4

2/11/2009 11:30:15 AM

Quote :

"A shot fired into the air accompanied by some shouting makes it very clear to everyone in the area that you're aware of their presence and are able to defend yourself. It also allows you to maintain your distance and safety (because even if he had a gun, the odds aren't good he had 16 bullets in it), and it gives trespassers some motivation to move on. "

How much distance there is between the time he spots them and the time he's close enough so that firing the gun is a dangerous action. I'd bet not much.

Quote :

"What it doesn't do is directly threaten anybody, detain them, or abuse them. "

Oh come on. Firing a gun doesn't threaten anyone? Seriously? I think once you start shooting, you've escalated to a point beyond threatening.

Quote :

"And laughing at a bunch of terrified Mexicans while threatening to set your dogs on them, that's your idea of a good date? The article doesn't say how long it takes law enforcement to get to the various places on this guy's ranch. Hell, it might be faster to just chase them off."

Should have been day not date, and no, that's not my idea of a good day either. My idea of a good day is being able to walk my property and not have to deal with people trespassing and possibly destroying it. And it might be faster to chase them off, assuming they don't split up and damage or break anything in their attempt to escape.

Quote :

"f a police officer, trained and experienced, were to say some of these things in this situation, he might be in jail, not just civil court. But if Cletus the Cowboy wants to ride around his ranch looking for Mexicans to say these things to, well, that's "a good call.""

If a police officer were there, he'd have the legal authority to bind and arrest them, and would be legally justified in having a gun drawn too interestingly enough, again disparity of force.

Quote :

"You fire birdshot straight up into the air, you're not going to hurt anybody. You're just going to make a loud noise. I fail to see how that is more dangerous than pointing a gun at another human being, or putting yourself in a situation where it's you versus 16 desperate people who may be armed or panicked."

And when one of those errant bird shot hits someone, even if it doesn't actually harm them, you can bet he'll be in a much bigger world of hurt than he is now. Attempted murder is a much more serious charge than simple unlawful detainment.

2/11/2009 3:46:24 PM

Quote :

"How much distance there is between the time he spots them and the time he's close enough so that firing the gun is a dangerous action. I'd bet not much."

He is on a 22,000 acre ranch in Texas that is most likely flat, it could be anywhere from half a mile to miles away if he has binoculars.

Quote :

"And when one of those errant bird shot hits someone, even if it doesn't actually harm them, you can bet he'll be in a much bigger world of hurt than he is now. Attempted murder is a much more serious charge than simple unlawful detainment"

No jury in America is going to convict someone of attempted murder for firing straight up into the air. Hell, no DA in America would even bring him up on those charges.

2/11/2009 3:56:43 PM

Quote :

"simple unlawful detainment"

Oh yeah? That's all he did, eh?
I'm not totally familiar with Arizona law, but in Texas, pointing a gun at your wife and threatening to kill her is assault.

http://www.gastongazette.com/news/gun_29092___article.html/pointing_charged.html

Quote :

"A Dallas man was charged with pointing a gun at his wife and threatening to kill her on Friday. James David Davis, 50, of the 600 block of South Gaston Street, allegedly pulled the handgun on the woman and said he would shoot her because he was angry, according to an arrest warrant affidavit. Davis was charged with domestic assault by pointing a gun and held without bond in the Gaston County Jail."

Not to mention kicking, verbal harassment and whatever else he did.

2/11/2009 3:59:11 PM

Quote :

"How much distance there is between the time he spots them and the time he's close enough so that firing the gun is a dangerous action."

As long as I'm not pointing it at you, I can stand right next to you and fire a shotgun without it being a dangerous action. And hell, I could shoot twelve gauge birdshot directly at you from one end of my yard to the other and cause no injuries -- if I even hit you at all.

He's far more likely to hurt somebody by pointing a gun at somebody -- either through an accidental discharge or just overreacting to something benign -- than he is to hurt anybody by firing a shot into the air. Even with a powerful weapon the odds of a bullet coming back down and hurting anybody are almost astronomical, but I'm not talking about that. And as a self-respecting country boy, this guy should know that the universal signal for "get the hell out of here" is the boom of a shotgun.

Really, I think you're still ignoring the key point in why I think one is acceptable and the other isn't. It boils down to these two concepts:

"Get out of here or I'll shoot!"
"Stay right there or I'll shoot!"

One of these implies a real concern about trespassing and safety. The other implies a power trip.

Quote :

"And it might be faster to chase them off, assuming they don't split up and damage or break anything in their attempt to escape."

What are they going to damage? You think they're going to be running from a guy with a gun and say, "Well, maybe I should just stop and kill this cow or break this water pump on my way out"?

Quote :

"My idea of a good day is being able to walk my property and not have to deal with people trespassing and possibly destroying it."

That would be ideal, yeah. But nothing this guy does is going to bring that about. He claims to have caught 12,000 people in ten years, and they keep coming. No amount of rounding these guys up seems to be improving his situation.

Quote :

"And when one of those errant bird shot hits someone, even if it doesn't actually harm them, you can bet he'll be in a much bigger world of hurt than he is now."

Again, it's not really much of a possibility. Fire a shell more-or-less straight into the air, and when it comes down it's going to have next to no momentum. It's not going to so much as leave a mark. So what, you think these illegal immigrants are going to GO TO THE POLICE and accuse a guy of shooting them with no evidence whatsoever?

2/11/2009 4:23:13 PM

Quote :

"He is on a 22,000 acre ranch in Texas that is most likely flat, it could be anywhere from half a mile to miles away if he has binoculars."

He's in Arizona for one, and for two, in order for warning shots to be effective, he has to at least be close enough to be screaming and yelling at them to get off his property too, so I imagine he'd be a bit closer than a half mile.

Quote :

"No jury in America is going to convict someone of attempted murder for firing straight up into the air. Hell, no DA in America would even bring him up on those charges."

You would be surprised. All it takes is one or two shot to hit one of the women and you would have every Mexican rights group screaming for his head on a platter.

Quote :

"Oh yeah? That's all he did, eh? I'm not totally familiar with Arizona law, but in Texas, pointing a gun at your wife and threatening to kill her is assault. "

Generally speaking, threatening a criminal is not considered assault.

Quote :

"Not to mention kicking, verbal harassment and whatever else he did."

As I already mentioned, kicking them was over the line, and they can bring him up on assault charges for that, I don't dispute that.

As far as verbal harassment goes, too bad. It's not a crime to say unkind things to people.

2/11/2009 4:26:51 PM

Quote :

"It's not a crime to say unkind things to people."

It is when you're pointing a gun at them.

Amazingly, a lot of rights cease to become rights when the person exercising them is pointing a gun.

Asking a bank for money? That's totally OK, until you're using a gun.

Political demonstrations? First amendment, hell yeah. Until they're all pointing guns at somebody.

Freedom of religion? Essential to liberal democracy. Unless your religion tells you to shoot or threaten people from other religions.

Stand outside a polling place and ask people to vote for your candidate. You'll go unmolested. Try doing it with a gun in your hand.

Hell, even the second amendment is gravy until your legal gun is pointed at someone illegally.

2/11/2009 4:32:16 PM

Quote :

"So what, you think these illegal immigrants are going to GO TO THE POLICE and accuse a guy of shooting them with no evidence whatsoever?"

You tell me, they're already suing him for scaring them.

Quote :

"It is when you're pointing a gun at them."

Incidentally, you won't be charged with asking someone for money, or telling them to vote, you're charged with the actual act of assault. In other words, it's still not illegal to say those things, the illegal act is threatening them with the gun in the first place.

So at question here is whether he can legally threaten these people with a gun. I say yes, you say yes only if his shooting it in the air, or do you not think that firing a gun in the air comes with an implicit threat that the next shot might be aimed at your head?

2/11/2009 4:40:10 PM

Quote :

"You tell me, they're already suing him for scaring them."

It's a civil suit. They didn't have to walk into a police station and say, "Oh, hey, I'm an illegal immigrant who wants this man arrested."

They also had evidence in this case. The police know what this guy does, and what he did in this particular incident, because they had to roll out there to pick these guys up. If a birdshot pellet bounces off your arm without leaving a mark, you've got a birdshot pellet, which can be acquired at any Wal-Mart regardless of citizenship.

Quote :

"Incidentally, you won't be charged with asking someone for money, or telling them to vote, you're charged with the actual act of assault."

Robbery and denying somebody of their civil rights are both crimes last I checked, separate from assault. Here, I'll check again. Yep, the Force Act is still in effect and robbery is still frowned upon.

Quote :

"I say yes, you say yes only if his shooting it in the air, or do you not think that firing a gun in the air comes with an implicit threat that the next shot might be aimed at your head?"

It implies that the use of violence is an option and may be used. This strongly encourages trespassers to leave.

I don't really have a problem with using the possibility of violence to get unwanted people to leave your property. I have a problem with using it to keep them there.

2/11/2009 4:54:15 PM

Quote :

"Generally speaking, threatening a criminal is not considered assault."

How many times do we have to go over this? You don't automatically lose all rights and protections of the law when you commit a crime. The next time you're speeding, I'll point a gun at you and detain you while verbally harassing you until the cops get there. There's nothing to indicate that he felt threatened by them or that they did anything to warrant his threats. They were trespassing. I swear, try to pull this on the next mormons that walk up to your door and bug you.

2/11/2009 5:02:39 PM

Quote :

"It implies that the use of violence is an option and may be used. This strongly encourages trespassers to leave. I don't really have a problem with using the possibility of violence to get unwanted people to leave your property. I have a problem with using it to keep them there."

So then really what you really have a problem with is that he was detaining them correct? The whole threats and slurs thing is just a distraction at this point, or would you be as concerned if he was chasing them off his property while screaming "My dog is hungry for buttocks!"? I'm not trying to be difficult here, I'm just trying to find our point of disagreement. So far we both agree he has a right to defend his property, a right to confront the trespassers and a right to do so armed. Now it seems that we agree he has a right to threaten them with violence, so it seems the only point we really differ on is the point of detainment.

Quote :

"How many times do we have to go over this? You don't automatically lose all rights and protections of the law when you commit a crime."

No you don't so let me rephrase: We generally don't consider threatening a criminal on your property to be assault. Honestly, if he had the right to confront them with the gun, at that point he's already threatening them, and the words he uses are irrelevant.

