Arizona rancher sued by illegal aliens ordered to pay $77,804 in damages

Discussion in 'Immigration/Illegal Immigration' started by xsited1, Feb 18, 2009.

  1. xsited1
    Offline

    xsited1 Agent P

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    17,750
    Thanks Received:
    5,299
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    Little Rock, AR
    Ratings:
    +5,306
    TUCSON, Ariz. — A federal jury found Tuesday that a southern Arizona rancher didn't violate the civil rights of a group of illegal immigrants who said he detained them at gunpoint in 2004.

    The eight-member civil jury also found Roger Barnett wasn't liable on claims of battery and false imprisonment.

    But the jury did find him liable on four claims of assault and four claims of infliction of emotional distress and ordered Barnett to pay $77,804 in damages — $60,000 of which were punitive.

    Jury backs rancher accused of detaining Mexicans | National | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle
     
  2. Agnapostate
    Offline

    Agnapostate BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2008
    Messages:
    6,860
    Thanks Received:
    344
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Quake State
    Ratings:
    +344
    Roger Barnett, in my opinion, went beyond whatever he thought his call of duty was in attempting to harass and intimidate the immigrants that he detained. To be honest, I don't place much stock in "emotional distress" claims...though that might just be a consequence of being told to "suck it up" when I was growing up.

    That being said, he went too far.
     
  3. catzmeow
    Offline

    catzmeow BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2008
    Messages:
    24,064
    Thanks Received:
    2,922
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Gunshine State
    Ratings:
    +2,974
    I agree. He could have held them and waited for the authorities without acting like a scary lunatic.

    Or, he could have just shot them and told the responding deputies that he was outnumbered and felt threatened.
     
  4. Agnapostate
    Offline

    Agnapostate BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2008
    Messages:
    6,860
    Thanks Received:
    344
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Quake State
    Ratings:
    +344
    If he had the ability to shoot all of them, then there wouldn't have been much credence to his claim that he was outnumbered and felt threatened.
     
  5. xsited1
    Offline

    xsited1 Agent P

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    17,750
    Thanks Received:
    5,299
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    Little Rock, AR
    Ratings:
    +5,306
    I'll try to remember not to assault a criminal when they're on my property. Otherwise, they might end up being an illegal alien and I'll have to pay them $77,804 in damages.
     
  6. Agnapostate
    Offline

    Agnapostate BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2008
    Messages:
    6,860
    Thanks Received:
    344
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Quake State
    Ratings:
    +344
    Again with the droning about private property. As I said before, that issue is so ridiculously irrelevant, especially considering the unjust and probably illegal acquisition of border property. The entire "property" issue is quite irrelevant to the matter.
     
  7. catzmeow
    Offline

    catzmeow BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2008
    Messages:
    24,064
    Thanks Received:
    2,922
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Gunshine State
    Ratings:
    +2,974
    That's right. I forgot. Texas really belongs to Mexico, so those Mexicans had every right to be there.

    (the "myth" of reconquista rears its ugly head, again)

    Now, talk some about the violated treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo to seal the deal.
     
  8. Agnapostate
    Offline

    Agnapostate BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2008
    Messages:
    6,860
    Thanks Received:
    344
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Quake State
    Ratings:
    +344
    How does Texas belong to Mexico in any sense? Texas wasn't aggressively gained by the United States during the war; they voluntarily seceded. I knew you'd be here with this little blathering, which is why I attempted to specify that the violated terms of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo could be brought up if anti-immigration posters wished to speak of "private property" rights, in which case we could simply refer to free market theorist Robert Nozick's commentary on the illegitimacy of private property that has been unjustly acquired.

    The property issue means nothing to be one way or the other. The majority of the land in the world was unjustly occupied and stolen at one point or another.
     
  9. xsited1
    Offline

    xsited1 Agent P

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    17,750
    Thanks Received:
    5,299
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    Little Rock, AR
    Ratings:
    +5,306
    In the United States, private property represents freedom itself and should protected at all costs. Since you're obviously not an American citizen, I can understand your confusion.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. catzmeow
    Offline

    catzmeow BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2008
    Messages:
    24,064
    Thanks Received:
    2,922
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Gunshine State
    Ratings:
    +2,974
    This is your claim.

    America (and Mexico) operate off of a system that recognizes the rights of property owners. In both countries, property owners have a reasonable right to defend their property, and THEIR PERSON.

    I understand that as an anarchist, you reject this concept, but that puts you in the :cuckoo: category for most of us.
     

Share This Page