SageAgainstTheMachine Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 How could you possibly incinuate that this man doesn't have reason to believe that his family is in danger due to these people constantly parading through his property? Many, not all or maybe not even the majority, but many, of these people use that route to smuggle drugs into America. Those who are doing that are oftentimes armed according to many reports, which obviously poses a pretty significant security threat to his family and himself. Buffalatone is right on, this whole argument has gotten way off base. The bottom line here is that this guy has had hundreds upon thousands of people from a different country, AT LEAST SOME with intentions of smuggling illegal drugs and carrying weapons, trespassing through HIS property in order to get into the U.S. illegally. Not to mention, trashing the property as they make their way through if he doesn't catch them first. This guy is acting in a way that is very similar to how the vast majority of us would react in this situation IMO, and he may even be showing some more restrain than some of us. Yet he finds himself on the wrong end of a potential lawsuit from this whack job organization. This story is a truly incredible story and paints a portrait of what is going wrong with present-day America in a nutshell. Hope justice serves this guy well, not that it should've ever made it into a courtroom in the first place. And these drug smugglers...aren't they trying to keep as low of a profile as possible when they enter into the country? Wouldn't they be the people least likely to harm his family? And again, if you look at my post above, I clearly state that I'd shoot if my family was threatened. If people were looting my property, trashing my backyard, roasting my cows...I'd certainly do SOMETHING, but I wouldn't pull the trigger. It seems the rancher in question here agrees with me. And I don't know if the second half of your post is implying that I'm not on the rancher's side, but that isn't the case. He's certainly in the right here, and any punishment that he faces will be a travesty.
KD in CA Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 Nearly every Irish Pub in Boston and New York has a bartender and wait staff that speaks with thick Irish accents and most Italian restaurants have a staff that speaks in heavy Italian accents. Do you suspect they are all legal? All I care about is if they are "legal" as in 18 or over. Italian waitresses.....mmmmmmm.
BUFFALOTONE Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 There are scant news reports of what actually happened, but the court records that I actually could find state that he approached them. Were they on his property? Absolutely, that isn't in dispute. However, it is hard to make a case for self-defense if he was the one who approached them, and he was the only one armed. Secondly, neither illegal entry to the US nor trespassing are felonies in AZ, so any citizen's arrest defense isn't applicable. Third, you can't detain someone at gunpoint and threaten to kill them, nor can you threaten them with harm using an animal. That's wrong under any civil rights laws. Fourth, what actions any previous trespassers partook of on his property can't be used to justify detaining and threatening a seperate set of people. They can't be held responsible for the actions of others. Really, I can understand why this guy is pissed, but that's why we have law enforcement in this country. You can't just take the law into your own hands. That is how innocent people get hurt. He's already lost a case where he detained and threatened his neighbors. I am for everyone having rights but this guy is getting sh-t on and all of the legal BS you stated above can't deny it. Trespassing is a misdemeanor, last time I checked that's still a crime. The 4th one is absurd. What does he have to wait for these people to do literally shoot at him so he can justify approaching them? For all we know he can me a gun toting wacko, but its his right to be on his property.
BUFFALOTONE Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 And these drug smugglers...aren't they trying to keep as low of a profile as possible when they enter into the country? Wouldn't they be the people least likely to harm his family? And again, if you look at my post above, I clearly state that I'd shoot if my family was threatened. If people were looting my property, trashing my backyard, roasting my cows...I'd certainly do SOMETHING, but I wouldn't pull the trigger. It seems the rancher in question here agrees with me. And I don't know if the second half of your post is implying that I'm not on the rancher's side, but that isn't the case. He's certainly in the right here, and any punishment that he faces will be a travesty. Is he supposed to ask which ones are drug smugglers and which are just trying to get out of their home country. Drug dealers send mules to carry their product they don't do it themselves. For all intensive purposes they can have a gun on them as well.
Lt. Dan's Revenge Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 And these drug smugglers...aren't they trying to keep as low of a profile as possible when they enter into the country? Wouldn't they be the people least likely to harm his family? And again, if you look at my post above, I clearly state that I'd shoot if my family was threatened. If people were looting my property, trashing my backyard, roasting my cows...I'd certainly do SOMETHING, but I wouldn't pull the trigger. It seems the rancher in question here agrees with me. And I don't know if the second half of your post is implying that I'm not on the rancher's side, but that isn't the case. He's certainly in the right here, and any punishment that he faces will be a travesty. Absolutely, I would not pull the trigger in those instances either, but I certainly wouldn't hesitate to brandish a weapon as a little motivation to these people and future trespassers. As far as them keeping a low profile, that doesn't seem to be the case when cattle is being set on fire on the property and hundreds of these people keep choosing the same route. It is just bothersome to me that it seems like every time there is a dispute such as this between illegal immigrant(s) and American citizen(s), groups like the ALCU and such try to paint a certain picture with the illegal alien(s) always being the "victim" in too many of these cases. I wish I knew what the solution is, but something needs to be done to put an end to these types of situations.
