16 illegals sue Arizona rancher (32million)

[Delgado]

Well this guy has been through some shi* of his own with these crossers. The story is that they are suing him for breaking their civil rights by holding 16 of them at gunpoint on his farm. What more to the story do you need? Even people that are from the shi**iest of shi*holes have found ways to come into this country legally. The fact this case made it this far is crazy.

 

[Dino]

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 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.

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.

No the laws I quoted point out where Deadly Force and Self Defense ARE Justified. I included the link again above. No where could I find in my short search anything that justifys the rancher's actions.

 

[Dino]

People who are in this country illegally should not be provided any protection under any of our laws.

So are you saying that if an illegal alien is murdered or raped then it should not be invesitgated?

If an individual brought he as part of the illegal smuggling of persons should not be defended if crimes are committed against them?

 

[Merlot]

Holy ****,is this some kind of sick joke.WHats happening in the world today.Damn.

 

[Projekt]

Even people that are from the shi**iest of shi*holes have found ways to come into this country legally. The fact this case made it this far is crazy.

Being economically depressed and lacking opportunity does not qualify a country as a sh!thole.

 

[Hectic]

Sometimes I lose faith in this country. I think the worst thing is that some of you, people who on the whole seem to be a very level headed, rational bunch, actually agree that the farmer did something wrong.

If our country is to function, it should do so with its citizens best interests' in mind. Trying to act as a policeman for the world and an example for humanity (All the absolutely ridiculous things people come up with like this, or gay marriage (Its really not a big deal in the grand scheme of things)) will only eventually ruin us... that is to say that it isn't already well on its way.

 

[Hectic]

Double post >_<

 

[WuzzaCBXRider]

"People who are in this country illegally should not be provided any protection under any of our laws."

What a ridiculous thing to say and worse yet, what an awful thing to believe.

 

[CTA_Busa_LE]

First off, this is a civil case not a criminal case. No criminal charges were brought against this guy for breaking any criminal laws. We also need to keep in mind that this man is a property owner and a citizen and has rights as well. I don't hear any of you guys that are preaching civil rights standing up for him.

As far as I'm concerned, it is against the law to enter this country without proper paperwork and through proper channels. Anyone that crosses the border without such documentation has broken the laws of this country, hence making them a criminal and subject to arrest and detention. I'm willing to bet that AZ laws has a provision that states no person shall be detered from making a lawful arrest and that if needed use of force can be escalated to ensure the arrest is made.

All men are created equal, this means everyone has the same opportunities at birth, this does not give someone rights to break laws though. Once laws are broken there are laws in place to deal with the offenders. As far as whether or not these 16 were charged or convicted, your guess is as good as mine as the story doesn't cover this, at least if it does I don't remember reading it. Whether they were charged or not is somewhat irrelevant as the questions are not about whether they were legal or illegal immigrants. It also doesn't claim unlawful arrest but instead a violation of civil rights during that arrest. Every day people are arrested for acts that go uncharged, this doesn't necessarily mean there was not probable cause for the arrest, it just means there was not proof beyond a reasonable doubt to push it to trial. An arrest does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[wharthog3]

Okay, lets focus on the heart of the suit, the use of force to detain trespassers on his land.

IGNORE their citizen status COMPLETELY!

Man owns land. People trespass and vandalize land. Man is outnumbered, and threatens then to remain where they are ON HIS LAND until authorities arrive.

then? Trespassers SUE? him for detaining them ON HIS LAND where they are TRESPASSING / Causing damage?

Let's just say its a bunch of people that legally live in the next town and are on his property, breaking things, where does everyone's argument go now?

I still argue that he was justified in his use of force.

To quote Surfer's citation "physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force"

I would argue that his self protection from a group of SIXTEEN (which have already proved they are lawless) was justified. Especially showing the restraint NOT to physically harm them, merely use verbal threats and a shove, instead of escalating the situation to deadly force.

 

[Delgado]

Being economically depressed and lacking opportunity does not qualify a country as a sh!thole.

I never said anything about a country being a dump based on their economic status or lack of opportunities.. You just assumed thats what I meant, and you assumed wrong.