2/11/2009 5:50:04 PM

"Threaten" is a pretty loaded word and I think we should be careful how we use it. The threat of possible violence as a deterrent against violence is one thing. It's fine that he has the gun and uses the implied threat of violence in this situation, but only as a means of deterring the trespassers from using violence themselves. He has no way of know what kind of illegals these are -- average laborers aren't likely to be armed, but traffickers or coyotes might be. He's well within his rights to make it clear that he can fight back if things get out of hand.

But he wasn't using the threat that way. He was using it as a means to detain them and force them to take his abuse without response. He put himself and the immigrants in danger by confronting them directly, increasing the likelihood of violence or accidental death, and he violated the law by detaining them, all because he used the concept of "threatening" in a very wrong way.

2/11/2009 6:03:48 PM

Quote :

"of the biggest and most fixable problems involving illegal immigration is the difficulty the immigrants have becoming legal. most have no idea how to go about being a 'legal' visitor to our country."

yeah i have always wondered why mexicans just did not say they are coming here to "visit" go shop in San Diego for the day. After they cross they get "lost" and never return to mexico.

2/12/2009 11:58:57 PM

San Diego is awfully close to the border, but it's not exactly close enough to walk to any shopping from Mexico. Meaning you have to take a car. So either you're going to ditch your car (which not many immigrants have) after you cross, or you're going to pay through the nose to try to pass it off as American, which almost certainly won't work.

Quote :

"most have no idea how to go about being a 'legal' visitor to our country.""

They know enough to know that it's virtually impossible for them to actually immigrate.

2/13/2009 1:33:32 AM

Quote :

" I doubt this. I know various victims of actual violence who haven't turned into cowboy vigilantes. Barnett hasn't been attacked by any of the thousands of illegal aliens he's supposedly captured. They're apparently extremely peaceful people. By his own account, most of them simply give up when he confronts them. If they were as dangerous as some of y'all think, he'd be a dead man. No, what we have here is a privileged dude bullying the desperate and marginalized. It's an old story. Note the other ranchers in the area don't all employ the same tactics. It's not something anyone would do in his situation. That conduct takes a particular personality."

if by peaceful you mean destroying his property, trashing his land, using his land as a toilet, breaking into his house, killing his livestock, etc...then sure. they are extremely peaceful.

he has been lucky that he hasnt confronted the dangerous types. that is probably because they know to avoid his property. they can run their drugs through less supervised areas. why risk it? you could argue that his actions keep those away from his family.

privileged? haha. by all accounts the guy owns an honest business and works hard. how do you know what other ranchers are doing? you are a clown, sir.

Quote :

"So you think that people in our country should not be bound and protected by the laws that govern our land? People should be allowed to kick them and threaten them with death just because they didn't pop out of their mom's vagina on this side of some imaginary line? So, is it because they are immigrants or because they're illegal? Would it be cool if I kicked you and held you at gunpoint the next time you do something illegal?"

did you read what I said, or are you typically skimming and selectively reading? I clearly said that if he committed a criminal action the DA should bring charges. the illegals should not have any CIVIL recourse. huge difference hoss.

2/13/2009 9:56:37 AM

Why exactly should illegals not have any CIVIL recourse, hoss? Are they somehow immune to the same effects of harassment, death threats, and abuse that an American would have? Are you basing this opinion off of legal precedent? Or the fact that they're dirty foreigners?

2/13/2009 10:09:56 AM

the fact that whatever civil action offended them, would not have happened had they not participated in an illegal act. you cant profit from breaking the law.

simple concept here.

2/13/2009 10:23:39 AM

Would not have happened had they not broken the law, eh?

Here's the situation: You drive your car over the speed limit. I ram your car off of the road and beat the shit out you. It wouldn't have happened if you didn't break the law. Well shit, you shouldn't be able to sue me.

[Edited on February 13, 2009 at 10:26 AM. Reason : if]

Also, do you not know that you are liable and can get sued if a burglar gets injured on your property? Surely you've heard of these cases before.

[Edited on February 13, 2009 at 10:27 AM. Reason : .]

2/13/2009 10:26:36 AM

Quote :

"Would not have happened had they not broken the law, eh? Here's the situation: You drive your car over the speed limit. I ram your car off of the road and beat the shit out you. It wouldn't have happened if you didn't break the law. Well shit, you shouldn't be able to sue me. "

Just stop posting, are you making yourself look like an idiot.

2/13/2009 10:34:36 AM

you cant be serious with those analogies.

Quote :

"Just stop posting, are you making yourself look like an idiot."

good advice.



[Edited on February 13, 2009 at 10:39 AM. Reason : . ]

2/13/2009 10:39:06 AM

Nice. DaBird says, by breaking the law, you forfeit your right to sue by actions that "would not have occurred had you not broken said law". This is making it out that the person preforming the actions has no choice in the matter.

Then I replace illegal immigrants trespassing with DaBird breaking the law and all of the sudden I'm sounding like an idiot. Way to refute my argument rather than resorting to Ad hominem. Bravo.

So when you're done high-fiving your partner, care to tell me what's invalid about that analogy?

2/13/2009 10:49:52 AM

how about the fact that you equated speeding with entering a country illegally? anyone reading your post is laughing at you. further, you again are talking about CRIMINAL offenses. this is about CIVIL action. your analogy would more appropriate be if someone speeding hit you as you crossed the street then sued you for the damage to you car on Judge Judy.

