Quote :

" well past action by different people shouldnt be used to justify actions on these people "

while i see your point, and even agree on principle, pragmatically i can't agree in full. past actions set a pattern and present a degree of uncertainty. While he has no right to punish them as if they're going to commit the actions previously committed I do believe he has the right to guard himself as if it is a possibility.

But in your summation you bring up a very good point that I think needs to be addressed. A lot of people are talking about the justification he has for doing what he did, which is up for debate, but how many actually think they should have the right to sue, and their claims are warranted?

I for one think they have no right to do so.

2/9/2009 3:16:55 PM

Quote :

"Basic Constitutional rights, such as the rights of free speech, freedom of religion, due process, etc. are rights guarenteed to every person within the jurisdiction of the Constition. The Supreme Court has said this on numerous occasions and it is a well established and largely uncontroversial cornerstone of constitutional laws. See, for example, Shaughnessy v. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 212 (1953); Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 238 (1896); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886); Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 77 (1976); and Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) "

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Affirmative-Action-Quotas-347/illegal-alien-rights.htm

DUE PROCESS

2/9/2009 3:26:54 PM

well there we go

2/9/2009 3:33:51 PM

he cant deny them of due process. Only the government can.

2/9/2009 3:45:28 PM

What is it when you hold home invaders at gunpoint? Is that denying them of due process?

2/9/2009 3:52:42 PM

^ I'm pretty sure there are laws that specifically govern when you can detain someone at gunpoint, and trespassing on land doesn't generally fall under those laws.

Home invasions are a different scenario.

And I don't think you are allowed to kick them for tresspassing either, in any case.

2/9/2009 4:01:37 PM

^ If someone broke into my home, I'd kick the heck out of 'em. Hopefully break something in the process. But, I guess just being in my backyard doesn't warrant me hurting them. Unless they have some serious proof that he did hurt them, then I call bull... and the lawyers going after this frivolous lawsuit should lose their licenses.

[Edited on February 9, 2009 at 4:08 PM. Reason : something to that degree]

2/9/2009 4:07:40 PM

^ yeah I feel you on the home invasion, but it's clear this is a distinctly different scenario than that.

2/9/2009 4:09:46 PM

Quote :

"What is it when you hold home invaders at gunpoint? Is that denying them of due process? "

I would think holding them at gun point is holding them at gunpoint. Its up to the law to decide wether or not thats legal.

If the court said they wouldn't hear it and simply deported them back to mexico, that might be denial of due process.

2/9/2009 4:12:36 PM

Quote :

"It is usually illegal to arrest a trespasser and hold them on the property until law enforcement arrives as this defeats the purpose of allowing them to cure the trespass by leaving."

i don't know that i would take the legal opinion of something that seems to mix up arrest and detention

2/9/2009 4:19:59 PM

What do y'all think about Barnett's record of spitting threats and racial slurs at the people he detains? Was that just doing what he had to do?

2/9/2009 4:21:40 PM

so you people think this dude should have just let a mob of dirty, probably armed and gang affiliated illegals just go? give me a break.

2/9/2009 4:21:44 PM

Sixteen armed gang members would let a dog and a dude with a pistol detain them?

2/9/2009 4:24:21 PM

They probably will be deported either way, since the legality of their immigration will be revealed in the lawsuit. The should not affect the outcome of the suit, however.

2/9/2009 4:24:29 PM

^^ i'm guessing Smath74 was being facetious.

^ I was thinking the same thing.

[Edited on February 9, 2009 at 4:26 PM. Reason : ]

2/9/2009 4:26:32 PM

They should have just shot em dead and thrown the bodies back across the border. What is the mexican government going to do about it?

2/9/2009 4:30:30 PM

You did see the article that showed this guy has a history of doing this shit to mexican looking americans right? You really want him deciding whether to kill someone based on the way that they look? Holy shit, man.

[Edited on February 9, 2009 at 4:34 PM. Reason : mexico!]

2/9/2009 4:34:27 PM

^ huh? He detained legal mexican-americans that were on his property?

2/9/2009 4:37:36 PM

He didn't technically detain them but look at the article that GoldenViper posted. Clearly he doesn't have the judgment capable of telling Americans from non-Americans, must less the authority to kill them.

2/9/2009 4:42:01 PM

Quote :

"holding people hostage is simply insane"

2/9/2009 6:25:12 PM

Quote :

"They should have just shot em dead and thrown the bodies back across the border. What is the mexican government going to do about it?"

