It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

16 Illegals Sue Arizona Rancher--Claim violation of "rights."

page: 3
26
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


I don't expect everyone to feel the same as I do... If they did, this wouldnt be a problem anymore. But if someone is trespassing on my property, and at the same time breaking a Federal law I will assume the worst and act accordingly, I don't care what color they are. Like I said, there are signs, and if they CHOOSE to ignore said signs then they will face the consequences. As I said, I'd do the same if it were crazy canadians doing it.

As far as your ethnicity goes, I don't care what you are as long as your legal.

Glad to hear you exercise your 2nd amendment rights, more Americans should do so.
====
Mod edit: Snipped large quote and used 'reply to' feature

[edit on 2/10/2009 by Badge01]




posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   
OK - fair is fair. It's not that I condone anyone crossing the border illegally. And I do actually support the property owners.

I just see humanity as a very complex issue.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   

I'm sure I'll get flamed for this but... The guy should have put up signs in spanish and english saying "Trespassers WILL be shot"


Signs mean nothing to them, I have caught many that just ignore signs.

And when you catch them they pull the no habla english to the cops.
even when the signs are in spanish.

We had a couple of illegals that played that they did not understand English to us, the cops, and the judge and used a court translator.

But they were heard talking to there lawyer in clear english in the waiting area out side the courtroom.

These illegals know how to play dumb and play the system.

One trick they play in the agricultural areas of Calif when they are caught is to play drunk.

When the cops show up the cops tell them to go home and sleep it off.
When we checked the video tapes the next day we found that they were not acting drunk before the alarm went off when they tried to break in and cops showed up.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ANNED
 


I believe you mis-understood my post, I wont be asking them about the signs after they ignore them... Shortly after they pass the signs they're journey will end... they won't have a chance to explain their actions. If I give them a chance I'll get sued, so no chance for them.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by XTexan
 



But if someone is trespassing on my property, and at the same time breaking a Federal law I will assume the worst and act accordingly, I don't care what color they are.


You said something interesting here. Assume does not give anybody the right to take somebody's life. Could you imagine if all cops assumed that we had a weapon on us every time we got pulled over or were walking down the street? The rancher can only assume that these people are not Americans. (Granted it is probably a correct assumption) He has no proof that they are illegal because he isn't qualified to verify this. He does have proof that they were trespassing, but trespassing is not a federal offense.

I give the guy the right to defend his property but I do not side with all of these talk about shooting them. Humanity has to count for something.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


Um! Um! Jam...The damned cops DO already consider you armed when they pull you over for a traffic stop or any time you are detained! Thats why they treat you with such disrespect and yell and scream at you if you dare try to get out of your car to talk to them. I'm with Tex on this one!

Zindo



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


I understand what your saying here, and assuming that things worked the way they were supposed to I would agree. Granted this case hasnt played out yet, but if this sets the precedent that detaining them and waiting for law enforcement is an act that I can get sued for then I don't really see any other options. I'm not going to just stand aside and watch them march on through.

====
Mod edit: Snipped large quote and used 'reply to' feature

[edit on 2/10/2009 by Badge01]



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   
I think the issue with the captive part is that we don't know how long he detained them before he called the cops or the border patrol on them. The article doesn't state it.

Would it be captive if he waited eight hours before calling anybody? I don't know. I just feel the article is vague as to what really transpired. I would love to see what the transcript reads.


As far as I know holding somebody at gunpoint till the cops showed up is not illegal.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


Agreed, holding them for a long amount of time would be something to get upset about because then you risk a hostage type of situation... Your right more info is need on this case...



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Just located this about the rancher.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This it Barnett ranch all throughout here.

LAVANDERA: Roger Barnett was on a self-appointed patrol, packing an assault rifle and a conviction that U.S. citizens need to take the problem of illegal immigration into their own hands.

R. MORALES: As soon as I asked him what his name was, that's when he went back to his truck, and reached underneath the -- his seat, and pulled out the -- the AR-15. It took him three tries to chamber that bullet. And, once he chambered that bullet, he says: My name, my name is f'ing Roger Barnett. And, if you don't get out of here, I am going to shoot you, I am going to kill you.

LAVANDERA: Barnett boasts of having captured 14,000 illegal immigrants in seven years on the 22,000 acres of U.S. border property he leases from Arizona. There are many different interviews on this page but you will find this one a little more than halfway.

ROGER BARNETT, RESIDENT OF ARIZONA: Nobody has ever been hurt or abused, but thousands have been turned over to the Border Patrol to be deported.

V. MORALES: He's just scary. He was just rally mad.

LAVANDERA (on camera): Did he have a gun? Did you see a gun?

V. MORALES: Yes, he had a -- a -- a gun.

LAVANDERA (voice-over): But the family held at gunpoint was born and raised in the United States. And, when local police wouldn't act, they joined with border activists, filing a civil lawsuit, hoping to stop Barnett's patrols and make an example of him.


transcripts.cnn.com...



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by jam321

You said something interesting here. Assume does not give anybody the right to take somebody's life. Could you imagine if all cops assumed that we had a weapon on us every time we got pulled over or were walking down the street?


Cops do that now. Every cop I know is trained to approach every person as though they are armed. Actually, where I live, most people in fact are armed. When the populace knows that everyone else has a gun too, its a very safe, calm place.



I give the guy the right to defend his property but I do not side with all of these talk about shooting them. Humanity has to count for something.


Humanity? How does their humanity trump mine? If you come on my property illegally, or enter my home illegally, or try to steal my car, which is still illegal I think, how in the hell do I know what your intentions are for my well being? You break in my door, I am going to assume the worst. You allready broke a couple of laws, and youre not breaking any more.

The people crossing illegally, be it mexico, canada, cuba, whatever, they know what they are doing is wrong. They are in effect invading a foreign country. They are criminals.

No rights to sue a farmer, no rights to free medical, and if you come on my property, you wont have any more worry of rights.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 



Yes, I was just reading some of the same stuff during a google search, it seem some of us, myself incuded may have jumped the gun here so to speak. From what I've read Morales and those with him were part of a hunting party, and that they are citizens.

It is still trespassing, though i'm not sure on all the technicallities of detaining them... he may still be within his right to have detained them...

Like I said they were a part of a hunting party and had at least 1 rifle, so the rancher being armed to confront armed trespassers isn't inexcusable

edited to add link: Free Republic article

[edit on 9-2-2009 by XTexan]

====
Mod edit: Snipped large quote and used 'reply to' feature

[edit on 2/10/2009 by Badge01]



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Ok, they where a hunting party on private land..what where they hunting for and what with???? Where they armed? if not, what did they intend to use to hunt with? Something ain't right here and I know if I'm on private land and its posted and I'm caught, the owner has the right to detain me till LEO's arrive to investigate in most states! Nationality or race has nothing to do with it!

Zindo



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   
If the rancher has "No Hunting Allowed" posted on his property fence lines and gates, then he will win the case.

Also designated hunting areas do not go into private property unless the property owner has made arrangements with the state hunting authority to allow for hunting range to extend onto their property.

If this rancher has no arrangement of this sort, and those people were on his property hunting, they broke the law hunting outside of the designated hunting areas, as well as possibly hunting outside of season, depending on what they were hunting.

It sounds to me like this rancher will have no problem with this case.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   
More and more I am getting to think that these ranchers should just shoot, shovel and shut up.
Enough is enough.
I used to really like Mexican music and have quit a collection.
Somehow it hasn't sounded very good to me lately.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   
1. Unlawful detainment. The man is not law enforcement, hence thier legal status doesnt matter. If they were on his property he has the right to tell them to leave, not to detain them. Even if they had vandalized or stolen he still cannot legally detain ANYONE. He would have done better just to shoot them. Detaining those people was not protecting anything. They werent armed. He used a gun to detain them. Illegal.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   
this is the Arizona law for unlawful imprisonment.


13-1303. Unlawful imprisonment; classification

A. A person commits unlawful imprisonment by knowingly restraining another person.

B. In any prosecution for unlawful imprisonment, it is a defense that:

1. The restraint was accomplished by a peace officer acting in good faith in the lawful performance of his duty; or

2. The defendant is a relative of the person restrained and the defendant's sole intent is to assume lawful custody of that person and the restraint was accomplished without physical injury.

C. Unlawful imprisonment is a class 6 felony unless the victim is released voluntarily by the defendant without physical injury in a safe place prior to arrest in which case it is a class 1 misdemeanor.


www.azleg.gov.../ars/13/01303.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS

From what I understand from the trespassing, you cannot kill somebody just for trespassing.

Arizona laws are here.

www.azleg.gov...



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Well here's a good solution.
Let them sue. They won't get anywhere as they were trespassing on his land. He has a right to make a citizens arrest.
In any case, let them sue then when they lose, remove all their property, fingerprint and photograph them and deport them.

Problem solved.

Oh and one other thing. Give this guy a medal for helping to prevent possible terrorists from entering the country. The guys a HERO.

[edit on 9-2-2009 by jfj123]



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scurvy
How does this even have enough merit to go to court? This man is simply protecting his family and his land from people who shouldn't be there at all, let alone illegally. And sueing the sheriff for not doing anything?! "Hey there mister, you just let these fine Mexican citizens continue entering the country illegally, don't you worry I'll handle it later."

Ridiculous.


Because here in the USA we don't have a precursor to weed out the BS cases like you do in Canada.

Our civil suit and federal suit filters are a joke in the USA.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Realtruth
 


More accurately, in the US everyone has the right to have their grievences heard in court even if on the surface, they don't seem to have meritt. This may sound silly but it ensures everyone can access the legal system. The only downside is that because we give people the benefit of the doubt, the system does at times, get abused. This is one of those times but you must take the good with the bad with a free and open society.

I say we give them their day in court, then send them packing back to their home country or arrest them for illegally entering the US.



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join