Posted on 11/24/2006 4:50:42 AM PST by King of Florida
For years, Roger Barnett has holstered a pistol to his hip, tucked an assault rifle in his truck and set out over the scrub brush on his thousands of acres of ranchland near the Mexican border in southeastern Arizona to hunt.
Hunt illegal immigrants, that is, often chronicled in the news.
“They’re flooding across, invading the place,” Mr. Barnett told the ABC program “Nightline” this spring. “They’re going to bring their families, their wives, and they’re going to bring their kids. We don’t need them.”
But now, after boasting of having captured 12,000 illegal crossers on land he owns or leases from the state and emerging as one of the earliest and most prominent of the self-appointed border watchers, Mr. Barnett finds himself the prey.
Immigrant rights groups have filed lawsuits, accusing him of harassing and unlawfully imprisoning people he has confronted on his ranch near Douglas. One suit pending in federal court accuses him, his wife and his brother of pointing guns at 16 illegal immigrants they intercepted, threatening them with dogs and kicking one woman in the group.
Another suit, accusing Mr. Barnett of threatening two Mexican-American hunters and three young children with an assault rifle and insulting them with racial epithets, ended Wednesday night in Bisbee with a jury awarding the hunters $98,750 in damages.
The court actions are the latest example of attempts by immigrant rights groups to curb armed border-monitoring groups by going after their money, if not their guns. They have won civil judgments in Texas, and this year two illegal Salvadoran immigrants who had been held against their will took possession of a 70-acre ranch in southern Arizona after winning a case last year.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I'm not a lawyer, but I'd say roughly 600 years of common law tradition permits you to collect damages from trespassers, not threaten them with force. If you wish to threaten someone with force, you'd better find firmer legal footing.
The make-up of the jury ???.......LOL... how 'bout the addresses of these 12 idiots.
Let's see if those idiots are comfortable with armed, groups of folks roaming around their property/family.
I'm not a lawyer, but I have researched this issue. Citizen's arrest laws vary greatly from state to state. Here are some relevant snippets regarding Texas law:
Under section 9.41of the Penal Code, however, the use of force may be justified to prevent or terminate a trespass. Section 9.41 provides in pertinent part:
A person in lawful possession of land . . . is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land . . . .
Texas Chapter 14 - Arrest Without a Warrant
A peace officer or any other person, may, without a warrant, arrest an offender when the offense is committed in his presence or within his view, if the offense is one classed as a felony or as an offense against the public peace.
Given the laws referenced, I think this guy is on the edge of the law by detaining at gunpoint for simple tresspass, which in most cases is a misdemeanor. If he were to ask them to leave his property immediately and they complied, he can't detain them under citizen's arrest. If they refused to comply, he could then brandish a weapon to get them to leave - however, unless their conduct rose to being a felony (such as burglary or attempting to assault him), I don't see where he could legally detain them.
Well you're obviously not a good liberal. Private property is just morally wrong. It makes the poor feel inadequate, and represents a de facto challenge to the power of the state. We just can't have that, you flaming radical.
/Marxist rant
Yep, & page 2 also reports....
"Mr. Kelliher conceded that there was a heated confrontation. But he denied that Mr. Barnett used slurs and said Ronald Morales was as much an instigator. He said Morales family members had previously trespassed on Mr. Barnett’s land and knew that Mr. Barnett required written permission to hunt there.
"previously warned".....seems like the Morales family was simply "hunting" for this lawsuit.
Activists want border-area rancher's (Barnett) lease renewal denied
Americans who are for strong borders do not need supporters such as this guy and his family, if what was stated about them is fact.
They were trespassing. That doesn't give him the right to be racist, to kick a person, nor to threaten them when they are not being threatening in turn.
NO VIGILANTEISM.
P.S. This was an attempt to politely inquire why your comment is so off, so don't get angry.
Vigilantism (vigilanteism?) is not an answer. There is probably more conversion of Anglo-Americans to Islam than Central Americans. You mention South America. The main sources of illegal immigrants are from Mexico (North America proper) and Central America (North America but often put by itself) and the Caribbean.
Wishful thinking on your part? Why exactly would there be a mass conversion of illegal aliens? That is as probable--and improbable--as a mass conversion of Americans. So your point does not make much sense.
Seeing things like this angers me. It angers me that someone who breaks the law, sues someone, wins, and receives a financial award as a result of illegal behavior. The property owner is justified in a response. Often times people respond in a way they should not, but that does not detract from the fact that what they responded to deserved a response.
In these cases the argument can be made that both parties are guilty of something. The Illegal Immigrants for crossing into the United States of America illegally and trespassing on private property. And the property owner for whatever illegal responses they conducted.
But, justice is not served by awarding Illegal Immigrants monies or properties because of what the property owner does as a response. Doing so encourages more Illegal Immigrants to chase the pot of gold. It also kicks the property owner in the gut while he’s down. He’s fighting to protect his domain from uninvited persons trespassing on his property. All Governments involved have let the property owner down, by one, not providing sufficient resources to prevent the illegal trespassing, two, by allowing illegal behavior to be rewarded, and three, by taking from the property owner, after putting him into an indefensible situation. All Governments are more responsible for the outcome of these situations than the property owner; first the Mexican Government, second the State the property owner lives, and third the United States Government. And if anyone deserves financial gain from this conflict it is the property owner, and if anyone is to pay it is these governments.
If the property owner has committed a crime, let him serve jail time, but do not allow financial gain to be gained by the Illegal Immigrants.
If you corner a rabbit, he will attack you. So when a property owner is cornered, do not be surprised or shocked by whatever response he makes. It is natural and to be expected. Only a fool would see otherwise. The first lesson that should be taken is, do not corner the property owner and the second lesson, do not reward illegal behavior.
This isn't about liberalism or private property even. If the article is correct, he went too far considering there is no mention that the trespassers were violent.
You think that they'll make racist ephithets toward you and your family, point a gun at you all, and kick one of you?
There is no vigilanteism in this story. It's made up by the Times.
Protecting oneself against illegals shouldn't even be questioned unless you agree that illegals have a right to trespass and damage your property.
He didn't unlawfully imprison people thats just so stigmatic.
It was simply an undocumented arrest ...............
Citizen's arrest? But then one party is not a citizen.....hmmmm....
Well...they don't just cross our property....they leave litter, dirty baby diapers, etc...plus steal from out-buildings, storgae sheds, hunting camps, and even kill and steal cattle..... This was once a hanging offence.
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.