Man Sued for Protecting His Property

[GoodGame]

A bit more objective newsource on that point:
http://www.douglasdispatch.com/articles/2006/12/05/news/news1.txt

EDIT: at any rate, this is the older civil suit. The federal court case is on-going.

 

[Bugfatty300]

So you're saying the US Constitution applies to them once they evade border patrol?

Yes. First of all the state has to prove in a court of law that they indeed crossed the border illegally to begin with. That's due process. Unless you favor picking up anyone who is a Hispanic or has a funny accent and deporting them unless they immediately produce an ID or a green card. Until their day in immigration court they are presumed innocent like everyone else.

In every other way they should be considered invaders and a private army, for circumventing the system that every other world citizen follows.

I'm sorry but it's kind of hard for me to look at unarmed improvised families, women and children as mercenaries and enemy invaders. If this rancher in AZ had stumbled across the REAL bad guys crossing the border he'd likely be dead.

I'd like you to try the same in Tijuana or some place run by Mexican drug gangs. Just say, hey I got inalienable, human rights, let me trample through your property, take your jobs, and not pay taxes.

I've done it. Lived there for 8 months including quite a while on a expired visa. I don't think the cartels cared much about overdue visas and I don't think the police or army would have executed/imprisoned me as an enemy invader either. In fact I was never even asked to produce my visa at any point by anyone.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

So you're saying the US Constitution applies to them once they evade border patrol? Even when they can't prove they are escaping from sort of political repression? About the only thing in your post that I can agree with is birthright citizenship for their kids. In every other way they should be considered invaders and a private army, for circumventing the system that every other world citizen follows.

But that's what the Constitution and U.S. civil rights statutes say. By the way, if they were invaders, they'd still have civil rights.

I'd like you to try the same in Tijuana or some place run by Mexican drug gangs. Just say, hey I got inalienable, human rights, let me trample through your property, take your jobs, and not pay taxes.

That's completely irrelevant. Human rights are even worse in North Korea; that doesn't mean that U.S. civil rights statutes don't apply the way they say they do.

The only thing I'd fault the landowner in this case is if he commited a crime--e.g. rape/murder. Border patrol and the Fed is many more times to blame in this case than the landowner should ever be. The landowner should be exonerated simply because the Fed failed to protect his land from foreign invasion. If it's a problem in the future, than the Fed should ensure there is a Federal buffer zone between all private property and neighboring foreign countries.

Assault and battery are crimes, too.

Cleo

 

[Formaldehyde]

A bit more objective newsource on that point:
http://www.douglasdispatch.com/articles/2006/12/05/news/news1.txt.

I never claimed it was a news source. You do know the difference between a commentary and news, right?

Counterclaims:

Roger Barnett vs.Ronald Morales, Arturo Morales, Venese Morales, Angelique Morales, Emma English

Charge: Trespassing

Verdict: In favor of Roger Barnett

Damages: $0

Ha. Poetic justice at its best.

 

[mangxema]

There's a word for wackjobs like this: Vigilante.

How is calling the border authorities any different from calling the cops?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Because it isn't? Because the cops would likely arrest him for false imprisonment and creating a nuisance after the 10th call?

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

I always assumed to get rights guaranteed by the US constitution you had to be a US citizen. I thought the "people" was "We the People of the United States..." I'm not saying you don't have rights if you are a noncitizen in America just that you don't have constitutional rights.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Fortunately, the US legal system disagrees with your personal interpretation - at least until GWB came along...

http://www.sheriff-okaloosa.org/Immigration/Do Illegal Aliens Have Constitutional Rights.pdf

While it is true illegal aliens do not have all the rights enumerated under the
Constitution, such as the right to vote and the right to keep and bear arms, it is
also true that not all Americans have those rights. When one examines the rights
actually enjoyed by ALL Americans, including convicted felons for example,
illegal aliens enjoy the same rights while they are within the boundaries of the
United States.

