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

[CriticalThought]

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.

Nice hyperbole. There is a considerable difference between a trespass and a home invasion.

 

[CriticalThought]

You do when they are damaging your property and violating other laws.

Where did it say they were damaging his property?

 

[Kal'Stang]

Nice hyperbole. There is a considerable difference between a trespass and a home invasion.

A persons land is thier home. When you go home do you include the whole property with that line? Or just your house?

Also have you never seen those signs that warn that you may be shot by trespassing on X land? (besides military property that is) It is perfectly legal to shoot someone that is on your land without your permission.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Where did it say they were damaging his property?

Apparently you've never seen the pictures of all the garbage that illegals leave behind thier wake as they are crossing into the US huh?

 

[MKULTRABOY]

Apparently you've never seen the pictures of all the garbage that illegals leave behind thier wake as they are crossing into the US huh?

You gonna start a bus-line, build a road, review our immigration process and make sure that our demand for labor doesn't have to be life endangering?

 

[Kal'Stang]

You gonna start a bus-line, build a road, review our immigration process and make sure that our demand for labor doesn't have to be life endangering?

We're at 9% unemployment right now. Do you really want to suggest that Americans getting those jobs instead of illegals would put our "demand for labor" in danger? Get real.

As for a bus line, there are already buses that go between Mexico and the US and between Canada and the US, anyone that is allowed here legally may get on them. And of course, there are roads between the countries that allow those bus-lines to travel on.

As for a review of our immigration process...how about we instead expect and demand that our government actually do its job and enforce current immigration laws? And force companies to stop hiring illegals?

 

[DiAnna]

These ranchers suffer more than just garbage on their land. Their livestock is butchered for food, their fences are cut, their pets are killed, they are shot at by coyotes and drug runners... and at least one of them has been killed. In any group of illegals, it's a damned good bet that at least one of them is armed. Holding them at gunpoint until the border patrol arrives is the only safe and sane way to handle the situation.

This is an outrageous decision.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

YES, Im sure the fundamentals of supply and demand have all gone completely haywire and they are coming here with NO demand for labor, are NOT working, are not PAYING their way here and back and aren't buying **** with the money they AREN'T getting that people don't HAVE from jobs that DONT exist. I worked with mexicans that walked across the desert with a gallon of water and dove their faces into cow troughs nearly dead to make it here. How about some ****ing human rights? Is your view of the issue so one dimensional that a few people who don't like the smell of seeing people who are poor. You wanna build a fence to South America? ****-it same **** the US has been doing for centuries. Sometimes they catch on and they go red then you make up a reason to replace a government with something more suitable. Don't pretend border policy isn't ethnic policy.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

These ranchers suffer more than just garbage on their land. Their livestock is butchered for food, their fences are cut, their pets are killed, they are shot at by coyotes and drug runners... and at least one of them has been killed. In any group of illegals, it's a damned good bet that at least one of them is armed. Holding them at gunpoint until the border patrol arrives is the only safe and sane way to handle the situation.

This is an outrageous decision.

Mitigate the invisible hand with government when it suits you.

 

[Kal'Stang]

YES, Im sure the fundamentals of supply and demand have all gone completely haywire and they are coming here with NO demand for labor, are NOT working, are not PAYING their way here and back and aren't buying **** with the money they AREN'T getting that people don't HAVE from jobs that DONT exist. I worked with mexicans that walked across the desert with a gallon of water and dove their faces into cow troughs nearly dead to make it here. How about some ****ing human rights? Is your view of the issue so one dimensional that a few people who don't like the smell of seeing people who are poor. You wanna build a fence to South America? ****-it same **** the US has been doing for centuries. Sometimes they catch on and they go red then you make up a reason to replace a government with something more suitable. Don't pretend border policy isn't ethnic policy.

Your rant aside.....You do know that there are many different ethnicities that come to the US illegally right? Including the same as we've got here in the US? I swear the pro-illegal side needs to get a new freaking mantra.
.
.
.
Of course after thinking about it I'm not surprised that it was brought out. They always cry that **** out whenever they are on the losing side of an arguement. Sorry but my emotionalism for my country easily outstrips your emotionalism for invaders of my country.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

Sorry but my emotionalism for my country easily outstrips your emotionalism for invaders of my country.

Last I checked, Invaders had armies.

You do know that there are many different ethnicities that come to the US illegally right?

