Skip to comments.
Ranchers Sued by Civil Rights Group
Associated Press ^
| Dec 10, 2003
| Arthur H. Rotstein
Posted on 12/10/2003 8:04:34 PM PST by AnimalLover
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 241-249 next last
To: rudy45
None whatsoever.
To: rudy45
Ignore my last post. It sounds like the Barnetts patrol their own ranch, then later went onto Mackenzie's property. I'm OK with the former, but have some reservations about the latter.
My question for those opposed to the patrols still stands: as long as the patrols stay on their own property, or on property to which they were invited, and as long as they stay within the law, what objections do you have?
42
posted on
12/10/2003 9:02:00 PM PST
by
rudy45
To: AnimalLover
Is it radical to think the thoughts I think when I see articles like this???
43
posted on
12/10/2003 9:02:42 PM PST
by
Porterville
(No communist or french)
To: Cultural Jihad
False-imprisonmentWhere does the so called false imprisonment come from?
To: rudy45
The article is unclear, but I read it to mean that the Barnetts own their own 22,000 acre ranch, but also trespass onto other people's property and commit felony false-imprisonments.
To: Cultural Jihad
Thanks for the reply. I take it then that you do support patrolling the borders, as long as the patrols stay within the law. What is the reason for using terms such as "knuckle dragging" and "goons"? They sound unnecessarily inflammatory.
46
posted on
12/10/2003 9:04:22 PM PST
by
rudy45
To: rudy45
Scratch the second term, I'm sorry I was wrong about the use of the term "goon." But why use the term "knuckle dragging?"
47
posted on
12/10/2003 9:05:51 PM PST
by
rudy45
To: org.whodat
From the article: "Allen said Roger and Donald Barnett detained a group of 30 undocumented immigrants on Mackenzie's ranch." Detaining people without valid cause is false-imprisonment. The 'evidence' was probably having brown skin, and that constitutes a violation of their civil rights.
To: rudy45
Uh oh, now you have me thinking. Suppose the Barnetts are on their own property. Now they see a group of illegals on someone else's property. All of a sudden one person in the group of illegals starts attacking another person in the group.
Should the Barnetts respect private property and allow the attack to continue? Or should they trespass and stop the attack and protect the victim?
49
posted on
12/10/2003 9:08:35 PM PST
by
rudy45
To: rudy45; Cultural Jihad
Uh oh, now you have me thinking. Suppose the Barnetts are on their own property. Now they see a group of illegals on someone else's property. All of a sudden one person in the group of illegals starts attacking another person in the group.
Should the Barnetts respect private property and allow the attack to continue? Or should they trespass and stop the attack and protect the victim?
50
posted on
12/10/2003 9:08:57 PM PST
by
rudy45
To: Cultural Jihad
No, I meant the
knuckle-dragging part.
5.56mm
51
posted on
12/10/2003 9:09:38 PM PST
by
M Kehoe
To: Pitchfork
The Summerland Monastery should be charged, too. Transporting (or conspiracy to transport) illegal aliens.
Fat chance that will ever happen.
52
posted on
12/10/2003 9:09:39 PM PST
by
scan58
To: rudy45
What property owners do to prevent illegal trespassing on thier property is entirely their own business as long as they observe the laws of the state and treat the intruders properly (and humanely).
However, no one has yet addressed the issue of impersonating federal agents for which felony charges apply.
To: Pitchfork
If Mr Mackenzie wishes his livestock stolen or killed for food, his women raped, and himself beaten and eventually murdered, thats his right. And more power to em.
They shouldn't have been on his land and if they were they were wrong.
"Allen said Roger and Donald Barnett detained a group of 30 undocumented immigrants on Mackenzie's ranch.
Mackenzie said he initially thought Roger Barnett was a Border Patrol agent because of his weaponry and clothing, including a cap that said "U.S. Border Patrol."
Mackenzie said in talking with them, he discovered the Barnetts were not federal agents but did not challenge their presence or report them later. He said he never gave the Barnetts permission to enter the property."
It's hearsay at this moment. We only have one side of the story.
For my part, I am going to give these people the benefit of the doubt, because they deserve it.
This looks like a fishing expedition by the Pro-illegals groups and this landowner. They've been bleating about going after the patrollers for months, maybe they found someone to play ball with em? Most of these groups have seen the trouble these pro-illegals have been stirring up and promising, I doubt, I could be wrong, that they would do something like this, and if they did, it was only trespassing to effect a citizens arrest.
Instead of automatically believing a pro-illegal agenda driven law-yer representing people who advocate the breaking of laws, try supporting someone who is defending our borders.
54
posted on
12/10/2003 9:11:26 PM PST
by
Stopislamnow
(Islam-Founded by Evil, and thriving on death. Just like the modern democrats)
To: rudy45
I believe the laws in Arizona state that if you see a crime in progress in your neighbor's yard you do not need permission to effect a citizen's arrest on the neighbor's property. But the vigilantes did not witness a crime. They witnessed brown-skinned people. Having brown skin is not a crime in Arizona.
To: Pitchfork
Ask them in for tea perhaps?
56
posted on
12/10/2003 9:15:53 PM PST
by
herewego
To: Stopislamnow
Benefit of the doubt> About what? The Barnetts were on his land, they were armed, they have been doing this for years--what's in dispute? Simply because you agree with their political views you're willing to overlook felony offenses? So much for the 'rule of law'! Heck, let's just make you a magistrate and you can rule on offenders according to whether you like and agree with their beliefs and politics. Oh, wait, we had that once, it was called King George's colonial government!
To: Stopislamnow
... it was only trespassing to effect a citizens arrest.
Needless to say, you have no idea what constitutes a lawful citizen's arrest in Arizona. One who belly-aches about illegal misdemeanor immigration should not be an advocate of felony false-imprisonment, nor for that matter of felony cold-blooded murder and conspiracy.
To: AnimalLover
Why write to Tom Ridge? He wants to legalize 12 million or so ILLEGALS soon. Just to clean up their paperwork and for no other reason.
59
posted on
12/10/2003 9:21:05 PM PST
by
Beck_isright
(So if Canada and France are our "allies" in the war on terror, does this make surrender imminent?)
To: scan58
If anything that the monestary was doing was illegal then yes. IF they were taking money to transport them or if they knew about the movements and failed to report the illegal activity, then yes they should be prosecuted. However, we've yet to pass a law stating that owners of property on federal borders were required to enforce US immigration statutes.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 241-249 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson