[CRoss]

This is just ridiculous.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/09/16-illegals-sue-arizona-rancher/

An Arizona man who has waged a 10-year campaign to stop a flood of illegal immigrants from crossing his property is being sued by 16 Mexican nationals who accuse him of conspiring to violate their civil rights when he stopped them at gunpoint on his ranch on the U.S.-Mexico border.

Roger Barnett, 64, began rounding up illegal immigrants in 1998 and turning them over to the U.S. Border Patrol, he said, after they destroyed his property, killed his calves and broke into his home.

His Cross Rail Ranch near Douglas, Ariz., is known by federal and county law enforcement authorities as "the avenue of choice" for immigrants seeking to enter the United States illegally.

Trial continues Monday in the federal lawsuit, which seeks $32 million in actual and punitive damages for civil rights violations, the infliction of emotional distress and other crimes. Also named are Mr. Barnett's wife, Barbara, his brother, Donald, and Larry Dever, sheriff in Cochise County, Ariz., where the Barnetts live. The civil trial is expected to continue until Friday.

The lawsuit is based on a March 7, 2004, incident in a dry wash on the 22,000-acre ranch, when he approached a group of illegal immigrants while carrying a gun and accompanied by a large dog.

Attorneys for the immigrants - five women and 11 men who were trying to cross illegally into the United States - have accused Mr. Barnett of holding the group captive at gunpoint, threatening to turn his dog loose on them and saying he would shoot anyone who tried to escape.

The immigrants are represented at trial by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), which also charged that Sheriff Dever did nothing to prevent Mr. Barnett from holding their clients at "gunpoint, yelling obscenities at them and kicking one of the women."

In the lawsuit, MALDEF said Mr. Barnett approached the group as the immigrants moved through his property, and that he was carrying a pistol and threatening them in English and Spanish. At one point, it said, Mr. Barnett's dog barked at several of the women and he yelled at them in Spanish, "My dog is hungry and he's hungry for buttocks."

The lawsuit said he then called his wife and two Border Patrol agents arrived at the site. It also said Mr. Barnett acknowledged that he had turned over 12,000 illegal immigrants to the Border Patrol since 1998.

In March, U.S. District Judge John Roll rejected a motion by Mr. Barnett to have the charges dropped, ruling there was sufficient evidence to allow the matter to be presented to a jury. Mr. Barnett's attorney, David Hardy, had argued that illegal immigrants did not have the same rights as U.S. citizens.

Mr. Barnett told The Washington Times in a 2002 interview that he began rounding up illegal immigrants after they started to vandalize his property, northeast of Douglas along Arizona Highway 80. He said the immigrants tore up water pumps, killed calves, destroyed fences and gates, stole trucks and broke into his home.

Some of his cattle died from ingesting the plastic bottles left behind by the immigrants, he said, adding that he installed a faucet on an 8,000-gallon water tank so the immigrants would stop damaging the tank to get water.

Mr. Barnett said some of the ranch´s established immigrant trails were littered with trash 10 inches deep, including human waste, used toilet paper, soiled diapers, cigarette packs, clothes, backpacks, empty 1-gallon water bottles, chewing-gum wrappers and aluminum foil - which supposedly is used to pack the drugs the immigrant smugglers give their "clients" to keep them running.

He said he carried a pistol during his searches for the immigrants and had a rifle in his truck "for protection" against immigrant and drug smugglers, who often are armed.

ASSOCIATED PRESS DEFENDANT: Roger Barnett said he had turned over 12,000 illegal immigrants to the Border Patrol since 1998.

A former Cochise County sheriff´s deputy who later was successful in the towing and propane business, Mr. Barnett spent $30,000 on electronic sensors, which he has hidden along established trails on his ranch. He searches the ranch for illegal immigrants in a pickup truck, dressed in a green shirt and camouflage hat, with his handgun and rifle, high-powered binoculars and a walkie-talkie.

His sprawling ranch became an illegal-immigration highway when the Border Patrol diverted its attention to several border towns in an effort to take control of the established ports of entry. That effort moved the illegal immigrants to the remote areas of the border, including the Cross Rail Ranch.

"This is my land. I´m the victim here," Mr. Barnett said. "When someone´s home and loved ones are in jeopardy and the government seemingly can´t do anything about it, I feel justified in taking matters into my own hands. And I always watch my back."

 

[jonKranked]

This just boggles my mind.

What kills me is that he's probably more effective than the border patrol.

 

[jimmydean]

He should hire them to build a fence.

 

[CRoss]

He should hire them to build a fence.

Thats great!

 

[ohio]

Need MikeD to pipe up, but I can't imagine this will hold up. First of all, as non-citizen's the defense attorney is right, that they aren't subject to the same rights and protections as a US citizen. Second, even if they were citizens it strikes me that his actions are not unreasonable in the case of trespassing and vandalism, possibly with the exception of him kicking one woman, but that is an assault case not a civil one.

I'm wondering if the judge allowed this through in order to establish precedent for self-defense of property from non-citizens or to create a media situation.

 

[Arkayne]

this is one of the few times i repost a pic. it just works so well

 

[JohnE]

...First of all, as non-citizen's the defense attorney is right, that they aren't subject to the same rights and protections as a US citizen....

Agreed.
Someday someone will explain to me why/how non US nationals feel they are given rigths under the US Constitution. In the old days there was a term for these peoples...invaders. Whe should endeavour to scatter their pathways with skeletons of prior transgressors, disguise not the miserable circumstances under which they perished...

 

[sanjuro]

He should hire them to build a fence.

Hire? Hello! You don't need to pay when you have a big enough gun....

 

[Silver]

Agreed.
Someday someone will explain to me why/how non US nationals feel they are given rigths under the US Constitution.

You do realize you're making a Dick Cheney argument there, right?

 

[ohio]

You do realize you're making a Dick Cheney argument there, right?

And he is technically correct, just so morally, diplomatically and strategically wrong it's appalling.

 

[Silver]

And he is technically correct, just so morally, diplomatically and strategically wrong it's appalling.

The Supreme Court disagrees.

You're making the fairly radical assertion that only US citizens should have standing in US courts, I think. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[jonKranked]

Ok, let me get this straight. They're suing him for $32 MILLION???? I'd be willing to bet that there aren't enough pesos in the world to try and exchange that.

 

[ohio]

The Supreme Court disagrees.

You're making the fairly radical assertion that only US citizens should have standing in US courts, I think. Correct me if I'm wrong.

No, I'm making the not-so-radical assertion that non-citizens don't have equal standing in courts.

Guantanamo is also different the US government specifically brought them onto US soil and into our legal (or extralegal) system.

 

[JohnE]

You do realize you're making a Dick Cheney argument there, right?

Shoot me for agreeing with Satan, not for making sense.

 

[JohnE]

No, I'm making the not-so-radical assertion that non-citizens don't have equal standing in courts.

Guantanamo is also different the US government specifically brought them onto US soil and into our legal (or extralegal) system.

Ironic that the very system the guys at Gitmo want to bring down and destroy, is the very system that is fighting for their rights under itself.

 

[Silver]

No, I'm making the not-so-radical assertion that non-citizens don't have equal standing in courts.

Of course they don't. Citizens can't be deported, for one...

Ignoring Guantanamo for a second, you do seem to be arguing that non citizens shouldn't have standing to bring civil rights lawsuits in the US. Oui?

You do realize the potential for gross misconduct hiding behind that assertion? And you can't even argue slippery slope, because we're already at the bottom of that hill...

 

[Defenestrated]

Agreed.
Someday someone will explain to me why/how non US nationals feel they are given rigths under the US Constitution. In the old days there was a term for these peoples...invaders. Whe should endeavour to scatter their pathways with skeletons of prior transgressors, disguise not the miserable circumstances under which they perished...

Because if yer not 'merican yer not human and should not be treated as such!