 

[GoodGame]

I never claimed it was a news source. You do know the difference between a commentary and news, right?

Umm....woe big fella No reason to get insecure or personal. A newspaper is obviously a more objective news source. Period.

 

[civ_king]

Get an Electrified Fence or set up land mines and such and video taping them try to cross over and call it "Wants to be an Immigrant?" (Sarcasm)

 

[sonorakitch]

Because it isn't? Because the cops would likely arrest him for false imprisonment and creating a nuisance after the 10th call?

How is it false imprisonment and creating a nuisance in this case?

 

[I'm Cleo!]

I always assumed to get rights guaranteed by the US constitution you had to be a US citizen. I thought the "people" was "We the People of the United States..." I'm not saying you don't have rights if you are a noncitizen in America just that you don't have constitutional rights.

"We, the People" is only in the preamble, and refers to what group is establishing the government. The Constitution's protections in most cases extend to all "persons," not "persons of the United States of America." The U.S. government, for example, couldn't cruelly or unusually punish a visiting Briton if he were to break the law in some way while here "on holiday."

Cleo

 

[sonorakitch]

"We, the People" is only in the preamble, and refers to what group is establishing the government. The Constitution's protections in most cases extend to all "persons," not "persons of the United States of America." The U.S. government, for example, couldn't cruelly or unusually punish a visiting Briton if he were to break the law in some way while here "on holiday."

Cleo

No doubt the Constitution covers all people within our borders, whether they are illegal or not. The Supreme Court has roundly affirmed that. However, if the only thing Mr. Barnett did wrong in this case was to kick a woman, then how is that claim established as fact? And if it cannot be established as fact, then there is no case, right?

~Chris

 

[GoodGame]

Well it may be victory for the "City on the hill' concept, but it sure signals the Fed does such a shoddy job that it prefer it's citizens take the hit on illegal immigration. I hope whoever employs illegals is happy, and faces the same dilemma as Mr. Barnett, one day.

 

[Formaldehyde]

How is it false imprisonment and creating a nuisance in this case?

You can't forcibly detain someone for merely trespassing on state land, much less do it 12,000 times, before someone finally put a stop to the obvious vigilanteism.

I hope the Mexicans he 'arrested' end up purchasing all his land from the proceeds of the lawsuits. Now that would be poetic justice.

 

[GoodGame]

Hmm...is poetic justice now endorsed by the CFR?
I hope being guilty of the trespassing charge delays those illegals from getting citizenship over other categories of immigrants.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Aren't all illegal aliens 'guilty' of trespassing? And it wasn't even his land as the first story alleged. It is land he leases from the state to graze cattle, no doubt so he would have an excuse to engage in his 'hobby' of vilgilanteism.

 

[GoodGame]

He leased use of the land. Shouldn't that be grounds for exclusive use? Did those illegals lease the land? Um no...

 

[sonorakitch]

Aren't all illegal aliens 'guilty' of trespassing? And it wasn't even his land as the first story alleged. It is land he leases from the state to graze cattle, no doubt so he would have an excuse to engage in his 'hobby' of vilgilanteism.

If you re-read the OP, it clearly states the rancher detained these plaintiffs on his property. I would think had it been state grazing lease land, it would have specified that. And even had it been leased land, as GoodGame writes, he has a financial interest in it and can protect it if his property legally located on the leased land is being vandalized.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

No doubt the Constitution covers all people within our borders, whether they are illegal or not. The Supreme Court has roundly affirmed that. However, if the only thing Mr. Barnett did wrong in this case was to kick a woman, then how is that claim established as fact? And if it cannot be established as fact, then there is no case, right?

~Chris

My guess would be testimony. And yes, if the plaintiff can't prove that the woman actually was kicked, he'll lose on the battery cause of action.

And brandishing assault weapons and threatening people is also a crime. It's called "assault," and the prosecutor even admitted that there's probably sufficient evidence to bring charges for it.

Cleo