Pretending the subject isn't mexico. Again. :roll: Last I checked those other illegals didn't bother you. I also remember the topic of this thread being the ones from the country to which your going to build a border to. Also, last I checked Arizona wrote a nice little law that (wasn't) targeted at them. They just wrote a law that could only be effective through racial profiling, but certainly wasnt written to be. Don't tell me I need another mantra. "Dere are iwwegulz of awl culurz" is a sad counter-arguemnt to the subject at hand.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Last I checked, Invaders had armies.

Check again. An invader can be anyone or anything that encroaches onto/into an area that they do not belong. This includes robbers, murderers, cancer, trespassers, and illegal aliens, hell even weeds can be considered invaders in a persons garden.

Pretending the subject isn't mexico. Again. :roll: Last I checked those other illegals didn't bother you. I also remember the topic of this thread being the ones from the country to which your going to build a border to. Also, last I checked Arizona wrote a nice little law that (wasn't) targeted at them. They just wrote a law that could only be effective through racial profiling, but certainly wasnt written to be. Don't tell me I need another mantra. "Dere are iwwegulz of awl culurz" is a sad counter-arguemnt to the subject at hand.

Part in bold: Actually the subject is about a rancher getting the shaft because of some illegals he detained along the US/Mexican border. The article in the OP never said where those illegals originally came from nor what thier race was/is. It just mentioned that they were crossing the US/Mexican border.

Part in red: Check again. When I talk about illegals I talk about ALL illegals. I do not limit myself to just one race unless a specific race is being talked about specifically.

Part in underline: The Arizona law in question actually has nothing to do with this thread. But since you brought it up, you are wrong. How are you going to racial profile an illegal? They come from all parts of the world and all races participate in illegally entering into another country.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

LoL look, justify your animosity towards illegals by some paper thin argument that it's the same towards them all.
I'm sure illegals are illegal for fun, for ****s for giggles...

And a border fence to mexico would keep out the chinese and poles. and the moon is made of cheese.

 

[Kal'Stang]

LoL look, justify your animosity towards illegals by some paper thin argument that it's the same towards them all.
I'm sure illegals are illegal for fun, for ****s for giggles...

Funny how quick you are to assume that I am lying. Please go through my posts and prove my statement wrong. I'll be waiting.

And a border fence to mexico would keep out the chinese and poles. and the moon is made of cheese.

It would if the chinese and poles were trying to enter into the US through that area. You do know that it is easier to get into Mexico illegally than it is into the US right? And illegals from countries other than Mexico often try and come into the US via the US/Mexican border because of that right?

 

[chuck schmidt]

A persons land is thier home. When you go home do you include the whole property with that line? Or just your house?

Also have you never seen those signs that warn that you may be shot by trespassing on X land? (besides military property that is) It is perfectly legal to shoot someone that is on your land without your permission.

Hmmmmmmm. Maybe the time is come in America where property rights don't always trump human rights?

 

[Kal'Stang]

Hmmmmmmm. Maybe the time is come in America where property rights don't always trump human rights?

Property rights are a part of human rights.

 

[Free For All]

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.

I am well aware of this.

13-3884. Arrest by private person
A private person may make an arrest:
1. When the person to be arrested has in his presence committed a misdemeanor amounting to a breach of the peace, or a felony.
2. When a felony has been in fact committed and he has reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed it.

Trespassing property in Arizona is a misdemeanor... mhm. But who knows what they could of done if allowed to continue. We aren't exactly sure of anything. Might as well play on the safe side hold em at gun point before they do something. Anyways Mr. Barnett has had a past with Illegals committing crimes against his property. Who knows one could of had a gun. They didn't. But he didn't know that and he had every right to suspect they did. It sure as hell wouldn't be the first time an Illegal carried a weapon.

 

[CriticalThought]

I am well aware of this.

13-3884. Arrest by private person
A private person may make an arrest:
1. When the person to be arrested has in his presence committed a misdemeanor amounting to a breach of the peace, or a felony.
2. When a felony has been in fact committed and he has reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed it.

Trespassing property in Arizona is a misdemeanor... mhm. But who knows what they could of done if allowed to continue. We aren't exactly sure of anything. Might as well play on the safe side hold em at gun point before they do something. Anyways Mr. Barnett has had a past with Illegals committing crimes against his property. Who knows one could of had a gun. They didn't. But he didn't know that and he had every right to suspect they did. It sure as hell wouldn't be the first time an Illegal carried a weapon.

It's only trespass if they have been warned not to be on the property. The safe side would have been for him to tell them to leave. He could still have had his gun, but he had no legal recourse by which to keep them on his property at gunpoint.

