Man Sued for Protecting His Property

Do you think cops on the street can stop people and demand to see proof of citizenship, residence or whatever and then proceed to strip search them without probable cause because they can't prove they are a citizen/resident? Come off it people.

Um....no. Police can't do that.

Stating your name and info to police on a PROBABLE CAUSE stop is not what I was referring to.

No where in that case does it say you have to carry around documents proving you're a citizen/resident.

Try again maybe?
 
Form, I would normally agree with you, but the man was justified in preventing trespassing. The kick was not. Even as a citizen, I have no right to knowingly trespass.
You can try to prevent people from trespassing by erecting fences. Apparently in Arizona, you can try to prevent people from trespassing by asking them to leave while brandishing a weapon. What you apparently can't do is hold them against their will and threaten to kill them merely for being on the state's property, which you are leasing.

The charges stem from an October 30, 2004 incident when Roger Barnett, his wife and brother, Donald Barnett stopped Arturo, Ronald, Vanese and Angelique Morales and the girls' friend, Emma English, while the group was on a hunting trip. Upon finding the group on land he leases for grazing livestock from the Arizona State Land Department, Barnett yelled racist obscenities and pointed his chambered, AR-15 assault rifle at the
three young girls (ages 11 and 9) and the two men and threatened to kill them.
But that last point is likely immaterial. I doubt the law cares whether it is land you are leasing or land that you own. You still can't detain them under the pretext that they are trespassing, especially when they are more than willing to leave on their own.

Where he made is big mistake is that he thought a local hunting party of apparently legal US immigrants, or even citizens, who just happened to be Latinos were more illegal aliens, whom he knew from past experience could be cowed into submission by cussing at them while brandishing a gun.

If you watched the video, he's not merely trying to protect his own property from vandals as he alleges. He is doing everything he possibly can to be an arm of the US Border Patrol. I bet he even leased that land with this specific intention in mind. So now his sordid past deads are starting to unwind on him.

That's vigilanteism. He's just another of those nutjobs who try to take the law into their own hands instead of letting the law enforcement community deal with the problem as they should. If he doesn't like the way the Border Patrol is being operated, he can run for president, or support a candidate who shares his hatred of Mexicans, and try to change it. And now, hopefully, more of his victims over the course of 10 years will sue his ass off based on this successful lawsuit.
 
As you pointed out, the Mexican government is immune under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, but you could try to shoehorn it into an exception. Commercial activity? Maybe. Maybe something about the "rights in property" exception (though that's directed towards claims about nationalization).

But what are the damages? Someone would have to prove that illegal immigration is harming the United States. If you're just summing up costs and benefits, as you would in a civil suit, it's not entirely clear that illegal immigration is a net negative.

Cleo

I assume that much like sovreign immunity, the FSIA immunity does not cover individual officers of the goverment just the goverment itself (assumption only, ive mever dealt with it personally). Therefore, they would be succeptible to suit.

Damages would be class specific. Assuming a class of bordering property holders alleging that the enterprise of illegal immigration has led to losses in chattel property, trespass to property, valuation of real property and intereference with quiet enjoyment damages would be be calculated accordingly. I think the courts would find the net social benefit of immigration is too nebulous and remote a concept to apply to a RICO case involving property loss.

Given the way RICO has been expanded the past decade, Im surprised nobody has thought of this yet.

Anyway, we're way off topic.
 
I assume that much like sovreign immunity, the FSIA immunity does not cover individual officers of the goverment just the goverment itself (assumption only, ive mever dealt with it personally). Therefore, they would be succeptible to suit.

Damages would be class specific. Assuming a class of bordering property holders alleging that the enterprise of illegal immigration has led to losses in chattel property, trespass to property, valuation of real property and intereference with quiet enjoyment damages would be be calculated accordingly. I think the courts would find the net social benefit of immigration is too nebulous and remote a concept to apply to a RICO case involving property loss.