2/13/2009 11:01:34 AM

Quote :

"So when you're done high-fiving your partner, care to tell me what's invalid about that analogy?"

It doesn't account for their xenophobia.

If these illegals were really the vicious, violent monsters that some of you are making them out to be, I doubt that he would have taken them on 16:1. The guy clearly just views the illegals (or anyone he perceives as illegal) as subhumans, which is okay in America to think. What's not clear though is if it's legal or not to detain people the way he did.

^So you're saying that someone hitting you with a car is like an illegal crossing the border?

I think a better analogy would be if you see someone drinking underage, and you round them up with a shotgun and kick them and curse at them while the cops come.

[Edited on February 13, 2009 at 11:07 AM. Reason : ]

2/13/2009 11:04:27 AM

Ok, so you think that just by entering the country illegally a person has no recourse to bring civil action against you?

Is it because they broke the law or is it because they entered the country?

Do you think that illegals suing Walmart for back pay is wrong too?

2/13/2009 11:06:00 AM

Quote :

"do you not know that you are liable and can get sued if a burglar gets injured on your property"

bullshit in my opinion. As long as i can prove you were with criminal intent; there should be no liability even if you stumbled into my swimming pool that is habitat for my pet alligator.

2/13/2009 11:16:36 AM

I'm still looking for case precendent, but I assume you'd only be liable if your property was intentionally or neglectfully dangerous. For example, an alligator in a swimming pool.

2/13/2009 11:17:45 AM

Quote :

"if by peaceful you mean destroying his property, trashing his land, using his land as a toilet, breaking into his house, killing his livestock, etc"

To be fair, these are all nonviolent crimes. At no point in the article is legitimate reason given for the rancher thinking that he or his family were in danger. They may, in fact, have been on some occasions, but the article doesn't reference that.

Quote :

"the fact that whatever civil action offended them, would not have happened had they not participated in an illegal act. you cant profit from breaking the law."

Sounds good at first, but it's all bullshit underneath. Take the case of criminals in jail. If a guard goes around physically abusing them, sodomizing them with broom handles or something, they have civil recourse. And well they should. But they would not be in prison to be abused if they hadn't committed a crime. So what? There's limits to what you can do even to criminals. And the things this guy did crossed that line.

Quote :

"how about the fact that you equated speeding with entering a country illegally?"

It's more legitimate than the comparisons made by the other side of this argument, likening illegal immigration to military invasion or breaking into a home.

But marko's right. Illegal immigration is best compared to underage drinking. They're both nonviolent, victimless crimes with the potential to let loose a few bad apples. They both get their own government entities to try to stop them. They both involve demanding that a person wait an arbitrary amount of time to get something "legally," and opponents of both, even when they sympathize with the offenders, always resort to saying, "The law is the law and you have to follow it." By themselves, neither poses an actual threat to anybody.

Quote :

"As long as i can prove you were with criminal intent; there should be no liability even if you stumbled into my swimming pool that is habitat for my pet alligator."

Of course, we're not talking about accidents, though. They wouldn't be suing if they all got bad cuts from a barbed-wire fence. We're talking about the rancher's actions, which were not incidental to the crime in question.

2/13/2009 11:57:10 AM

Quote :

"To be fair, these are all nonviolent crimes."

you dont consider a person's house being broken into or his livestock slaughtered to be violent? at the very least you have to consider these actions extremely aggressive if not "violent."

Quote :

"Take the case of criminals in jail. If a guard goes around physically abusing them, sodomizing them with broom handles or something, they have civil recourse."

thats nothing like this case. if you are in prison you are in the custody of the state. you are not committing a crime in the process nor do you control your surrounding. illegals crossing into this man's property are doing/have both.

maybe a better way to put it would be that in the course of committing a crime you cannot profit.

Quote :

"They're both nonviolent, victimless crimes with the potential to let loose a few bad apples."

sure the potential to let loose bad apples is there, however, how can you say illegal immigration is NOT victimless? surely the rancher is also a victim. taxpayers suffer from the influx of people and the strain it puts on our infrastructure. this rancher has clearly suffered because of it. how do you justify that statement?

nowhere did I say that I think he did the right thing. I said that if he has committed a criminal action the DA should charge him. but lets quit minimizing the toll illegal immigration is taking on this country. its ok to blame them too.

[Edited on February 13, 2009 at 3:13 PM. Reason : .]

2/13/2009 3:10:26 PM

Quote :

"If they win their lawsuit, I'm selling my house, buying some guns, and moving to texas. Who's with me?"

i'll make a vacation of it at least.

2/13/2009 3:24:22 PM

And again, there is absolutely nothing in the article to indicate that *these* immigrants did anything to his livestock or broke into his house. You can logically infer that they did not, or you're right, they would really have no case. Are you really saying he's justified in treating these immigrants in this manner because of the way other immigrants have acted?

Since you did not like GrumpyGOP's prison analogy, I refer you back to my speeding one. You are in the process of a crime (speeding). I stop your vehicle and detain you with my shotgun, threaten to kill you, kick you and yell racial epithets at you. Do you think that just because I did this in response to the law that you are breaking that I am exempt from any civil suit from you?

Ok, DaBird. I feel that that equating the burden that "taxpayers suffer from the influx of people and the strain it puts on our infrastructure." with a victim of a crime is intellectual dishonesty.

