Patrol.

[Deja Q]

1. Not an easy topic, but I have to side with the rancher.

Look, it's simple: Other countries deal with people who try to move to their countries illegally. Not everyone is hip to this "globalism" thing. Which isn't even the point...

The point is: Come here legally, that's awesome. Break a law and that's not awesome.

Trespassing is a crime too.

The illegals have no case. And, quite honestly, I don't care which country they came from. Respect others' countries and yours in turn will be respected. Didn't Bush invade a country illegally too?

[Bacchus39]

3. I'll have to agree, he even installed a water faucet

for the migrants to use so they wouldn't damage his tank. I'm sure he's not the most pleasant person to run across but carrying a gun and reporting illegals is certainly no crime.

[panader0]

5. Barnett is an asshole. He really is.

He has a propane business here in town, and a towing service whereby he makes a fortune off of people who have their vehicles impounded. If you can't pay the huge towing fees added to the 100 bucks a day storage fees you "give" your vehicle to Barnett. Believe me, he is hated around here.

[Veilex]

31. I'll agree that its nice to see those who do wrong get theirs...

However it doesn't excuse people breaking property or trespassing. Wrongdoing is still wrongdoing. Doesn't make a difference if its done to a republican, Democrat, conservative or Liberal... Laws were made for a reason and need to be observed.

[superconnected]

72. He might be an arse but as a property owner in the US he has the right not to want people

trespassing on his property. I wouldn't want people trespassing on mine even if they were legal white americans.

[happyslug]

146. Under the Common law, people could trespass on the properties of others

If they caused any damages they were liable, but it was only criminal if you entered a locked building (Or a house, whether it was locked or not).

Only in the late 1800s, as an anti-union law, was what we now call criminal trespass invented in the US. Thus, since the late 1800s, if you post a sign saying "no Trespassing" and someone enters your property, he is guilty of Criminal Trespass. Note, it is a crime produced by Statute NOT the Common Law and given its anti-union background will be enforced only to the letter of the law (i.e. if there is away around the Statute, the Courts are suppose to grant it, but that varies from state to state).

Justs some background on Trespass law, it is common even today to trespass across a neighbor's field to get to a road. Not as common as it was in pre-automobiles days, but still done. The key if you are trespassing you can NOT do any damage. This is commonly violated by snowmobiles (And why people hate them).

[superconnected]

181. Good luck standing before a judge in 2009 and explaining the way it used to be in the 1800's.

I bet you're not even 110yrs old to remember that so we shouldn't even feel sorry for you because things changed.

If 20 thousand people trespass on your land that's a bit different than a few people walking through your field now and then. either way, as property owners we have the right to NOT allow people to walk through our field if we so desire, regardless of the rules in 1880 or the often laxness of the rules today.

[happyslug]

182. You are forgetting the rules of construction regarding statutes

If a statute is in derogation of the Common Law, it MUST be interpreted narrowly by the Courts (Unless the law is ab attempt to rewrite that part of the law, such as the Uniform Commercial Code). The Trespass acts are in derogation of the Common Law and as such must be narrowly construed, which was the point I was trying to make. If you are clearly under the Statute you are guilty, but if they is any ambiguity, it must be made in favor of the Defendant.

I was just pointing out the law is quite clear, if the area is clearly marked AND it is impossible for a person to miss the sighs, he is guilty of Criminal Trespass, but if he can show it is possible to get on the property WITHOUT seeing the sign, he is NOT guilty of Criminal Trespass. That is the law today, you may not like it, but it remains the law.

Please note, even under the Common Law, if a person was trespassing on your property and did damage he could be sued for the damage he did. The issue I am discussing is CRIMINAL TRESPASS, when it becomes Criminal to trespass on the property of another. Such Criminal Trespass Laws must be construed narrowly even today.

[superconnected]

184. Well thanks, that is good information.

[happyslug]

227. Remember the Common law on Trespass is to protect landowners

But also to permit free movement of people, when it causes no harm to the landowner.

The Common law made it a crime to entered into a person's home without the owner's permission or any of the following properties:

1. the area around the home (The "close" of the House, in addition to the house proper),
2. any other building that are locked, (and by lock, that means anything other then an open door) and
3. any field that has a fence around it to keep people out.

Anything beyond the above limitations could be entered by anyone and it was not CRIMINAL TRESPASS. It could be trespassing in the sense that you could be sued for any damage you did (Sometime referred to a civil Trespass) but if it was open and NOT otherwise secured, anyone could walk in.

Do to the above, union organizers though nothing of entering businesses and talking to employees about forming a union. Business owners wanted this stopped do Criminal Trespass acts were passed to make it a crime to enter an area just be posting a sign. Under Criminal Trespass Acts, you could leave anyone in your property with your permission (your employees) but keep everyone else out.

One of the persons these acts were aimed at was Mother Jones. She was a radical union organizer for the United Mine Workers. She turned Radical do to lost of her family and since she did this in middle age she became known as Mother Jones "The Most Dangerous Woman in America". She was always working to forms unions, mostly for the United Mine Workers (UMW) but others. In one incident, after the passage of the Criminal Trespass Act in West Virginia, she had to walk up a stream that went through the coal mine area and talk to the miners from the Stream (A Stream was and is considered a public road in many states including Pennsylvania provided the only source for that steam IS not on that property i.e. it flows through and does NOT start on that property). From that cold mountain stream in the middle of winter (It was cold NOT frozen) she talked to the miners in the bitter cold. She could NOT step out of the Stream for then she would be committing Criminal Trespass, but as long as she was in the stream she was safe for it was a public road.

I bring up Mother Jones for it shows what the Criminal Trespass Acts were really intended to stop, someone like her talking to employees. This is still the law in all states, an employer can exclude anyone from coming onto their property to try to form a union (But the Employer can FORCE the Employees to attend anti-union meetings for they are the employer's employees). The above incident with Mother Jones shows how these Criminal Trespass Acts can be abused, and I hate to say it, we be better off without them, given that if you catch someone trespassing on your property, all you can do is call the Police to get them off. You can bring an action in your local court, but only if you know who they are, and given you can NOT arrest them how do you find that out? As one old lawyer told me years ago, Criminal Trespass acts, Except when used against Labor, are useless. It will keep honest people off your land, but such people rarely, if ever, causes you harm. At the same time it gives the impression that dishonest people will stay off because of the sign, and they will not. The chances of getting caught is somewhere between slim and none, the chances of getting a fine if caught is even less. Given the traditional Common Law Rule that a landowner owes no duty to a Trespasser except to warn him of any dangers made by the landowner (i.e. Booby-traps, holes and ditches dug in the ground so that no one can see them etc) the liability of a landowner is slim (When you hear of a Land owner being sued by a trespasser it is generally because the landowner set up a booby-trap or other hazard, for that is the only time a landowner is liable to a trespasser). The better solution is either fence your property (And put camera on known trespassing point so you can catch the trespasser as they cross the fence) or just accept the fact that people will trespass.

More on Mother Jones:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Jones

[barb162]

195. I don't care what the law was in horse and buggy days

These illegal immigrants have no right trespassing on this man's land or coming into this country illegally. I'm glad he turned them in to the authorities.

[happyslug]

220. The issue is the underlaying Criminal Trespass Act.

If the Act is NOT a clear rewrite of the Common Law, it must be narrowly construed. i.e. if there is a way around it, the courts MUST do so. Furthermore given that Trespassing is a Summary Offense in most states (i.e. punished by a fine) that does NOT give anyone the right to retain anyone (You can retain someone who you see do a FELONY under the concept of Civil arrest, but trespassing is NOT a Felony, it is not even a Misdemeanor, it is a summary offense, lowest classification of Crime in most states).

The Main reason for this is in the 1890s when the first Criminal Trespass acts were passed it was to make the crime under the local Justice of the Peace (Often controlled by the local coal miner owner or other business owner) who would then set the maximum fine on any union organizer. The business owners did NOT want it to be a Felony or Misdemeanor for that meant the charge would be transferred to the local Court of Common Pleas (Or whatever the County Court in your state is called, Supreme Court in New York State, Superior Court in California for example). In such county Courts the right to a Jury Trial kicked in AND it was generally outside the power of the Local Coal owner or other large business establishment (i.e. Chances increased the Union Organizers would get a low fine, if any).

