Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

So, when it comes to illegals, your property isn't your property and your government is not on your side.
1 posted on 02/10/2011 5:31:38 AM PST by La Lydia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 next last
To: La Lydia

A group of 16 can certainly overpower a man and a dog. No need for the “they were not armed defense”.


2 posted on 02/10/2011 5:37:19 AM PST by battlecry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: La Lydia

‘Barnett held them at gunpoint even after becoming aware that no one in the group of 16 men and women was armed, and so he could not use the argument of self-defense....’

16 on 1 is a cause for armed self protection.

What was the rancher suppose to do, hold a drum circle and sing kumbaya??


3 posted on 02/10/2011 5:38:58 AM PST by Le Chien Rouge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: La Lydia

While the numbers of illegal aliens crossing the ranch where we live is down, we still carry at least a side arm daily and whenever we see illegals we add at least one 12 gauge shotgun. Most illegals stop when confronted but I have had some take off running. The border patrol collects the ones who sit and wait but the runners get away for at least a while.


5 posted on 02/10/2011 5:39:13 AM PST by ammomajor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: La Lydia

I gather the issue was he kicked one woman and he was yelling and cussing and they were afraid of his dog and he was waving his gun around. Well, he shouldn’t have kicked the woman but, the yelling and cussing I can understand. He’s probably tired of it. The dog scaring them is to darned bad. He can have whatever dog he wants to, it’s a free country. Or at least it use to be. The only thing he should be charged with is kicking the woman. The other stuff needs to be dropped I don’t care if the illegals were scared or not, to bad. Stay out of our county and off private property, if your coming here illegally and you won’t be scared.


7 posted on 02/10/2011 5:41:10 AM PST by MsLady (If you died tonight, where would you go? Salvation, don't leave earth without it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: La Lydia

Let’s put those bastard so called judges on this man’s property without gun alone at night...see how threatened those cowards feel.


8 posted on 02/10/2011 5:41:19 AM PST by Wpin ("I Have Sworn Upon the Altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: La Lydia; moonshinner_09; OldNewYork; rabscuttle385; Grampa Dave; Cincinatus' Wife; AuntB; ...
They're turning the US---firmly founded on the rule of law---- into a lawless Third World hellhole. Property rights are sacrosanct.....until now. This serves to underline that illegals think Americans are dumb, that we don't know they're stealing our tax dollars AND our country out from under us and that we are scared of them.

The Arizona Rancher should use this procedure to protect his property.

In 1996, Congress expanded the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to include violations of federal immigration law.

1 While this expansion may not have received much publicity, it could potentially change the face of U.S. immigration law enforcement. Under the new RICO provisions, a violation of certain provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) meets the definition of racketeering activity, also known as a "predicate offense,"

2 and an entity that engages in a pattern of racketeering activity for financial gain can be held both criminally and civilly liable.

3 Among other things, the INA makes it unlawful to encourage illegal immigration or employ illegal aliens,

4 which violations were included as predicate offenses under RICO.

The 1996 law changes in the INA made hiring illegal aliens a predicate act of racketeering activity under RICO, but illegal hiring wasn’t the only violation of the INA made a predicate act. Other INA prohibitions made RICO predicate acts were encouraging or inducing illegal immigration, smuggling, and harboring illegal aliens.10 Together, these additions make the RICO Act potentially a very strong new tool in the hands of private parties against persons and companies that profit by violating U.S. immigration law.

Additionally, the RICO provision regarding the unlawful encouragement of illegal immigration could justify a suit against a private entity, such as a bank, that accepts foreign-issued identification cards that are only needed by illegal aliens. One example of this, of course, is the matricula consular issued by the Mexican consulates in the United States.

Since both the supporters of the matricula and those who oppose its acceptance agree that only illegal aliens have need to rely on the card, acceptance of the card knowingly encourages illegal immigration. Part of the legislative intent of the RICO laws in general was to afford private citizens a remedy for lawbreaking when authorities normally charged with such enforcement became derelict in their duties.

For example, in a town in which political corruption and racketeering activity have combined to the detriment of law-abiding citizens and the rule of law, the RICO Act was intended to provide private citizens the ability to initiate court action to compel enforcement and respect for the law.