Take a look at this: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/business/05immigration.html
Illegal immigrants are putting billions of dollars into infrastructure systems that they have absolutely no chance of getting anything out of.

So, tell me again what horrible toll these immigrants are putting on our country? Octomom is putting a quantifiable toll on this country, does that make it ok for me to harass her at gunpoint?

2/13/2009 3:40:46 PM

Quote :

"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."

2nd paragraph, original article.

those specific mexicans didnt do that, but how is he to know that they were not going to before he stopped them? you are a dolt. is he supposed to wait until that happens before confronting him? I guess we should all have such good foresight as you.

Quote :

"Are you really saying he's justified in treating these immigrants in this manner because of the way other immigrants have acted?"

no you non-reading bastard. I am saying they should have no civil recourse because of it.

ONE MORE TIME - I am not absolving him of any criminal action. just civil action. these immigrants should have no fucking civil recourse.

Quote :

"Illegal immigrants are putting billions of dollars into infrastructure systems that they have absolutely no chance of getting anything out of."

you really cant believe everything you type can you? they would have a chance to use it if they BECAME LEGAL FUCKING CITIZENS. not to mention the other forms of infrastructure they use...schools, roads, emergency rooms, police, etc...fuck their input into social security. thats PEANUTS on the grand scale. they are profiting from that equation.

2/13/2009 3:52:13 PM

So basically you're saying it's alright to assume that these people are going to do something violent because other Mexicans have done something violent in the past. Or are you saying it's not alright, but they don't have civil recourse? You keep saying that they don't have civil recourse, but you don't specifically say what it is about their situation that is denying them this.

So tell me, which is it? Is it because other mexicans have fucked with his property before that they don't have recourse? Or is it because they were breaking the law?

Also, regarding the money:
If they're getting social security withheld from their wages, what makes you think they're not getting taxes withheld as well? In fact the article itself tells you in several places that it's been obvious for years that illegal immigrants are paying taxes.

And finally, what in the hell does the burden that illegal immigrants are causing (which you haven't yet disclosed) have to do with whether these illegal immigrants have civil recourse?

2/13/2009 4:24:36 PM

I am simply saying this:

1. this man has a right to defend his property. past, countless actions of illegals have certainly earned him a right to be wary of their trespassing. I dont necessarily condone his actions but I am not going to sit here and judge his actions because I am not sure how I would react.

2. these people should have no civil recourse against him because they are illegal and committing a crime. they can complain to the authorities and have him arrested but I dont think it is right for them to profit financially off of an emotional distress bullshit civil suit when they were trespassing illegally on his property and in our country.

this is very simple.

2/13/2009 4:58:01 PM

Quote :

"2. these people should have no civil recourse against him because they are illegal and committing a crime. they can complain to the authorities and have him arrested but I dont think it is right for them to profit financially off of an emotional distress bullshit civil suit when they were trespassing illegally on his property and in our country."

I agree with this sentiment.

But I think there is very likely an element of viciousness in his detaining them, that didn't need to be there. He should have called border patrol, or showed them the way off his property. I wouldn't want anyone, illegal or otherwise, traipsing over my property destroying things and leaving garbage, but it's not right for me to demonize other people for it. That's like me saying that because some white people are racist, I should treat all white people like they are racists. That wouldn't be right either.

I think the illegals have already achieved their goal with the media attention they've gotten, but I wouldn't really be upset no matter how this case turned out, if it was tried fairly. I also don't see the judgment being for the amount that's being asked for.

2/13/2009 5:13:37 PM

So I'm still interested in seeing data regarding the burden that illegal imigrants are having on our country as well as what in the hell it has to do with this suit.

2/13/2009 8:41:00 PM

Quote :

" But I think there is very likely an element of viciousness in his detaining them, that didn't need to be there. He should have called border patrol, or showed them the way off his property."

yes

2/13/2009 9:08:52 PM

I other ranchers learn from his lesson about what happens whe you capture criminals and turning them over to the law.

Much better to follow the old rancher code.

SHOOT

SHOVEL

SHUT THE FUCK UP

2/14/2009 3:48:21 PM

Quote :

"you dont consider a person's house being broken into or his livestock slaughtered to be violent?"

They aren't, in any meaningful application of the word. He refers to no instance of an immigrant attacking or threatening to physically harm anybody else. Breaking and entering is a crime, and destruction of property is a crime, but neither is a violent crime.

Aside from which, the more important point is that THESE IMMIGRANTS IN PARTICULAR had done none of those things. Bringing us to this:

Quote :

"past, countless actions of illegals have certainly earned him a right to be wary of their trespassing."

Which is legally -- and, if I may so, ethically and logically -- bullshit. Worse, it's bullshit that could justify and has justified all sorts of very bad things. You don't get to make the fallacy of assuming that because other Mexicans in the past have done a thing, Mexicans in the future are likely to do the same.

Quote :

"maybe a better way to put it would be that in the course of committing a crime you cannot profit. "

This seems very silly. The source of their profit happened after they committed their crime -- or are you now going to say that they were still trespassing when the man forced them to stay on his land at gunpoint?

Quote :

"taxpayers suffer from the influx of people and the strain it puts on our infrastructure. this rancher has clearly suffered because of it."

I have repeatedly demonstrated, with the use of a number of sources, that illegal immigrants are net contributors to the tax base, not recipients -- they pay in more money than they get out. If you want to insist that I dig through to find the threads, I will, but for now I'll hope you'll take my word for it.

And the rancher isn't a victim of immigration, he's a victim of destruction of property and breaking and entering. The one doesn't follow from the other. The guy killed in a drunk driving crash isn't a victim of beer, he's a victim of drunk driving.

Quote :

"these immigrants should have no fucking civil recourse. "

Is there any limit to that assertion? If he had tied up the immigrants in his basement and raped them for ten years, would they have any legal recourse then?

Quote :

"they would have a chance to use it if they BECAME LEGAL FUCKING CITIZENS."

Which is to say, they have no chance to us it.

2/17/2009 12:51:20 AM

Quote :

"I don't really have a problem with using the possibility of violence to get unwanted people to leave your property. I have a problem with using it to keep them there."

By keeping them detained, I'm assuming he was looking to gov't to kick them off his land and back to Mexico. Perhaps he would be on more politically correct grounds to do it on his own. Simply force them to leave his land.

Now do the trespassers have the right to decide which way they will exit his land- either back to Mexico or into the U.S.? Is the rancher under any obligation to make that decision for them?

Is he breaking the law, allowing them to enter the U.S. from his land?

2/17/2009 2:38:59 AM

He wouldn't be "allowing them" to enter the country since it's not his fucking job to keep them out. He should tell them to get the fuck off his land, escort them via the path of least resistance off of his land, and call the cops. If the direction to take off his land is based on which country they'll end up rather than diverting them away from his house, family and livestock, then you don't give a shit about protecting your land.

2/17/2009 8:31:34 AM

Quote :

"They aren't, in any meaningful application of the word. He refers to no instance of an immigrant attacking or threatening to physically harm anybody else. Breaking and entering is a crime, and destruction of property is a crime, but neither is a violent crime."

I guess we have different understandings of the word 'violent.' there are certainly different degrees of violence, but killing livestock certainly qualifies. I could definitely make a case that B&E and/or burglary, while not physical violence, could certainly qualify as a "mental" form of violence. just ask anyone who has had their home invaded.

Quote :

"Which is legally -- and, if I may so, ethically and logically -- bullshit. Worse, it's bullshit that could justify and has justified all sorts of very bad things. You don't get to make the fallacy of assuming that because other Mexicans in the past have done a thing, Mexicans in the future are likely to do the same."

I am not painting "mexicans" with this brush, I am painting illegal trespassing immigrants with this brush. there is a huge difference there. after years of damage, how can you argue that he shouldnt be at least wary of these people? his property has been destroyed for years by them. when does he get the benefit of the doubt and when is he allowed to drop the politically correct mindset? if you were in his shoes, I have a feeling your opinion would be very different.

Quote :

"This seems very silly. The source of their profit happened after they committed their crime -- or are you now going to say that they were still trespassing when the man forced them to stay on his land at gunpoint?"

its not debatable that he stepped over the line. I have repeated that. he did the wrong thing. I just dont understand how you can give people the civil power to destroy a person when they have committed a crime in the first place to have their civil liberties violated. I cannot wrap my brain around that.

again, he should be tried criminally. our civil courts should be reserved for citizens and legal visitors to our country.

Quote :

"I have repeatedly demonstrated, with the use of a number of sources, that illegal immigrants are net contributors to the tax base, not recipients -- they pay in more money than they get out. If you want to insist that I dig through to find the threads, I will, but for now I'll hope you'll take my word for it. And the rancher isn't a victim of immigration, he's a victim of destruction of property and breaking and entering. The one doesn't follow from the other. The guy killed in a drunk driving crash isn't a victim of beer, he's a victim of drunk driving. "

I really dont care to get into a fact finding statistical battle with you and I have read some of your links so I will concede that you can back up your claims if you will concede that that particular statistic varies tremendously depending on whether or not that immigrant has kids, insurance, etc...and if you will also concede that the exact impact is impossible to determine because the exact number of undocumented aliens is not known.

I would be interested to see how that number incorporates the use of roads, schools, police, military, ER care (private, but a huge expense that drives health care for the rest of us), etc...

your analogy is semantics and irrelevant, really. whatever he is a victim of is caused by the other...illegals cause destruction, destruction cause his action, etc...

Quote :

" Is there any limit to that assertion? If he had tied up the immigrants in his basement and raped them for ten years, would they have any legal recourse then?"

interesting way to put it, but thats not what he did. he held them and called the authorities (while acting like a dick). again, he committed criminal actions and should be punished by our legal system. illegals should not have a civil option.

Quote :

"Which is to say, they have no chance to us it."

please. I know the system is difficult, if not nearly impossible to navigate. however it doesnt excuse their actions. they are breaking the law. I work with plenty of latinos who are here legally. it just takes effort. I will not excuse their ignorance or laziness because we have a difficult system.

2/17/2009 9:30:44 AM

Quote :

"I could definitely make a case that B&E and/or burglary, while not physical violence, could certainly qualify as a "mental" form of violence. just ask anyone who has had their home invaded. "

Home invasion is one thing, simple B&E another. The article wasn't clear on whether or not the guy was in the house when the alleged break-in happened. Generally, as I understand it, you can shoot someone breaking into your house while you're in it. But if you come home and find that your otherwise unoccupied house has been broken into, you don't get to shoot the perpetrator.

Killing livestock is no more a violent crime than beating your dog. It's a crime, but in any meaningful sense "violent crime" can only happen to a person.

Think about it: when you hear statistics about the increase or decrease in violent crime in this country, do you think, "Well, I guess that means fewer livestock are being killed by people other than their owners."

Quote :

"I am not painting "mexicans" with this brush, I am painting illegal trespassing immigrants with this brush. there is a huge difference there."

So what exactly does an illegal look like? How does this rancher know? It's pretty impressive that he can spot a person and tell right then and there that they are an illegal immigrant.

Or do we think that maybe every time this guy saw some unknown Hispanics on his property, he made the jump to assuming that they were illegal?

Quote :

"after years of damage, how can you argue that he shouldnt be at least wary of these people?"

I guess I can do it because I have more than a passing familiarity with fallacies like the one you're using here. At what magic number of offenses does the rancher earn the right to judge an entire group? Can we apply this to other things? Because a lot of the black people I knew in elementary school beat me up. Most of the ones I actually talked to, really. It was a near-daily occurrence. I would now like to use your logic to treat black people differently.

The basic fallacy aside, there's a difference between "being wary" and "holding a group of unarmed people at gunpoint."

Quote :

"I just dont understand how you can give people the civil power to destroy a person when they have committed a crime in the first place to have their civil liberties violated."

The immigrants would just be destroying him anyway in criminal court. The simple fact of the matter is that we're not allowed to respond to crime just any way we see fit. There are limits. And when you exceed those limits, you are liable legally as well as civilly. You clearly agree to this in principle, because your response to various examples here hasn't been to negate it, but merely to claim that the examples are perfectly congruent with the rancher's scenario. If I ram a speeder's car to stop him from speeding, that guy can sue me. If I break a guy's spine to stop him from stealing a roll of certs, that guy can sue me.

And it is increasingly clear that you care less about criminals being able to sue than you are about illegal immigrants being able to sue.

Quote :

"I will concede that you can back up your claims if you will concede that that particular statistic varies tremendously depending on whether or not that immigrant has kids, insurance, etc"

This is moronic. I talk about the group in general and you ask me to concede that what I said may not be true for every single individual. The statistic doesn't "vary" from person to person, and this bizarre, idiotic attempt to touch on the usual superficial issues (they have too many kids! they don't have insurance!) leads us nowhere. As a whole, illegal immigrants contribute more than they take out. Some individual immigrants take more out than they contribute.

Bear in mind that the general population apparently takes out far more than it puts in, which is why we've got an enormous deficit.

Quote :

"if you will also concede that the exact impact is impossible to determine because the exact number of undocumented aliens is not known. "

It's impossible to determine the exact impact of anything because the exact number of legal residents and citizens in the United States is not known. We take our best guesses in each case. Even the census is basically a giant pile of guesses dumped on top of actual submitted data.

So I'll concede neither of your points.

Quote :

"I would be interested to see how that number incorporates the use of roads, schools, police, military, ER care (private, but a huge expense that drives health care for the rest of us)"

Have you never noticed who builds and repairs roads around here?
The military? How exactly are illegal immigrants using the military? Is the defense it provides not a public good?
ER care, as you say, is private, and I never claimed that I had information for that sector. However, the problem there is really more an issue of health policy than it is of immigration.

Quote :

"your analogy is semantics and irrelevant, really. whatever he is a victim of is caused by the other...illegals cause destruction, destruction cause his action, etc..."

Beer causes the drunkenness, the drunkenness causes the crash. Therefore we should blame beer for drunk driving.

The crime, the act of crossing the border illegally, causes no damage. Subsequently, other crimes may happen, of which someone may be a victim. It's an important distinction, although you seem to think you can wave it off with a barely coherent sentence and a couple of dismissive words.

Quote :

"interesting way to put it, but thats not what he did."

You didn't answer the question. I want to know if you think there is really NO situation of ANY severity that it would warrant illegals having the right to civil recourse. Is there any limit to your assertion?

Quote :

"I work with plenty of latinos who are here legally. it just takes effort."

No, it doesn't just take effort. For a very large number of people who want to immigrate to this country from Mexico, it is impossible. Not "difficult," not "nearly impossible" -- it's completely impossible. Our immigration policy involves quotas, and Latin America's quotas are, in effect, filled up from now into the distant future.

2/17/2009 1:57:38 PM

Quote-bombing like woah.

But yeah, I agree with Grumpy.

2/17/2009 3:44:13 PM

so I can trespass anywhere I like and not be detained?

2/17/2009 5:45:26 PM

Sometimes I love the Grumpster.

2/17/2009 6:10:28 PM

Quote :

" Killing livestock is no more a violent crime than beating your dog. It's a crime, but in any meaningful sense "violent crime" can only happen to a person."

haha ok. your opinion. I consider violence against animals, including killing them for food in an inhumane manner, to be a violent action, especially if said animal belongs to another person.

