16 illegals sue Arizona rancher (32million)

[Justyntym]

That is exactly why this is the greatest country in the world.

Depends on your values and standards...
if your a liberal tree hugger in love with France, than yeah.
The America that was great and that was ...is gone. ???
This idiocy would not even exist 50, 30, or even 20 years ago.

In which direction are we moving....

 

[Dino]

well, silver, I agree with you. However, I've got to ask, is it wise to extend those rights to some people, and deny our own citizens the right to defend their own property?
Posted via Mobile Device

Well the State of AZ defines the rights granted to defend his property. They have not denied him any right to do so within the law. He possibly exceeded those rights when he threatened the use of deadly force and assulting the woman.

I would like to know more about the case. I want to know what civil rights they contend were violated.

 

[99'busa]

"The lawsuit said he then called his wife and two Border Patrol agents arrived at the site. It also said Mr. Barnett acknowledged that he had turned over 12,000 illegal immigrants to the Border Patrol since 1998."

He should get some kind of award. If he needs $$ for a defense fund I'll contribute!

Im with you on that

 

[KRUZIN]

Actually, we have a right to bear arms. If he's got a license for the weapon he had, he's on his land, well then he's within his rights. <-- to carry the weapon absolutely, but not to use it against someone unless justified. That justification is spelled out in the law. As a citizen we all have the right to defend our property. <--- Check AZ law on this because it spells it out the justification for the use of force in protecting property pretty clearly. So I would say, on both counts, you're incorrect.

I'm sorry Surfer but we don't see eye to eye bro. You're trying to use the law to back your claim that the owner was wrong but the more you cram the law down peoples throat here <--- I am not shoving it down your throat. We are a country of laws and that is how we should be addressing these type arguements not based upon or emotions. , the more I realize that I'm correct in my thinking. The owner was well within his rights according to the law of the state as well as those of the country. <--- The cite the law that supports your thinking?
If he had ill will toward those people or any of the other 1188-ish he's turned over in the passed - he'd have pulled the trigger. He respected them as human beings and sent them through the proper channels back to their country of origin - he didn't march them to the border or dust them right then and there.

Holding them at gun point is justified, he was out numbered. That's all he needs to fear for his life.

 

[thrasherfox]

"...and is also commiting a sin before God."

BS with a capital BS to boot! Shame on you Thrasher. Can you see Jesus making the claim that people trying for a better life for their family are commiting a sin before God? Oh, and all those LEOs were NOT appointed as 'rulers over us' by God. Man, where do you...no, nevermind, just nevermind...Some people make me ashamed to be a member of the human race.

Well then maybe you should just leave the human race

 

[Revvv]

Shoulda just shot them all

Dead people can't testify or sue

 

[WWJD]

You know, your constant advesarial position on everything is getting old again.

No matter what somone says, you almost always have to disagree with it.

I suspect this is one of those guys that was kick/banned months back with the exact same M.O.

 

[TruWrecks]

To everyone that is screaming "illegals have rights!", I have a question for you. Have YOU ever been to a foreign country that enforces border protection? I lived for two years less than 20 miles from the East German and Czech borders. There is an area called the 1k zone. Signs at the 1k zone warn that intruders will be shot if they enter illegally. There's no fence, just a row of signs that line the edge of the 1k zone. There is no such thing as human rights to those countries. If you willingly cross into the 1k zone they have the right to shoot and kill you. If you are detained you will be shipped to a prison to wait for a trial that may happen in a few months or years. After you are found guilty you will spend you sentence in prison, then shipped back to the country you were trying to leave. You cannot sue the country that arrested you. It may not be humane, but it is what will happen to you in almost every single country other than the USA.

Here we have the USA. The kinder, more gentle, nation of whiners. When someone illegally enters here we roll out the red carpet. We give the illegals every chance to take advantage of our generosity as a nation. We even give illegals more rights than our own citizens. Why? Because some bleeding heart liberal somewhere demanded better rights for non-citizens. If an illegal citizen in detained in the USA they are required to be fed and give medical care. If a US citizen need food or medical care, and they can't afford it, they are required to stand in line for hours and apply to assistance. Many are denied basic assistance even if they are disabled. Don't tell my otherwise, because my roommate is proof to the facts. He is legally deaf. He has been going to school so he can get a job that will pay more than minimum wage so he can't survive. According to the state he is eligible while he is in school. He has had to ask me several times for help because he got declined for food stamps for more than three months. I know he's no wasting his money. He doesn't have any to waste.

All the rancher legally needs to do is post "No Tresspassing" signs on his property to be well within his rights. They only need to be in English. Nothing in the Constitution requires the USA to provide for other languages. If they want to come here, learn it. If you think different, go to Mexico and demand that they put English on all the signs, menus, safety warnings and legal documents. They will laugh their assess off and tell you to get out of their country.