Anyway, back to this rancher. Unless he was authorized by some statute, he had NO right to hold ANYONE, especially for a SUMMARY OFFENSE. Thus ANY arrest (and that is what his retention of such illegal aliens was) MUST be authorized by law, and NO law gives non law enforcement officers the right to arrest someone for anything less then a Felony THERE HAVE PERSONALLY SEEN. Police Officers can arrest people for Misdemeanors AND Felonies reported to them but not personally seen (in addition to felonies they have personally seen) but NOT anything else (They is an exception for Police to detain you while they write a ticket, technically that is an arrest, but since it is limited to the duration of issuing the ticket it is legal). This is what this rancher is facing, he committed a crime when he arrested people he had no right under law to do so. That makes him liable to the people he arrested for any damages they incurred do to his wrongful action AND punitive damages, if awarded by the jury, if the jury finds his actions so bad that punitive damages are do.

[Butch350]

239. I'm sure if you look hard enough you could find someone who hates you too.

Ok, so your happy about his misery - but yet and still Barnett should have say so about who trespasses his land. Besides, you never know what person of villainy may be crossing the border these days. I really don't care who stops a potential criminal,a cop or an a**hole. Those nice hard working illegals may eventually affect YOU and YOUR lifestyle someday. (hopefully not for the worse).

[county worker]

13. I think you one size fits all rules are too simplistic.

None of your rules are being taken seriously so we need to deal with the world as it exists not as in some fantasy land.

[superconnected]

74. Excuse me? These ppl are trespassing on his property. How many of us property owners

do you feel don't have a right to not have people trespass on our property?

[harmonicon]

121. me? All of you.

I think trespassing is a farce. In most European countries the concept doesn't exist. People are allowed to travel through wilderness and farmland, despite any claims of "ownership".

[leftynyc]

155. Meanwhile HERE it's against the law

I have sympathy for the illegals but side with the rancher. It's his property.

[harmonicon]

163. who cares?

People should disobey the law when the law is wrong. With your logic, slavery would still be legal, the US would just be part of the British Empire, etc.

[leftynyc]

165. That's a good way to spend

a great deal of time in prison. Good luck with that.

[harmonicon]

167. I've had great luck so far in my life not going to prison

and I have a clear conscience to boot.

[superconnected]

180. I guess you haven't been caught yet.

[harmonicon]

186. nothing to be caught for

because I do nothing wrong.

[superconnected]

179. Good luck staying out of jail. If you come on my property, I'll have you arrested.

What are you anyway, an unemployed 16yo? I don't sense any trace of adulthood, respect for others property etc. in your posts. Are you a tagger too? Do you steal a whole lot too? I'm guessing you do since you don't believe in others having rights over their own things.

[harmonicon]

187. I don't believe in people having "their own things".

If you're really interested, I'm an anarchist, and I think that individual property ownership is inherently wrong. In answer to your other questions, I am not an unemployed 16 year old. I am a 30 year old PhD researcher living in the UK, but a US citizen. I have never tagged anything, and I have never stolen anything. When "adulthood" means forgetting human nature, I am against it. The world would be a much better place if so called "adults" could learn to experience in their lives the simple joy which children find in play.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

189. So if I decided to come and take your computer with all your research on it, you'd be okay with that

[harmonicon]

206. no, but if you wanted any of the information on it, I'd willingly give it to you

When people walk across land, they don't take it with them, but they are using it. Hell, I'll even let you come to my house and use my computer to post rhetorical questions on here for me to answer. Oh, and when a stranger shows up at my house, I don't fucking pull a gun on them, so count yourself safe there.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

213. I concur

[Ecumenist]

85. I have to agree worth you DejaQ. This is a meanspirited and vengeful

as well as a dunderheaded lawsuit. Crazy... I more often then not side with the immigrants. Frankly, I don't give a rusty rat's %ss what happens to this barnett but I think that the legal point that it sets if this arse loses is dangerous to all Americans.

[harmonicon]

118. no one is "illegal"

Certain acts are illegal. There is no way for a citizen to judge that someone is perpetrating an illegal act solely based on appearances or certain actions. If he wants to call the police to arrest someone for trespassing, that's fine. How would you feel if someone pulled a gun on you just because they didn't want you around? Would you feel violated?

[leftynyc]

156. Not if I was on their property

How would he know the trespassers meant no harm? He has every constitutional right to protect himself and his property.

[harmonicon]

164. I'm guessing that these people, who may not have even known that they were "trespassing"

weren't pointing guns at him. That would be a clue as to whether or not he needed to pull a gun. Should I be allowed to pull a gun on anyone walking down the street just because they may be a threat? A potential threat and the farcical idea of trespassing have no relationship what-so-ever. To try to tie them together is a red herring.

[leftynyc]

171. The law states

that on his property, he can carry a gun so your analogy with walking on the streets with a loaded gun is a strawman argument. The rancher has from what I read and in this case not broken the law. That the people on his property didn't know they were trespassing defies logic.

[harmonicon]

173. the court will decide whether or not he's broken the law

that's why it's going to court. However, to try to equate the law with right and wrong is ridiculous again.

[toopers]

233. Ignorance is no excuse from the law. . .

The "I didn't know the gun was loaded" argument does not work. So, the fact that these people did not know they were on private property is not really a valid argument.

[barb162]

194. I'm with you, Deja

:)

[Night_Nurse]

201. Well said... I agree w/you completely. nt

[vadawg]

2. WTF, he apprehended people trespassing on his ranch

If this turns out with a win for the plaintiffs i can see this ending badly as we may as well just open the borders to allcomers.

[ChazII]

152. Agreed. n/t

[virgogal]

4. The fact that this is going to trial astonishes me.

I wouldn't want my property known as "the avenue of choice" for people breaking the law.

What a country.

[Night_Nurse]

202. Yeah, and guess who is going to be picking up the tab for legal fees, court costs, etc.? nt

[frogmarch]

6. They killed his livestock,

destroyed his property and broke into his home...and yet you say "Good for these people"?

WTF!

I side with the rancher.

[panader0]

15. The article is one-sided. The guy is a nazi.

It's like a fetish with him to nab illegals. Illegals are everywhere around her. Hardly a week goes by when I don't see dozens of them handcuffed, sitting in a row next to the one of the thousands of Border Patrol vehicles here waiting to be bussed back across the line so they can try again. Barnett is particularly violent with those he "apprehends".

[jkappy]

27. yes, it sounds one-sided/ simplistic!! n/t

[GreenTea]

34. Of course it is the Moonie-Republican Washington Times slant....

[scrinmaster]

30. Considering what they did to his property, I don't blame him.

And "Nazi", really? Or has that just become the catch-all phrase for "Conservative I Don't Like"?

[pdefalla]

38. So whatever he does to these "illegals"

is OK because others of the same race did him wrong in the past?

[LaPera]

40. Fucker sounds like the typical republican pig..."This is mine, all mine I own it, all of it is mine"

I run across assholes like this on the beach of N CA, they hate anyone even walking across the vacant for miles sand dunes "they own", to get to the beach or hiking for exercise & pleasure...

They put up signs, they confront you, threaten to call the Sheriffs ...Just hateful, greedy republican pigs..."It's all mine I paid for it, owned it for 100 years, I'm rich, so stop walking across my sand" or "I'll have you arrested for trespassing"....Because "it's mine"....I'm a republican, I hate common people, I hate paying taxes to help anyone, I'm better than you, it's mine and I'll build on it whatever or where ever I damn well please and screw the god-damn environmental impact reports too, because it's mine, ALL Mine"!!

[superconnected]

78. So property owners are "pigs" if they don't want trespassers. I'm sure glad your train

of thought is illegal. I don't think I'd want a trespasser, and especially one who considered me a "pig" on my property. I'd have you arrested immediately.

