Wacka Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 Isn't coli the one that kept telling us we had no illegal problem in California, even though he has never been here? Or is that another bleeding heart?
erynthered Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 Arizona treats illegal border crossings as a misdemeanor. Go look it up. State law supersedes Federal law? Snip
Johnny Coli Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 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. We can sympathize with his plight, yet also agree that he broke the law by exceeding what the law allowed him to do to remedy his situation. You can't just allow someone to break a law just because they feel like other laws aren't working for them. In this case the authorities have determined that he went far enough beyond what was reasonable to allow a civil rights suit to be filed by a group of people from another country. In everyone's rush to yell about how extreme that is, entertain the thought that maybe what Burnett did was extreme enough and egregious enough for a Judge to allow this suit to continue to a jury proceeding. Do you not think that if this was some frivilous suit from foreign nationals that a US District Court in Arizona would have thrown it out? Also, this is not the first one. He just lost a seperate case.
Lt. Dan's Revenge Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 Isn't coli the one that kept telling us we had no illegal problem in California, even though he has never been here? Or is that another bleeding heart? Anyone who says with a straight face that California doesn't have illegal immigration problems is in line for a psychiatric evaluation. In 2006, an estimated 25% of the states population was composed of illegal immigrants. Live in a place like Modesto for 6 months and see if you don't think its a problem.
erynthered Posted February 12, 2009 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. If I had been battling illegal immigrants for over ten years on my property like he has,Yes. Terrorized? Thats fresh, Tenny.
Johnny Coli Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 State law supersedes Federal law? Snip First time border crossings are dealt with as misdemeanors. Illegal immigrants are divided into two categories, those who stay past the expiration date of their visas, and those who enter clandestinely, known as EWIs (entries without inspection). According to Suarez-Orozco, 60 percent of illegal immigrants here in the U.S. are EWIs. The first time someone is caught crossing the border, it is considered a federal misdemeanor crime.
Lt. Dan's Revenge Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 We can sympathize with his plight, yet also agree that he broke the law by exceeding what the law allowed him to do to remedy his situation. You can't just allow someone to break a law just because they feel like other laws aren't working for them. In this case the authorities have determined that he went far enough beyond what was reasonable to allow a civil rights suit to be filed by a group of people from another country. In everyone's rush to yell about how extreme that is, entertain the thought that maybe what Burnett did was extreme enough and egregious enough for a Judge to allow this suit to continue to a jury proceeding. Do you not think that if this was some frivilous suit from foreign nationals that a US District Court in Arizona would have thrown it out? Also, this is not the first one. He just lost a seperate case. It isn't relavent to me that "a judge allowed the suit", which you keep harping on, because there is no way that illegal aliens should be allowed to file a civil law suit of this kind in a U.S. court. Just because some secular progressive judge wants to turn his courtroom into a circus doesn't make it right to illegally enter a country and trespass through that man's property. Nor does it make his reaction wrong. JMHO.
Johnny Coli Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 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. I have nothing to do with writing the laws in Arizona, or anywhere else for that matter.
Johnny Coli Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 I would seriously like to know how Arizona law trumps federal law on international border crossings. see post to erynthered
Steely Dan Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 We are getting way off base here as usual. This boils down to thousands of people parading through this guys property year after year and absolutely trashing what this guy has worked hard for and earned. I don't care it they are blond haired and blue eyed American citizens. Its un acceptable for any person to live this way. Stealing his car, breaking into his home, damaging his valuables and eating his animals. They just happen to be illegal immigrants. Look My family came on the boat through Ellis Island like alot of yours did I am sure. And they were persecuted and sh-t on as well for many, many years. How would you like it if the situation were reversed and you were this guy? Having to patrol your property and live in fear that someone is constantly invading your privacy. I give this guy a lot of credit for not shooting someone yet, because he has every right too. I am not advocating violence against anyone legal or illegal but if you step into my house and try to take what's mine you better have a gun, at least give yourself a chance. He can't blame an entire group for the actions of a few. I don't, however, see anything wrong with what he did if illegal entry into the U.S. is a felony. The question then is how did he know they were illegal? Does he have the authority to do passport checks? It's a very sticky wicket. If I were him I would have sued the federal government long ago for not taking care of the problem. 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. If an illegal was gang raped should she be able to sue her attackers? Just a question for the masses.
Johnny Coli Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 It isn't relavent to me that "a judge allowed the suit", which you keep harping on, because there is no way that illegal aliens should be allowed to file a civil law suit of this kind in a U.S. court. Just because some secular progressive judge wants to turn his courtroom into a circus doesn't make it right to illegally enter a country and trespass through that man's property. Nor does it make his reaction wrong. JMHO. And you know this how? Do you have a list of all of this judge's opinions? Because you don't agree with a law, the Judge is wrong, and must be a "secular progressive" judge? BTW, all Judges should be secular, as we have seperation of church and state in the United States.
GG Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 see post to erynthered According to Suarez-Orozco, 60 percent of illegal immigrants here in the U.S. are EWIs. The first time someone is caught crossing the border, it is considered a federal misdemeanor crime. Your turn.
Johnny Coli Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 For the secular progressive judge person, Judge John Roll was appointed by Bush I.
Lt. Dan's Revenge Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 And you know this how? Do you have a list of all of this judge's opinions? Because you don't agree with a law, the Judge is wrong, and must be a "secular progressive" judge? BTW, all Judges should be secular, as we have seperation of church and state in the United States. I don't need to review this judge's opinions to have a pretty good idea about how he feels about open borders and amnesty. When I referenced secular progressive, I was using it as a way to define this type of judgement, not questioning whether or not judges should be secular. Anyone who allows this type of case in his/her courtroom is doing nothing but parading for open borders, amnesty, and more problems involving illegal immigrants in this country, and that is sad.
Lt. Dan's Revenge Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 For the secular progressive judge person, Judge John Roll was appointed by Bush I. What is your point? Because George Bush appointed him he is immune to making a liberal ruling? And in this case a foolish one? C'mon.
Johnny Coli Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 Your turn. What are you arguing? Erynthered has been claiming that it was a felony. I said that in Arizona illegal entry was treated as a misdemeanor. Yes, the feds also treat first-time illegal entry to the US as a misdemeanor, but the state misdemeanor charge I was talking about was the trespassing one. In Arizona trespassing is a misdemeanor. In Arizona, illegal entry is treated as a misdemeanor. But the Civil Rights violation is a federal violation and supercedes the trespassing violation, which is relevant becasue it would be the trespassing violation that would allow Barnett to make a "defense of property" plea. We're not disagreeing.
DC Tom Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 I'm pretty sure you can not do that, believe it or not. If somebody breaks into an abandoned house on your property and is injured falling through a floor, for example, you are liable. You probably can if you put warning signs up on the fence.
Johnny Coli Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 What is your point? Because George Bush appointed him he is immune to making a liberal ruling? And in this case a foolish one? C'mon. I wouldn't have any idea, as I have zero background information on Judge Roll to go by. But, I believe I can make a pretty good assumption that if he was appointed by Bush I then he could not have been overly progressive. Could he have become a "secular progressive?" ( ) You'd have to get more information on him.
erynthered Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 Erynthered has been claiming that it was a felony. Where did I say that? Though I think it should be. snip
DC Tom Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 But the Civil Rights violation is a federal violation and supercedes the trespassing violation, which is relevant becasue it would be the trespassing violation that would allow Barnett to make a "defense of property" plea. Only if the Civil Rights violation is a criminal violation, I think...as far as I know (not very, I can look it up when I get home), criminal trumps civil before Federal trumps state. Given that the plaintiffs are filing suit for cash damages, I don't think it's a criminal violation.
Recommended Posts