So in short, we refuse to help our own, but protect everyone else. No wonder why everyone ELSE calls this the land of opportunity.

 

[Justyntym]

Here we have the USA. The kinder, more gentle, nation of whiners. When someone illegally enters here we roll out the red carpet. We give the illegals every chance to take advantage of our generosity as a nation. We even give illegals more rights than our own citizens. Why? Because some bleeding heart liberal somewhere demanded better rights for non-citizens. If an illegal citizen in detained in the USA they are required to be fed and give medical care. If a US citizen need food or medical care, and they can't afford it, they are required to stand in line for hours and apply to assistance. Many are denied basic assistance even if they are disabled. Don't tell my otherwise, because my roommate is proof to the facts.

If you think different, go to Mexico and demand that they put English on all the signs, menus, safety warnings and legal documents. They will laugh their assess off and tell you to get out of their country.

So in short, we refuse to help our own, but protect everyone else. No wonder why everyone ELSE calls this the land of opportunity.

+1000

 

[thrasherfox]

I suspect this is one of those guys that was kick/banned months back with the exact same M.O.

Yes it was, we are currently discussing if the person who banned him knows he is back as silver surfer or not.

 

[Projekt]

While none of my previous comments stemmed from "any conversation with God"

It was however placed on my heart to bring to your attention that God has appointed rulers over us and we are to abide by the laws given to us by the rulers God has placed over us.

Entry into the United States illegaly is breaking the law that was made by the rulers that have been placed above us.

So anyone entering into the United States is breaking United States law and is also commiting a sin before God.




BibleGateway.com: Search for a Bible passage in over 35 languages and 50 versions.


1 Peter 2:13

Submission to Rulers and Masters

13Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. 16Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. 17Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king

Hold on... Let me look around here for something... No, nope, I cannot find the BULLSH!T button...

Considering that your study guide for life has been modified by rulers to suit the needs of the ruling class many times throughout history, I have to say that this is Fraud. To imply some kind of divinity because the person holds public office is perverse.

 

[dadofthree]

Very nicely said, I don't agree with all of it because I believe that adequate health care is a right that should be extended to anyone who needs it. Sure some will abuse it but as a whole I think that in country as great as ours no one should have to worry about falling into unmanageable debt due to illness or injury. Other countries have managed to make it work I think we can figure it out also.

Have you ever seen anyone refused healthcare in this country ? No, and I proudly pay $13.00 for a tylenol when I'm there.

What I have witnessed is a pregnant women taken by ambulance to give birth, as her boyfriend followed in his car.

 

[dadofthree]

Because this is what Jesus did?

That's the second time you've posted that statement. Would you please clarify.

 

[dadofthree]

Well the State of AZ defines the rights granted to defend his property. They have not denied him any right to do so within the law. He possibly exceeded those rights when he threatened the use of deadly force and assulting the woman.

I would like to know more about the case. I want to know what civil rights they contend were violated.

He's not in criminal court.

 

[dadofthree]

I would like to know more about the case. I want to know what civil rights they contend were violated.

It may have been as simple as the detention by Joe Rancher who has no authority to do so. I don't know, just thinking out loud.

 

[dadofthree]

I suspect this is one of those guys that was kick/banned months back with the exact same M.O.

Guys we don't have to click and view this thread or respond to any threads. Discussion is discussion as long as you avoid personal attacks or get graphic, overly vulgar.

 

[Dino]

He's not in criminal court.

No but I would think the basis of the civil complaint is going to be that his actions violated the laws.

It may have been as simple as the detention by Joe Rancher who has no authority to do so. I don't know, just thinking out loud.

I am with you on this. Right now all we have to go on is the article and what CTA and I dug up peratining to AZ Law so most of this in conjecture. CTA made some good points pertaining to the law that I had not considered.

I started myself thinking that it was odd that they could file suit against the rancher but if it was not thrown out there must be some legal substance behind it. That is why I looked up the AZ Laws. If you check out the discussion mainly between CTA and me there is some gray area in the way the laws pertaining to this case are written that I could see, based upon the information available to us, a case going forward.

I have mixed feelings about this because I can see the ranchers frustration with the situation so part of me thinks it should be acceptable to detain the trespassers, but if they decide to peacefully walk or run away presenting no threat to you should you have the right to used deadly force? I personally don't think it is justified.

Of course I am sure there are several other facts to the case that we are unaware of which I why I would like to know what the complaint actually is.

 

[CTA_Busa_LE]

I have mixed feelings about this because I can see the ranchers frustration with the situation so part of me thinks it should be acceptable to detain the trespassers, but if they decide to peacefully walk or run away presenting no threat to you should you have the right to used deadly force? I personally don't think it is justified.

The statutes which I dug up pertain to use of force during arrest and whether or not a private individual may make such arrest. As I said earlier, this rancher has previous law enforcement experience, he should be up on what he has a right to do.

The escalation of force is solely dependent upon the actions of those being detained. The use of force continuum does not go from presence to deadly force there are many factors involved. So no he would not be justified in going from presence to shooting them unless they elevated the situation to justify such use of force. The continuum does allow for escalation though, and escalation is always based upon the actions of those being detained.

For instance, if I say you are under arrest, and the basis for that arrest is lawful, and you say no I'm not and resist, I can escalate my force to hands on and cuff you. If I say you are under arrest and you take a swing at me I can use impact weapons or other non lethal force to effect the arrest. If I say you are under arrest and you pull a gun, well it's game on then and deadly force is justified. Of course circumstances will always dictate tactics and in a 16 vs 1 scenerio the person is obviously allowed more choices in his use of force based upon the reasonable assumption that 16 persons could easily overtake one person, dog or no dog. These odds in my mind would certainly justify the threat of deadly force, IE holding them at gunpoint.

There is so much more to this and I can't fully explain it all in a two minute post. This is an area where law enforcement trains constantly, or should as far as I'm concerned. There are always exceptions and different situations will justify different tactics.

The story says he kicked one individual. Yeah ok but the story does not say why. Was it justified or not? I'm sure that is much of the basis to this suit. If he was not justified, IE the person kicked did not give him a reason to do so that is wrong of him. On the other hand there are many scenarios that could justify this action. For example, if I effect an arrest and after the person is cuffed I physically batter them I have violated their civil rights and face risk of a federal lawsuit. On the other hand if I am in the process of effecting an arrest and the person physically batters me, I can use as much force AS NECESSARY to bring that situation back under control, in doing so I have not violated that persons civil rights as long as my actions are justified and not overdone. As I said before, not knowing ALL of the facts and circumstances we can not effectively argue for or against such an action.

 

[Dino]

The statutes which I dug up pertain to use of force during arrest and whether or not a private individual may make such arrest. As I said earlier, this rancher has previous law enforcement experience, he should be up on what he has a right to do.

The escalation of force is solely dependent upon the actions of those being detained. The use of force continuum does not go from presence to deadly force there are many factors involved. So no he would not be justified in going from presence to shooting them unless they elevated the situation to justify such use of force. The continuum does allow for escalation though, and escalation is always based upon the actions of those being detained.

For instance, if I say you are under arrest, and the basis for that arrest is lawful, and you say no I'm not and resist, I can escalate my force to hands on and cuff you. If I say you are under arrest and you take a swing at me I can use impact weapons or other non lethal force to effect the arrest. If I say you are under arrest and you pull a gun, well it's game on then and deadly force is justified. Of course circumstances will always dictate tactics and in a 16 vs 1 scenerio the person is obviously allowed more choices in his use of force based upon the reasonable assumption that 16 persons could easily overtake one person, dog or no dog. These odds in my mind would certainly justify the threat of deadly force, IE holding them at gunpoint.

There is so much more to this and I can't fully explain it all in a two minute post. This is an area where law enforcement trains constantly, or should as far as I'm concerned. There are always exceptions and different situations will justify different tactics.

The story says he kicked one individual. Yeah ok but the story does not say why. Was it justified or not? I'm sure that is much of the basis to this suit. If he was not justified, IE the person kicked did not give him a reason to do so that is wrong of him. On the other hand there are many scenarios that could justify this action. For example, if I effect an arrest and after the person is cuffed I physically batter them I have violated their civil rights and face risk of a federal lawsuit. On the other hand if I am in the process of effecting an arrest and the person physically batters me, I can use as much force AS NECESSARY to bring that situation back under control, in doing so I have not violated that persons civil rights as long as my actions are justified and not overdone. As I said before, not knowing ALL of the facts and circumstances we can not effectively argue for or against such an action.

Excellent points....

 

[WWJD]

Hold on... Let me look around here for something... No, nope, I cannot find the BULLSH!T button...

Considering that your study guide for life has been modified by rulers to suit the needs of the ruling class many times throughout history, I have to say that this is Fraud. To imply some kind of divinity because the person holds public office is perverse.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAA!!! Say WHAAAAT? P-man, how did you get from A to 42 without passing GO on this one? ? ? I'm not following your jump here at all. First, WITHOUT THE BIBLE, it is generally recognized as THE common practice to respect and follow our authroity and governemnt. I mean, it's kinda the nature of living in 2009. but because the Bible says we should, we have made that common practice into a religious bases practice? Come on, man, you are better than that. Did I miss a post somewhere with some more info?

yeah this thread has gotten too long and watered down with tangents. I'm probably done here. Especially after discovering Surfer's secret true identity... buw-hahahahahha