Link
Washington Times - 16 illegals sue Arizona rancher
I believe the point these Illegal Immigrants are missing is that Trespassing is an illegal act.
It is to be hoped that the court will not only throw out this case but will also deem it vexatious and fine the Lawyers who brought the case.
Link
Washington Times - 16 illegals sue Arizona rancher
I believe the point these Illegal Immigrants are missing is that Trespassing is an illegal act.
It is to be hoped that the court will not only throw out this case but will also deem it vexatious and fine the Lawyers who brought the case.
Don't these illegals understand the concept of private property? It isn't as if Mexico doesn't have that concept as well or anything.
1. They illegally crossed the border in the first place.
2. The property owner has the right to regulate access to his land.
JUJUMAN,did I see a statement in the Washington Times story that mentioned a very socialist judge deciding,"this has to be heard by a jury" ? I think I also read that these are immigrants even though they entered illegaly,and immigrants have rights, even when trespassing. Welcome to an out of control justice system. I would vote for a lynching of a judge if these swimmers,(I`m fairly sure the river is wide and deep at that point on the border) win their multi multi million dollar lawsuit. Mexicans seem like real nice people, but they don`t always live by the laws we are governed by. I`m haveing a lot of missgivings about this one. We already know how the ultra-liberals feel about this one, How about the rest of you ?
While I agree that the immigrants were in the wrong, I think it's asinine to say that they do not have rights. They are human beings, much like you and I.
Though you may not be, I was talking about human rights.We're talking about land rights here, not human rights. If they entered a country on an illegal basis they are not subjected to be protected by the laws of the land, but are subjected to be persecuted under them. So kick them out of the country. They have no right to be there therefore they are not subjected to the national rights of the people.
While I agree that the immigrants were in the wrong, I think it's asinine to say that they do not have rights. They are human beings, much like you and I.
Under AZ law it is legal to hold a person who has committed a felony with the threat of violence... or otherwise.
Them crossing the border illegally onto his land was a felony.
That's right, but they shouldn't suing landowners. He has a right to protect his property, and didn't harm the illegals when he turned them over to authorities.While I agree that the immigrants were in the wrong, I think it's asinine to say that they do not have rights. They are human beings, much like you and I.
We're talking about land rights here, not human rights. If they entered a country on an illegal basis they are not subjected to be protected by the laws of the land, but are subjected to be persecuted under them. So kick them out of the country. They have no right to be there therefore they are not subjected to the national rights of the people.
Under AZ law it is legal to hold a person who has committed a felony with the threat of violence... or otherwise.
Them crossing the border illegally onto his land was a felony.
That's right, but they shouldn't suing landowners. He has a right to protect his property, and didn't harm the illegals when he turned them over to authorities.
Attorneys for the 16 people who were trying to cross into the U.S. illegally accuse Roger Barnett of holding a gun on the group, threatening them with his dog and also threatening to shoot anyone who tried to escape, according to a news release from the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
The group also said Barnett kicked one of the women in the group when she was on the ground.
Today, the Arizona Supreme Court rejected the appeal of border vigilante Roger Barnett who was found liable by a jury after assaulting a family of Latino U.S. citizens while they were hunting on state land in southern Arizona. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), which represents the plaintiffs in the case, urged the Supreme Court to reject Barnett’s appeal and argued that the jury had rightfully found Barnett at fault for his vicious attack upon the family.
The Morales family and Emma English, a family friend, filed suit after Barnett confronted them on state leased land in November 2004, while they were on a family hunting trip. Armed with a semi-automatic military-style assault rifle, Barnett held the family at gunpoint, cursed and screamed racial slurs at them and threatened to kill them all. The jury heard the testimony of three young girls, all under the age of 12 at the time, that vividly described the event and the trauma they suffered at the hands of Barnett. The jury ultimately awarded the family $100,000 in damages, which Barnett must pay now that the Supreme Court has rejected his appeal.
:roflDon't these illegals understand the concept of private property? It isn't as if Mexico doesn't have that concept as well or anything.
Though you may not be, I was talking about human rights.
When the judges don't do anything to protect the rights of trespassing private property owned by US citizens, I see completely legal the reaction of the US citizens to make the law be fulfilled in their properties with their own methods.
I will also kick any moving body in my land if doesn't obey my order to stop until police arrives and take the trespassers.
And about the judge with "his way of sentencing justice", I sure shall send him to Mexico to live and work over there, because after all, such is that with Mexicans his personal identification appears to be:coffeepap.
People who were committing an illegal activity(trespassing the border) can sue people who live here legally(the rancher) for an act which is under America law legal(regulating access to your property).
America is a great country.
.....And....holy **** that is funny.
You think the lawyer is concerned with justice?What's with the calls to fine the lawyer? Are you all against a fair justice system now?
Disgusting.
Why do you think everything is funny? You think losing sovereignty is funny?People who were committing an illegal activity(trespassing the border) can sue people who live here legally(the rancher) for an act which is under America law legal(regulating access to your property).
America is a great country.
.....And....holy **** that is funny.
Why do you think everything is funny? You think losing sovereignty is funny?
You think the lawyer is concerned with justice?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?