AZ rancher being sued by "Illegals"

[trublue 939]

What do you think......????? Is he within his rights......or should "pc" prevail??????

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/09/16-illegals-sue-arizona-rancher/

[QUICKSTER 10]

they cant sue him they arent citizens its bull and will never pass he may get a warning at most but he has the right to defend his property

[Pirate1 10]

Completely within his rights, and it's pretty disgraceful that he's in a position to have to do that by himself.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

Sorry, guys:

 

Yes, they can sue him under Arizona law. To prevent trespassing, one must use force proportional to the force being used by the trespassers. Stopping the illegals at gunpoint has time and again been ruled excessive force by state (and with regards to civil rights, federal) courts. This man likely faces tortious charges of assault and false imprisonment (if sued), or the criminal equivalent if a conviction is pending.

 

It's a freaking shame, too. Should this be the case? Of course not. But your friends on the Supreme Court and the liberal presidents who placed them there have decided that it's a fabulous idea to grant habeas corpus to non-citizens and illegals. They certainly won't get the full $32M, but they'll make enough to ship it back to Mexico and make their relatives rich.

[Pirate1 10]

Wow, didn't know that at all. Thanks Observer. When did they decide to grant habeas corpus to illegals?

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

Wow, didn't know that at all. Thanks Observer. When did they decide to grant habeas corpus to illegals?

 

If you think that's bad the u.s. could very well have 25 million illegals with voting rights before the 2012 election, mostly democratic registered to. Unfortunately I'm not being sarcastic either.....

.....

[Deleted Account 5,203]

Wow, didn't know that at all. Thanks Observer. When did they decide to grant habeas corpus to illegals?

 

The idea first surfaced in dicta in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, even though Hamdi was an American citizen. The doctrine took its form in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, as Hamdan was not an American citizen, and he successfully got habeas. It should be noted that Hamdi is merely a plurality decision (4 subscriptions to the main opinion), whereas Hamdan is barely a majority opinion (5 subscriptions to the main opinion).

 

Goes to show you just how powerful the Supreme Court actually is. Decisions like these affect everyday life. And I guarantee you both of these will be decided when this opinion comes down from the Arizona district from which it is assigned.

[BigD4VT 11]

But your friends on the Supreme Court and the liberal presidents who placed them there have decided that it's a fabulous idea to grant habeas corpus to non-citizens and illegals.

 

Only two members of the Supreme Court were nominated by a democratic president...

 

Ford - 1

Reagan - 3

G.H.W. Bush - 2

Clinton - 2

G.W. Bush - 1

[Deleted Account 5,203]

Only two members of the Supreme Court were nominated by a democratic president...

 

Ford - 1

Reagan - 3

G.H.W. Bush - 2

Clinton - 2

G.W. Bush - 1

 

I stand corrected in that regard.

 

But notice the trend of how Supreme Court nominees weren't nominated as much by policitial ideology until right around Clinton's term. Also notice how Clinton's two appointees, Ginsburg and Breyer, were passed by nearly unanimous margins (97-3 and 90-9). And also notice how the three closest confirmation votes among our Supreme Court justices were for the rock-ribbed conservatives: 52-48 for Thomas; 58-42 for Alito; 78-22 for Roberts.

 

But it'll be all but factual once Ginsburg (pancreatic cancer), Stevens (849 years old), and Kennedy step down during Obama's term. It's almost an ironclad lock for the first two, and Kennedy's a 50/50 shot to step down.

Edited February 10, 2009 by UVAObserver

[QUICKSTER 10]

that is ridiculous

[trublue 939]

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Security/Default.aspx?id=424464

 

Rancher not guilty of violating illegal aliens' civil rights

Chad Groening - OneNewsNow - 2/19/2009 5:45:00 AM

 

An immigration reform attorney doubts that four illegal aliens will be able to collect any of the money awarded them by a federal jury in a lawsuit against an American rancher who detained them on his property.

 

Border enforcement advocate Mike Hethmon says the case was a real victory for his client Roger Barnett. The jury in Tucson ruled that Barnett did not violate the civil rights of six illegal immigrants who claimed he detained them at gunpoint on his ranch in 2004. The eight-member panel also ruled that the rancher was not liable on claims of battery and false imprisonment. But the jury did find Barnett liable on four claims of assault and four claims of emotional distress, and ordered him to pay $77,804 in damages, $60,000 of which were punitive.

 

Hethmon is general counsel of the Immigration Reform Law Institute, which represented Barnett. He says the case was a huge setback for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, or MALDEF, which represented the illegal aliens.

 

"All in all it was a real victory for folks who have been greatly concerned about the illegal alien advocacy groups' attempts to intimidate private citizens like the Barnetts," he points out. "It's also, we believe, a big setback for the Mexican government, which we discovered was clearly involved in this case."

 

It is very unlikely, Hethmon believes, that the plaintiffs will actually receive anything. "There are numerous legal grounds for objecting to the way that this emotional distress claim was presented to the jury," he contends. "In any case, the Arizona constitution prohibits the award of punitive damages to illegal aliens."

 

Hethmon says by rejecting the claims that the Barnetts violated the plaintiffs' civil rights, the jury provided family members the opportunity to seek full recovery of attorneys' fees.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Security/Default.aspx?id=424464

 

Rancher not guilty of violating illegal aliens' civil rights

Chad Groening - OneNewsNow - 2/19/2009 5:45:00 AM

 

An immigration reform attorney doubts that four illegal aliens will be able to collect any of the money awarded them by a federal jury in a lawsuit against an American rancher who detained them on his property.

 

Border enforcement advocate Mike Hethmon says the case was a real victory for his client Roger Barnett. The jury in Tucson ruled that Barnett did not violate the civil rights of six illegal immigrants who claimed he detained them at gunpoint on his ranch in 2004. The eight-member panel also ruled that the rancher was not liable on claims of battery and false imprisonment. But the jury did find Barnett liable on four claims of assault and four claims of emotional distress, and ordered him to pay $77,804 in damages, $60,000 of which were punitive.

 

Hethmon is general counsel of the Immigration Reform Law Institute, which represented Barnett. He says the case was a huge setback for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, or MALDEF, which represented the illegal aliens.

 

"All in all it was a real victory for folks who have been greatly concerned about the illegal alien advocacy groups' attempts to intimidate private citizens like the Barnetts," he points out. "It's also, we believe, a big setback for the Mexican government, which we discovered was clearly involved in this case."

 

It is very unlikely, Hethmon believes, that the plaintiffs will actually receive anything. "There are numerous legal grounds for objecting to the way that this emotional distress claim was presented to the jury," he contends. "In any case, the Arizona constitution prohibits the award of punitive damages to illegal aliens."

 

Hethmon says by rejecting the claims that the Barnetts violated the plaintiffs' civil rights, the jury provided family members the opportunity to seek full recovery of attorneys' fees.

 

Thanks for the update in this case.

 

That's sort of a mixed bag as far as a verdict goes, TBH. It doesn't surprise me that he was found guilty of assault; I'd even agree with that. However, it shocks me as odd that he was found guilty on claims of emotional distress; in tort law, emotional distress is an incredibly hard, and I can't state that enough, standard to prove. I think the jury was in error there, just like the defense counsel, and I'm about 99.99% certain that verdict will get overturned on appeal.

 

But I'm thrilled to see that the civil rights claims weren't upheld. I think defense counsel said it perfectly: it's an attempt to intimidate citizens.

[bucfan64 309]

This very rancher was on Glenn Beck the other night, it cost him 77,000 dollars after the case was over. I am not sure if that was damages to the plaintiffs or attorney fees, but either way that is ridiculous

[Deleted Account 5,203]

This very rancher was on Glenn Beck the other night, it cost him 77,000 dollars after the case was over. I am not sure if that was damages to the plaintiffs or attorney fees, but either way that is ridiculous

 

That's a shame, but he'll get that back on appeal. IIED is unbelievably hard to prove. There have been cases where one spouse was murdered in plain sight of the other, and the widower STILL lost an IIED claim.

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

Thanks for the update in this case.

 

That's sort of a mixed bag as far as a verdict goes, TBH. It doesn't surprise me that he was found guilty of assault; I'd even agree with that. However, it shocks me as odd that he was found guilty on claims of emotional distress; in tort law, emotional distress is an incredibly hard, and I can't state that enough, standard to prove. I think the jury was in error there, just like the defense counsel, and I'm about 99.99% certain that verdict will get overturned on appeal.

 

But I'm thrilled to see that the civil rights claims weren't upheld. I think defense counsel said it perfectly: it's an attempt to intimidate citizens.

 

 

how was there any assault in what he did?

[Deleted Account 5,203]

how was there any assault in what he did?

 

In tort law, assault is (1) acting intentionally/voluntarily (2) causing the reasonable apprehension (3) of an immediate harmful or offensive contact. This isn't exactly the definition which an Average Joe would give to assault, true. It's also strikingly different than battery.

 

From the original article:

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.

 

Going element by element:

1. Acting voluntarily/unvoluntarily. He approached them, called out to them, mentioned his displeasure at them; one can infer intent here. This standard is satisfied.

2. Reasonable apprehension. He had a loaded gun and a dog, held them at gunpoint, told them he would shoot or turn his dog on them. This standard is satisfied.

3. Immediate harmful/offensive contact. Dog bites are harmful. Bullet wounds are harmful. Both would've happened on-site. This standard is satisfied.

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

In tort law, assault is (1) acting intentionally/voluntarily (2) causing the reasonable apprehension (3) of an immediate harmful or offensive contact. This isn't exactly the definition which an Average Joe would give to assault, true. It's also strikingly different than battery.

 

From the original article:

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.

 

Going element by element:

1. Acting voluntarily/unvoluntarily. He approached them, called out to them, mentioned his displeasure at them; one can infer intent here. This standard is satisfied.

2. Reasonable apprehension. He had a loaded gun and a dog, held them at gunpoint, told them he would shoot or turn his dog on them. This standard is satisfied.

3. Immediate harmful/offensive contact. Dog bites are harmful. Bullet wounds are harmful. Both would've happened on-site. This standard is satisfied.

 

only questioning because I hadn't read the details, but based on that, on his property I wouldn't consider that assault, a person would have to take the upperhand in such a situation and be forceful, against those numbers, otherwise they'd be in more danger.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

only questioning because I hadn't read the details, but based on that, on his property I wouldn't consider that assault, a person would have to take the upperhand in such a situation and be forceful, against those numbers, otherwise they'd be in more danger.

 

No problem, I understand. Assault's one of those terms that has an interesting legal definition. Battery is more along the lines of what we'd consider assault in everyday speak.

 

And that's an argument I'm sure the defense made: that there were strength in numbers. But if the illegals didn't have equal deadly force compared to the rancher, then his case is pretty much shot. This is reminiscent of a line of cases called "spring gun" cases, where someone sets a loaded gun as a booby trap to either scare away/harm the burglars. And in every case I've seen (oddly enough, most of them originate from the southwest and out of these same issues), it's went the way of the burglar.