Ehh, thats too much work. Throwing 16 dead people over a fence would be tough. Now if he had a trebuchet, that would be a different story.

2/9/2009 8:40:18 PM

They weren't held hostage unless he didn't call for the authorities to come get them. They were detained. Very different concepts.

In regards to trespass laws, and allowing a trespasser to leave, that requires that trespass be the only crime in question, hence why if you shop lift, you can be detained, but if you just cause a scene, they can only kick you out. In this case, letting them go would still be allowing them to continue to commit the crime of illegally entering the country.

In regards to using a gun, I don't think anyone here would argue that 16 to 1 would be equal force, so he's absolutely justified in using a gun to protect himself.

In regards to him kicking one of them. The one who got kicked gets to file a suit for assault. The rest of them should be deported.

2/9/2009 9:00:42 PM

Quote :

"hence why if you shop lift, you can be detained, but if you just cause a scene, they can only kick you out."

You can attempt to detain someone in this position, but you can't physically restrain them or physically stop them from moving. For retail stores at least, you can actually risk getting assault charges for physically restraining a shoplifter, even if you have them on tape. Just like with the receipt checkers, even though it's private property and you could easily be hiding merchandise, they can't legally physically stop you from leaving the store without your receipt being checked.

This law may be particular to stores though.

[Edited on February 9, 2009 at 9:22 PM. Reason : ]

2/9/2009 9:21:36 PM

A store can only detain if they actually see the crime happen -- suspicion is not enough. This guy didn't see any crime other than trespassing happen because there is no way he can verify their residency status.

2/9/2009 9:22:25 PM

Quote :

"offering no threat whatsoever to you or your family or your property."

Other groups of illegals have destroyed his property, and killed his live-stock. It's not unreasonable to assume the next group of illegals will behave similarly.

Look, although I don't always agree with the policy, most states frown upon using deadly force to protect property. But this is why I'm thankful for the jury system, because if I was sitting on his jury... he would walk.

2/9/2009 9:34:00 PM

Good thing they filter out batshit-crazy during jury selection.

2/9/2009 9:36:03 PM

so the government can't protect his property, so now he can't? nice

2/9/2009 9:37:57 PM

of course not, you might impede someone else's rights..even if they don't belong in your country

2/9/2009 9:52:46 PM

Quote :

"Ehh, thats too much work. Throwing 16 dead people over a fence would be tough. Now if he had a trebuchet, that would be a different story."

Ah, what could be funnier than jokes about killing Mexicans who ignore lines on the map?

2/9/2009 10:00:07 PM

a joke about killing muslims

2/9/2009 10:06:00 PM

taking a crap in your neighbors yard, breaking into his house and drinking his water and killing his dog?

2/9/2009 10:06:56 PM

Quote :

"Good thing they filter out batshit-crazy during jury selection"

And just as you are relieved that one lawyer will be trying to keep people like me off juries. We also have a lawyer on the other side trying to keep off pussies who don't have the balls to protect their property, and family.

2/9/2009 10:15:29 PM

Maybe it's just me, but I bet you can protect property and family without racial slurs and crude threats.

2/9/2009 10:19:20 PM

its too bad that his potty mouth offends you. bring it up at your next support group meeting.

2/9/2009 10:21:21 PM

I might do just that.

I hope folks are protesting the mistreatment of immigrants in Arizona.

Makes me wish I'd gone to Tucson.

2/9/2009 10:23:47 PM

^^^ Slurs are covered under that pesky bit we have about free speech (of course, they'll try to use it to make it a hate crime but whatever). Threats they might have a case with, except for the fact that most people would argue that you're allowed a bit of leeway to make yourself seem threatening when you're detaining some criminals until the authorities arrive. Again, disparity of force, 16 on 1 is not a fair fight.

[Edited on February 9, 2009 at 10:25 PM. Reason : sfg]

2/9/2009 10:24:40 PM

I have no problems with the crimes the folks in question committed. At most, the dude should have asked them to leave his property. Pistol in his pants, fine. Pistol drawn, not cool. As it is, his actions only be considered oppressive. Another thug with a gun practicing coercion.

2/9/2009 10:32:50 PM

Quote :

"Another thug with a gun practicing coercion."

just like the government

2/9/2009 11:09:05 PM

Seems kinda strange that someone who hates Mexicans so much lives right next to fucking Mexico.