10 posted on 02/10/2011 5:47:26 AM PST by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: La Lydia

“But the court said that Barnett held them at gunpoint even after becoming aware that no one in the group of 16 men and women was armed, and so he could not use the argument of self-defense....”

How did he “become aware” of that? No No Senior. No weapons here. We are all American ceetizens out for a walk.


11 posted on 02/10/2011 5:48:49 AM PST by Conan the Conservative (Crush the liberals, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of the hippies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: La Lydia
16 property invaders don't need a gun to kill one man. One man needs a gun to defend himself against 16.

The world is upside-down.

Welcome to Aztlan.


12 posted on 02/10/2011 5:50:48 AM PST by Travis McGee (EnemiesForeignAndDomestic is now on Kindle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: La Lydia

He captured foreign agents invading our nation. He should have gotten a medal


13 posted on 02/10/2011 5:53:00 AM PST by SECURE AMERICA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: La Lydia
Not that I've ever been faced with the situation but I doubt that I could defend myself against a group of 16 unarmed even if they were 13 year olds, unless I had a gun. (The great equalizer).
17 posted on 02/10/2011 6:01:27 AM PST by Graybeard58 (Of course Obama loves his country. The thing is, Sarah loves mine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: La Lydia

But it’s a good thing that Sarah Palin and other republican leaders are so passionate about defending ordinary Americans in such cases... /s


18 posted on 02/10/2011 6:02:11 AM PST by LastNorwegian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: La Lydia

After the Ninth Circuit Court’s ruling, MALDEF released a statement that said: “Today’s ruling sends the strong message that “vigilantes will not be tolerated in Arizona.”

I guess that means that only people breaking the law are tolerated.


20 posted on 02/10/2011 6:03:40 AM PST by buggy02 (Never take life seriously, nobody gets out alive anyway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: La Lydia

Good for him!!!! This judgment was really insane....


21 posted on 02/10/2011 6:04:18 AM PST by SumProVita (Cogito, ergo...Sum Pro Vita. (Modified Decartes))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: La Lydia

Hopefully this will lead to more victims like this rancher reverting to the “shoot, shovel and STFU” method of dealing with property violence committed by illegals.


23 posted on 02/10/2011 6:06:10 AM PST by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: La Lydia

“”The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals last week upheld a lower court verdict ordering Barnett to pay the damages for the 2004 incident””

Wasn’t the judge in the lower court the judge who was killed in Tucson at the same time the congresswoman was shot?


26 posted on 02/10/2011 6:07:06 AM PST by Thank You Rush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: La Lydia

Wow!

Once, when I was a kid, I was trespassing on Old Mr. Williams’ farm and he approached me with his dog and his shotgun and told me he would shoot me with rock-salt if he saw me on his property again.

I never considered suing him, I just (quickly) left his property and never trespassed there again...

...and hoped he didn’t tell my parents.

To this day, for some reason, the song ‘Mr. Charlie’ always makes me think of that old man...


28 posted on 02/10/2011 6:10:36 AM PST by WayneS (Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. -- James Madison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: La Lydia

The judge needs to be arrested.


30 posted on 02/10/2011 6:19:59 AM PST by Monterrosa-24 (...even more American than a French bikini and a Russian AK-47.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: La Lydia

Shoot, shovel and shut up.

That will be the result if he is forced to pay the invaders; the next guy will know what he’s up against and act accordingly.


31 posted on 02/10/2011 6:20:02 AM PST by JimRed (Excising a cancer before it kills us waters the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS, NOW AND FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: La Lydia
1:16 is justification enough to arm yourself.

Stuff like this makes my blood boil.

36 posted on 02/10/2011 6:30:56 AM PST by Dead Corpse (III%. The last line in the sand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: La Lydia

“.....But the court said that Barnett held them at gunpoint even after becoming aware that no one in the group of 16 men and women was armed, and so he could not use the argument of self-defense....”

Fer cryin’ out loud there were 16 of them.


40 posted on 02/10/2011 7:36:31 AM PST by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists, call 'em what you will, they ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson