Quote :

"An Arizona man who has waged a 10-year campaign to stop a flood of illegal immigrants from crossing his property is being sued by 16 Mexican nationals who accuse him of conspiring to violate their civil rights when he stopped them at gunpoint on his ranch on the U.S.-Mexico border. "This is my land. I´m the victim here," Mr. Barnett said. "When someone´s home and loved ones are in jeopardy and the government seemingly can´t do anything about it, I feel justified in taking matters into my own hands. And I always watch my back." "

One of the first things new immigrants should learn when they come to America...respect other people's property- don't leave used toilet paper and empty beer cans all over their land. Don't kill their live-stock, destroy their water tanks, break into their houses. People will get pretty upset with you and may even resort to violence to protect their family.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/09/16-illegals-sue-arizona-rancher/

[Edited on February 9, 2009 at 11:10 AM. Reason : .]

2/9/2009 11:10:24 AM

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

2/9/2009 11:19:05 AM

this is one of those cases where the ruling will be in favor of the plaintiff and we are just all going to beat our collective heads against the wall

i have always wondered about the legal precedents about the rights granted to illegal aliens

[Edited on February 9, 2009 at 11:34 AM. Reason : 

2/9/2009 11:30:44 AM

Quote :

"Attorneys for the immigrants - five women and 11 men who were trying to cross illegally into the United States - have accused Mr. Barnett of holding the group captive at gunpoint, threatening to turn his dog loose on them and saying he would shoot anyone who tried to escape."

Ok, I'm all for protecting your land, but there has to be some sort of line. "Get off of my property" at gunpoint is not the equivalent of "Stay on my property or I will shoot you" at gunpoint.

Quote :

"At one point, it said, Mr. Barnett's dog barked at several of the women and he yelled at them in Spanish, "My dog is hungry and he's hungry for buttocks.""

2/9/2009 11:40:40 AM

Get off my land or die, does not equate to, Stay on my land or die.

Clearly this guy thinks the government isn't doing enough, but holding people hostage is simply insane.

[Edited on February 9, 2009 at 11:59 AM. Reason : -]

2/9/2009 11:47:06 AM

Quote :

"saying he would shoot anyone who tried to escape"

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

2/9/2009 11:53:04 AM

did he yell "citizen's arrest!"?

2/9/2009 12:04:44 PM

Quote :

"Clearly this guy thinks the government isn't doing enough, but holding people hostage is simply insane."

Yeah, if he actually kicked them, I think that could cause him problems.

I could conceivably see him losing the case, which would cause a huge backlash, which would actually be bad for solving the issue of immigration.

2/9/2009 12:06:45 PM

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

2/9/2009 12:09:24 PM

ok let them win their civil case; but 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.

2/9/2009 12:16:45 PM

Quote :

"holding the group captive"

Oh damn, I thought he just "stopped them at gunpoint".

Quote :

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

Well....maybe. You can't just hold people by force, can you?
Is it like when you stop a home intruder at gunpoint, and keep them at gunpoint until the cops get there? That's reasonable...

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."

I agree with this.
I mean, why the fuck shouldn't they face illegal immigration charges?

2/9/2009 12:22:35 PM

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?

2/9/2009 12:35:06 PM

Dead trespassers can't sue you.

2/9/2009 12:38:48 PM

I couldn't find a legal precedent in the 30s of searching, and this portion of the wikipedia article isn't cited. but anyway:

Quote :

"Most jurisdictions do not allow "self-help" to remove trespassers. The usual procedure is to ask the trespassing person to leave, then to call law enforcement officials if they do not. As long as the trespasser is not posing an immediate threat, they cannot be removed by force. 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."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trespass

Makes sense to me: these illegals weren't threatening his life, the life of his family, or his property. He doesn't have the right to hold them hostage just because they're crossing into America illegally. His civic duty is to call the police and report them.

^Just because you live on the border doesn't make you INS or Border Patrol. Just because they're not American doesn't mean you don't have to follow the law of the country you call home. And just because they're not American you don't have to threaten them with violence and buttocks eating.

2/9/2009 12:54:16 PM

I've always approached the illegal immigration thing as a "Do at your own Risk" type deal. If you hop the border; sprint as local yokels chase you with shotguns as you trespass their property; and eventually make it to Indiana to pick corn for $2/hour than so be it. You have no rights, no safeguards, and as soon as you cause trouble than you are gone.

