IDBillzFan Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 The point is relevant if Barnett wanted to use the defense that he felt threatened, which in this case wouldn't fit because they were hiding and he approached them with a gun. That they were there isn't in dispute by any party. They're on his land illegally. He has every right to feel threatened, regardless of whether they were carrying a weapon. If someone came to my property unarmed, I'm supposed to leave my gun locked up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Immigrants in general, and not the plaintiffs in this case. A huge and important distinction. If someone vandalizes your neighbors car, and a week later your child goes on to his property and he shoots them, your neighbor can't say "they vandalized my car." So the plaintiffs did nothing wrong and should be compensated in this case? Thats how you see it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RayFinkle Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 I see you have spent time in the joint???? squat and cough Pablo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 They're on his land illegally. He has every right to feel threatened, regardless of whether they were carrying a weapon. If someone came to my property unarmed, I'm supposed to leave my gun locked up? Not at all. But there are certain actions that you can and can not take under the law (that varies from state to state). Arizona apparently has very relaxed laws regarding what physical actions property owners can take against trespassers, however I do not believe the plaintiffs in this case fit any of the criteria for it (what has never been in dispute in this case is that these particular individuals, the plaintiffs in the suit, were not vandalizing, stealing, threatening, etc), and in any event a Judge has ruled this is a Civil Rights case--and federal law trumps State law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 So the plaintiffs did nothing wrong and should be compensated in this case? Thats how you see it? According to the law they committed two misdemeanors. That's how I see it. What I also see, however, and apparently a Judge sees it this way as well, is that Barnett had no justification to go to the extremes he did, which broke both state and federal laws. That's why a Civil Rights suit was filed. That's why a Judge has ruled it can go forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt. Dan's Revenge Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 According to the law they committed two misdemeanors. That's how I see it. What I also see, however, and apparently a Judge sees it this way as well, is that Barnett had no justification to go to the extremes he did, which broke both state and federal laws. That's why a Civil Rights suit was filed. That's why a Judge has ruled it can go forward. Your statement right here is exactly why this country is spinning out of control. So, you admit that these people committed multiple misdemeanors, yet it is okay for them to somehow have the opportunity to use American taxpayers' dollars in bringing a civil suit against the person who owned the property on which they committed the crimes? That is such a warped view it is not even funny. See how bad this problem gets if illegal immigrants like these clowns can continue to file Civil Rights law suits within a country that they are not even citizens of in the first place. What a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 According to the law they committed two misdemeanors. That's how I see it. What I also see, however, and apparently a Judge sees it this way as well, is that Barnett had no justification to go to the extremes he did, which broke both state and federal laws. That's why a Civil Rights suit was filed. That's why a Judge has ruled it can go forward. how the !@#$ can some illegal pieces of sh-- file a damn lawsuit in the US? They're in the country illegally. The second they step foot on American soil, they are criminals and should be dealt with appropriately. Send their asses back, and laugh in their face when they want to file some BS lawsuit. Frankly, I wouldn't have blamed the guy if he shot them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt. Dan's Revenge Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 They're on his land illegally. He has every right to feel threatened, regardless of whether they were carrying a weapon. If someone came to my property unarmed, I'm supposed to leave my gun locked up? Exactly. And I'd like to see anyone who is defending these people and their lawsuit react compassionatly if they were in his shoes in the same situation. Interesting to see if some opinions would change then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 According to the law they committed two misdemeanors. That's how I see it. What I also see, however, and apparently a Judge sees it this way as well, is that Barnett had no justification to go to the extremes he did, which broke both state and federal laws. That's why a Civil Rights suit was filed. That's why a Judge has ruled it can go forward. Illegal entry into this Country is a Misdemeanor? I thought is was a federal crime. Under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, "Improper Entry by Alien," any citizen of any country other than the United States who: * Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or * Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact; has committed a federal crime. "Any alien who is present in the United States in violation of this Act or any other law of the United States is deportable." Nationality Act Section 237 (a)(1)(B) Violations are punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment for up to six months. Repeat offenses can bring up to two years in prison. Additional civil fines may be imposed at the discretion of immigration judges, but civil fines do not negate the criminal sanctions or nature of the offense. Violations are punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment for up to six months. Repeat offenses can bring up to two years in prison. Additional civil fines may be imposed at the discretion of immigration judges, but civil fines do not negate the criminal sanctions or nature of the offense. In addition to sneaking into the country in violation of the immigration law that requires that aliens be documented for legal entry (referred to as "entry without inspection -- EWI"), others enter with legal documentation and then violate the terms on which they have been admitted by taking jobs that are not authorized or overstaying the authorized period of stay in the country. The list below are all crimes involving illegal immigration: (1) Violating the immigration law is a FEDERAL CRIME (2) Forging documents is a FEDERAL FELONY CRIME (3) Passing forged documents is a FEDERAL FELONY CRIME (4) Stealing ID is a FEDERAL FELONY CRIME (5) Using stolen ID is a FEDERAL FELONY CRIME Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 So the plaintiffs did nothing wrong and should be compensated in this case? Thats how you see it? In New York we usually look first to see if the defendant (the guy with the gun) did anything wrong. Can I shoot an illegal immigrant walking across my lawn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Illegal entry into this Country is a Misdemeanor? I thought is was a federal crime. (snip) Arizona treats illegal border crossings as a misdemeanor. Go look it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Your statement right here is exactly why this country is spinning out of control. So, you admit that these people committed multiple misdemeanors, yet it is okay for them to somehow have the opportunity to use American taxpayers' dollars in bringing a civil suit against the person who owned the property on which they committed the crimes? That is such a warped view it is not even funny. See how bad this problem gets if illegal immigrants like these clowns can continue to file Civil Rights law suits within a country that they are not even citizens of in the first place. What a joke. how the !@#$ can some illegal pieces of sh-- file a damn lawsuit in the US? They're in the country illegally. The second they step foot on American soil, they are criminals and should be dealt with appropriately. Send their asses back, and laugh in their face when they want to file some BS lawsuit. Frankly, I wouldn't have blamed the guy if he shot them. You can't just shoot someone for being on your property. Do you not see how a ridiculously loose law like that could be abused? You could shoot anyone at all on your property just by saying you were threatened or didn't know who they were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 In New York we usually look first to see if the defendant (the guy with the gun) did anything wrong. Can I shoot an illegal immigrant walking across my lawn? If he/her was coming at you with the heart of one of your cows in one hand and a machete in the other while screaming, que va a matarle usted pedazo blanco de americano de la mierda? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Exactly. And I'd like to see anyone who is defending these people and their lawsuit react compassionatly if they were in his shoes in the same situation. Interesting to see if some opinions would change then. If I lived on a 22,000 acre ranch and suspected a group of people were crossing my property to enter the country illegally I would call the authorities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 If he/her was coming at you with the heart of one of your cows in one hand and a machete in the other while screaming, que va a matarle usted pedazo blanco de americano de la mierda? Yes. You reading the same story I read? I don't see these 16 people did anything but get terrorized. They were hiding he told them his dog was gonna bite them on the ass, held them at gunpoint...Geez eryn...what are you guys smokin over there on PPP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt. Dan's Revenge Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 If I lived on a 22,000 acre ranch and suspected a group of people were crossing my property to enter the country illegally I would call the authorities. You don't think that this was his initial reaction when this first started happening on his property? As it obviously continued to happen and his property began getting damaged, stolen, littered on, etc, it is unrealistic to expect him to simply "call the authorities" each and every time. My guess is that at some point he decided, and rightly so, that he needed to police his own land to a certain extent, and not just rely on calling the authorities over and over again. And if you recall, when he would catch illegal immigrants on his property, he would in fact call the authorities and hold them until they were taken into custody. So that is really a moot point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt. Dan's Revenge Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 You reading the same story I read? I don't see these 16 people did anything but get terrorized. They were hiding he told them his dog was gonna bite them on the ass, held them at gunpoint...Geez eryn...what are you guys smokin over there on PPP? Since when is trespassing and entering a country illegally not doing anything wrong....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 ...however I do not believe the plaintiffs in this case fit any of the criteria for it (what has never been in dispute in this case is that these particular individuals, the plaintiffs in the suit, were not vandalizing, stealing, threatening, etc)... They were on his property illegally. That is considered threatening. Do we have to wait until they vandalize or steal or murder someone before we consider it threatening? You must be hooked up to an IV bag full of blood because there is no way someone's heart can bleed this much and still function. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 He probably called the authorities numerous times and they did sh--. Finally he had enough and held them until the authorities did arrive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Arizona treats illegal border crossings as a misdemeanor. Go look it up. I would seriously like to know how Arizona law trumps federal law on international border crossings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts