Jury says rancher didn't violate migrants' rights

Associated press ^ | 02/17/2009 | Arthur H, Rotstein

[CindyDawg]

I would say that he had good reason to believe he could have been harmed. I really believe that we should have a law, that regardless of actions of the owner that if you are in the process of committing a crime that all you can file are criminal charges...never civil.

That said, the rancher should sue the backers here for damages from the charges he was cleared on.

[hiredhand]

This posting will probably get pulled. Before I even write this, I need to give somewhat a disclaimer and state that I personally would NOT condone nor suggest that somebody employ the tactics which I'm going to outline. They're probably a bad idea, and immoral at best. The only reason I think this way is because of a "job" that I used to have within the DoD.

Here's the scenario... Our nation is perceived as being under attack. For all intents and purposes we have an open border to the south, and just across that border is a well armed and violent group who is salivating at the prospect at our leftist administration who lacks the fortitude to do anything which will really prevent them from coming here. Now granted, drug cartels and their members aren't normal people by any stretch of the imagination. However, this tactic which I'm going to outline would have the same effect no matter whether they be drug cartel members, or just illegals looking for a job.

Eventually though, U.S. citizens along the border will realize that we've all been abandoned by those who are charged with keeping watch over the nation's security, and eventually they'll have to choose whether or not they're going to take this responsibility upon themselves through effective means. If they don't, then they have to live with the consequences. But if they do, they're up against a legal system and a bureaucracy which has NOT been kind to them. It's a rather difficult position to be in as a responsible citizen.

Most people have heard the term "throw away gun". But most associate it with a gun you use for personal protection and then throw away. They think of it in terms of being a last ditch personal security measure, just before discarding it. But there's another darker use, sometimes known better to the law enforcement community. The type I'm referring to is the type that's suddenly found on a suspect, whereas it probably wasn't there before. That's because it is PLANTED on him at his arrest. The same can be done with drugs.

What would a jury have to say to a rancher who was alone on the backside of thousands of acres except for being accompanied by a single unarmed ranch hand, and having a rifle, (say a Ruger Mini-14, or an AR-15) who killed 18 or 20 illegals because he panicked when one of them shot at him at close range? What if afterwards during the ensuing law enforcement investigation, a fired handgun was found with one of the deceased, and not only were his paw prints on the weapon, but the spare magazine was in his pocket? What if the ranch hand with him at the time corraborated his recount. I'm just asking! WHAT IF!? For that matter, what if they found many fired handguns? Let's really screw with the politically correct crowd and make at least one handgun a TEC-9...an assault weapon!...by definition of the morons who make laws against such amoral items.

I'll tell you what if... Word would spread like wildfire amongst those who want illegally cross our borders at that particular area to AVOID IT LIKE THE PLAGUE.

I know you're probably thinking I'm some sort of nut job. But I'm not. I'm a former info-warfare technician though, and we aren't known for thinking like everybody else. I fully realize that I've possibly suggested premeditated murder, as well as conspiracy to commit. I won't comment on how this stacks up against the systematic disassembling of our Republic by a tyrannous and lofty few. In fact, I would ask the question...is it murder? Or is it an act of war? It's a good question! I don't have an answer!

They would probably still haul the francher through court, but it's much more cut and dry with the scenario which I've outlined above, as opposed to threatening them with the deadly weapon and letting them go, only to return later with a lawyer to drag the rancher through the very system which should be protecting him!

Anyway...people use the term, shoot, shovel, and shut up. It's not quite that simple, but using a throw away gun as I've mentioned IS a possible means of realistically implementing it.

[JamesA]

He may pay his atty. and court costs but the rest...let them collect!

[wastedyears]

[The Anti-One]

It won't be long before some of these ranchers start applying the "Three S" rule.

Hear! Hear! There are a lot of scrub oaks on his ranch that could use some fertilizer. I've even seen some starving Cotton Woods.