 

[Projekt]

Okay, lets focus on the heart of the suit, the use of force to detain trespassers on his land.

IGNORE their citizen status COMPLETELY!

Man owns land. People trespass and vandalize land. Man is outnumbered, and threatens then to remain where they are ON HIS LAND until authorities arrive.

then? Trespassers SUE? him for detaining them ON HIS LAND where they are TRESPASSING / Causing damage?

Let's just say its a bunch of people that legally live in the next town and are on his property, breaking things, where does everyone's argument go now?

I still argue that he was justified in his use of force.

To quote Surfer's citation "physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force"

I would argue that his self protection from a group of SIXTEEN (which have already proved they are lawless) was justified. Especially showing the restraint NOT to physically harm them, merely use verbal threats and a shove, instead of escalating the situation to deadly force.

The old guy and his family circle simply want to play minutemen. They just want to enrich their lives and entertain themselves by going after immigrants. He placed himself in the precarious situation and was not ambushed by a gang of violent barbarian criminal Mexicans. Gee Whiz! What a life! Life must be tough to be a person who owns 22,000 acres in the United States.

 

[Projekt]

I never said anything about a country being a dump based on their economic status or lack of opportunities.. You just assumed thats what I meant, and you assumed wrong.

No.. You didn't say that. You didn't have to say it to have it come across that people leaving their country of origin do so due to negative economic factors. Thus relegating their home countries to the status of a sh!thole from your perspective.

 

[Dino]

First off, this is a civil case not a criminal case. No criminal charges were brought against this guy for breaking any criminal laws. We also need to keep in mind that this man is a property owner and a citizen and has rights as well. <--- Show me where they can be found...Actually I think I already posted what his rights are. I don't hear any of you guys that are preaching civil rights standing up for him.

As far as I'm concerned, it is against the law to enter this country without proper paperwork and through proper channels. Anyone that crosses the border without such documentation has broken the laws of this country, hence making them a criminal and subject to arrest and detention. I'm willing to bet that AZ laws has a provision that states no person shall be detered from making a lawful arrest and that if needed use of force can be escalated to ensure the arrest is made. <----Again look at the law, I gave you a link.

All men are created equal, this means everyone has the same opportunities at birth, this does not give someone rights to break laws though. Once laws are broken there are laws in place to deal with the offenders. < --- at the descretion of LEOs As far as whether or not these 16 were charged or convicted, your guess is as good as mine as the story doesn't cover this, at least if it does I don't remember reading it. Whether they were charged or not is somewhat irrelevant as the questions are not about whether they were legal or illegal immigrants. <--- Exactly the question pertains to whether or not their rights were violated It also doesn't claim unlawful arrest but instead a violation of civil rights during that arrest. Every day people are arrested for acts that go uncharged, this doesn't necessarily mean there was not probable cause for the arrest <---By someone with the authority to make the arrest. If you can find where that authority is deligated to civilians under certain circumstances I would like to see it. , it just means there was not proof beyond a reasonable doubt to push it to trial. An arrest does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Okay, lets focus on the heart of the suit, the use of force to detain trespassers on his land.

IGNORE their citizen status COMPLETELY!

Man owns land. People trespass and vandalize land <----No mention that these individuals vandalized his property only that it occured in the past. . Man is outnumbered, and threatens then to remain where they are ON HIS LAND until authorities arrive. <--- He has on right to detain them that I could find.
then? Trespassers SUE? him for detaining them ON HIS LAND where they are TRESPASSING / Causing damage? <--again no mention of them causing damage.
Let's just say its a bunch of people that legally live in the next town and are on his property, breaking things, where does everyone's argument go now?

I still argue that he was justified in his use of force.

To quote Surfer's citation "physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force"

I would argue that his self protection from a group of SIXTEEN (which have already proved they are lawless) was justified. Especially showing the restraint NOT to physically harm them, merely use verbal threats and a shove, instead of escalating the situation to deadly force <---I tend to agree but he also, according to the story assulted on of the women. However if they all turned their backs to him and walked away he would have a hard time saying he was threatened..

Sometimes I lose faith in this country. I think the worst thing is that some of you, people who on the whole seem to be a very level headed, rational bunch, actually agree that the farmer did something wrong. <--- Well according to the law, he did...

When I first looked at this I also thought it was strange but there had to be a reason for it, so I looked at what the law says based on that the Rancher violated AZ law. That is the basis for the civil suit.

 

[HT_USMC]

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.

It seems to me that the "side of the law" doesn't provide much protection to the land owner / American citizen and provides just gobs of protection to those crossing the border illegally and trespassing on the American citizens land.

By your rules. Shoplifters aren't allowed to be detained by the store owners until the shoplifter has stood before the judge in a court room? It's a wonder anyone has ever made it to court as they can't be detained.

 

[HT_USMC]

When I first looked at this I also thought it was strange but there had to be a reason for it, so I looked at what the law says based on that the Rancher violated AZ law. That is the basis for the civil suit.

So again, according to the most strict letter of the law, some people could just hang out in your backyard and there is nothing you can do. They aren't breaking anything. They aren't hurting you. They are just "there". Sure call the police, they'll be gone before law enforcement can arrive if they know you're making the call. Then the next day, they or others will be in your backyard again - because, after all, you can't do anything to stop it.

On land of that acreage his cellphone would be all he had and it must take tens of minutes for the "law" to show up. Not detaining them would simply allow them to get away and further into the country.

 

[Dino]

It seems to me that the "side of the law" doesn't provide much protection to the land owner / American citizen and provides just gobs of protection to those crossing the border illegally and trespassing on the American citizens land.

By your rules. Shoplifters aren't allowed to be detained by the store owners until the shoplifter has stood before the judge in a court room? It's a wonder anyone has ever made it to court as they can't be detained.

First of all they are not my rules they are the Laws of the State of Arizona. Secondly you are right the "side of the law" doesn't provide much protection for the land owner, he should petition to have th elaw changed. Lastly under AZ Law the individuals were guilty of criminal trespass but only if they were asked to leave and didn't . Not my laws AZ's...

 

[Dino]

It seems to me that the "side of the law" doesn't provide much protection to the land owner / American citizen and provides just gobs of protection to those crossing the border illegally and trespassing on the American citizens land.

By your rules. Shoplifters aren't allowed to be detained by the store owners until the shoplifter has stood before the judge in a court room? It's a wonder anyone has ever made it to court as they can't be detained.

So again, according to the most strict letter of the law, some people could just hang out in your backyard and there is nothing you can do. They aren't breaking anything. They aren't hurting you. They are just "there". Sure call the police, they'll be gone before law enforcement can arrive if they know you're making the call. Then the next day, they or others will be in your backyard again - because, after all, you can't do anything to stop it. <---See below
On land of that acreage his cellphone would be all he had and it must take tens of minutes for the "law" to show up. Not detaining them would simply allow them to get away and further into the country.<--Based upon AZ Law he has no right to detain them...

You may not agree with the law but that is what it states.

See below

13-1502. Criminal trespass in the third degree; classification

A. A person commits criminal trespass in the third degree by:

1. Knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully on any real property after a reasonable request to leave by the owner or any other person having lawful control over such property, or reasonable notice prohibiting entry.

2. Knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully on the right-of-way for tracks, or the storage or switching yards or rolling stock of a railroad company.

B. Criminal trespass in the third degree is a class 3 misdemeanor.

 

[MO-BUSA]

thats the problem with our country now we think to hard on things till they are outta hand then act upon it, i mean who in there right mind would sue this man for protecting his property,, dont we still have that right in this country?? i for one think what this guy is doing is great, heck maybe border patrol should camp on his property and detain a few, he's detained how many 12,000??? good grief

 

[BlueHaya]

13-1502. Criminal trespass in the third degree; classification

A. A person commits criminal trespass in the third degree by:

1. Knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully on any real property after a reasonable request to leave by the owner or any other person having lawful control over such property, or reasonable notice prohibiting entry.

2. Knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully on the right-of-way for tracks, or the storage or switching yards or rolling stock of a railroad company.

B. Criminal trespass in the third degree is a class 3 misdemeanor.[/QUOTE]