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

[xsited1]

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

 

[Agnapostate]

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.

 

[catzmeow]

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.

 

[Agnapostate]

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.

 

[xsited1]

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.

 

[Agnapostate]

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.

 

[catzmeow]

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.

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.

 

[Agnapostate]

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.

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.

 

[xsited1]

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.

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.

 

[catzmeow]

considering the unjust and probably illegal acquisition of border property

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 category for most of us.

 

[Agnapostate]

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.

An amusing remark, but one without basis nonetheless. Private property represents the establishment of a monopoly of control over resources or goods not personally used by the "owner," and often functions to the detriment of others, including the fact that large-scale private property rights function as a critical component of the subordination of labor under capital.

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.

Cute deflection...though blatantly obvious nonetheless. The claim that Mr. Barnett had to defend against a threat against his person is weak, since he actively pursues individuals that he sees crossing through his property, proactively seeking them out.

Since individuals here seem so insistent on whining about the absolute superiority of private property rights, I merely pointed out that much border property directly violated Robert Nozick's criterion of just acquisition. That is my claim, regardless of how egregiously you've managed to distort it.

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

And of course, that idiotic remark does absolutely nothing to adequately address any component of anarchist theory, just as the monarchical declaration that representative democracy was did nothing to adequately address its components.

 

[catzmeow]

An amusing remark, but one without basis nonetheless. Private property represents the establishment of a monopoly of control over resources or goods not personally used by the "owner," and often functions to the detriment of others, including the fact that large-scale private property rights function as a critical component of the subordination of labor under capital.

You say this like you have a point. And yet, most of us feel you are crocked. Not half crocked, but FULLY crocked. Please. Past the dutchie to the left hand sid, get up, get unstoned, then post.

 

[Modbert]

This is bullshit of the highest order that he has to pay a dime.

 

[Agnapostate]

You say this like you have a point. And yet, most of us feel you are crocked. Not half crocked, but FULLY crocked. Please. Past the dutchie to the left hand sid, get up, get unstoned, then post.

You're simply ignorant of political economy. Why don't you try answering this if you're so much more informed than I am?

"Do you hold the analysis of Barone having overextended the usefulness of shadow pricing in his (Pareto efficient, a strike at L. Von Mises's claims of "impossibility") economic model to be accurate, and if so, what can be salvaged from the model, in your view?"

 

[catzmeow]

You're simply ignorant of political economy.

No. I reject that these authors you quote have authority on the subject that overrules 200 years of American law and thought on the subject, and several hundred years of similar European law & thought on the subject.

And, if you want to live in a communist paradise without private property rights, I invite you to move to Cuba.

What you don't understand is this: I'm not ignorant of the debates over the idea of private property. I just fall squarely on the side of supporting private property rights, and I think your take on this subject is ludicrous.

I further think that your personal policy platform on these subjects is likely to be implemented in this country when pigs fly, which is to say, never, because the vast majority of Americans are in agreement with me on this issue. And, like the vast majority of Americans, I don't care what some marxist nitwit has to say on the evils of private property.

You will feel differently when you are actually in a position to own something. Until then, you're talking out of your overly educated improperly experienced arse.

That's not ignorance. It's me expressing my opinion. An opinion, for the record, that is every bit as authoritative and well-informed as your own, if not moreso.

 

[Agnapostate]

No. I reject that these authors you quote have authority on the subject that overrules 200 years of American law and thought on the subject.

How long before 1776 was the British monarchy in place? And the "author" that I quoted was me. If you had actually clicked the link, you'd have seen that the issue regarding Barone and shadow pricing was a question that I asked Reiver, another socialist with a greater knowledge of political economy than you.

And, if you want to live in a communist paradise without private property rights, I invite you to move to Cuba.

I thought you were mocking my anarchism a few minutes ago. Now you're suggesting that I support a Marxist-Leninist state? Are you completely ignorant of political economy.

What you don't understand is this: I'm not ignorant of the debates over private property. I just fall squarely on the side of supporting private property rights, and I think your take on this is ludicrous.

That's not ignorance. It's an opinion. An opinion that is every bit as authoritative and well-informed as your own, if not moreso.

Please; this laughter hurts my ribs. You've demonstrated your ignorance of political economy on numerous occasions, which is likely the reason that you almost never post in the economic forum. But if your opinion is so "authoritative and well-informed," why don't you answer the question?

"Do you hold the analysis of Barone having overextended the usefulness of shadow pricing in his (Pareto efficient, a strike at L. Von Mises's claims of "impossibility") economic model to be accurate, and if so, what can be salvaged from the model, in your view?"

 

[MalibuMan]

This is bullshit of the highest order that he has to pay a dime.

Counldn't agree more. What is this world coming to?

 

[Agnapostate]

I further think that your personal policy platform on these subjects is likely to be implemented in this country when pigs fly, which is to say, never, because the vast majority of Americans are in agreement with me on this issue. And, like the vast majority of Americans, I don't care what some marxist nitwit has to say on the evils of private property.

I am not a Marxist, and your claim that I am reveals your profound ignorance of political economy, especially considering that you just identified me as an anarchist.

You will feel differently when you are actually in a position to own something. Until then, you're talking out of your overly educated improperly experienced arse.

I own plenty of personal possessions. It's true that I don't own a home, for instance. I rent a room. But that does absolutely nothing to invalidate my remarks about private property, especially considering that I was affluent enough when I lived with my parents. Do you have any valid criticism to offer?

 

[Modbert]

Counldn't agree more. What is this world coming to?

Really don't want to know. This is why we need Tort reform and alot of other reform in our court system.

This case should of never even been wasted inside a court room, never mind the verdict.

And another insane part? The taxpayer just paid for this shit to happen unwillingly.

 

[Agnapostate]

And another insane part? The taxpayer just paid for this shit to happen unwillingly.

The taxpayer pays far more for the incredibly wasteful and inefficient criminalization of immigration.