Posted on 02/17/2009 2:10:34 PM PST by San Jacinto
There is a lesson here folks and that is LEARN THE LAW. Texas is a great state and we have a capital punishment express lane and the ability to concealed carry. Hell, we can even openly display shotguns in the gun rack. You can shoot folks DEAD on your property and from your car if you are responding the reasonable threat of deadly force. It has never been okay to detain people at gunpoint unless you are a deputized officer of the law. This guy broke the law. The right to keep and bear arms is poorly served by those individuals that fail to learn their rights and obligations with respect to firearms. The crap this guy pulled was covered in the first 15 minutes of the concealed handgun course. The Right to Keep and Bear arms is a powerful right. With this great power comes great responsibility. Actions like this will be used by the looney left to revoke our God given right to self defense and self-determination in government. This guy got off light IMHO.
Mine too...
As I said in a previous thread, he should leave the pickup truck at home, and cruise the property with his shotgun driving a backhoe instead.
Will the rancher appeal this or is it too dangerous?
So if someone threatens you with deadly force you can use deadly force to resist. But if you come across a lawbreaker who is not using or threatening to use deadly force you cannot use deadly force to detain them.
Makes sense, actually. Answer me this; if you have a trespasser on your property (which these people clearly are), can you threaten the use of deadly force to require them to leave (”Get off my property or I’ll shoot!”)?
I agree with you.
Time for a counter suit for losses of multiple types.
How about an ‘environmental impact’ lawsuit?
Or ‘emotional distress’ for his cattle?
The farmer should be paid 78K just for pain and suffering.
What a farce.
He has a grazing lease on 14,000 acres of state land.
It’s typical of the ‘both sides are guilty’ mentality pervasive in this country.
Once your in the legal system, you never get out.
Sounds like our legal system is becoming Mexicanized.
What I get from your argument is that he should have killed them instead. Like they say, dead men tell no tales.
This rancher wanted to keep his conscience clear by not killing them, and he received injustice instead.
Good question with a REALLY long answer. The new Castle Doctrine made it much easier to defend yourself in your home and on your property.
If Javier is in your garage with your TV on his shoulder, you can ask him to put it down and leave. If he does, you may not shoot him. If he continues to leave with your flat screen, you may drop his ass.
With respect to your question, it becomes a Mexican standoff(pun intended). You may tell him get the hell off my property or I will shoot. If he leaves, you may not shoot him. If he advances, you may shoot him. If he just stands there, hopefully your wife called 911 and the police will come haul his ass off; BUT YOU HAVE NOT DETAINED HIM AGAINST HIS WILL. Under the Castle Doctrine, you no longer are required to withdraw if you have the opportunity to get away. If the perp chooses to haul ass, the threat of deadly forces is abated and you may not shoot.
Lesson learned. Ace em next time so you don’t have to pay em.
I'm in Texas, and can verify that as a true statement.
NO, I didn’t mean to imply he should have killed them instead. Deadly force is a serious isssue. He was not defending his property. If he wanted to have the power to detain this individuals, he could become a reserve sheriff’s deputy with very little difficulty and have that right under the law as a reserve officer and help serve his community. There is more to this story......
http://www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_212206682.shtml
Original News
Published: Feb 9, 2009
Arizona Farmer Roger Barnett Sued By 16 Illegals: Gunpoint- Stops Them At Home
by Jack Ryan
An Arizona farmer who has been waging war on illegals on his properity is now being sued by 16 illegals immigrants. According to the Mexican nationals, Roger Barnett, 64, violated their civil rights when he approached them and held htme at gunpoint on his ranch near the U.S. Mexico border.
According to the Washington Times, “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. 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.”
According to reports, the 11 men and 5 women were crossing his lands to get into America. Mr. Barnett apparently stopped them at gunpoint with his large dog and threatened to shoot anyone who tried to escape and threatened to let loose the dog on them. He had his wife reportedly call the Boarder Patrol agents. These were just a few of the 12,000 illegals this man has reported to the Border Patrol in 1998.
A compromise was made. He’s not guilty but stick it to him for the money.
It’s not a leap to ask the obvious question.
There you go. They will squeeze him dry.
Maybe he should apply for a grant for environmental remediation of the damage caused by the illegals!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.