 

[chuck schmidt]

Property rights are a part of human rights.

They can be if you wish to play semantics, but I doubt that anybody is in serious doubt of my meaning.

 

[cpgrad08]

It's only trespass if they have been warned not to be on the property. The safe side would have been for him to tell them to leave. He could still have had his gun, but he had no legal recourse by which to keep them on his property at gunpoint.

He had every right they not only trespassing on his property they were trespassing in America and were in violation of American Immigration laws.

 

[Kal'Stang]

It's only trespass if they have been warned not to be on the property. The safe side would have been for him to tell them to leave. He could still have had his gun, but he had no legal recourse by which to keep them on his property at gunpoint.

It's only trespass if they have been warned??? Are you serious? Does that mean that I can go into someones house and stay there until I am "warned" that I am trespassing? How do you think the cops are going to treat me if I do that? In any case this guy has had problems with illegals crossing his property before...don't you think he would have put no trespassing signs up? That would have been your "required" warning.

Don't take this the wrong way but...that is a completely idiotic statement.

Btw, In case you didn't read his whole post you forgot this part...

1. When the person to be arrested has in his presence committed a misdemeanor amounting to a breach of the peace, or a felony.
2. When a felony has been in fact committed and he has reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed it.

So lets examine this shall we?

1: Crossing into US territory illegally is a misdeameanor for a first time offense. Second offense is considered to be a felony. So both points 1 and 2 were more than likely satisfied with this 1 point alone.
2: Going onto someone elses property without permission is a misdemeanor offense. (regardless if they were warned or not) This alone would have been enough but it does settle point 1.

 

[Kal'Stang]

They can be if you wish to play semantics, but I doubt that anybody is in serious doubt of my meaning.

It has nothing to do with being semantical. Rights are rights. And they are ALL human rights and they are ALL equally important. As I've said before in other illegal immigration threads, playing the emotional card does nothing for me on this subject. So ignoring one set of rights just so you can play that card will get you absolutely no where, fast.

 

[theangryamerican]

Hmmmmmmm. Maybe the time is come in America where property rights don't always trump human rights?

Those who choose not to abide by the law forfeit their own rights for personal protection under said laws. People seem to think they can pick and choose the laws that best benefit them. This is not the case.

 

[CriticalThought]

He had every right they not only trespassing on his property they were trespassing in America and were in violation of American Immigration laws.

Legally, he had no recourse. If you want to change the law then feel free. It is only trespass if they were warned beforehand to leave. He cannot warn people to leave his property, then keep them there at gun point, and then claim it was trespass.

It's only trespass if they have been warned??? Are you serious? Does that mean that I can go into someones house and stay there until I am "warned" that I am trespassing? How do you think the cops are going to treat me if I do that? In any case this guy has had problems with illegals crossing his property before...don't you think he would have put no trespassing signs up? That would have been your "required" warning.

Don't take this the wrong way but...that is a completely idiotic statement.

If you went into somebody's home without asking, that would be home invasion not trespass. That would also be breaking and entering. Those are completely different crimes. Please understand the law before you make dumb statements like the one above.

So lets examine this shall we?

1: Crossing into US territory illegally is a misdeameanor for a first time offense. Second offense is considered to be a felony. So both points 1 and 2 were more than likely satisfied with this 1 point alone.
2: Going onto someone elses property without permission is a misdemeanor offense. (regardless if they were warned or not) This alone would have been enough but it does settle point 1.

If he managed to catch them in the process of crossing the border, then yes, he would have caught them committing a misdemeanor, however he did not, he found them on his property. As such, they were not committing a misdemeanor on his property simply by being in the country illegally. And you are wrong about trespass. Otherwise, every single door to door salesman could be argued to be trespassers. Your common sense is seriously lacking.

 

[theangryamerican]

Legally, he had no recourse. If you want to change the law then feel free. It is only trespass if they were warned beforehand to leave. He cannot warn people to leave his property, then keep them there at gun point, and then claim it was trespass.



If you went into somebody's home without asking, that would be home invasion not trespass. That would also be breaking and entering. Those are completely different crimes. Please understand the law before you make dumb statements like the one above.



If he managed to catch them in the process of crossing the border, then yes, he would have caught them committing a misdemeanor, however he did not, he found them on his property. As such, they were not committing a misdemeanor on his property simply by being in the country illegally. And you are wrong about trespass. Otherwise, every single door to door salesman could be argued to be trespassers. Your common sense is seriously lacking.

If he had a single "No Trespassing" sign posted anywhere on his property, they were fairly warned.