16 illegals sue Arizona rancher

[Antonio the Sixth]

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

[Antonio the Sixth]

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

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

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

[Antonio the Sixth]

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

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

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

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

[Antonio the Sixth]

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

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

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

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

[Antonio the Sixth]

Thanks BK, nice to see someone shares my view.

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

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

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

[Antonio the Sixth]

Thanks BK, nice to see someone shares my view.

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

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

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

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

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

They're not threat a Antonio?

Learn to read my posts.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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

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

[Antonio the Sixth]

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

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

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

[Antonio the Sixth]

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

[Antonio the Sixth]

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

I'm not aware of any law that was broken per se by the rancer, to be honest

You think it is legal to hold people captive at gunpoint ? And before you can say it, it isn't a citizen arrest, since as BK explained entering in the USA illegally isn't a crime.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Ok, fair enough. So I guess that now the case will mainly concern the law which authorizes citizen arrest, and its precise modalities. Since USA are supposed to be a State of Right, I hope there are precise rules on this domain, and that you can't just hold someone captive as you want.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Ok, fair enough. So I guess that now the case will mainly concern the law which authorizes citizen arrest, and its precise modalities. Since USA are supposed to be a State of Right, I hope there are precise rules on this domain, and that you can't just hold someone captive as you want.

You know I'm not sure about Arizona's regulations on citizen arrests....and it might be further complicated by the fact that immigration laws are federal rather than state issues....but let's be real here: This man has had so many negative and threatening experiences through contact with illegal immigrants....

Doesn't it seem logical and proper that he be allowed to do what is necessary to protect his property and feel safe?

It does. Exactly like it seems logical and proper that the illegals find unfair to be held captive by a guy who represents nobody except himself. As I said, both can be justified, but the law only should determine the judgement.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Oh damn...