[John Q. Citizen]

136. All the property anyone owns was stolen by them or their relatives. Why do you begrudge

the people suing their right to steal some too?

[Quantess]

176. How can you be so sure the plaintiffs are Native Americans?

[John Q. Citizen]

193. I don't recall claiming the plaintiffs are Native Americans. Did I?

Are you under the assumption that only native Americans can be the victim of theft?

[barb162]

216. I'm with you, superconnected.

[leftynyc]

157. I'm not sure you mean to sound like a lunatic

People trespassed on his land and damaged his property - he has every right to call the authorities. Sounds like you have a problem with people who have more than you do. That would very much be YOUR problem.

[Hugabear]

210. The very concept of owning vast tracts of property is insane

I've never understood what gives one person the right to "own" vast amounts of property. Is it an ego thing, to see who can accumulate the most land? "Na-na-na-na, this is MY land and I will shoot your ass if you step foot on it" - that seems to be the mentality of a lot of people, including some here on this very site.

[John Q. Citizen]

134. Just because his relatives stole it, doesn't make it his. Well maybe it does. So I guess those

folks are just trying to steal it back from him fair and square.

How do you and him like that?


Well that's tough.

[NashVegas]

69. Whether Or Not He's A Jerk Is Not On Trial

Whether or not his right to defend his property against illegal aliens taking a short cut is.

[superconnected]

76. If you have so many illegals, it sounds like you need more people apprehending them.

Sad they keep coming back. I feel for you.

Since they're getting arrested on private property in this ranchers case, I don't care how much of a jerk he is, he has a right.

[EFerrari]

109. This article is rightwing bullshit and it's sort of painful to see how many people

just lick it up.

[barb162]

197. Right or left wing has nothing to do with it.

I wouldn't want thousands of lawbreakers walking around my property. I'm glad he's calling Border Control. Do you understand the concept of PRIVATE property?

[barb162]

196. I hope Border Control gets more of them.

That man is not a nazi to want trespassers/ illegals off his property and out of this country.

[Hugabear]

169. Show me proof that these particular individuals killed his livestock

Or do you subscribe to the belief that "they're all alike"?

[BlancheSplanchnik]

214. Bingo! To me, the point isn't even "illegals".

As I read the article, it had been going on a long time, and he finally took his gun out AFTER they'd BEEN destroying his HOME, ANIMALS, PROPERTY. I didn't see any mention of him even actually firing the thing, either.

ANYONE who does this to someone deserves to be stopped, with a good side of ass-kicking.

(ps. I saw the post about him being a prick....good, he's getting karma, but this would likely be happening as well to people who DON'T deserve having thieves overrun their property )

[pleah]

7. This should not even be allowed in the court system.

They are illegal immigrants trespassing on this guys property. wtf!

[superconnected]

87. I agree totally!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. Let's hope they take him to the cleaners.

[vadawg]

10. yeah cause you could never be next in line to be sued.

jeez, if you cross my property im gonna detain you at gunpoint as well if you dont leave.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. That's all well and good.

If you kick me just for the spite of it, I'm going to sue your rotten ass.

[superconnected]

88. Wow, I don't believe anyone should have a right to sue if they get hurt and they're trespassing.

I wouldn't want to lose my home because someone with no respect for my property rights can't wait to sue. I guess maybe I should buy a gun.

[panader0]

33. I have seen "illegals" cross my 32 acres many times.

Sometimes early in the morning, moving quietly in a line, women carrying their children. They have never done one ounce of harm to me or my property. They merely want the promise of a job. I have hired a few, years ago, paid them with food and clothes and a few bucks. Believe me, they need it. Cut out the paranoia, these are good, poor people. By the way, in spite of my user name, I am a white guy, given that name by my Mexican working buddies.

[rpannier]

48. The important part of your post is...

They have never done one ounce of harm to me or my property.

According to the article they have done damage to his ranch.
If the article is correct, then I side with the rancher.
His property. He pays for the maintenance and upkeep and they're injuring his livestock, damaging his ranch, etc.

[nomorenomore08]

59. But who says the 16 suing him are the same ones who damaged his property?

There may have been thousands of immigrants passing through there over time. So anyone who happens to look like the perpetrators deserves to be treated the same way?

[DrCory]

229. That's Nice...

And your choice to allow them on your property. Don't expect others such as myself who have worked extremely long and hard to acquire some property to be so generous to complete strangers.

"Cut out the paranoia, these are good, poor people."

I don't understand this line of reasoning. Are they ALL good? Can you guarantee that? If so, why? Are they good because they're poor? Are ALL poor migrant foreign nationals good people who can be trusted in any circumstance?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

190. Then next time he'll just kill them, better outcome for him.

[Night_Nurse]

203. No, let's hope someone files a counter-suit.. nt

[GOPNotForMe]

9. "Illegals"? Gosh WT isn't even TRYING to appear unbiased on the surface.

F*** them.

[vadawg]

12. Well whatever you want to call them, they broke the law

dosent make it right that they get to sue the man for protecting his properrty.

[GOPNotForMe]

20. So are all people accused of committing a crime referred to as "illegals" in this country?

Or just the poor brown ones?

[scrinmaster]

26. They are illegal aliens, "illegals" is short hand.

[AlphaCentauri]

158. So our troops in the middle east should be call "illegals"? n/t

[Bacchus39]

28. should we call them "poor brown ones" then??? n/t

s

[GOPNotForMe]

44. "Undocumented immigrant" will do just fine.

It's more accurate and it's not as hurtful a term.

[Night_Nurse]

145. I'll stick w/illegal alien... fuck that PC nonsense. nt

[GOPNotForMe]

151. You're right. Words have no power.

Do you still refer to blacks as "Negros" and gays as "queers"? If not, why so PC?

[Night_Nurse]

200. No, I do not...

but burglars are not uninvited house guests.

Bank robbers are not making unauthorized withdrawals.

And illegal aliens are not undocumented immigrants.

I am NOT anti-immigration - but I am anti-sneaking across our borders. It's unfair to all the immigrants who went through the process the legal way.

[slackmaster]

178. That sounds awkward, and it's not really accurate either

Most people have SOME kind of documentation somewhere.

[Veilex]

36. Huh? Excuse me?

Ummmm...Canadians who cross the boarder illegally are called "illegals" too....last I checked most of them are white... care to re-think your comment?

*edited for spelling*

[GOPNotForMe]

42. Nope. "Illegals" is a xenophobic proxy for Mexicans.

Just because the term CAN be used to describe people crossing the Canadian border doesn't mean that it is.

Being in the country without the proper documentation, contrary to popular belief, is not a constant state of criminality. "Illegals" criminalizes the people and not the act. And using a broad term like "illegals" vilifies every person who is here without the proper documentation unnecessarily and it confuses a lot of issues. For example, people who are here without documentation might be eligible for administrative relief, asylee or refugee status, they might have been taken across the border when they were mere children and know nothing else but America as their home. "Illegals" is a simplistic, hurtful, code-racist term that makes it easier to disregard an entire class of people. After all, they are "illegal."

[AlphaCentauri]

160. also people who over stay their visa

the same term is not used on people who overstay their visa just on people who cross the border, people who over stay their visa become unauthorized resident of the states when their visa expired.

40% of all undocumented immigrants did overstay their visa

[Booster]

11. I'm also backing the rancher in this case. I wish I could be

on the jury. The illegals inflicted emotional distress and, obviously, a lot of other crimes on, not only Mr. Barnett, but his entire family. They have no right to destroy his property, kill his calves and break into his home They started out with a crime and everything they did while on his property was a crime, including littering and breaking things that belonged to him. Sorry, but I can't condone what they did and I don't blame Mr. Barnett for the measures he had to take to protect his family and property. Enough is enough.

[treestar]

25. You would not be chosen for the jury

Having made up your mind already, without having heard the evidence from the beginning, you can be dismissed for cause.

[Booster]

32. I have been on a whole lot of juries and, believe me, it's not

as easy as you think to get off of a panel. I've tried several times because they were gang related and the lawyers just don't care what you say. They don't ask you how you would vote right up front.

[Xithras]

16. Why is this in court?

Since when is it illegal to detain people trespassing on your property?

[ohio2007]

17. Mexican drug violence spills over into Arizona

Mexican drug violence spills over into the US
Just as government officials had feared, the drug violence raging in Mexico is spilling over into the United States.

U.S. authorities are reporting a spike in killings, kidnappings and home invasions connected to Mexico's murderous cartels. And to some policymakers' surprise, much of the violence is happening not in towns along the border, where it was assumed the bloodshed would spread, but a considerable distance away, in places such as Phoenix and Atlanta

snip
http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/frontpage/109702.php

Is it really unrelated ?

[a la izquierda]

49. Um I think it's unrelated.

Undocumented workers coming here, 9 times out of 10, aren't members of f-ing cartels, and have absolutely zero to do with drugs. In the stated articled in the original OP, 5 of the members filing suit were women. Women aren't normally members of drug cartels. Jay-sus.

So yeah, to answer your question, it IS unrelated. You can take that to the bank from someone who lives here in Mexico part time and who's studied the history and culture. I'm offended that ANYONE on this board would make such a disgusting assumption. There are already people here, legally or not, who are probably members of drug cartels. There are crooked cops and border agents. And, gasp, there are f-ing idiot non-Mexicans who work with these thug murderers.
Do you know something? People in Mexico are scared to death of cartels. I think some that go to the US are thrilled to get away from them.
My god, I don't even know why I read threads about Mexico on here sometimes. The ignorance amazes me.

[AZ Criminal JD]

65. Women aren't "members of drug cartels"

Where are you getting that shit from?? I see women members of drug gangs every damn day. You say "9 times out of 10" illegals are not drug bangers. WTF Do you know what the number is if 10% are? Two million. So you don't give a shit about 2,000,000 bangers running around?

[a la izquierda]

66. In Mexico, women are not typically members...

of drug cartels.

Gangs and drug cartels are different animals.
Bangers, ugh, gimme a break.

[AZ Criminal JD]

185. No, not going to give you a break

You are fine with two million bangers going around this country.

[ohio2007]

235. Mexicans protest army ops against drug gangs ( more unrelated border news)

MONTERREY, Mexico (Reuters) - Hundreds of Mexicans blocked roads and bridges into the United States on Tuesday in a protest of army operations against drug gangs that officials said was organized by the drug cartels.

About 300 protesters, some with handkerchiefs tied over their faces, carried signs saying "Army Get Out!" in front of the town hall in the northern city of Monterrey, 130 miles from the Texan border, the largest in a series of anti-army protests this week.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3743804

[webDude]

18. let me know how you feel when dozens, hundreds(?) lay waste to...

...your property. My first thought was, "are you insane?". You have to look at this objectively, or is it okay to prejudge people that are of one type or another?

[Confusious]

19. Screw the illegals

I don't care if this man is hated in the town he lives in, he has every right to detain people on his property that he does not want there.

[GOPNotForMe]

23. Ugh that is such ugly language. nt

[Veilex]

39. Ugly or not, the fact remains that...

he is right.

[GOPNotForMe]

45. Well how can I argue with that sound logic. nt

[harmonicon]

122. no

"illegals" is a slur. Human beings are not illegal, though actions may be. To refer to a human being as an "illegal" is de-humanizing and cruel.

[Confusious]

138. PC police alert!!!

illegals are illegals, brown, white or green. Or even fish or scallops.

[harmonicon]

150. "politically correct" is a term that was dreamed-up by a right-wing think tank

It was created solely so that nutso right-wingers could say "well, it's not politically correct, but..." like you just have. Way to fall for the trap. Way to show your true colours. I have no interest in being "PC", though I do have an interest in respecting the rights of every human being on this earth and treating them equally.

[slackmaster]

21. Other than the alleged kicking incident, I don't believe any of his actions were unjustified

When you have people littering your property, destroying livestock, and breaking into your home, you do have a right to defend yourself.

According to this article, this armed vigilante has turned over 12,000 people over to the Border Patrol.

It's funny that that after a few years of him rounding them up, the people would have figured out that his ranch wasn't the best way to go.

I don't see how they could possibly have standing to sue in a US court.

[Luciferous]

228. Agreed nt

[Ian David]

22. Whether the rancher is right or wrong is really missing a much bigger issue.

This guy has personally turned-over 12,000 people trying to cross the border...

Why the fuck doesn't the border patrol just hang-out at this guy's place instead of waiting for him to call them?

If his property is such a hot spot for illegal crossings, doesn't it make sense that this is where the border patrol agents should be in the first place?

If I were him, I'd be more pissed at the border patrol than at the guys crossing illegally.

[rpannier]

46. That's a very good point

I mean, if that's where it's occurring you'd think that would be where they'd set up.

The only thing I can possibly think of is, he detains them and turns them over to immigration.
So they don't have to do any of the work and it saves them money and resources.

[Ian David]

47. He presumably pays taxes. Should he also be allowed to put out forrest fires too?

He's doing a job that his taxes are supposed to pay for, and putting himself and others at risk.

[rpannier]

50. I agree with you entirely

I just think it's possible they saw a cheap and easy (lazy) way to get this job done.

I do like your forest fire analogy.
I will have to remember that one.

[Xithras]

51. If the fire is on his property, sure.

FYI, it's actually pretty normal for ranchers to try and help extinguish fires on their own property.

Self-sufficiency is a part of rural life simply because the government usually isn't there to help. Where I live, a 911 call can have a 2 hour response time on busy weekends. Our sherriff recommends that we arm ourselves to protect against criminals, because they can't do it.

Living in the country isn't like living in the city, where you have a police precinct every few miles. Out here, we have four or five patrol officers on duty to protect 1500 square miles of countryside.

When I see people trespassing on my property, I usually walk out and NICELY ask them to leave...but I do so with a loaded rifle on my shoulder.

[dustbunnie]

83. Apparently he only started doing this 1998 after the border guards moved elsewhere -

to take care of other hotspots.

[Still Sensible]

55. Agreed

[Kali]

142. hundreds of miles of border

very pourus, very fluid

and the fact is they ARE wanted here. It is all a very stupid, dangerous, escalating game. As usual it is the big money corps that keep everybody fighting each other while they practice virtual slavery and continue to profit from human misery.

[Night_Nurse]

204. He needs to sue the Border Patrol for not doing their job.. nt

[AnneD]

24. I am siding with the rancher on this.....

the article says the feds know it as the avenue of choice. Sounds like they ned to put up a traffic light. It has been getting rougher and rougher. It just isn't a few workers sneaking in for a better life-it is a coyote that has discovered that human trafficking is better than drug trafficking. They butcher his livestock (not one once and a while either). They cut his fences (a shooting offense in ranch country), steal, etc. It has gotten totally out of hand.

The key word is illegal-they are on his property illegally and he has the right to take the trespasser in. The Government should be doing that but they don't or won't. He may be a jerk but he is within his rights to protect his property. I think he is showing restraint. Some folks would be shooting first and asking questions later if they had sustained that kind of damage.

We have begun to see coyote gun shoot out here in Houston over human smuggling and it needs to stop before it spread further North. Some of you have no idea what you are in for.

[NaturalHigh]

29. I'm on the rancher's side.

The illegals destroyed his property, and he's being sued for detaining them and turning them in? This is why we need to lock down the border and ship out anyone who is not here legally.

[pdefalla]

35. How are you sure

That the folks he is now detaining and turning in are the same ones that "destroyed" his property?

Also, about shipping out anyone who is not here legally, how do we find these people? Do you think we should conduct a door-to-door search, and round these people up, and put them on a train or a bus to Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, etc? Just wondering about the cost of such a program.

[Phoenix-Risen]

37. Maybe if we were just more enlightened

and did away with private property and borders these kind of issues would disappear.

[Cerridwen]

57. I agree.

Welcome to DU.

I'm afraid you won't find much agreement with your statement. I'm one of the weird ones here. In fact, I may be damaging your future here just by responding. LOL

Welcome.

:hi:

[dustbunnie]

90. That's an interesting concept.

What would you do with wildlife preserves, protected wetlands, national parks, things of that nature?

[slackmaster]

94. Pass that number over this way

No Bogarting on the boards.

[harmonicon]

123. bravo!

[Kali]

139. cool - you got a comfy chair in your living room I can sit around in for a couple days?

I guess you won't mind if I help myself to some of your stuff either?

[Night_Nurse]

205. And why don't we burn our Constitution while we're at it? NO North American Union. nt

[GoddessOfGuinness]

222. Such enlightenment is great for those who do not own property...

But won't exactly sit well with the folks who worked hard to earn money to buy their house and the land surrounding it.

And what about the guy's livestock that was killed? Is he supposed to be tolerant of this too?

[Cerridwen]

41. The "rancher" is hunting them..

from the NYTimes in 2006

For years, Roger Barnett has holstered a pistol to his hip, tucked an assault rifle in his truck and set out over the scrub brush on his thousands of acres of ranchland near the Mexican border in southeastern Arizona to hunt.

Hunt illegal immigrants, that is, often chronicled in the news.

<snip>

But Mr. Barnett, known for dressing in military garb and caps with insignia resembling the United States Border Patrol’s, represents a special prize to the immigrant rights groups. He is ubiquitous on Web sites, mailings and brochures put out by groups monitoring the Mexican border and, with family members, was an inspiration for efforts like the Minutemen civilian border patrols.

“The Barnetts, probably more than any people in this country, are responsible for the vigilante movement as it now exists,” said Mark Potok, legal director of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks the groups. “They were the recipients of so much press coverage and they kept boasting, and it was out of those boasts that the modern vigilante movement sprang up.”

Still on the "rancher's" side? Read these quotes from an interview with him; you'll notice he's not mentioning any dead cattle or harrassment and in fact talks about how "subservient" and "used to authority" the "illegals" are.

You know sometimes I can track those guys - you know they'll go through the place and they won't leave tracks at all. But when they get to their location where they are going to lay up - here lately they've been laying up half a mile to a mile before they get picked up - sometimes it's two miles... They'll lay all their trash there, then walk another mile or two miles or maybe half a mile to where they get picked up and they don't leave trash there - they try to hide it.

<snip>

Question: Have you felt endangered?

Barnett: Oh, yeah. Several times you can just feel the hate in their eyes and you don't want to turn your back on them or they would hurt you. They're illegals. We don't get hold of mules (drug runners), I mean they run so much faster... I yell at them and they don't stop a bit. I've only caught one - scared the shit out of him so bad he passed out on the side of a mountain.

<snip>

My brother and I bought these seismic sensors and we have a repeater and everything and we have these monitors in our trucks and in our house. So we know when people are in the area so we can start looking for them. Several times, we used to sit on mountain tops with real high-powered glasses and we could see out 6-7 miles and see them walking... if they're coming in the daytime, they're down in the bottom of a wash so we can't see them by binoculars. We're getting sharper and they're getting sharper. So it's a cat and mouse game.

<snip>

My brother and I used to be deputy sheriffs, so we have some law enforcement training. link

Still not convinced? The 22,000 acres he's claiming are his, might not be, but they might be government property.

It looks like approximately 80% of the ranch actually belongs to the taxpayers of Arizona. Other participants gave information that leads one to conclude that Mr. Barnett is well connected to State of Arizona bureucrats. His "lease" agreement with the state is at the cost of the taxpayers. Also, Mr. Barnett owns a lucrative vehicle hauling business and it was stated that a principal client of his is the U.S. Border Patrol.

Way more going on than is said in that piece of shit article in the OP - nothing against the author of the OP - that's what I think of the "reporter" who wrote the article.

All emphasis added.

[Career Prole]

60. Good job on the research.

Why discussions start up over what one may read (or just as importantly may not read) in the Moonie Times I'll never know. They're almost better off grabbing any paper with Bat Boy on the cover as that agenda-driven rag.

[Cerridwen]

62. Thanks.

Your picture's kind weird but the scream resembles my own when people take what they read as gospel and don't look any further.

I couldn't get the article to load but the part I read in the OP stank to high heaven. No sane person wages a 10 "battle" and "rounds up" people without some serious agenda.

He's already had to pay restitution to an American family he attacked. Seems they "looked illegal" (read they had "brown" skin) so he went to harrass them and round them up. Cost him just under 100K.

And I'm just scratching the surface. This guy's got 10 years of this crap floating around and the "law and order" crowd take the bait; hook, line, and sinker.

*sigh*

[Career Prole]

67. Good lord, Cerridwen! You've never met Bat Boy?

The picture is the one-and-only Bat Boy...front-page icon of the supermarket tabloid...the papers I suggested were more worthy than the Moonie Times (beacause at least you know going in that they're full of hooie). :D

[Cerridwen]

92. Naw, I have a boring and limited existence.

:blush:

LOL

I have very limited "pop culture" knowledge. I wouldn't know about half the singing blonds and the latest gossip if it weren't for DU's fascination with some of it.

Yah, I'm weird. Thanks for the link, though. Now I see some of what I "missed" in the early 90s. LOL

[Career Prole]

95. Aw, it's just a reference to media quality...

...no blushes! :)

[Cerridwen]

100. :D

:D

Thank you.

[Jack_DeLeon]

73. If I had a good chunk of land I would routinely patrol it aswell...

you only truely own what you have under your control.

If you just sit around and allow others to have their way with your property then its not really your property.

[EFerrari]

82. The same could be said for your mind when you allow a story as clearly bs as this one

to move you. Your mental property is not really your property.

[Cerridwen]

102. There is some question as to whether or not this is "his land."

You think a man who says, "Humans, the greatest prey on earth" is patrolling?

Well, I guess I should be happy he's busy with them "brown folk." I'd hate to think what would happen if that mentality decided it need to "patrol" for them damned, commie, pinko, libruls.

And if you don't think those two mentalities I just listed are the same damned thing, you ain't been payin' attention.

[EFerrari]

80. Good job. n/t

[Cerridwen]

103. Thanks. n/t

[superconnected]

89. If it's not his property than it's different imo. However if it is his, he has a right I will

support.

So if it's tax payer property, those illegals are trespassing on all of our property, though. If it were 5, then no problem. 20k, sorry, round them up.

[Cerridwen]

104. Have you read your sig line today? n/t

[Kali]

143. gotta disagree with you on the state lease stuff.

In Arizona much of the state owned land is Trust land - it is held in trust for certain beneficiaries (not the general tax paying public) - it is not public land. Ranchers typically hold only grazing rights and yet are expected to do much of the policing (people trespassing, for instance or off roaders, vandals, plant thieves, poachers etc)- the State Land dept is WAY understaffed and they have no law enforcement capabilities. Even the local Sheriffs' deputies will rarely bother on a call for violations on State land. Border Patrol will of course happily traipse all over the place in their various toys chasing (and FYI for anybody who cares, the current short cut term is) UDAs - undocumented aliens. Whatever. Migrants is the term I use.

[AlphaCentauri]

162. He should work for blackwaters n/t

[Unca Jim]

43. Gee.

It sounds like this guy is an asshole.

Illegal immigrants are by and large good people just trying to improve their lot in life.



But people shouldn't run all over other people's property and not expect to be yelled at and/or threatened. How does Civil Rights enter into it?

[Still Sensible]

52. Sorry, I don't agree with how we deal with illegal immigration

but this lawsuit is a joke. Ridiculous. Outrageous. Pick the word.

[Cerridwen]

53. "Humans, the greatest prey on earth," Roger Barnett...

A rancher since 1996, Barnett's a swaggering, silver-haired, ruddy-faced product of the desert sun whose militant reputation -— like the vigilante movement he inspired — stretches far beyond Cochise County.

"Humans, the greatest prey on earth," Roger Barnett told a reporter from London's Independent in May of 2000, six months after he was photographed for Time magazine brandishing an M-16 — and a full 16 months before Chris Simcox would leave his California kindergarten classroom to form the Arizona militia that would eventually become the Minutemen, now the best-known citizen group to carry weapons to the border in an effort to halt illegal immigration.

