16 illegals sue Arizona rancher

[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

[Bacon King]

Carl, States, Franzl, thanks for informing me of some things I didn't know.

Still, we have a group of sixteen people who were placed under citizen's arrest for committing a single Class II misdemeanor each. This was within the rancher's rights, as I'm pretty sure trespassing is "amounting to a breach of the peace" for the purposes of Arizona state law 13-3884.1. The fact that these sixteen also committed a federal misdemeanor by crossing the border not at an official customs station is irrelevant because the rancher did not directly witness it and thus has no ability to make an arrest for it as a private person under Arizona law (see cited law above).

However, Arizona law requires that any "arrest by a private person" follow exactly the same standards as any other arrest. From the Arizona Revised Statutes:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would consider (from the article) that yelling obscenities, kicking someone, and yelling in Spanish at several of the women that "My dog is hungry and he's hungry for buttocks!" could possibly cross the line of "greater restraint than necessary" through excessive force and further excessive threats of force.

Again, I don't think these illegals should be handed a $30 million dollar check because their "civil rights were violated." I don't know what happened or didn't happen. But there is enough of a case for this to be brought before a jury- that is the only thing I have argued. I think it's silly to see the landslide of outrage here just because the case wasn't thrown out. Legally, the sixteen illegals simply do have grounds for a trial. I don't see how anyone, knowing the facts and accusations present, could think otherwise.

[Bacon King]

It's important that they represent illegal immigrants also because it would be very difficult for them to be represented otherwise.

I literally could not give a flying digestion. Man, my care level is at an all time low about their situation. If there was a prize for not caring about them, I'd win first, second, and third place.

I care as much about the rights of illegals as the rights of ants.

So you're saying that basic human rights completely disappear as soon as someone crosses an imaginary line in the desert?