[HattonFarmer]

As one who lived there, in neighboring Santa Cruz county, the three ‘S’ rule is good in theory but something of a challenge in real life. We saw groups of illegals almost daily, ranging up to 70 or more at a time. While we had sufficient armament, we did not have enough time to get them all concealed. We lived on a rather remote ranch and had the Border Patrol on cell phone speed dial (no land line to the ranch) so we could let them know another batch was on hand to collect. Their usual response time was about an hour. We do not miss that aspect of life in southern Arizona at all, though on some of our colder winter days here in ND we sometimes fondly recall the warmth.

[wolfcreek]

Thanks Ben! Long time, no hear from.

[Don Corleone]

So now a burglar or robber can sue the victim.

Isn't that what Obama and his cohorts are doing to us?

[wolfcreek]

I was wondering if anyone picked up on that. LOL!

[San Jacinto]

If the trespassers appeal, he may as well file a counter-appeal. Otherwise, I bet he lets it lie.

[HiJinx]

Ping!

[SandRat]

I love it when the good guys win.

[PGalt]

Pure unadulterated BS.

BUMP!

[MinuteGal]

The linguini-spined jury obviously felt it would be wracked by feelings of guilt if it ruled against either the defendant or the plaintiffs.......so it decided to take the easy way out by punishing both sides.

(Actually, the truth of the matter is that the jury members didn't want to return home after the trial to find their homes had been doused with tequila and destroyed by fire).

Leni

[HiJinx]

I'd get a private force to engage the illegals and drug runners.

IMO, wolfcreek, that's a non-starter. But I haven't lived through what Roger has.

Well, Hatton, do you think that's feasible for Roger to attempt? You cited 70 per day in your experience. Do you think 'a private force' would be treated by the public any differently than the Minutemen who were here in Cochise County a couple of years ago?

[Freedom2specul8]

Indeed, but then our govt picks up drugs smuggles, dumps them back into mexico..and the same smugglers are back the next week.

It’s like trying to deal with addicts. Ya can’t rationalize with the irrational.

[Regulator]

and MALDEF will not leave him alone after this

You know, I'm serious about a suggestion I made recently: we should find out who the MALDEF lawyers, supporters or cutouts are and stage protests on their property. Take 20, 30 people and willfully trespass. When they come out screaming or flashing weapons (don't worry, they will), then go after them the same way.

As I pointed out on another thread....property is all they really care about in that culture. They sure as hell won't stand for trespassers. What does everyone think the wrought iron bars and fences are about?

Sue them for emotional distress. If they call you "gringo", add a racism charge.

[Regulator]

And note this:

All six plaintiffs are citizens of Mexico, five of whom are living in the United States with visa applications pending, and the sixth resides in Mexico but was allowed into the U.S. for the trial, said Nina Perales, an attorney with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. She declined to say where in the U.S. they're residing.

So Mr. Barnett was sued by people who a) only are allowed to live in the U.S. because the court decided to let this sham go forward (anyone can submit a visa application. It's a meaningless comment that has nothing to do with them being here), b) a felon who sensibly stays in Mexico (I'm assuming that's who the one in Mexico is - the Marshall's service would probably be waiting for him as he left the courtroom otherwise), and c) people who apparently have no known residence, other than "in the U.S." - and that only temporarily (they probably want his appeal to go on forever - that way their temp visas stay in force).

What can we all say about a judge who goes along with this?

Not much that has any respect.

[cbkaty]

shoot, shovel, and shut up

The worms & buzzards have to eat too....Warn, demand retreat, if necessary, shoot and shut up.....this is now a war.

[longtermmemmory]

if the rancher can afford to post an appeal bond, the punative shoudl be reduced on appeal.

MOST punatives are reduced on appeal.

The judge may save us time by doing that.

I JUST PRAY there is no award of attorney’s fees against the rancher.

starve the immigration activist lawyers and these cases go away.