2/9/2009 11:26:41 PM

i knew a woman named Sue Rancher once

2/9/2009 11:33:15 PM

Quote :

"just like the government"

Indeed. A la chingada con la migra.

2/9/2009 11:41:27 PM

Oh, dear. I fear this is going to be one of my longer talks. I apologize in advance to the subliterates incapable of reading it.

Quote :

"One of the first things new immigrants should learn when they come to America...respect other people's property"

Sure. Of course, there's two ways of going about achieving this end. You can continue to apply the current atrocious immigration laws, thereby forcing desperate people to resort to desperate measures, and in turn forcing native-born Americans to hold said desperate people at gunpoint. Or you could just get rid of the stupid fucking laws and move towards the free movement that you, as a libertarian, pretend to hold dear.

Quote :

"One of the first things new immigrants should learn when they come to America...respect other people's property"

Nice of you to leave out the part where the defendant is accused of kicking one of the women who was trying to cross.

I'm also very curious to hear about Barnett's claim to have not just reported but to have turned in 1,200 illegal immigrants a year for the past decade. That works out to, what, about 3-4 people a day? One wonders how he manages to support his family if he's so busy with that effort.

Regardless, though, of such unlikely claims, the fact remains that you're not allowed to kick defenseless people, women in particular (pardon my rampant sexism) just for walking across your field.

Let's dig deeper into the issue, shall we? It seems as though your sole evidence for most of the worst offenses allegedly perpetrated by the illegals comes from the testimony of the defendant. You conveniently leave that out as well. All the reports of vandalism, property damage, breaking-and-entering, and livestock killing come from a 2002 interview with a newspaper based in a town several states and hundreds of miles away from his home.

Why is Barnett's word worth more than that of more than a dozen Hispanics? "Well, they're illegal immigrants," some of you will say.

Sic transit "innocent before proven guilty," unless it's regarding a white guy aiming a gun at brown people, anyway.

Quote :

"Escape off his property? I don't get it."

Admittedly I don't know (or, at the moment, care to look up) Texas law's understanding of a "citizen's arrest," but as a general rule, it is at best a tenuous excuse for one civilian detaining another against their will.

Quote :

"He held them until the authorities came to pick them up correct? If so the man did nothing wrong."

Pull a gun on the next jaywalker/marijuana smoker/drunk driver you see. Let me know how it works out. Bonus points if you kick them.

Quote :

"as they leave the court house have armed INS agents there to apprehend them so that they can face their criminal charges of illegal immigration."

Absolutely. This country needs to have priorities, and high among them needs to be "trying and deporting migrant workers."

The emphasis on "criminal charges" is especially amusing, since it seems to imply that we'll imprison them, thereby increasing our expenses without increasing our income.

Quote :

"Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but if they broke the law by entering another SOVEREIGN country illegally and then trespassed on his property then what's the problem with him holding them until the authorities arrived?"

For one, we don't empower citizens with the ability to act as general law enforcement. In some situations it is considered acceptable, but these are generally far more serious than "a stranger tried to walk across my field."

For another, there's no end to the profiling issues. This guy would have to be pretty goddamn convincing to get a court to believe he would have used similar tactics against a white/black/asian person or group trespassing on his property. The depressing thing is that, if he had, he'd probably be in jail without question.

For yet another, there's all the usual arguments against the enforcement of immoral laws. You could make an argument for how immigration law in this country is perfectly acceptable, but of course, as usual, you didn't. You took the approach of, "It's the law, and they broke it." I won't waste either of our time describing all the horrific laws that we've applauded people for breaking.

Quote :

"If the gov't is too sorry ass to defending our freakin' country then how is it not the citizen's right to do the same?"

WE MUST RISE IN DEFENSE OF OUR SUB-MINIMAL-WAGE AGRICULTURAL JOBS! Overpaid white workers of the world unite!

Quote :

"he didnt take the law in his own hands.. he held them UNTIL the law got there."

Did he have training in the concept of "probable cause"?

Did he know the people were illegal immigrants? If not, are you allowed to hold ever trespasser at gunpoint? I've accidentally wandered onto neighbors' property a number of times. I probably should've been shot by now, by that standard.

Did he mirandize the people in question?

Etc., etc.

We have police because they need to be educated in certain aspects of law that we as a society don't expect to be explained to regular citizens.

Quote :

"no it isnt, he has every right to protect his land and family."

In general, you have a right to defend people from a threat that a reasonable person would deem to be apparent. Unless the immigrants were armed or visibly violent, they don't meet the qualification.

