16 illegals sue Arizona rancher

[Mesu]

This is absurd.  The case needs to be thrown out, and John Roll should personally pay Barnett's court costs.

This case was not absurd and should be taken seriously.


This case was decided last year and he had pay but and only a small fraction of his victims were seeking.


http://www.maldef.org/immigration/litigation/vicente_v_barnett/


Mr. Barnett should not be able to do anything he wishes to someone just because they on his property illegally. He even kicked one of the women who was on the ground that he held at gunpoint. If a police office did that to someone they were holding at gunpoint until backup arrives then they should fired at minimum. You can't fire someone making a citizens arrest so suing him makes sense. This case was very important because Mr. Barnett lives in a county that overwhelming support his actions so he would never be able to be convicted in criminal court so civil court was the only way he could be held responsible for his actions.

He has a history of going to far when he thinks he is dealing with illegal immigrants

An earlier case involving him:

http://www.maldef.org/immigration/litigation/morales_v_barnett/

[Mesu]

You'd think the mules (often rapists) would learn to avoid the ranch if he was that big of a headache to them as they broke the law.

What does that have to do with this case?

Mules that rape people who paid them to guide them across the border get their power from the fact their customers can't cross safely on their own and can't report the rape to anyone who will do anything to help them. Roger Barnett's actions even contribute to this problem. Border Patrol projects that divert crossings to remote areas contribute more.

[Mesu]

You realize we can't let everybody in that wants in right?

What I realize isn't important for this lawsuit. Even though I haven't heard of a precedent of a country letting everybody in and then being unable to survive because of letting them in. And before the Chinese exclusion act of 1882 everybody was let in.

This case is clearly absurd and should have never gone to a jury in the first place.   The illegal alien trespassers have no right to go onto Mr. Barnett's property, and Mr. Barnett is right to assume that any coyote accompanying illegal immigrants is armed and dangerous.  He has a right to defend his property and the right to use a gun and a dog to do so.

The case mentions him assaulting them. It sounds like this happened after they were detained and waiting for the border patrol(it could have happen before but if he assumed they had guns why assault? wouldn't that dangerous. And if someone is lying on the ground and you have a gun why kick them? It sounded like he assaulted them because he could). Isn't the right to shoot someone on your property is based on self defense?

I mean if there are no limitations on what someone could do to a trespasser theoretically someone could kidnap or rape someone who was on their property illegally. I would be shocked if any court in country wouldn't convict someone for doing that. Mr Barnett didn't do that but his actions were still wrong.

MALDEF is an anti-American, pro-Mexico legal organization that aids and abets criminal behavior.  They should be brought up on RICO charges for aiding and abetting illegal immigration into this country.

They help a lot of Mexican Americans with scholarships and also they represent US citizens(click on the Morales v. Barnett link on my other post). It's important that they represent illegal immigrants also because it would be very difficult for them to be represented otherwise.


EDIT: I reread what was claimed on MALDEFs site a 3rd time and the young was wasn't the one kicked on the ground(The first time I read it I didn't notice that there was a young teenager then the second time I misread).

The woman kicked on the ground was an adult and the young teenagers was only in the group fearing for her life.

[Mesu]

The girl who was "struck" might have tried to get away, we can't be sure.  

I also speculated about what might have happened, but neither of us heard the case argued from the perspective of one of the jurists. It's their job to determine what most likely happened. Considering the fact that the pool of jury comes from a conservative county where Mr. Barnett has many supporters, the case must have been very compelling since they wouldn't be eager to find him liable.

[Mesu]

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 you are saying is it doesn't prevent future illegal immigrants(not the same people who are suing him) from entering his property. This much different from saying it wouldn't work on people who see him calling the police.

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 hope you're not saying he should be immune for anything he does to people who broke the
law initially(and I am glad the jury didn't think so either(unfortunately some people think that way(sometimes only when it involves illegal immigrants))).

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.

Where do you get the impression that someone can't see a white gun with a gun as a victim
when they recognize that he can call the police?

If someone couldn't see a white guy with a gun as a victim they would be saying things
like this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No one says that kind of stuff.

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)

A lot of people in inner cities don't always get help from law enforcement. It isn't good but that doesn't mean they aren't able to create victims. Also his actions haven't even stopped people from entering his property illegally.

I know of something that would help him with this problem but he would probably be against
it.

[Mesu]

I hope you're not saying he should be immune for anything he does to people who broke the
law initially(and I am glad the jury didn't think so either(unfortunately some people think that way(sometimes only when it involves illegal immigrants))).

I'm not saying that at all, I know others did.  No, he can't do anything he wants to them.  Yes, they still have rights, just not very many.  In the same you or I wouldn't have very many if we were doing the exact same thing.  He (the rancher) does have a right to protect his property.

Not doing the things that he was found liable for doesn't need to conflict with protecting his property.

You going to keep it a secret?  If you've got an answer to this problem I'm sure everybody would like to hear it.  (and if it's selling his land, you better have a buyer in mind or you're still just pissing in the wind)

I was talking about helping him in general with changes to immigration policy. For example removing income, and English proficiency requirements(also remove limits on the total number of people we let in each year(and if that's considered too extreme why not simply increase the amount of people we let in and adjust the income requirements to accurately reflect the situation)) then most the people who came here illegally wouldn't choose that. And if less people cross illegally then less people would cross Mr. Burnett's property.