2/9/2009 12:56:23 PM

i didn't read all the responses but how can they even sue someone?

2/9/2009 12:59:00 PM

^^^dude gtfo out here with that crap. They're illegals, not law abiding US citizens. 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?

[Edited on February 9, 2009 at 1:01 PM. Reason : ^]

2/9/2009 12:59:17 PM

Oh, so the instant you break the law you forfeit all of your freedoms? Keep that in mind the next time you speed. I will ram your car off the road and detain you at gunpoint until the cops come.

I have a feeling your hangup is not with their illegal activities but the fact that they're not American? Do you understand that when people enter this country legally or otherwise they are still protected and bound by the laws that govern this land?

2/9/2009 1:01:44 PM

we're talking about entering our country illegally so YES THAT IS MY ISSUE.

why are some of you ppl so fucking lackadasical about invading a sovereign country? Jesus Christ.

2/9/2009 1:03:07 PM

then the man would be held on charges and not being sued.

i fucking hate people that sue people.

2/9/2009 1:03:38 PM

Quote :

"You can't just hold people by force, can you? Is it like when you stop a home intruder at gunpoint, and keep them at gunpoint until the cops get there? That's reasonable... "

I cant tell if you are joking or not.

But yes, you can hold someone by force until the police get there. You see it works out better for the perp if you dont shoot him too.

2/9/2009 1:04:49 PM

Because that's not the issue here. The guy took the law into his own hands. You justify it because it's those pesky mexicans commin to took er jobs.

If the US declares war on Mexico, then fine: shoot, detain, whatever the fuck you want to those dirty foreigners that come into your land. Until then, follow the rules.

2/9/2009 1:05:10 PM

Quote :

"why are some of you ppl so fucking lackadasical about invading a sovereign country?"

like invading iraq, amirite?

2/9/2009 1:06:14 PM

he didnt take the law in his own hands.. he held them UNTIL the law got there. I guess we shouldnt stop anyone from raping a girl.. bc that would be taking the law in our own hands and violating HIS rights... damn the girls rights or the ranchers... correct? THINK

2/9/2009 1:08:19 PM

THINK, eh?

Person is trespassing on your land, trying to get through it, offering no threat whatsoever to you or your family or your property. How is this at all the equivalent to threatening to rape someone?

If they were not threatening him in any way, then any use of force is unreasonable. He threatened to shoot them if they tried to escape. That's holding them hostage.

AND FURTHER, where in the fuck did you draw the conclusion that any of these illegals wanted anything to do with their daughter? Do you think every mexican crosses into their land because they wan to rape his children?

NM, you weren't referring to his children specifically. But the point stands, trespassing and rape are apples and oranges.

[Edited on February 9, 2009 at 1:15 PM. Reason : further]

[Edited on February 9, 2009 at 1:16 PM. Reason : .]

2/9/2009 1:13:11 PM

Quote :

"why are some of you ppl so fucking lackadasical about invading a sovereign country"

DEY TUKK ER JERBS!


had to do it for old times sake

2/9/2009 1:13:54 PM

no it isnt, he has every right to protect his land and family. All he was doing was buying time to get the police there.

And the rape was in ref to the "you cant take the law in his own hands."

2/9/2009 1:17:52 PM

old times sake? that phrase is more worn out than your mom after a night on the corner and you mention in it every damn thread where immigration is mentioned.

Southpark is cool, mmmmkay? just let it die.

2/9/2009 1:20:02 PM

I'm refraining from an ad hominem here, eyedrb.

It is not breaking the law to use reasonable force against someone who is threatening you or another person.

He in fact does have the right to protect his land and family.

HE TOLD THEM THAT HE WOULD SHOOT THEM IF THEY TRIED TO LEAVE HIS LAND! What in the hell does that have to do with protecting himself or his land or his family? If he really wanted to protect them he would have let them escape, right?

2/9/2009 1:20:56 PM

^^^exactly right......if I see someone beating someone else in the middle of the road, I have every right to stop the attack.

This "rights of aggressor" over "rights of the victim" attitude has gone completely out of control in America.

[Edited on February 9, 2009 at 1:25 PM. Reason : .]

2/9/2009 1:21:05 PM

Really? You are really trying to make that argument?

They were on his land illegally, and they were using his land to violate more laws. So while they were trespassing, they were doing so while in the process of violating other laws on entry in the US. So he detained, with out hurting them, until law enforcement arrived. Why do you think he wasn't prosecuted by the county, state, feds? If they were trespassing and not violating any other laws, then you would have an argument. But, like I said, they were using his land to basically commit and illegal act, thus he prevented them from committing unlawful activity using his property.

Barring all of that, he didn't know the intention of the people he detained. Maybe they were going to wait on his land and rob him, rape his wife, or steal his cattle. He didn't know their intent, thus he was in his rights to detain and then let law enforcement handle the situation, which he did.

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."

2/9/2009 1:23:55 PM

^^ I don't know what the federal laws are or in Texas, but in NC, you can't use disproportionate force.

I don't think anyone is remotely close to saying that this guy isn't allowed to confront trespassers on his property. But it's not clear if you're allowed to hold hostage non-violent trespassers and kick them while you're at it.

Illegal immigration is neither rape nor assault.

It's more like...

Quote :

"Oh, so the instant you break the law you forfeit all of your freedoms? Keep that in mind the next time you speed. I will ram your car off the road and detain you at gunpoint until the cops come. "

2/9/2009 1:29:42 PM

As far as I could tell from the article, immigrants int he past have torn up his land, killed cattle, broken into his home, but not these particular immigrants. He just caught them trespassing, you can't hold them hostage on the assumption that MAYBE they were going to do something.

2/9/2009 1:30:09 PM

Hey, because some mexicans destroyed my property 10 YEARS AGO, that means that maybe these are going to do the same thing! You know, I'm sure someone that posts on an Internet board at some point in the last 10 years has killed someone. I'd watch out or someone may find you threatening and detain you at gunpoint.

So seriously, next time you see someone breaking the law in a non-threatening manner, hold them at gunpoint and threaten to shoot them.

You can logically infer that these mexicans were not threatening him since they would have no case if they were.

Is there anything from the article to indicate that these illegals did anything to threaten him or his family? No, there isn't.

2/9/2009 1:30:56 PM

Quote :

"I cant tell if you are joking or not. But yes, you can hold someone by force until the police get there. You see it works out better for the perp if you dont shoot him too."

No, I wasn't joking... I was saying that it seems reasonable to keep a home invader at gunpoint until the cops show up. And I was questioning whether this is the same or similar....

First, should it matter that there were 16 of them instead of just 1 or 2? I don't think so. I think you could legally hold 16 home invaders at gunpoint (if possible.)

Second, should it matter that they were on his property and not in his house? Maybe, I don't know. 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.)

Third, shouldn't he have "allowed them to cure the trespass by leaving"?

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."

Well, this is different. As was pointed out:

Quote :

" If they were trespassing and not violating any other laws, then you would have an argument. But, like I said, they were using his land to basically commit and illegal act, thus he prevented them from committing unlawful activity using his property."

This wasn't simply a case of trespassing. If it were other Arizonans on his property, then yes, "allowing them to cure the trespass by leaving" would have been the right thing to do. But these people were already criminals of different sort the moment they illegally crossed the border. By "allowing them to cure the trespass by leaving" in this case, they could've escaped into america, illegally. So is he allowed to stop them? I don't know. Even if they went in the direction of mexico, it's reasonable to assume they'd continue to attempt illegally crossing. So is then allowed to stop them? I don't know. I guess we'll find out.

Quote :

"breaking the law in a non-threatening"

You keep barking this.
However, it seems like trespassing itself constitutes a threat -- someone is illegally in your personal space.
Right?

2/9/2009 1:50:11 PM

^^when he came across them on his land, how the fuck would he know if they'd fucked up something on his property in another location. Should he risk letting them go maybe to find out later they'd killed a calve or something? If there's a stranger in my house should I just let him go, only to find out he ransacked my bedroom?

And you can argue that inside my house is different than on his farm. But he has probably $100,000 or more of things of value spread out over his land so I don't see how its that different.

And of course he'd threaten to shoot them. Otherwise what's the point of pulling a gun on them at all? Hey you 16 guys, stay here while the cops come. I'm not going to shoot you, but please stay and wait?

[Edited on February 9, 2009 at 1:56 PM. Reason : ^]

2/9/2009 1:55:24 PM

I did find this:

http://www.barbaraleff.com/newsreleases/opportunitymissed.htm

Which apparently is some politician whining that her law didn't get passed.