Given the way RICO has been expanded the past decade, Im surprised nobody has thought of this yet.

Anyway, we're way off topic.

But if the officials' actions are Mexican policy, then they're probably immune. The FSIA bars suits against "instrumentalities of foreign states," which includes "any entity . . . which is a separate legal person . . . which is an organ of a foreign state." I feel like that would include Mexican government officials.

It's an interesting discussion. :) If the officials were acting ultra vires, maybe you could do something. Or you could argue that illegal immigration supported by the Mexican government is "commercial activity carried on in the United States by a foreign state."

Cleo
 
Um....no. Police can't do that.

Stating your name and info to police on a PROBABLE CAUSE stop is not what I was referring to.

No where in that case does it say you have to carry around documents proving you're a citizen/resident.

Try again maybe?

Um...trespassing would be probable cause to stop and ID an illegal alien, which is my point for bringing it up. Try to stay on topic then. This thread isn't about discussing a national ID system.
 
Um...trespassing would be probable cause to stop and ID an illegal alien, which is my point for bringing it up.

No it wasn't. You clearly quoted me regarding police stopping people on the street and refuted that specific paragraph.

And it doesn't matter. Police can't determine who is a citizen and who isn't whether they be on a public sidewalk or trespassing on private land. People who are arrested on suspicion of being illegal immigrants/trespassing are still protected by the bill of rights.

Try to stay on topic then. This thread isn't about discussing a national ID system.

Then why didn't you ignore my post to begin with if you don't want to discuss my topic?
 
That's vigilanteism. He's just another of those nutjobs who try to take the law into their own hands instead of letting the law enforcement community deal with the problem as they should. If he doesn't like the way the Border Patrol is being operated, he can run for president, or support a candidate who shares his hatred of Mexicans, and try to change it. And now, hopefully, more of his victims over the course of 10 years will sue his ass off based on this successful lawsuit.

You obviously don't understand the mentality of a rancher...very protective. That said, he should only detain when on his deeded property, that I will agree.

And it is an enormous assumption that he hates Mexicans. Most ranchers in Arizona actually employ Mexicans for cattle roundups and branding exercises, as some of the best hands out there are Mexican. In fact, I think he just hates trespassers who commit acts which affect his livelihood.

~Chris
 
No it wasn't. You clearly quoted me regarding police stopping people on the street and refuted that specific paragraph.

And it doesn't matter. Police can't determine who is a citizen and who isn't whether they be on a public sidewalk or trespassing on private land. People who are arrested on suspicion of being illegal immigrants/trespassing are still protected by the bill of rights.

Which is the fourth amendment, hence they can be stopped for identification on suspicion of a crime--including trespassing. Quit being squirrely.

This is what I don't get. How is a police officer or any other agent of the law supposed to know who is a citizen and who isn't? Who has rights and who doesn't?

I was responding more to this point, which you made in the same post. Sorry for the vagueness. Regardless, cops do have a right to 1. stop you for any violation or reasonable suspicion of a crime, 2. ascertain your identity.
Don't obsure that fact in this case. In the case of illegals, cops could be certain who's land is who's (after all they're policing the community, they should know it well), and it's a well known fact that a particular path through the rancher's land was repeatedly used by illegal aliens (who were avoiding other paths that the Fed had shut down).

Start a new thread instead of threadjacking if you want to discuss the fourth amendment. A cop stopping a trespasser would have been perfectly legal in the context of the case of this thread.
 
Which is the fourth amendment, hence they can be stopped for identification on suspicion of a crime--including trespassing. Quit being squirrely.

They can identify all they want. If the person doesn't have any form of ID or whatever then that in and of itself isn't a crime or reason for detaining anyone unless they are driving a car, etc.

1. stop you for any violation or reasonable suspicion of a crime, 2. ascertain your identity.

Ascertain your identity. Not your citizenship.

cops could be certain who's land is who's (after all they're policing the community, they should know it well)

Irrelevant. I'm not talking about trespassing.

and it's a well known fact that a particular path through the rancher's land was repeatedly used by illegal aliens (who were avoiding other paths that the Fed had shut down).

The family of hunters weren't illegal immigrants. It's you who say that illegal immigrants aren't protected by the bill of rights. My point is that police on the street can't readily make that determination.

Start a new thread instead of threadjacking if you want to discuss the fourth amendment.

Report me if you want.

A cop stopping a trespasser would have been perfectly legal in the context of the case of this thread.

Irrelevant. I'm not talking about trespassing.
 
You obviously don't understand the mentality of a rancher...very protective.
And you obviously didn't read the article that stated that he has detained anywhere from 10-20,000 illegal aliens so far, or watched the video that clearly shows that he runs a private organization that is deliberately attempting to be an arm of the Border Patrol, both on and off his own supposed land.

And it is an enormous assumption that he hates Mexicans.
Only by those who haven't analyzed the data and come to the inescapable conclusion that he is just another nutjob vigilante who cusses, kicks, and threatens any Latino found near the border with death while illegally detaining them for the Border Patrol.
 
Just because someone trespasses, doesn't give you the right to torture them or deprive them of their civil rights.
No, they need to be sold to you by Afghans for that.
 
The family of hunters weren't illegal immigrants.

Fail. The illegal immigrants claimed they were hunters. They aren't citizens.

And no, I wish illegal immigrants weren't given the same rights as honest citizens, but I respect that they are given them.


Irrelevant. I'm not talking about trespassing.

Tough donkeys. The illegal immigrants were trespassing. It was NOT a violation of their civil rights to determine their identity and the fact that they were illegal aliens.



EDIT: At any rate, the news says the case may be over Friday, so we might get an interesting conclusion this week.
 
I'm not really going to read this thread at this time of night, but I'm going to assume by 5 pages that people noted how stupid he was for threatening to shoot them if they ran away. You can't do that. Even the police can't do that. I think he should protect his property, but lay off the holding people captive. Call the cops and let them deal with it.
 
Fail. The illegal immigrants claimed they were hunters. They aren't citizens.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2220059920061123

The Morales are U.S. citizens and Ronald Morales is a veteran who served in the U.S. Navy for six years.

Tough donkeys. The illegal immigrants were trespassing. It was NOT a violation of their civil rights to determine their identity and the fact that they were illegal aliens.

Irrelevant. I'm not talking about trespassing.

And no, I wish illegal immigrants weren't given the same rights as honest citizens, but I respect that they are given them.

Good. Then you're finally on the same page as me.
 
Lawsuits worked to cripple other racist organizations like the KKK and it will be effective in crippling the Minute Men too.

Barnett has nothing to do with the Minuteman Project.

And the Minuteman Project isn't even remotely comparable to the KKK.
 
Final verdict was the rancher lost. I hope he has the cash to pony up for all these verdicts.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE51H13820090218

A U.S. federal jury awarded more than $70,000 in damages to a group of illegal immigrants who claimed they were held at gunpoint by an Arizona rancher after slipping over the border from Mexico five years ago.

I notice that no mention is made of it being 'his land'.

David Hardy, an attorney representing Barnett, said his client was found not liable on claims of battery, false imprisonment and violation of civil rights, and planned to appeal.

A tally of the charges and verdicts: http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2009/02/roger_barnett_c_1.php


So primarily he was guilty of :
four claims of assault and four claims of infliction of emotional distress and ordered Barnett to pay $77,804 in damages — $60,000 of which were punitive.
but not civil rights violations.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6267853.html
 
I don't think the guy should be imprisoned for what he did. If your house is robbed, wouldn't you take extra measures to protect your home? I think the measures he took were a bit too extreme, but he should not be imprisoned due to the illegal immigrants' choice to trespass and steal.
 
As far as I can tell, he's oweing lots of damages, but no actual jail time.
 
Back
Top Bottom