"A vigilante goes out, rounds up people, holds a trial and executes them. I haven't done that yet," Barnett told USA Today that same year. "But bloodshed could happen."

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.

Yet Cochise County Attorney Ed Rheinheimer has repeatedly declined to file criminal charges against the wealthy, gun-toting rancher, stating that Barnett is well within his rights to use the threat of deadly force to prevent or terminate a criminal trespass. "We try to avoid getting caught in the middle of political issues," Rheinheimer said. "If Roger Barnett crosses the line and we get a prosecutable case, we won't hesitate to prosecute him." Even if that's true, the local atmosphere is hardly conducive to such a prosecution.link

Search results for "Roger Barnett" at the Southern Poverty Law Center link

Protecting his property? Not bloody likely.

[razors edge]

58. Sounds like the police could learn some

lessons from this guy. 12,000 collars and only a couple complaints.

Good thing they didn't try riding into the US on the BART.

[Cerridwen]

63. You admire this guy?

A man who thinks hunting people is a fun sport. Do you really admire this guy?

[razors edge]

75. How is this any different

from what we pay cops to do? Or the military, bounty hunters, etc.

I could link you to five crooked cop stories a day from now till the day I die, but we will keep giving them lawyers guns and money.

Admire no, respect yes. He hasn't broken the law. He may have gamed the system from your point of view, but we don't lynch people who follow the law in this country. We don't even jail people like Bernie Madoff.

If he took advantage of the public trust for profit then throw the book at him, but he hasn't been charged with that yet has he?

[Cerridwen]

97. Because there is this funny ideology we have in the US that people

don't take the law into their own hands and that vigilante "justice" is a dangerous precedent.

Because there are some cops who abuse their authority does not make something like this acceptable.

No, he hasn't been charged with that. But he is in court right now so he is being charged. I would remind you that not everyone guilty of crimes is charged or is even charged with the crime which they committed. I believe the old saying is "they got Capone for tax evasion."

However, I am astounded I am debating about someone hunting humans on what is purported to be a Democratic board. I won't continue this "debate" with you. You and I obviously disagree and aren't going to change each others' mind.

[razors edge]

130. Who's hunting who?

You turn this whole argument as though this rancher was going into Mexico to hunt people down in their own homes.

Spin much?

12,000 people coming onto your land sounds like you are being hunted, by an army.

You have a problem with people taking the law into their own hands, but only if they are citizens of the US.

Nice.

[Cerridwen]

135. I was using his words.

His words. As quoted in the links I provided. Not mine.

As I've already said, you and I disagree and are not going to agree about this.

[razors edge]

137. Obviously not.

Breaking the law is OK, until it isn't, even if you didn't.

[leftynyc]

159. So, he's an asshole

Can't put people in jail for that. He has people damaging his property and showing zero respect for the laws of the country they are trying to gain entry into. From what I'm reading the rancher has done nothing illegal.

[superconnected]

86. How do you know he's "hunting"? It sounds like he's turning in trespasser on his land.

If I had 20k trespassers on my land that didn't believe I had a right not to have them there, you bet I'd be carrying a gun around. It's amazing nobody has gotten hurt. This guy must not be too terribly bad. I can see his problem. 20k!

[Cerridwen]

93. Read the links in my 2 posts.

The guy admits to what he is doing. They quote him from interviews with him. He's quite proud of what he does.

Read at the SPLC site. They have much more on him.

And there is still some question as to whether or not this is his land or it belongs to the government.

[Quantess]

177. Is he a serial killer as well?

If he's truly "hunting people" then he really should be locked up for murder. If he isn't, then it's hyperbole.

[razors edge]

54. He should have just followed them

to where they were going and violated their property rights, that would be fair.

If a rich person was trespassing on a poor person's property would you defend his right to do so?

I don't buy into the whole legal vs illegal immigrant BS. That is a status thing instituted by the state.

But you must respect the property rights of others, or you loose the right to demand your own property rights be respected.

Do you really think for one minute that if these immigrants win the case, pay their lawyers, and buy a nice little 20 acre place of their own they will welcome all comers to hang on their new spread?

Give me a break.

[a la izquierda]

56. Well, here's my .02, FWIW.

A caveat: I live and work part time in Mexico. I am extremely, extremely sensitive about the subject. The word "illegal" really irritates me and I don't think is appropriate on a forum like DU, particularly when used the way it has been used by some people. This will get me flamed in this thread...but wouldn't on others. That just shows the spectrum of ideas here. I really don't belong on this thread, but alas, I'm here.

This case probably shouldn't be in court. That said, we do NOT have all the facts. Many a day all of you would lambaste a source from the Washington Times about anything else. Not this. Why?
Undocumented workers cross peoples' land daily. Should they be neat and clean about it? Yes. Should they damage peoples' stuff? No way. But it happens, of course. This man calling BP is fine, I guess. I mean, it's the law. So enforce it. But threatening people with bodily harm if they leave crosses the line. Of course, these folks have no rights in the US...correct? If someone were to detain your child or your partner on their property, at gunpoint...would you be pissed? Would you sue? If this were legal Mexican residents...would it enrage you? It angers me that this man violated a basic human right, the right I think to NOT have an f-ing gun pointed in my face and fear for my life, to prove a point.

However-I doubt that many of you lambasting "the illegals" have ever been anywhere in Mexico besides Cancun or some other tourist resort. The people that serve you there? They're lucky, because they have cushy jobs, more or less. If my assumption is correct, then you have absolutely no idea what the poverty is like down there and why that might motivate people to come. Watch old women carry their grandchildren through the streets begging for change; the poverty is so bad that it crushes the soul. There are entire towns depopulated of able-bodied men because there are zero jobs.
It is worse now, because families in the US that send money south...well the peso is tanking and it doesn't go as far.
Both countries need to get the border problem under control. Can a landowner kill a Mexican crossing his land? I surely hope none of you will cheer that.

If my assumption about you and your travels in Mexico is incorrect, well, sorry for my preachy rant.

[Jack_DeLeon]

77. I'm Mexican American, I have no problems with illegals per se...

I honestly dont have too much of a problem with them being in the United States, I believe we should have more open borders in North America. That being said as it is now there are people who are here illegally.

While I dont have a problem with these people per se I definitely believe in property rights and believe that property owners have the right to keep people off their property and to use force if needed to do so.

[AlphaCentauri]

166. When force would be needed?

I guess the people crossing the ranch won't stay in the property

[NashVegas]

81. "Illegals" Is a De-Humanizing Term

It's something bigots have done since, well, since there were bigots.

[The abyss]

61. This is a real hot button issue along the border states.

Yep, this guy is probably an asshole. I probably would not like to see him show up at a public forum.

BUT – this is basically a property rights issue. If he wants to wander around on his own land and dress like a Rambo wanna-be so what? If he carries weapons on his own property, so what? If he rounds up people illegally entering the country, I say good. There is no evidence he is pursuing a private “shoot & shovel” policy, he turns them in.

Frankly, as noted above, I am shocked to see this actually moving through the court system.

[Cerridwen]

64. First, there's some question as to whether or not this is "his land."

Second, "wander around his land" is different from hunting.

Third, as far as I know, it is illegal in this country (and in other parts of the world) to hunt human beings for sport - even if those humans are "guilty" of having "brown skin."

Fourth, if the SPLC says this guy is bad news, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. They've been focusing on hate groups and their actions for a long time.

[The abyss]

91. I agree, he’s an asshole.

However, I haven’t read anything to indicate he is killing anyone. He appears to turn in all those he collects.

I see a lot of hyperbole from both sides. And I am still disturbed by the fact this is actually going into court.

[Cerridwen]

108. Check out my link to the SPLC site.

He's gone after "real" Americans, too. He doesn't discriminate; all "brown skinned" people are guilty on sight.

[The abyss]

128. Thanks for the link.

I read it further up line. Yep, the guy is a racist.

I feel this case is more about property rights, and yes, even leaseholders do have rights under current BLM & Forest Service agreements. Private property owners that border federal lands have been under a lot of pressure during the last 20 years or so. A topic all on its own.