Quote :

"So he detained, with out hurting them, until law enforcement arrived."

Again, I hope that next time you speed someone jumps in front of you with a shotgun and detains you until you get your ticket.

Quote :

"Barring all of that, he didn't know the intention of the people he detained."

He claims to have detained over 12,000 immigrants in the last 10 years, none of whom (according to the news report) ever threatened his family. 12,000 is a pretty solid trend. You'd think he would've caught on by now.

Quote :

"It seems like trespassing on someone's property (while they're on it,) is just as bad as trespassing in someone's home (while they're in it.) "

That's not how the law in many states understands it. In North Carolina, for example (not a state known for its anti-gun laws), you can shoot a guy who enters your house with far more legal backup than you can a guy who's just on your land.*

*-This is, of course, assuming you don't witness a violent crime in progress, and that you don't have a rational reason to believe that they pose an immediate threat to you or somebody else. No evidence in the article implies that the defendant had that reason.

Quote :

"while i see your point, and even agree on principle, pragmatically i can't agree in full. past actions set a pattern and present a degree of uncertainty."

Come on, man. You're basically defending this logic:

"In the past, Mexicans have done X. Therefore, all Mexicans I see in the future will do X."

Quote :

"how many actually think they should have the right to sue, and their claims are warranted?"

In the context of international law in general and its relationship to the United States in particular, foreign nationals have the right to sue, regardless of their transgressions. Witness all the controversy surrounding the Guantanamo detainees and others.

I'm done for now. I'm sure I'll be back, not that anybody will have read any of this.

2/10/2009 2:45:30 AM

^This post shows a clear logical trend of forming conclusions through critique of previous posts. Whether or not you agrees with his conclusions, you can probably succumb to using a similar means to convey the ideas that define your platform. It's quite refreshing to see a post that shows these aspects of thought as it does provide a through view of his stance. The Soap Box needs more posts like this instead of rants of rage, anger, or undue extreme emotion. The Soap Box probably does not need anymore of my drunken posts either. Let us reform The Soap Box by using GrumpyGOP's post as an example of the means to disclose our beliefs.

2/10/2009 4:39:27 AM

^
Not true. GrumpyGOP is, without a doubt, one of the least valuable posters, not just on this site, but the world around. He may be skilled in deploying his particular brand of fallacy-laden bullshit fluff, but any thorough examination of his posts reveals that he is the xenophobic loser he supposedly champions against. He is laughably wrong about this issue, as he is with most. In fact, I think I'll block his posts, because they've never been the least bit useful, relevant, or accurate.

Quote :

"Maybe it's just me, but I bet you can protect property and family without racial slurs and crude threats."

Sure. So what? This guy's a racist. That's perfectly legal. Oh, and slurs? That's just free speech. We're not saying we like the guy, we're just saying that he's innocent of violating the civil rights of these illegals, and that he was acting (except for the kick,) within his rights. Being a bigoted jerk doesn't nullify your rights.

Quote :

"But this is why I'm thankful for the jury system, because if I was sitting on his jury... he would walk."

Same here. And I wouldn't be removed during jury selection.

[Edited on February 10, 2009 at 7:47 AM. Reason : ]

2/10/2009 7:46:19 AM

There are some bits of info missing. He has a 22,000 acre ranch. It seems like if the illegal problem were as rampant as he is making it, he could get the local law enforcement to do more patrolling of his property. If he hasn't at least tried to get help, then I have no sympathy for what he is doing.

[Edited on February 10, 2009 at 9:09 AM. Reason : .]

2/10/2009 8:42:26 AM

He deserves to pay up for trying to pull some tv cowboy shit

2/10/2009 9:03:24 AM

Quote :

" It seems like if the illegal problem were as rampant as he is making it, he could get the local law enforcement to do more patrolling of his property."

Because that's exactly what we pay our police to do, be security guards for individual property owners.

2/10/2009 9:14:29 AM

So the illegal problem isn't nearly as large as he is saying it is, is that what you are trying to imply?

2/10/2009 9:22:18 AM

I'm saying that he's only one person with one section of land and dedicating more police resources to his land with only remove them from other locations. Seems that he's doing just fine patrolling his own land and calling police when he finds someone.

2/10/2009 9:29:05 AM

Wow, Willy Nilly, instead of refuting *ANY* of Grummy's points, you just resort to Ad Hominem. Kudos.

2/10/2009 9:32:07 AM