• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Arizona Rancher Will Fight Court Order To Pay Damages to illegals.

jamesrage

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,705
Reaction score
17,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
This is a travesty of justice.The part in bold I find to be amusing for the fact that there were 16 illegals trespassing on his property and only one of him.



Arizona Rancher Will Fight Court Order To Pay Damages to illegals.

An Arizona rancher who was ordered to pay nearly $90,000 in punitive damages to undocumented immigrants he confronted, with a gun, is going to request a rehearing, his attorney said.

“We’ll be filing a motion for a rehearing,” said David T. Hardy, who is representing Roger Barnett. “He feels he got screwed. I have some sympathy for that view.”

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals last week upheld a lower court verdict ordering Barnett to pay the damages for the 2004 incident, in which the plaintiffs claimed that he approached them with his dog and said he’d shoot them if they tried to leave.

The court said that an Arizona law permitted a person to threaten to use – or actually use – physical force against someone else when that person believes it is necessary for protection “against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.”

But the court said that Barnett held them at gunpoint even after becoming aware that no one in the group of 16 men and women was armed, and so he could not use the argument of self-defense.
 
A man has a right to defend his property.
 
Maybe next time this happens, the rancher will just shoot them all in the back of the heads, send them through a wood chipper and feed them to the steer.
 
did the judge forget how to count? 16 of them, 1 of him.

If I am outnumbered 16 to 1, in the middle of nowhere on a ranch, you're damned right I am using whatever means ness. to safeguard my life and property.
 
This is an outrage. How can this happen. Does anyone know what became of the illegal criminal immigrants. Where they deported? More likely they were given green cards and put on the welfare rolls.
 
Last edited:
When I first heard about this, I thought it had to be a joke. I hope this poor guy takes it all the way to SCOTUS, because I'm sure there are hundreds of outraged lawyers who'd be happy to represent him pro-bono. His first lawyer must have been a total idiot to allow his client to be railroaded like this.
 
Lawsuits like this give an incentive to shoot first and ask questions later... It's stupid. He had every right to do what he did IMO. Is there no such thing as a citizen's arrest? (lol I really don't know)
Were they not criminals, breaking the law on his property? He didn't shoot them. He didn't do anything wrong. This is a really stupid case of arbitrarily keeping a gun in hand "too long" according to some stupid lawyer.
 
Good for him. The law needs to be clarified both to place well recognized boundaries around gunplay on private property and to prevent vigilantiism. Everybody will benefit by going to SCOTUS.
 
Last edited:
Illumination said:
Lawsuits like this give an incentive to shoot first and ask questions later... It's stupid. He had every right to do what he did IMO. Is there no such thing as a citizen's arrest? (lol I really don't know)
Were they not criminals, breaking the law on his property? He didn't shoot them. He didn't do anything wrong. This is a really stupid case of arbitrarily keeping a gun in hand "too long" according to some stupid lawyer.
Click to expand...

It amazes me how those idiot judges can ignore the fact that was only one of him and sixteen illegals out in the middle of nowhere.
 
jamesrage said:
It amazes me how those idiot judges can ignore the fact that was only one of him and sixteen illegals out in the middle of nowhere.
Click to expand...

Looks like the law has changed since the day when property owners could just shoot unarmed Mexicans?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Its more like the law has changed to strip property owners rights of protecting thier property and themselves.
Click to expand...

Is that what the courts said? It seems to me the OP said the problem wasn't in possessing or pointing a gun but in using it to hold the people hostage until authorites arrived? When one looks at all the gunplay on the border these days the message seems to be that the frontier is closed, leave the gunplay to authorities. Or do you think that some other message is being given out by the courts?
 
chuck schmidt said:
Is that what the courts said? It seems to me the OP said the problem wasn't in possessing or pointing a gun but in using it to hold the people hostage until authorites arrived? When one looks at all the gunplay on the border these days the message seems to be that the frontier is closed, leave the gunplay to authorities. Or do you think that some other message is being given out by the courts?
Click to expand...

Bold part: I thought that was evident in my post? It doesn't matter if these are the "frontier" days or present day, people still have the right to defend their property and their persons in any way that they deem fit. There were 16 illegals. 1 rancher. If the rancher is not armed who do you think would get the crap beat out of them..quite possibly even to the point of death? The illegals? Or the Rancher? 16 to 1 odds do not favor the 1, unless the 1 has an equalizer.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Bold part: I thought that was evident in my post? It doesn't matter if these are the "frontier" days or present day, people still have the right to defend their property and their persons in any way that they deem fit. There were 16 illegals. 1 rancher. If the rancher is not armed who do you think would get the crap beat out of them..quite possibly even to the point of death? The illegals? Or the Rancher? 16 to 1 odds do not favor the 1, unless the 1 has an equalizer.
Click to expand...

Apparentlty that is not the law. People do not "have the right to use guns and defend their property in any way they deem fit." The rancher thought he did and now he has to pay for being wrong. Having to pay when you are wrong is the way it is supposed to work in a rule-of-law society, isn't it?
 
Yeah because judges are not really human and never make decisions that are wrong... :roll:
 
CriticalThought said:
You ask a trespasser to leave, you don't hold them at gunpoint on your property.
Click to expand...

You do whatever seems fit to your protection and the protection of your property if necessary. To add to all of this they are Illegals. Citizens should have the rights to assist in the capturing of criminals. Even though I advise against that.

He should not be punished for this.
 
So he place them under citizens arrest until the cops showed up. This is wrong how?
 
Free For All said:
You do whatever seems fit to your protection and the protection of your property if necessary. To add to all of this they are Illegals. Citizens should have the rights to assist in the capturing of criminals. Even though I advise against that.

He should not be punished for this.
Click to expand...

If you want to change the law so that citizens can hold illegals on their property at gunpoint, then feel free. That isn't what the law says now.
 
CriticalThought said:
You ask a trespasser to leave, you don't hold them at gunpoint on your property.
Click to expand...

or you shoot them and bury the evidence

i suspect after this court decision more will opt for the shoot & bury approach
 
CriticalThought said:
You ask a trespasser to leave, you don't hold them at gunpoint on your property.
Click to expand...

If someone invades my home I have every single right to hold them at gunpoint until the cops arrive. People have been doing that for the last two centuries in this country. There is no law against it. That judge has it wrong and I have no doubt that a higher court will throw out the case against the rancher.

I find it dispicable that people would let criminals walk just because they're of a minority class.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom