16 illegals sue Arizona rancher (32million)

Status
Not open for further replies.
This sounds like some crazy crap happening in England, not here!
How come the illegals have civil rights? Go to Mexico and demand your civil rights and see what you get!
 
First off we probably don't have 10% of the facts in this case. I'm curious as well about someone who illegally enters this country, is detained by the landowner until authorities arrive, and then somehow has their civil rights infringed upon.

I'll be curious how this turns out. This appears to be a civil issue vs. a legal issue for the rancher. Civil and Criminal cases, trials, and juries have a very diffrent set of rules. Civil cases have a very loose set of rules vs. criminal.
 
???


I see that besides myself and few others, all of the potential kkklan members have assembled in this thread.
 
Last edited:
Nothing racist about it. If people want to come here legally, more power to them. They should be welcomed with open arms.

Illegals? Bah. Mexican, Asian, European, Muslim, it doesn't matter. If they are illegal and vandalizing people's property, they should be detained and deported, END of discussion. If the populace can help accomplish this task, more power to them as well.

This guy did the right thing for the right reasons and in the right way. Nothing illegal about it.

I will say this, however, that if he did abuse the people by kicking them around a bit, that is inexcusable. After detaining as many as he has I understand losing control but it's more than likely the only reason he's going to have any problems in court.

--Wag--
 
$32Mil? $3.20 says it's the attorney who came up with the idea to sue.... Bet you he read it in the paper that it was happening.

Ambulance chaser...
 
This is one of the things that is wrong with this country. This guy is on his own property, outnumbered 16 to 1. I would say being armed isn't just a right for him but a necessity. The violators are illegals, shouldn't be in the country, let alone on this guys property and a judge allows them to sue. What rights did he violate? ???

I am guessing it is because he unlawfully detained them and threatened them with the use of deadly force at gunpoint and with his dog, as well as assaulting one of them. Yes, they were tresspassing, but nothing in the article describes them as being a threat to him so his only action should have been to notify the boarder patrol or police and protect himself and family if necessary. As a former LEO he should have known the law and based upon what we know from the article and AZ Law (below) he did break the law thus violating their rights.

From The Arizona State Legislature

13-404. Justification; self-defense

A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, a person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.

B. The threat or use of physical force against another is not justified:

1. In response to verbal provocation alone; or

2. To resist an arrest that the person knows or should know is being made by a peace officer or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, whether the arrest is lawful or unlawful, unless the physical force used by the peace officer exceeds that allowed by law; or

3. If the person provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force, unless:

(a) The person withdraws from the encounter or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely withdraw from the encounter; and

(b) The other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful physical force against the person.

13-405. Justification; use of deadly physical force

A person is justified in threatening or using deadly physical force against another:

1. If such person would be justified in threatening or using physical force against the other under section 13-404, and

2. When and to the degree a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force.

Arizona Revised Statutes




Remember in America "All men are created equal" not all American citizens.
 
Last edited:
wait.... were they ENTERING LEGALLY or not? If not, they have NO rights. nothing

CRIMINALS DON'T HAVE RIGHTS, AMERICA!

I'm Greg and I approved this message. GB for President 2012
 
wait.... were they ENTERING LEGALLY or not? If not, they have NO rights. nothing

CRIMINALS DON'T HAVE RIGHTS, AMERICA!

I'm Greg and I approved this message. GB for President 2012


Can you show me this in writing? Were they tried and convicted of entering illegally? If not then they are not criminals.
 
What civil rights? They don' t have any they aren't citizens! Jeez the irony....
 
I'm not one to typically get involved in discussions like this but I've been on Patrol with Boarder Patrol here in San Diego (I did ride along sessions with friends of mine)

While I don't know the details of this case, I don't think it would be a stretch to argue "self defense" when he is outnumbered like that.

I would assume that most of the people illegally crossing are trying to do nothing more than escape their poor quality of living standards in Mexico and further south, but when you back someone into a corner with little to nothing to lose, it takes just 1 to pick up a rock and begin throwing to QUICKLY turn the tables!

Even if 5 of the 16 were women, they can still be part of a "mob" attack none the less.

If he was threatening them with force or violence, and even executed force on one as an example to the others, I would hope he's still justified under the self defense laws to keep the crowd under control until authorities arrived.
 
People who are in this country illegally should not be provided any protection under any of our laws.

Our laws are created, passed, enforced and paid for by legal United States residents FOR legal United States residents.


This is NOT being racist, this has NOTHING to do with being a KLAN member (projekt I took offense at your statement). This has to do with the required controls of a country in order to govern and control what is best for the country.

I am not against ANYONE coming into this country providing they do it legally AND they truly want to be a United States citizen.