 

[ohio]

Ignoring Guantanamo for a second, you do seem to be arguing that non citizens shouldn't have standing to bring civil rights lawsuits in the US. Oui?

Difference between "shouldn't" and "don't."

My understanding is that non-citizen's DON'T have standing to bring suit against the US government in US courts. The US government, at it's discretion, can decide whether or not to allow suit. Sometimes there are good reasons to allow oneself to be sued...

 

[ridiculous]

I cant believe this made it this far. I feel for this guy being sued. What civil rights do you have when you are illegally entering the country anyway?

 

[Slugman]

They convicted border patrol agents for shooting a drug dealer crossing illegally with drugs.... they will probably award this guys ranch to a Mexican drug cartel

 

[DaveW]

Difference between "shouldn't" and "don't."

My understanding is that non-citizen's DON'T have standing to bring suit against the US government in US courts. The US government, at it's discretion, can decide whether or not to allow suit. Sometimes there are good reasons to allow oneself to be sued...

WOW I've never seen so many delusional posts!!!! hock:

I'm guessing that as the event took place within the National borders of the USA an area subject to US laws, it's the jurisdiction of US courts and therefore is only able to be heard in a US court........ Nationality of the parties is irrelevant it's the location of the act and what laws are in force in that area (US civil law).

 

[Silver]

They convicted border patrol agents for shooting a drug dealer crossing illegally with drugs.... they will probably award this guys ranch to a Mexican drug cartel

No, actually they didn't. They shot him, covered it up, and lied about it to investigators.

 

[ohio]

WOW I've never seen so many delusional posts!!!! hock:

I'm guessing that as the event took place within the National borders of the USA an area subject to US laws, it's the jurisdiction of US courts and therefore is only able to be heard in a US court........ Nationality of the parties is irrelevant it's the location of the act and what laws are in force in that area (US civil law).

Delusional is believing what you want to believe. Which is exactly what you're doing above.

Again, this is not about should.

The Alien Tort Statute establishes that the US courts have jurisdiction to hear the suit. You're right, it can only be heard in the US. That doesn't mean it must be heard at all. It is up to the US court system if they want to hear it, which is exactly what I just wrote. Without legal residency in the US, the Mexican nationals do not have a right to legal recourse, but they can be given the opportunity if the US courts decide there is a good reason to hear it.

Feel free to be as shocked as you want to, but understand I'm not making a value judgement, I'm just stating the facts as I understand them. I'm all for the ability of foreign citizens to find legal recourse against US citizens in US courts for legitimate claims, but me wanting it doesn't make it their right.

 

[Defenestrated]

No, actually they didn't. They shot him, covered it up, and lied about it to investigators.

If your not American your not a human being therefore it wasn't murder.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

If your not American your not a human being therefore it wasn't murder.

Stop it already...sheesh...

 

[manimal]

this atrocity is the legal equivalent to a burglar who breaks into a home and then sues the homeowner for negligence when he falls through the skylight and severely cuts himself in the process.

so if they win the 32million, will they be required to pay taxes on the award or could they just slip back into mex with the loot?

 

[Slugman]

If your not American your not a human being therefore it wasn't murder.

They only wounded him to stop his escape back into Mexico... problem was that he had made it far enough back. So that is when they made a bad decision to drag his ass back onto US soil and hide all the evidence.

No way they should have gotten 11years for that. Kikced off the force, hell yes! A year or two, but on probabtion, hell yes. Actual jail time - F*ck no.

The system favors the illegals... which is why this guy protecting his land and country will probably lose.

 

[Defenestrated]

I'm sorry but shooting someone and burying them in the desert is not a just punishment for smuggling drugs or illegally entering a country.

I'm ashamed that it even happened.

 

[ohio]

The system favors the illegals... which is why this guy protecting his land and country will probably lose.

Oh please. I know the frothers want to believe this, but (taking Silver's example) some folks in Guantanamo strongly disagree.

Awkward, contentious situation, yes. The US government favoring illegals over citizens, not likely. There's simply nothing to be gained from that, so if you think that's the case, I suggest you dig deeper.