Wacka Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 How does he know they aren't packing guns when he approaches them? Are they naked?
Wacka Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 Absolutely, I would not pull the trigger in those instances either, but I certainly wouldn't hesitate to brandish a weapon as a little motivation to these people and future trespassers. As far as them keeping a low profile, that doesn't seem to be the case when cattle is being set on fire on the property and hundreds of these people keep choosing the same route. It is just bothersome to me that it seems like every time there is a dispute such as this between illegal immigrant(s) and American citizen(s), groups like the ALCU and such try to paint a certain picture with the illegal alien(s) always being the "victim" in too many of these cases. I wish I knew what the solution is, but something needs to be done to put an end to these types of situations. Start sending them back by the busload.
Johnny Coli Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 I am for everyone having rights but this guy is getting sh-t on and all of the legal BS you stated above can't deny it. Trespassing is a misdemeanor, last time I checked that's still a crime. The 4th one is absurd. What does he have to wait for these people to do literally shoot at him so he can justify approaching them? For all we know he can me a gun toting wacko, but its his right to be on his property. Here is a Findlaw blurb on the case, with some relevent links to AZ law. However, because this is a Civil Rights violation case, Federal law trumps State law. And, yes, he does come across as a gun-toting wack job, as he has bragged to the USA Today previously about "hunting" illegal Mexicans. The 4th point I made is not absurd at all. He can not just murder someone on his property because someone else ate one of his cows, for the same reason you can't gun down a teenager who is cutting through your yard a week after someone else vandalized your car.
erynthered Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 How does he know they aren't packing guns when he approaches them? Are they naked? They killed and gutted his livestock with their bare hands, didnt you know that?
IDBillzFan Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 You know what's so funny about this thread. Everyone is going on and on about who was right and who was wrong, but the one thing that is ridiculously stupid to me about this entire thing is that people who are in this country illegally can somehow manage to file a lawsuit -- a lawsuit which will be paid for with taxpayer money. How the hell is that even possible? The moment an illegal shows up in court, you put them on a !@#$ing bus and send them home. If the rancher has done something wrong, then the illegals can let the local law enforcement know about it and have him handle it. Now, I realize that local law enforcement won't do shiiit in this situation, but that's not the point. Follow !@#$ing protocol. You're not a legal resident and yet you can sneak your way in here and sue someone for millions of dollars, and not have to pay for ANY OF IT? In fact, WE get to pick up the tab for them? Makes no sense. None whatsoever. But the fact that they're illegal has nothing to do with it. Jesus. This country has become so unbelievably pussified, it's amazing to me that people even try to sneak in.
Johnny Coli Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 How does he know they aren't packing guns when he approaches them? Are they naked? It's a big ranch. 22,000 acres. If he was that threatened he could have just called the authorities. In any event, the undisputed facts (here, pdf) show that they were hiding and he approached them. Not very threatening in my opinion.
Johnny Coli Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 They killed and gutted his livestock with their bare hands, didnt you know that? Who is they? Neither Barnett, nor the authorities, have accused the plaintiffs in this case of doing anything other than trespassing on his land.
RayFinkle Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 How does he know they aren't packing guns when he approaches them? Are they naked? Even if they were naked, they could be keestering thier weapons....
BUFFALOTONE Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 It's a big ranch. 22,000 acres. If he was that threatened he could have just called the authorities. In any event, the undisputed facts (here, pdf) show that they were hiding and he approached them. Not very threatening in my opinion. Hiding in a bush with a machete!! We all agreee to disagree. I am going to lunch, seeee ya! Maybe I will have Mexican.
IDBillzFan Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 It's a big ranch. 22,000 acres. If he was that threatened he could have just called the authorities. In any event, the undisputed facts (here, pdf) show that they were hiding and he approached them. Not very threatening in my opinion. Oooooh, they were hiding on his property illegally. Well, that's different.
BUFFALOTONE Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 Even if they were naked, they could be keestering thier weapons.... I see you have spent time in the joint????
erynthered Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 Who is they? Neither Barnett, nor the authorities, have accused the plaintiffs in this case of doing anything other than trespassing on his land. I was refering to the article in the Very first post. In the article: Mr. Barnett told The Washington Times in a 2002 interview that he began rounding up illegal immigrants after they started to vandalize his property, northeast of Douglas along Arizona Highway 80. He said the immigrants tore up water pumps, killed calves, destroyed fences and gates, stole trucks and broke into his home.
RayFinkle Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 Oooooh, they were hiding on his property illegally. Well, that's different. If he can prove they were stealing his WiFi, they'd be f-cked.
Johnny Coli Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 Oooooh, they were hiding on his property illegally. Well, that's different. 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.
Johnny Coli Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 I was refering to the article in the Very first post. In the article: Mr. Barnett told The Washington Times in a 2002 interview that he began rounding up illegal immigrants after they started to vandalize his property, northeast of Douglas along Arizona Highway 80. He said the immigrants tore up water pumps, killed calves, destroyed fences and gates, stole trucks and broke into his home. 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."
Recommended Posts