I see this guy as a cartoon archetype (Archie Bunker in the desert); this case is going through not because of any care, or fear of “brown people”. It is going through because there are landowners that do not want to fall in line with current policy. Policy good, policy bad, policy indifferent.

My opinion.

[AnneD]

174. He may be an asshole...

but he is an ass hole with property rights. I would love to know exactly why they think they can take him court.

[Jack_DeLeon]

68. If I had people tresspassing on my land I would be willing to use force to remove them too...

and I'm Mexican-American.

[EFerrari]

70. The keen readers of progressive DU strike again!

[superconnected]

71. They shouldn't have been on his property. Illegal or legal, white or mexican, shouldn't be trespass-

ing there. I hope the rancher wins this one.

[EFerrari]

79. The only other outlet that has this obviously unbelievable story is World Nut Daily.

[Cerridwen]

98. See my posts up thread, please.

I've tried to provide some additional information.

[EFerrari]

101. Did and thank you!

:hi:

[Cerridwen]

105. Saw that!

Thanks for actually looking.

I was starting to think they were invisible. LOL

:hi:

[EFerrari]

107. I pushed through the Swamp of Dread and found them!

lol

[Cerridwen]

112. .

:spray:

It did get ugly fast, didn't it?

Every time I read some of these types of posts I keep seeing the god-damned hall monitors; they were so addicted to rules and regulations they were afraid to fart without a written note from the principal.

Sorry, a bit earthy there.

But, damn. I swear I remember some in the US, especially Democrats, thinking people were far more important than property.

[EFerrari]

115. These posts always turn out to be bs.

How do we get to Carnegie Hall? :)

[Cerridwen]

116. Ahhhh, thanks so much.

I needed a couple of good out loud laughs.

You "gave" me those.

:hug:

[jb5150]

149. Practice, Practice, Practice

.......it's a guess

[getthefacts]

125. Thank you for your links

There is always another side to an immigration story.

It is just a shame that many of us are so drenched in fear to realize immigrants, even undocumented, are still human beings and many of them are some of the best assets we have.

I agree everyone has the right to protect their space and humanity is still too far from the concept of a borderless world community (if even possible at all). But in dealing with immigration, our instinct is always to shoot first and ask questions later (Of course I hope this remains a figure of speech).

[Cerridwen]

131. You're welcome.

And welcome to DU.

"humanity is still too far from the concept of a borderless world community (if even possible at all)"

I agree that we are but I wish we could get closer. It might be possible. But we're going to have to completely re-program our "values," "conventional wisdom," and "common knowledge." I don't see it happening soon, unfortunately. Which reminds me, tread lightly around DU with that kind of idea; even here, it's too far-fetched to be greeted with much more than derision. Other than that, have a good time, grow a thick skin, and learn to laugh instead of cry; you know what I mean.

:hi:

[Career Prole]

99. And if that doesn't put "'nuff said" to this

then someone's not paying attention.

"Oh, but wait! Sean Hannity had it too!"

:puke:

[EFerrari]

106. I don't understand how anyone could read that story and believe it was true

as stated.

People here sure seem afraid of little brown people!

[ReliantJ]

110. hmm

DEY TOOK UR JUBZ!

[EFerrari]

111. LOL

They took them to World Nut Daily, apparently!

Welcum 2 DU!

[Hugabear]

183. Believe what is true?

That this guy is rounding up people who venture onto his land and turning them over to Border Patrol? I don't see what's so hard to understand that there could be a couple of racist bigots along the border who would do this.

[ReliantJ]

84. I usually

side with the immigrants, but they really don't have a case here. I don think the Arizona racial problem needs to be solved. The immigrants are too prone to abuse, obviously and these stories get pretty heated

[EFerrari]

113. They're coming for our women!

lol

[Politicalboi]

96. Another frivolous lawsuit

This man has every right to protect his property. They come here break the law and expect money to be given to them. Put a $200,000 fine on anyone who hires illegals and be done with it already. When no one hires them they will have to deal with their own government. It's about time they did that. Make it involve National Security and if you hire illegals you could go to jail also. That goes for nanny's too. What is this guy suppose to do. Just sit back and let them break into his house maybe hurt his family. They are trespassing and if you don't know that you can get shot by trespassing then who's fault is that. Put up signs in spanish telling them of the danger.

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dcindian]

117. One case he has lost where he held a family including three young girls hostage.

http://www.apltwo.ct.state.az.us/Decisions/CV20070118%20Memo.pdf

some fine reading and a snip:

At the time of the incident, all three girls believed theywere going to die. All
three girls were subsequently diagnosed with chronic post-traumatic stress disorder.
Evidence was presented at trial regarding numerous manifestations of the severity of the
girls’ distress, including the following: Angelique testified about an occasion in a restaurant
during which she had thought she had seen Donald Barnett and it caused her to vomit;
Venese testified that she believed Roger Barnett would come looking for her at her school
and her mother testified that Venese had once become terrified inside a store when she had
bumped into aman she thought was Roger Barnett; Emma’s parents testified that Emma had
suffered stomach aches and recurring nightmares, was afraid of the dark, and would become
nervouswhenever someone knocked at the door. Emma herself testified that she continues
to fear that Barnett might kill her or her parents.

Mighty fine human being some of the respondents to your post want to protect from the law.

[EFerrari]

119. He's a real honey. I hope Stephen King is reading these stories. nt

[ReliantJ]

120. The young girls

should've known better than to play on ol man Barnetts lawn

[EFerrari]

124. I'm not saying a bunch of things right *here*.

[getthefacts]

126. I hope you really

did not mean this stupid comment. It has no place in this forum.

[ReliantJ]

129. Not at all

sarcasm was intended

[leftynyc]

161. WTF are you talking about?

Protect from the law? What law has he broken here? So he's an asshole - currently not against the law in the US. However, trespassing and vandalism is against the law and he's protecting his property. Do you really think that only the people who you approve of are entitled to protection under the law? Cuz that's sure what it sounds like.

[Kali]

127. I live down here and I know both sides of this problem.

You can not conceive of the impacts this migration has had on the people and the environment down here.
Barnett brags to having turned in 1200 people? That is probably 1% of the numbers that have crossed his ranch. Does he really need to be out rounding them up? eh I don't think so. But I do know why he is doing it - you can't run a ranch with that kind of traffic going through, that is for damn sure. I know I pretty much gave up for a couple years. Between the Mexicans and the assholes chasing them I couldn't keep a gate closed or a fence up, pipelines constantly getting smashed for water or run over by barely trained kids in govt vehicles. Trash all over the place (not talking about "litter", I'm talking about TRUCKLOADS), lost walkers needing help, federal cops invading my private property - you just can not comprehend.

Things have quieted down a lot between taking down permanent checkpoints and the economy going in the toilet so I am sure hoping the new administration will eventually reexamine the stupid policies of yet another "war on (insert problem)" they never work. We need to do something different.

Barnett is in the right here, no matter what kind of asshole he is - morally I don't think he should be holding people at gunpoint, but legally he is within his rights and I don't actually blame him. He is a victim of shitty policy too.

You just would not believe the scope of the problem. I am 60 miles from the border and we had at least 3 MAJOR trails and the associated drop-off/pick-up areas (think greyhound bus numbers of traffic) and many smaller ones, we had at least 20 abandoned vehicles that we had to deal with (in some cases that wasn't all bad, I'm still driving one of them! ha)

I have fed and helped dozens of walkers over the last ten years and only had one bad incident, but you never know...when you are literally overrun by people it can start to make you fearful, if you have been robbed or had livestock killed you tend to get defensive. My heart sympathies are with the migrants just trying to better their lives, but my brain has understanding for Barnett too.

[Ptah]

172. Thank for the insight.

:thumbsup:

[bigworld]

208. That was the most insightful post in this whole thread

Thank you for posting it.

[MrSlayer]

132. Drop the case and deport these parasites.

This guy is doing the work the fucking government should be doing themselves. He was within his rights to protect his property. This case should be thrown out and these people deported.

[EFerrari]

141. Would you do us a favor and go see if this story is anywhere else

but World Nut Daily?

I want to know if we have to really fear "these parasites".

Thanks!

[AlphaCentauri]

168. do you call parasites working people?

How many people parasite their natural resources like oil?

[serrano2008]

133. Some laws are made to be broken - wiretapping, pot, border crossing, trespassing

What's the big deal? It's just laws that bush and Phelps and the mexicans are breaking. Who needs laws anyways, right everybody?!?!

(sarcasm)

[LanternWaste]

140. So many violent acts throughout human history

So many violent acts throughout human history done in the name of nothing more than mere imaginary human constructs-- borders, politics, religions, philosophies, et.al. Heck, even mere opinions on a message board will illustrate an incivility, a crudeness and an ugliness when we allow ourselves to weaken towards those baser emotions.

Constructs that appear no where else but our own minds, concepts without physical form yet are the direct cause of so much grief and suffering in this world. And then we defend these practices, moralizing and justifying our roles in ugliness and violence.

We see people simply attempting to better their own lives and that of their families... but we must stop them I'm told. We must imprison or deport them for no other reason than they were born on the "other" side of red and blue lines that appear no where else but on maps and in our imaginations.

One of the two main reasons I call myself a progressive, a liberal and a Democrat is founded on the biblical verse Matthew 25:40-- "Whatsoever you do to the least of my children, that you do unto me." I imagine were I to turn someone in to Immigration because they walked across a line that exists only in our minds, I'd feel as though I dishonored myself before God and in turn, refused Him entry into my home.

But that's just me... and I'm the first to admit that I'm not half as clever as the vast majority of the DU community.

[GOPNotForMe]

153. THANK YOU.

Glad someone's making sense. When it comes to immigration, DU seems so right-wing...

[Lance_Boyle]

170. ILLEGAL immigration, not immigration.

Notice the capitalized word in the subject line. It makes a big difference.

[dustbunnie]

175. The trouble is, without getting a handle on immigration, the undocumented kind -

we'll never get a universal health care system implemented in this country. The rampant abuse would kill it before it ever started to get going. Look at countries with health care for all citizens and then look at their strict immigration policies.

My heart goes out to people who have no alternative but to leave with the clothes on their backs and the hope for something better elsewhere. But my heart goes out even further to all the millions of people desperately in need of health care solutions who ALREADY live here, are citizens, and deserve so much better.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

199. Have you ever had anything valuable stolen from you?

[LanternWaste]

209. Is an answer to that question meant to dissuade my position?

Is an answer to that question meant to dissuade me from my position?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

217. Just trying to understand your perspective.

[LanternWaste]

223. I thought I did pretty well explaining it initially.

I thought I did pretty well explaining it initially-- hit all the relevant points, good grammar and sentence structure, etc. While I admit I didn't posit either a thesis or a conclusion, this really isn't the time or place for formal writing I would imagine.

Where does the lack of perspective come from, and how is that perspective explained by answering a question about having had something stolen from me? :shrug:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

224. Yes you explained your position on immigration very well.

If this story was only about immigration then I wouldn't have asked you a single question.

David

[LanternWaste]

225. I imagine my obvious lack of focus

I imagine my obvious lack of focus on the other aspects of the story would quite emphatically imply that I myself am not directly interested in the other aspects of this particular story.

I imagine it must take quite an amount of time questioning people about specific topics they do mot make mention of-- as a vast number of threads appear (to me at least) to make many, many branches-- some allowing focus on one aspect, others on another. And though many would attempt to tie all the branches into one neat, contiguous package, I would find that both maddeningly frustrating and a waste of my time.

However, to placate any delicate sensibilities out there in DU Land, all other things being equal, I am as opposed to the action of theft for mere profit as I am to the actions of the "hero" of the original story kicking females... that is, I find both to be wholly without honor or dignity.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

226. I often find that people who lack empathy usually haven't had similar experiences as....

those they lack empathy for.

[LanternWaste]

230. In other words....?

In other words....?




(And I often find that people who lack the ability to make direct points usually do not well defend the point that they want to make in the first place...)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

232. I didn't want to make a point I asked you a question you refused to answer.

[AyanRand Is Dead]

144. This is ridiculous. Hello private property?

[Night_Nurse]

147. The real question is where the hell is

our "Homeland Security"? If the US gov't was doing their JOB protecting our borders, all of this could have been avoided. But then, the corporate elite wouldn't have their cheap labor work-force.

[ghurley]

212. I was wondering the same.

[The abyss]

148. Hello, Cartoon news!

Archie Bunker in the desert. LOL

This is NOT about racism. This is about nailing property rights proponents to a wall.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

154. "The white race is going to be gone. It's going to be a mixture of race. You got to stop and think."

That's what Roger Barnett has said (http://www.kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=4805528). And his story is printed up in a paper that we wouldn't give the time of day to on most issues and yet now we believe the word of an overt racist and the Washington Times.
:puke:

He has already been sued (and he lost) for threatening young Mexican American girls. He has zero credibility.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

192. And the criminals who are suing him have tons of credibility.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

188. He deserves a medal.

[barb162]

198. And a pat on the back.

[ReliantJ]

219. Beating women up

FTW?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

221. Missed that in the OP and the linked story.

Where was it exactly?

David

[classysassy]

191. The good ole boys and girls

love that piece of raciest shit.southeastern arizona is a republican cesspool of hate.

[ReliantJ]

218. True

[crim son]

207. I fail to see what rights have been violated.

Furthermore, if the rancher has in fact turned over 12,000 people to the border patrol, you'd think somebody would come up with a new route by which to illegally enter the U.S. :eyes:

[slackmaster]

211. Kicking that woman was out of line

Other than that, the guy was defending himself and his property.

[crim son]

215. True.

But they aren't citizens, so it should be Mexico's government going after him, not ours.

[Xenotime]

231. It time we get justice for all the atrocties that take place on "private property"

[ohio2007]

234. Jury: Rancher did not violate Mexicans' rights

A federal jury on Tuesday afternoon ruled that an Arizona rancher did not violate the civil rights of 16 Mexican nationals he detained at gunpoint after they had snuck illegally into the United States in 2004, but the jury awarded $78,000 in actual and punitive damages to six of the illegal immigrants on claims of assault and infliction of emotional distress.

After a nine-day trial, the eight-person jury -- four men and four women -- returned the verdict in U.S. District Court in Tucson, Ariz., after a day and a half of deliberation, also tossing charges of false imprisonment, battery and conspiracy against Douglas, Ariz., rancher Roger Barnett. Most of the award, about $60,000, was for punitive damages.

Mr. Barnett's attorney, David T. Hardy of Tucson, described the decision as an "80 percent victory," adding that he wished he and his client "would have gotten the other 20 percent." But he said he would appeal the decision, citing what he called "solid grounds." He also said U.S. District Judge John M. Roll had been "scrupulously fair" during the landmark trial.

Mr. Barnett owns the Cross Rail Ranch near Douglas, Ariz., where he maintains cattle on 22,000 acres of private and leased land. A $32 million lawsuit, brought by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), sought damages for civil rights violations and the infliction of emotional distress. It also accuses Mr. Barnett of assault, battery and false imprisonment.

Also named were Mr. Barnett's wife, Barbara, and his brother, Donald, although the jury dismissed the allegations against both the wife and the brother.

The trial was based on a March 7, 2004, incident in which Mr. Barnett approached a group of illegal immigrants while carrying a gun and accompanied by his dog.




http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/17/jury-rancher-did-not-violate-mexicans-rights/

[slackmaster]

236. Sounds about right

He has no business physically asaulting people and no authority to imprison them.

[Lost in CT]

237. Glad the common sense of the American people has won out at the end. nt

[AlphaCentauri]

238. U.S. jury finds rancher liable in vigilante trial

Barnett, who claims to have detained more than 10,000 people who crossed the border illegally from Mexico and handed them over to the U.S. Border Patrol, has faced previous civil action.

In November 2006, a jury found Barnett responsible for holding a Mexican-American family at gunpoint during a hunting trip, and awarded them nearly $100,000 in damages.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE51H13820090218