Quote :

"SB 1157 addressed the problem of "catch and release," which happens every day. Current, when local law enforcement officers find people streaming across the border, raid a drop house or stop a vehicle filled with illegal immigrants, they can do nothing unless federal authorities are willing to respond. Violators cannot be detained because Arizona’s law enforcement does not have the authority to detain people for violations of federal immigration law. "

LOL. In Arizona, the police can't even detain illegals. They have to get the feds. That should tell you whether this guy did something legal.

Regardless, trespassing is not in itself a threatening act.

A group of teens wanders through your backyard. Do you, a)suggest that they get off of your land or b) detain them at gunpoint?

Why all of the sudden is the right answer b when it's mexican looking people?

2/9/2009 2:14:50 PM

Say your driving home and someone runs into your car.....what do you do?

You call the cops and then hold that person there! If they drive off, you're paying the bill and you are screwed.

If they drive off and you have no witnesses, then you are royally screwed. The cops may never find the guy!

Half of you on here are siding with the guy who runs into your car

2/9/2009 2:17:57 PM

not even remotely comparable. The guy has no proof that these immigrants damaged anything of his.

2/9/2009 2:21:05 PM

Are you actually suggesting detaining the other guy at gunpoint after a car accident? Holy Internet Tough Guy, batman!

In your mind it's ok to detain someone that's breaking the law. However, when you detain them, you're breaking the law. Does that mean that someone else should detain you while you're detaining them?

2/9/2009 2:22:53 PM

i'd probably shoot them to if they were fuckign up my land at the border.

2/9/2009 2:23:54 PM

I strongly oppose Barnett's conduct. Unfortunately, he's done this shit before.

http://deletetheborder.org/node/1723

2/9/2009 2:29:27 PM

Quote :

"In your mind it's ok to detain someone that's breaking the law. However, when you detain them, you're breaking the law"

Get a grip, guy. It's not merely that someone's breaking a law. It matters what law is being broken and the circumstances surrounding the breaking of the law. If someone breaks the law called 'attempted murder', and you're the victim of that instance of the breaking of that law, then you can legally kill the law-breaker. Certainly there are situations where simply detaining someone is similarly legal.

2/9/2009 2:32:27 PM

Quote :

"The guy has no proof that these immigrants damaged anything of his."

Only years of damage that others have done Call the cops (regardless if they are mexicans, whites, blacks, martians...), if it checks out OK, they are free to go with a tresspassing charge to their name!

Quote :

"Are you actually suggesting detaining the other guy at gunpoint after a car accident?"

If I had reason to believe that they were about cost me 20,000 and possibly more if someone in my family was medically hurt by driving off from the scene, I'd stand infront of their vehicle. If they came at me, I would absolutely use force.

2/9/2009 2:33:37 PM

Holy shit goldenviper, if that doesn't tell this thread where this guy is coming from, nothing will.
They were fucking Americans he harassed.

2/9/2009 2:33:57 PM

I see nothing wrong with his actions. The man did what it was that he had to do. It would be unreasonable to either let them leave with the risk of only later realizing damage had occurred to your property and not have anyone to hold accountable or to let them leave and essentially be responsible for aiding and abetting their illegal entry.

People keep suggesting imminent threat or use of violence is the only reason he should be allowed to carry out the actions he did. the question then becomes what constitutes violence? Personally i find killing cattle or breaking into homes violent or threatening enough. If someone is willing to commit those actions, what other malfeasance are they willing to commit, especially considering the high stakes situation of making it into the US or not.

2/9/2009 2:48:17 PM

I mean technically speaking there is no record of their existence in this country...so let him do as he pleases to them.

2/9/2009 2:49:06 PM

Holy hell RTFA.

These illegals did not do any of the things you're mentioning. There's no evidence to suggest that they did anything except walk on his land.

2/9/2009 2:51:52 PM

Quote :

"People keep suggesting imminent threat or use of violence is the only reason he should be allowed to carry out the actions he did. the question then becomes what constitutes violence? Personally i find killing cattle or breaking into homes violent or threatening enough. If someone is willing to commit those actions, what other malfeasance are they willing to commit, especially considering the high stakes situation of making it into the US or not."

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

should he have detained them? yes

should have used a weapon? i dont know

should they have the legal right to sue not being citizens or legal resident aliens? no

2/9/2009 3:10:23 PM

wether or not he was justified in detaining them should come down to arizona state law.

I dont know how in the hell he could have possibly violated anyones civil rights.

2/9/2009 3:13:52 PM