I don't understand why you think the principles of justice don't extend past our borders. That's a pretty bizarre thought.

[Edited on February 18, 2009 at 11:04 AM. Reason : ]

2/18/2009 11:03:54 AM

Quote :

"however, I believe our civil court system should be a luxury afforded to those who are citizens of our country or invited guests."

Sweet, so now justice is a luxury.

These new articles provide some relevant information, by the way, including the fact that the rancher:

-Isn't just concerned with his own property -- he patrols roads and highways as well. More proof that he just likes to go on power trips against defenseless people.

-He's been sued before, and forced to pay $100,000 in an "incident" involving Mexican-American hunters. Like I've been saying, this guy doesn't have magical powers to detect illegal immigrants. He just harasses Mexicans.

-He carries around a badge that is clearly designed to resemble that of LEOs in his state and flashes it to present him with a false air of authority.

2/18/2009 11:15:31 AM

the guy is a douche. nobody is saying otherwise. he should also have criminal charges brought against him.

IN MY OPINION civil courts are a luxury. not justice or criminal courts. how many times do I need to say this? obviously, my opinion is irrelevant because he was taken to civil court. I just dont agree with it.

2/18/2009 11:19:17 AM

WHY are civil courts a luxury? That just doesn't make sense.

That implies you think it's okay to deny rights of people that aren't American-esque, which I guess you can have as an opinion, but it also means you're stuck in a medieval era of thought. Do you not remember John Locke and the enlightenment era and what all that heralded?

2/18/2009 11:22:57 AM

I thought it to be ridiculous that they could sue him in a civil court for actions that occured because the broke the law (twice - trespassing and illegal immigration). the luxury of civil action should not be theirs because of that because they are not even supposed to be here on ANY level.

I have no problem with legal immigrants or international visitors taking a US citizen to civil court if their rights are violated. illegals should not be afforded that luxury. of course all criminal actions, regardless of who they are against, should be prosecuted.

2/18/2009 11:30:31 AM

Quote :

"IN MY OPINION civil courts are a luxury. not justice or criminal courts."

Civil courts are part of the justice system. They exist to provide justice, so that compensation can be handed out for wrongdoing. They aren't some frivolous add-on to the court system, they are a crucial part of it.

[Edited on February 18, 2009 at 11:33 AM. Reason : Justice is not a luxury. Just give up, man.]

2/18/2009 11:33:15 AM

Vigilantism is not generally protected. It's why Batman has to hide in his cave.

If a drug dealer kills someone who tried to steal drugs from his, is that not murder? You may not have much sympathy for the guy, but that doesn't mean it's not right for the guy to be tried as a murderer, even though he was selling drugs, and killed someone trying to steal drugs.

2/18/2009 11:37:36 AM

NO NO NO ALL ANALOGIES MUST INVOLVE SITUATIONS EXACTLY LIKE THIS ONE

2/18/2009 12:04:55 PM

Quote :

"If a drug dealer kills someone who tried to steal drugs from his, is that not murder? You may not have much sympathy for the guy, but that doesn't mean it's not right for the guy to be tried as a murderer, even though he was selling drugs, and killed someone trying to steal drugs."

thats criminal. of course he should be tried. how is that anything like what I am saying?

2/18/2009 1:49:55 PM

^ You seem to be saying that these people don't deserve recourse against unethical and possibly immoral acts against them because they are not here legally.

2/18/2009 2:09:55 PM

yes, especially when their not being here illegally is a direct cause of the acts committed against them. of course, it doesnt excuse the rancher criminally.

obviously our court system views that differently because they were able to have a civil trial. I just dont agree.

2/18/2009 2:19:08 PM

That is my concern.

Why don't ethics/morals apply universally in your mind? What exactly did they do wrong to not deserve to be abused?

2/18/2009 2:26:38 PM

as individuals, they probably did very little to the rancher personally, if anything. as a collective group they have done a lot. he has real damage to his property and probably a real fear for his family's safety because of the steady stream of people crossing and abusing his property. could you imagine having small children in a situation like this? how could you ever let them outside to play without worrying that they would be kidnapped or worse? especially in light of the growing strength of the Mexican organized crime groups that are ravaging their own country right along the border.

what about his civil rights? they are violated as well. however, he really doesnt have any legal recourse against them. what would he sue them for? can he even sue an undocumented immigrant (I think he can, but I am not sure)? even if he won a judgment he could never realistically collect.

I dont think what he did was right but I also will not sit here and judge his actions. I think that the "abuse" the people claimed to endure was overstated at least, non-existent at most, as reflected in the judgment. his actions may merit law enforcement to punish him. they do not merit a path for someone who broke the law and violated the rancher's rights to get rich from.

2/18/2009 2:42:13 PM

Quote :

"I think that the "abuse" the people claimed to endure was overstated at least, non-existent at most, as reflected in the judgment."

So you're unwilling to judge the rancher, but you're more than willing to judge that the plaintiffs are liars or exaggerators.

2/18/2009 3:03:16 PM

Come on, are you surprised?

2/18/2009 3:05:48 PM

Quote :

"So you're unwilling to judge the rancher, but you're more than willing to judge that the plaintiffs are liars or exaggerators."

yes they exaggerated if they think what happened to them is worth $32 million or whatever they were suing for.

2/18/2009 3:15:45 PM

You need to understand the concept of punitive damages.

2/18/2009 3:16:30 PM

It sounds like your biggest problem is litigation in general. Enormous sums of money like that get asked for in all kinds of cases, more frivolous than this one, involving native-born American citizens.

At any rate, there's a world of difference between "asking for an exorbitant amount of money" and "committing perjury to lie about physical and psychological abuse." Your statement that I originally quoted does both.

How does the amount of money demanded by the plaintiffs make you so willing, nay, so eager to judge them as a pack of liars?

2/18/2009 3:20:41 PM

well considering most of the people who originally filed the suit were dropped off of it in a matter of days and considering the amount of money the ruling was reduced to, how am I wrong? obviously the jury felt the suit was a huge exaggeration of what happened. you used the word liar. I prefer exaggerator.

I do admit that I am easily annoyed at large, seemingly frivolous suits like this one where the amount of money comes nowhere near fitting the crime. even if these people were american citizens I would say that in this case.

2/18/2009 3:45:00 PM

^ What would have been an appropriate amount for them to ask for, given the way you know our legal system works?

2/18/2009 3:46:37 PM

I am no lawyer and no expert so I wont pretend to know the answer. hell, maybe that was the right amount to ask for. I know lawyers, and anyone else negotiating for that matter, always ask for a lot more then what they think will actually win. I am just commenting as to how it appears on the surface.

2/18/2009 3:55:42 PM

Quote :

"obviously the jury felt the suit was a huge exaggeration of what happened."

I'm responding to this, and then I give up. I think my point has been made. I won't keep slamming my head into a wall of idiocy.

DaBird, go ahead and "judge" me a failure for that.

The simple fact is, the jury didn't feel anything of the sort. They lacked evidence with which to charge others. That doesn't mean they thought that it was an exaggeration -- that meant that they, in their duty as arbiters of justice under the law, could not find proof of a wrongdoing.

The fact that you apparently don't understand the difference and still insist on commenting on the matter makes me supremely depressed about our society. Fortunately, I have booze to ameliorate my condition. I fear there's no amount of explanation that will do the same for yours.

2/18/2009 11:44:16 PM

WTF are you talking about 'judge' you as a failure? I have an opinion. You have an opinion. I am ok with that...although I am not sure how you can definitively speak to the mindset of the jury.

he was found guilty of assault and damages were awarded. they were significantly less than requested and the majority of the people were dropped from the case. sounds to me like there was some piling on and the jury trimmed the fat. Im sorry if my opinions hurt your feelings that bad.

2/19/2009 10:42:30 AM

With the relatively small amount of award in this case the lawyers for the illegals pretty much lost.

Most people agree that if you are in the act of committing a crime (tresspassing, entering the US illegally etc), you don't have much of a leg to stand on demanding that the victim looks out for your civil rights.

2/19/2009 10:55:27 AM

I didnt know michael scott had an office bordering mexico

5/13/2009 7:10:46 PM