A group of 16 can certainly overpower a man and a dog. No need for the “they were not armed defense”.
‘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??
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.
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.
Let’s put those bastard so called judges on this man’s property without gun alone at night...see how threatened those cowards feel.
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 wasnt 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.
“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.
The world is upside-down.
Welcome to Aztlan.
He captured foreign agents invading our nation. He should have gotten a medal
But it’s a good thing that Sarah Palin and other republican leaders are so passionate about defending ordinary Americans in such cases... /s
After the Ninth Circuit Courts 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.
Good for him!!!! This judgment was really insane....
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.
“”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?
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...
The judge needs to be arrested.
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.
Stuff like this makes my blood boil.
“.....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.