Jump to content

16 illegals sue Arizona rancher


Recommended Posts

If Obamao keeps insisting on doing nothing, he should be impeached.

Then sent to a Siberian prison.

In solitary.

with no heat.

in the coldest part of winter.

with only bread and water.

and forced to listen to Paul McCartney talk 24x7 for years. @@



16 illegals sue Arizona rancher</H1>ASSOCIATED PRESS DEFENDANT: Roger Barnett said he had turned over 12,000 illegal immigrants to the Border Patrol since 1998. By Jerry Seper


5:45 a.m., Monday, February 9, 2009An Arizona man who has waged a 10-year campaign to stop a flood of illegal immigrants from crossing his property is being sued by 16 Mexican nationals who accuse him of conspiring to violate their civil rights when he stopped them at gunpoint on his ranch on the U.S.-Mexico border.


Roger Barnett, 64, began rounding up illegal immigrants in 1998 and turning them over to the U.S. Border Patrol, he said, after they destroyed his property, killed his calves and broke into his home.


His Cross Rail Ranch near Douglas, Ariz., is known by federal and county law enforcement authorities as "the avenue of choice" for immigrants seeking to enter the United States illegally.


Trial continues Monday in the federal lawsuit, which seeks $32 million in actual and punitive damages for civil rights violations, the infliction of emotional distress and other crimes. Also named are Mr. Barnett's wife, Barbara, his brother, Donald, and Larry Dever, sheriff in Cochise County, Ariz., where the Barnetts live. The civil trial is expected to continue until Friday.


The lawsuit is based on a March 7, 2004, incident in a dry wash on the 22,000-acre ranch, when he approached a group of illegal immigrants while carrying a gun and accompanied by a large dog.


Attorneys for the immigrants - five women and 11 men who were trying to cross illegally into the United States - have accused Mr. Barnett of holding the group captive at gunpoint, threatening to turn his dog loose on them and saying he would shoot anyone who tried to escape.


The immigrants are represented at trial by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), which also charged that Sheriff Dever did nothing to prevent Mr. Barnett from holding their clients at "gunpoint, yelling obscenities at them and kicking one of the women."


In the lawsuit, MALDEF said Mr. Barnett approached the group as the immigrants moved through his property, and that he was carrying a pistol and threatening them in English and Spanish. At one point, it said, Mr. Barnett's dog barked at several of the women and he yelled at them in Spanish, "My dog is hungry and he's hungry for buttocks."


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.


In March, U.S. District Judge John Roll rejected a motion by Mr. Barnett to have the charges dropped, ruling there was sufficient evidence to allow the matter to be presented to a jury. Mr. Barnett's attorney, David Hardy, had argued that illegal immigrants did not have the same rights as U.S. citizens.


Mr. Barnett told The Washington Times in a 2002 interview that he began rounding up illegal immigrants after they started to vandalize his property, northeast of Douglas along Arizona Highway 80. He said the immigrants tore up water pumps, killed calves, destroyed fences and gates, stole trucks and broke into his home.


Some of his cattle died from ingesting the plastic bottles left behind by the immigrants, he said, adding that he installed a faucet on an 8,000-gallon water tank so the immigrants would stop damaging the tank to get water.


Mr. Barnett said some of the ranch´s established immigrant trails were littered with trash 10 inches deep, including human waste, used toilet paper, soiled diapers, cigarette packs, clothes, backpacks, empty 1-gallon water bottles, chewing-gum wrappers and aluminum foil - which supposedly is used to pack the drugs the immigrant smugglers give their "clients" to keep them running.


He said he carried a pistol during his searches for the immigrants and had a rifle in his truck "for protection" against immigrant and drug smugglers, who often are armed.


A former Cochise County sheriff´s deputy who later was successful in the towing and propane business, Mr. Barnett spent $30,000 on electronic sensors, which he has hidden along established trails on his ranch. He searches the ranch for illegal immigrants in a pickup truck, dressed in a green shirt and camouflage hat, with his handgun and rifle, high-powered binoculars and a walkie-talkie.


His sprawling ranch became an illegal-immigration highway when the Border Patrol diverted its attention to several border towns in an effort to take control of the established ports of entry. That effort moved the illegal immigrants to the remote areas of the border, including the Cross Rail Ranch.


"This is my land. I´m the victim here," Mr. Barnett said. "When someone´s home and loved ones are in jeopardy and the government seemingly can´t do anything about it, I feel justified in taking matters into my own hands. And I always watch my back."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about HIS RIGHTS?


The Obamao regime is turning our country upside-down, everything is becoming




Surely, he is doing it all on purpose, and isn't just the most incompetent piece of garbage


we could ever have had for a president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this article is correct it says that the rancher lost and was ordered to pay $77,804 in damages. Here's the link.






Sixteen illegal aliens who sued an Arizona rancher, claiming he violated their civil rights and falsely imprisoned them by holding them at gunpoint on his property along the border, have lost their case. According to the complaint, Barnett, who owns 22,000 acres along the border in southeastern Arizona, approached the group of illegals on an all-terrain vehicle March 7, 2004. He allegedly began yelling at them in English and broken Spanish while aiming his gun at the group. While Barnett's dog barked at the intruders, the illegal aliens accused him of ordering the dog to attack. One of the women said the rancher kicked her because she refused to get up. The jury ruled in favor of Barnett on the battery charge as well.


Barnett detained the trespassing illegals until Border Patrol agents arrived. The lawsuit claimed that the rancher never told the illegals they were trespassing and failed to post a sign notifying them that they were on private property. MALDEF claimed the family attacked, harassed, threatened and held the illegals against their will, because they were motivated by racial and class-based discrimination. The complaint said the Barnetts allegedly caused the group "severe emotional and mental distress," including fear, anxiety, humiliation, stress, frustration and sadness. Each illegal alien sued for $1 million in actual damages and $1 million for punitive or exemplary damages. . . .


The rancher was held liable for limited damages involving assault and emotional distress. Two illegal aliens were given $1,000 plus $10,000 in punitive damages each. Two more received $7,500, plus $20,000 in punitive damages each. . . . [T]he judge left out one part of instruction to the jury that should have been included, and it will be the basis of their appeal. "The law is skeptical of infliction of emotional distress because everybody gets their feelings hurt at times," he said. "So one of the requirements was that whatever is done must be so severe that the average person would be physically disabled by the distress – suffer a complete mental breakdown. The judge wouldn't put that in the instruction. That's straight Arizona law."


Also, two of the plaintiffs received $1,400, and two were awarded $1 each for assault. The term "assault" is legally applied when a person has simply put someone in fear of a harmful contact. According to the attorney, Barnett did carry a gun, but the judge did not include their self-defense argument in the instructions to the jury – another basis for appeal. All together, the illegals received only $77,804 of the $32 million they requested . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely ridiculous that they were given anything. In fact, they should have faced some sort of criminal charges themselves. And the "they didn't know they were trespassing b/c there was no sign?" I mean seriously, that is their justification, what were they just going on a friendly family walk and happened to wonder out of their country and into this guys backyard. But I think the thing that bugs me the most is that if these were US citizens they would have had no case. If Arizona has anything close to Ohio's castle law he would have been justified shooting on sight based on all the previous vandalism and attempted break-in's of his dwelling. I mean that is HIS family on HIS land and he is supposed to do nothing. Complete and udder BS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are not citizens of the USA so they do not have the same rights as an american does.


Plus they were in the act of committing a crime, so they are lucky to be alive.


If Im the rancher I would not pay them one cent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure they got a judge appointed by Clinton or Obamao.


He should counter sue for damages to his ranch and his home, and his


own family's emotional distress, fear and violation of their privacy and safety,


as well as the killing of the cows.


That way, he could get his money back.


hey, the way Obamao is doing things, the JUDGE could have been an illegal.


it's SO freakin Obamao stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't see how ANYONE can argue this. Rights are for citizens. Go through the legal steps to become a citizen like ever ones grand parents did one this board.


I don't think these illegals deserve shit, but I'll try.


The Constitution says ALL men are created equal. I don't think it says anything about needing to pass the citizenship test before you're able to enjoy those rights. I think that everyone is entitled to certain rights, however, there are a few things that make you forfeit that shit. Crossing into a border illegally should mean that you have no right to sue someone that stops you, regardless of how rude he is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you shoot someone for trespassing?


Lets ask Wiki answers... Here



Laws and regulations may differ widely in diverse states and countries. What is basic in most of them is that only when you, or other person living in the premises, is in imminent danger, shooting may be an option.



In order of priority you should:





Have clear boundaries of your property



Have, if adequate, signs warning intruders that lethal force may be applied ? not sure if that is needed in most states. check state laws.


If an intruder is found, activate a sound or light signal that will warn the intruder to leave the premises



If the intruder is not carrying a weapon as far as you can see, use a voice command indicating that you are armed (from a safe position)



Do a warning shot to the air (This alone will land you in jail in most states, that is for the movies)


If the intruder appears to be armed and engaging, shoot to the legs or other non lethal areas of the body, avoid chest, belly and head



Do not approach or shoot from a short distance and if possible keep the intruder under control at a distance until the authorities arrive.


You must keep in mind that at all times your intention must be to apply the necessary measures for having the intruder exiting the property and not to punish him/her. Force can only be used under the firm belief of imminent danger.


According to whoever wrote these answers maybe you would be better off to crawl up into a fetal position and beg for mercy. And that approach seems to be the answer coming from all the lefties in politics. They dont and Wont enforce the law, but will leave you begging and slap your hiney for obeying the law.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think these illegals deserve shit, but I'll try.


The Constitution says ALL men are created equal. I don't think it says anything about needing to pass the citizenship test before you're able to enjoy those rights. I think that everyone is entitled to certain rights, however, there are a few things that make you forfeit that shit. Crossing into a border illegally should mean that you have no right to sue someone that stops you, regardless of how rude he is.



The last time I checked, at the top of this Great document it read, The Constitution, We The People of the United States, in order....


When did foreigners become the people of the United States?



Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...