Quote :

"Or do we think that maybe every time this guy saw some unknown Hispanics on his property, he made the jump to assuming that they were illegal?"

just a guess, but this guy was probably frothing at the mouth anytime he saw an unknown person on his property, regardless of race. he probably got a raging hard on at the thought of going to get his guns to defend his land. I would agree he is probably predisposed to profiling latinos but it is pretty understandable considering the volume of illegals crossing his property.

it would be nice if this discussion could be had within the context of this man's reality and not in your world of 'what ifs.' this man's reality is crucial to this case.

Quote :

"The basic fallacy aside, there's a difference between "being wary" and "holding a group of unarmed people at gunpoint.""

sure. thats what criminal courts are for. I have said repeatedly he fucked up. how else would you like me to acknowledge this?

Quote :

" This is moronic. I talk about the group in general and you ask me to concede that what I said may not be true for every single individual. The statistic doesn't "vary" from person to person, and this bizarre, idiotic attempt to touch on the usual superficial issues (they have too many kids! they don't have insurance!) leads us nowhere. As a whole, illegal immigrants contribute more than they take out. Some individual immigrants take more out than they contribute."

why are you always the first to start with the insults? does it make you feel like a big man?

there are always gray areas in statistics. for example, are the kids of illegals considered in the equation? this is important because the kids (if born here) are not technically illegal and are probably not counted as such. therefore they would not count against your numbers although they contribute no taxes but clearly use the same services, but would not be here if not for their illegal parents.

Quote :

"Have you never noticed who builds and repairs roads around here? The military? How exactly are illegal immigrants using the military? Is the defense it provides not a public good? ER care, as you say, is private, and I never claimed that I had information for that sector. However, the problem there is really more an issue of health policy than it is of immigration."

here is where you are wrong. maybe once upon a time, you would have tons of illegals working on crews in state projects but not any longer. most work I am bidding now for the state or even large corporations require verification and certification of the contractor work force. the military is there for the common good. taxpayers contribute to that budget. Im not sure how you exclude that.

health is private but is a unique industry that drives costs for everyone, similar to consumption of government services. I know you didnt include that.

Quote :

"Therefore we should blame beer for drunk driving. "

we do. and we blame the driver. some blame one more than others, usually depending on their political affiliation

Quote :

" The crime, the act of crossing the border illegally, causes no damage. Subsequently, other crimes may happen, of which someone may be a victim. It's an important distinction, although you seem to think you can wave it off with a barely coherent sentence and a couple of dismissive words. "

there you go with the insults again. bad day today? Im just trying to have a conversation with you.

who cares if it causes any 'damage?' thats another argument entirely. its against federal law.

Quote :

"Is there any limit to your assertion?"

no. not in the civil court. civil court is a privilege of our citizens. just my opinion, obviously.

2/17/2009 10:16:27 PM

Quote :

"haha ok. your opinion."

Not...really...

Quote :

"The United States Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) counts five categories of crime as violent crimes: murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault."

Quote :

"it would be nice if this discussion could be had within the context of this man's reality and not in your world of 'what ifs.'"

The fact is that his sob stories about dead cows and litter don't really have any impact on the law or logic here. It's not a viable defense or justification, and even though you seem to think the guy should be prosecuted you keep throwing this argument up as a defense and justification. It's maddening.

Quote :

"there are always gray areas in statistics."

So now, even though you haven't seen the sources and even said you did not feel it necessary to see them, you're attacking their methodology. Brilliant.

Quote :

"here is where you are wrong. maybe once upon a time, you would have tons of illegals working on crews in state projects but not any longer. most work I am bidding now for the state or even large corporations require verification and certification of the contractor work force. the military is there for the common good. taxpayers contribute to that budget. Im not sure how you exclude that. health is private but is a unique industry that drives costs for everyone, similar to consumption of government services. I know you didnt include that."

1) OK, maybe there's fewer illegals working road construction these days. So what? Does it cost more to have immigrants drive on it? Aside from which state projects are, by definition, funded in large part by states. Illegals buy stuff. Illegals pay sales taxes.

2) Military protection is a public good. The military doesn't cost more because we have illegals here.

3) Health care is not unique, and it is not uniquely affected by immigrants. Everybody who doesn't have insurance drives up the cost, and there's plenty in America who don't. The problem, again, is with American health policy, not with immigration.

Quote :

"who cares if it causes any 'damage?' thats another argument entirely."

No! No, it isn't! Do you remember how we got to this line of discussion? I said that immigration was a victimless crime. If it causes no damage or harm, it is victimless!

2/17/2009 10:38:01 PM

this has devolved into a bunch of issues that deserve to each be debated on their own merit.

my final point is this. this man committed a criminal action. he should be punished for it. however, I believe our civil court system should be a luxury afforded to those who are citizens of our country or invited guests. it is not for the world to take advantage of. you break our federal law, come into the country illegally and in the process get wronged by a citizen. I am sorry that happened to you, but it happened only because you crossed into our country illegally. If you had not done so, you would not have been stopped or detained. Because your actions directly contributed to you situation, you do not get to sue for an excessive amount of money. You get to be put on the first bus out of the country and he gets to stand before a jury of his peers to judge his vigilantism.

2/18/2009 9:33:21 AM

GrumpyGOP is dominating this thread.

2/18/2009 9:37:37 AM

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

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/02/17/20090217border-confrontation0217-ON.html

seems like a reasonable verdict, although I still disagree with the premise.

[Edited on February 18, 2009 at 10:43 AM. Reason : . ]

2/18/2009 10:42:57 AM