It is stupid and it is ignorant to come into this country and wave a Mexican flag, taunt Mexican pride and try and convince everyone how GREAT being a Mexican is when everyone is scrambling to get out of the country and into the United States “to make a better life for themselves”
That is laughable ignorance at its best.

Fine, if a person wants to come to the United States to make a better life for themselves, great, I am all for it. Do it legally and acknowledge the reason you want to get out of the shid hole you live in is because your government is corrupt and the people in Mexico are so screwed up they cant seem to get their act together to fix it.
I mean cant anyone fricken see this? Come to America and wave the American flag, recite the pledge of allegiance, learn to speak English.
 
Last edited:
What civil rights? They don' t have any they aren't citizens! Jeez the irony....

What irony? By your logic humans trafficed for the sex trade would have no recourse in this country for crimes committed against them.

Civil Rights are not exclusive to US Citizens.


I'm not one to typically get involved in discussions like this but I've been on Patrol with Boarder Patrol here in San Diego (I did ride along sessions with friends of mine)

While I don't know the details of this case, I don't think it would be a stretch to argue "self defense" when he is outnumbered like that.

I would assume that most of the people illegally crossing are trying to do nothing more than escape their poor quality of living standards in Mexico and further south, but when you back someone into a corner with little to nothing to lose, it takes just 1 to pick up a rock and begin throwing to QUICKLY turn the tables!

Even if 5 of the 16 were women, they can still be part of a "mob" attack none the less.

If he was threatening them with force or violence, and even executed force on one as an example to the others, I would hope he's still justified under the self defense laws to keep the crowd under control until authorities arrived.

He has no authority to keep the "crowd under control until authorities arrived"

I looked at the law and it is what it is. If it is not a good law then it needs to be changed.
 

What irony?



Silver, what country do you live in and who's side are you on anyway? Do you always take the contrary side just to argue?

What we THINK we know: ILLEGALS crossing through some guys yard. He stands up and DOES SOMETHING about it. Can't you support that effort?
 
Last edited:
Thrasher said it all, exactly like I feel also. Klan? ? That's a stretch. Projekt just pushing buttons again :laugh:
 
This is NOT being racist, this has NOTHING to do with being a KLAN member (projekt I took offense at your statement). This has to do with the required controls of a country in order to govern and control what is best for the country.

No offense was intended towards you as your statement was entertaining. That is why I said it didn't include everybody who posted.

The targets of my inflammatory, "pot stirring" statement were those who stated such things as "he should just shoot them" or those who even jokingly agree with that statement.

On the surface, I think the whole thing is a ridiculous suit which does nothing more than to line the pockets of a group of lawyers. However, there must be some truth to the allegations of abuse brought against this man. Why else would an American court allow the suit to stand?

The man should be allowed to protect his property against damage but I really doubt that his piece of mind and safety is seriously infringed upon by some poor tired people traversing his humongous 22,000 acre ranch.
 
Silver, what country do you live in and who's side are you on anyway? Do you always take the contrary side just to argue?

What we THINK we know: ILLEGALS crossing through some guys yard. He stands up and DOES SOMETHING about it. Can't you support that effort?

Yeah.. His 22,000 acre yard. ???
 

What irony? By your logic humans trafficed for the sex trade would have no recourse in this country for crimes committed against them.

Civil Rights are not exclusive to US Citizens.




He has no authority to keep the "crowd under control until authorities arrived"

I looked at the law and it is what it is. If it is not a good law then it needs to be changed.

Which law did you look at? (This isn't sarcasm, I'm asking for the sake of the argument) The law you quoted earlier stated where force was NOT justified, and I didn't see any violations of those exceptions in the article's facts.

If this was in the city or not on his property I could see more of your argument standing,

but they were violating the land owners rights and breaking the law through trespassing, vandalism etc. and it sounds like it IS justifiable in several states to protect your self and land until authorities arrive.
 
12,000 illegals that he's single-handedly turned over to authorities? Let's see at $1000 a head that's $12 million the country should pay this guy.

It probably would have cost them more with their own people and they probably wouldn't have caught as many of them. The old guy's a modern day hero!
 
Silver, what country do you live in and who's side are you on anyway? Do you always take the contrary side just to argue?

What we THINK we know: ILLEGALS crossing through some guys yard. He stands up and DOES SOMETHING about it. Can't you support that effort?

I am on the side of the law, not some lynch mob mentality. I looked at the law and what it says; he had a right to do, he exceeded what the law aloud so he violated the law. He should have known better because the article says he was a former LEO. Look at it yourself. They may not have come into this country leaglly but they are not criminals until a court says so. They do have rights simply by being humans.

All we have to go on is what is in the report. There may be more information but based on that the rancher was in the wrong. Will the suit go anywhere? Who knows? If I were the judge I would take into consideration the damage caused in the past but the rancher still has no authority to threaten or detain individulas. Look at the law for yourself in my previous post.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top