Ninth Circuit Upholds Jury Verdict Against Man Who Held Illegal Immigrant Trespassers At Gunpoint in 2004

He defended his property against trespassers. A jury found he should pay the illegal trespassers $78,000. The Ninth Circus, which earns its nickname for being the most lawless liberal appellate court, getting overturned all the time because they don't even try to apply current constitutional law, upheld the verdict.

There's a complicating twist here -- the judge who presided over that case was Judge Roll, who got death threats after it, and was killed by degenerate loser Jared Loughner when he attempted to kill Gabby Giffords. I say that's complicating because the courts might not want to disturb the ruling of an assassinated judge, and may have an institutional interest in signaling that you can't overturn a case by killing a judge.

But, of course, Jared Loughner wasn't even shooting to kill Judge Roll.

Here's a little background.

Got that? He couldn't be found to have violated their civil rights, as he was acting lawfully in defending his property, so they just claimed he was responsible for "infliction of emotional distress" and assault in doing what the law permits him to do.

$78,000. Nice.

Barrett is asking the Circus for an en banc rehearing (all judges rehearing the case, instead of the three assigned to it), which will probably not be granted, and then we can expect him to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Posted by: Ace at 01:25 PM



Comments

1 This only supports SSS ... Shoot Shove Shutup

Posted by: Islamic Rage Boy at February 09, 2011 01:27 PM (tvs2p)

2 Madness.

Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at February 09, 2011 01:27 PM (JxMoP)

3 I was already getting sick. This makes it worse. That poor man, I hope there are some property rights lawyers who will pro-bono this guy to help his case. He deserves it.

Posted by: moki at February 09, 2011 01:28 PM (dZmFh)

4 Furthermore, what standing do they have if they were trespassing on his property? If they didn't want to be "emotionally distressed" they shouldn't have gone on his land in the first place.
He should have countersued claiming that he was emotionally distressed by their invasion of his property.

Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at February 09, 2011 01:30 PM (JxMoP)

5 And then, it comes down to Anthony "Two-Face" Kennedy's coin flip.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at February 09, 2011 01:32 PM (TpXEI)

6 It gets tossed in the end. But it is ridiculous that every case that come's before the ninth almost should end up requiring being heard and overturned by SCOTUS. It's a very big burden on person's party to these suits and it wastes a lot of money too.

Posted by: Rocks at February 09, 2011 01:33 PM (Q1lie)

7 4
Furthermore, what standing do they have if they were trespassing on
his property? If they didn't want to be "emotionally distressed" they
shouldn't have gone on his land in the first place.
Illegals take precedence over American citizens, that's why. Liberal courts must prove how "compassionate" they are by elevating illegal aliens above citizens, in hopes of earning future latino votes.

Posted by: Pyrocles at February 09, 2011 01:33 PM (cv5Iw)

8 Incidentally one of the only things I still remember about law is that "assault" doesn't mean a hit, it means either an attempted hit or drawing a weapon on someone. "Battery" means a hit. So legally just pulling a gun on someone is assault... *assuming it's unlawful."

If it's not unlawful it's not an assault. How the stupid jury got to here is due to Judge Roll, most likely, because judges are supposed to dismiss meritless claims.

Posted by: ace at February 09, 2011 01:34 PM (nj1bB)

9 This ruling is causing me emotional distress. Who do I sue?

Posted by: Waterhouse at February 09, 2011 01:34 PM (Q0w+1)

10 Barnett's lawyers argued that illegal immigrants could not sue for civil
rights violations. But Roll, the trial judge, refused to dismiss the
suit, ruling in March 2008 that the plaintiffs had presented evidence to
go to trial on their claim that Barnett targeted Latinos, regardless of
immigration status.

Uhh, how can the plaintiffs present "discrimination" evidence when the vast, vast majority of illegal immigrants coming into the US from the Mexican border are Latino? Was there an influx of Russian illegal immigrants coming into the US from Mexico that Barnett found on his property but that ignored?

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at February 09, 2011 01:34 PM (9hSKh)

11 Plaintiffs lawyer Nina Perales, legal director of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said the case "sends a very important message that people cannot take the law into their hands."
She said the four women had been granted U.S. visas as crime victims assisting authorities, and at least three of them have applied for legal residence.
Unbelievable. Kratos, take a bow for your prescience.

Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at February 09, 2011 01:34 PM (JxMoP)

12 In the end there will only be chaos.

Wait...am I stealing that from someone here?

Posted by: EC at February 09, 2011 01:34 PM (mAhn3)

13 I would like to announce that I am filing a class action suit on behalf of missing Grey Wolves in the Rocky Mountain West.

Posted by: Cass Sunstein at February 09, 2011 01:35 PM (dfFbH)

14 For many years my job would have been to hold trespassers at gun point had any trespassed when I was working. They didn't, but I assualted a lot of instructors and supervisors worse than that guy did during drills. (Hint: Never throw anyone up against a chainlink fence in the slack spots between the posts. They'll come flying back off it at you harder than you threw them.)

Posted by: Have Blue at February 09, 2011 01:35 PM (mV+es)

15 This is about the worst court decision in the last 50 years - and that's saying something. This attacks every important foundation of our country, all at once. Unbelievable.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at February 09, 2011 01:35 PM (N49h9)

16 Obviously, the 9th Circus is feeling the need to be bitchslapped again.

Posted by: maddogg at February 09, 2011 01:35 PM (JxMqJ)

17
If it's not unlawful it's not an assault. How the stupid jury got to
here is due to Judge Roll, most likely, because judges are supposed to
dismiss meritless claims.

Barnett's already paid damages to other illegal immigrant "victims", so other judges are just as clueless as Roll was:
Barnett regularly held and turned over immigrants to federal
authorities. Witnesses against him in the Tucson trial included a Latino
whose family, all U.S. citizens, Barnett had held at gunpoint in
October 2004. Arizona courts awarded them nearly $100,000 in damages.

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at February 09, 2011 01:35 PM (9hSKh)

18 And people think New England is bad.
Ward Bird is free! Ward Bird is free!
Elections have consequences. Go New Hampshire.

Posted by: Swamp Yankee at February 09, 2011 01:36 PM (3DIBw)

19 If it's not unlawful it's not an assault.
On Private Property, itisn't unlawful to draw your weapon.

Posted by: garrett at February 09, 2011 01:37 PM (dfFbH)

20 Fox just covered this. I would have love to see that "8 member jury". I suspect it was staked very well. In any case with the "law" we have in this country now the average citizen has no rights anymore.

Even with the full 9th circuit I don't see them winning this one. They would be better off going to the Supremes but you have to get 4 people to agree to take the case and then Kennedy must be happy with Scalia that day.

Posted by: Vic at February 09, 2011 01:37 PM (M9Ie6)

21 We are so fucking boned.

Posted by: Soona at February 09, 2011 01:38 PM (UlzA+)

22 Witnesses against him in the Tucson trial included a Latino whose family, all U.S. citizens, Barnett had held at gunpoint in October 2004. Arizona courts awarded them nearly $100,000 in damages.
Were they trespassing, too?

Posted by: garrett at February 09, 2011 01:39 PM (dfFbH)

23 Why would we allow illegal aliens access to our civil courts?

Posted by: somebody else, not me at February 09, 2011 01:39 PM (7EV/g)

24 Jehmu Greene, professional idiot that Fox loves, is talking about "vigilantes" ... who protect their own property. Jehmu, evidently, thinks that she has the right to walk on anyone's property - and that illegals have even more rights in OUR country.

What can be said about such idiots?

Now, she's saying "he has no badge" and he has no right .... on his own property.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at February 09, 2011 01:40 PM (N49h9)

25 Torts are of the devil. And any American jury that finds against a landholder fighting off trespassers deserves to have its citizenship revoked en masse.

Posted by: Kerry at February 09, 2011 01:40 PM (a/VXa)

26 People who have hiked across the Mexican desert without food or water, and then sneak across a border at great personal danger to themselves are naturally going to have jangly nerves. A lot of bank robbers suffer emotional distress when you shoot them. They're already on edge, see.

Posted by: alppuccino at February 09, 2011 01:40 PM (0K6j5)

27 Unbelievable. Kratos, take a bow for your prescience.
Well, chaos (entropy) is a thermodynamic certainty.
12
In the end there will only be chaos.Wait...am I stealing that from someone here?
Expect a call from Sony's and Santa Monica Studio's lawyers very soon, .

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at February 09, 2011 01:41 PM (9hSKh)

28 Fucking assholes.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 09, 2011 01:41 PM (/G5LI)

29
oh those darn leftists!

Posted by: Soothsayer has a problem with Wang Dong at February 09, 2011 01:41 PM (uFokq)

30 This guy needs to sell that ranch and move to Texas.
There was a story a couple of years ago about a guy in Houston who shot 2 illegals dead after they robbed his neighbors house and he go off.

Posted by: Roadking at February 09, 2011 01:41 PM (iVGwp)

31 A nation of laws ignored by the executive branch and perverted by the judicial branch.

On the bright side, we don't have anarchy. Or is that the bad side?

Posted by: t-bird at February 09, 2011 01:41 PM (FcR7P)

32 #22
Were they trespassing, too?

I suppose so. Barnett would be in jail if he held those people at gunpoint off his property.
/Torts suck.

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at February 09, 2011 01:42 PM (9hSKh)

33 Goes to show that Rolls wasn't conservative enough to regard the constitutional right to bear arms as AZ State Constitution reiterates with open carry rights. Also Rolls wasn't conservative enough to regard the property rights of Arizonans to protect against trespassers. And Rolls ruled as a bleeding heart liberal against Barnett, lifelong Arizona rancher, on behalf of non-US citizens illegally crossing the US border from Mexico and trespassing specifically on Barnett's ranch. The link provided referenced that the four Mexican women whom Roll awarded financial remunerations from Barnett were rewarded by Feds with visas for their testimony against Barnett. That sucks-sucks.

Hm, "conservative" appointment to the 9th circus, RIP.

This should go to the SCOTUS. Buckle up.

Posted by: Plateau Plato at February 09, 2011 01:42 PM (H+LJc)

34 Logprof and nickless can go to the 9th circus and get at least $77,804 in damages.

Posted by: dagny: Release logprof damnit! at February 09, 2011 01:42 PM (HLFbQ)

35 I wonder, if the property owner were to simply shoot and kill them, claiming he thought they were armed (some probably would be), what would that penalty be? (Seriously, I don't know the law on that for California. What is the legality?)

Because after too many things like this, there may be an incentive to just blast away...

Posted by: AoSHQ's worst commenter, DarkLord at February 09, 2011 01:42 PM (GBXon)

36 Why would we allow illegal aliens access to our civil courts?
I find this statement less that patriotic.

Posted by: John Edwards at February 09, 2011 01:42 PM (dfFbH)

37 If it's not unlawful it's not an assault. How the
stupid jury got to here is due to Judge Roll, most likely, because
judges are supposed to dismiss meritless claims.







Posted by: ace at February 09, 2011 01:34 PM (nj1bB)

I thought he was supposed to be a Republican Appointee? I can understand idiot Democrats making idiot decisions, but a Republican Appointee?

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 09, 2011 01:43 PM (/G5LI)

38 I hate these sorts of cases because I always get the sneaking feeling that there's more going on than meets the eye. On the face of it, the ruling against this guys seems completely insane... but I just have to wonder if there are circumstances we don't know about.

Posted by: Y-not at February 09, 2011 01:44 PM (pW2o8)

39
We have Organized Anarchytm -- we're being ruled by a corrupt bunch of lawless authoritarians.

This is how democratic republics get destroyed...


Posted by: Soothsayer has a problem with Wang Dong at February 09, 2011 01:44 PM (uFokq)

40 I thought he was supposed to be a
Republican Appointee? I can understand idiot Democrats making idiot
decisions, but a Republican Appointee?


Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 09, 2011 01:43 PM (/G5LI)
Wasn't Sandra Day O'Connor a republican appointee?

Posted by: Tami-unban Nickless (99.174.64.43) at February 09, 2011 01:45 PM (VuLos)

41 The lesson anyone living on the border should take from this?

If you have people trespassing on your property, shoot to kill and use the "they're comin' right for us!" defense. Either that, or say you were "thinning out their numbers."

Posted by: Jimbo Kern of South Park, CO at February 09, 2011 01:46 PM (iBaup)

42 Wasn't Sandra Day O'Connor a republican appointee?

Yup. Appointed to SCOTUS by Ronald Reagan in 1981.

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at February 09, 2011 01:46 PM (9hSKh)

43 I thought he was supposed to be a
Republican Appointee? I can understand idiot Democrats making idiot
decisions, but a Republican Appointee?


Posted by: DiogenesLamp

Sandra Day O'Connor ring a bell?

Posted by: Plateau Plato at February 09, 2011 01:47 PM (H+LJc)

44 Judge Roll might be deserving of some slack here. The verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs were for common-law civil assault and infliction of emotional distress. Those are state law claims. A federal judge presiding over state claims must apply that state's laws (here, Arizona) as those laws have been applied by that state's courts. He may have been hamstrung if AZ's laws are quirky.

Posted by: angler at February 09, 2011 01:48 PM (SwjAj)

45 Kratos,
The earlier case involved U.S. citizens.
Barnett regularly held and turned over immigrants to federal
authorities. Witnesses against him in the Tucson trial included a Latino
whose family, all U.S. citizens,

Posted by: Y-not at February 09, 2011 01:48 PM (pW2o8)

46 Here is the link on the guy in Houston - his name was Joe Horn.

Posted by: Roadking at February 09, 2011 01:48 PM (iVGwp)

47 Posted by: Y-not at February 09, 2011 01:44 PM (pW2o
This rancher and his neighbours have been abandoned by their own government and are living on the front lines of a very bloody war.
I wouldn't blame them for adopting a scorched earth policy on their lands.
If they commited one of the milder crimes that befall them and theirs on a daily basis, they would land afoul of the law and find themselves imprisoned.
But the illegals get awaywith it 24 / 7 and have been for decades.
They are in a living hell down there. It was that was in the early 90's and appears to be getting worse.

Posted by: garrett at February 09, 2011 01:50 PM (dfFbH)

48 Dear New York Times,
Can you tell me where I can migrate from Mexico to the United States without proper documentation, and be held at gunpoint by a racist teabagger in exchange for $78,000?
Best Wishes,

Posted by: Truman North at February 09, 2011 01:50 PM (+gfwN)

49 What is really scary about this story and others like it that are cropping up in AZ and NM is the rest of the stuff involving flagrant disregard for the law and rights of the average American:

1. Obama and the Congress violate the Constitution at will and as long as the FDR packed court has 5 liberals on it they have nothing to worry about. The courts do not uphold the law anymore, they uphold the outcome. They even mock the founders by saying the Constitution means what they stretch it to mean.

2. Obama admin routinely violates the written law at will with no consequences.

3. When the courts do rule against Obama and co they ignore it.

4. Election fraud in the blue States and urban cities has become rampant. The average voter's will no longer means anything because their vote has been diluted to the point that it is worthless.

So what is the prognosis for the average citizen? The communists have grabbed the reigns of power in all the branches of government and do not really give a shit what the taxpayer wants. And the tax payer is powerless to change it due to corruption and lawlessness.

So will it be chaos in the end? I think the end will come sooner rather than later. The average tax payer is getting more angry every day.
3.

Posted by: Vic at February 09, 2011 01:50 PM (M9Ie6)

50 De-fund the 9th Circuit!

Posted by: Iblis at February 09, 2011 01:50 PM (9221z)

51 Wasn't Sandra Day O'Connor a republican appointee?


Posted by: Tami-unban Nickless (99.174.64.43) at February 09, 2011 01:45 PM (VuLos)

Yeah. One of the biggest mistakes Reagan made. A lot of Republican presidents nominate supposed conservative judges, all to find that they have transformed into stark raving idiot Liberals. Earl Warren comes to mind.

The legal system is so infested with Liberal crap (I blame Roosevelt and Truman for 20 years worth of Nut-ball appointments.) that it is difficult to find a judge that truly understands the Constitution and the rule of law anymore.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 09, 2011 01:50 PM (/G5LI)

52 Wasn't Sandra Day O'Connor a republican appointee?
I think Souter (sp) was another Reagan appointee.

Posted by: Soona at February 09, 2011 01:52 PM (UlzA+)

53 Our court system is fucked and insurance companies help to keep it that way.
Yesterday in Seattle a Denny's was ordered to pay a guy $14 Million that got shot in Denny's. Denny's employees didn't shoot him the jury just decided that Denny's should have protected him from getting shot. The $14 Million was a deal worked out before trial between the plantiff and Denny's insurance company. The jury actually awarded the guy $46 Million.
What did the insurance company offer the plantiff before trial that would make him agree to a cap on a jury award? Who knows but it was obviously something of value.
I am going to sue Denny's for a rock that chipped my windshield while driving on 405. They should protect me from that stuff.

Posted by: robtr nickless liberation front at February 09, 2011 01:52 PM (hVDig)

54 On the face of it, the ruling against this guys
seems completely insane... but I just have to wonder if there are
circumstances we don't know about.

Posted by: Y-not at February 09, 2011 01:44 PM (pW2o
It's worse than insane. It attacks the most basic foundations of this nation. Private property rights are dispensed with. The right to self-defense is dispensed with. And illegals are treated better than American citizens, when our government isn't built to protect anything but citizens' rights (to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity").Judge Roll, in allowing this absolute travesty to go through, was just another federal judge working to take this nation apart, and he did more damage in this case than most liberal judges could ever fantasize about. Awful doesn't begin to describe it. This has to stand as the most anti-American case and decision I have ever seen.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at February 09, 2011 01:52 PM (N49h9)

55 This stuff pisses me off even more than Obamacare and deficits because the government is directly interfering with someone just trying to live their life.

Posted by: JP at February 09, 2011 01:53 PM (8s9tr)

56 Yeah. One of the biggest mistakes
Reagan made. A lot of Republican presidents nominate supposed
conservative judges, all to find that they have transformed into stark
raving idiot Liberals. Earl Warren comes to mind.
The
legal system is so infested with Liberal crap (I blame Roosevelt and
Truman for 20 years worth of Nut-ball appointments.) that it is
difficult to find a judge that truly understands the Constitution and
the rule of law anymore.


Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 09, 2011 01:50 PM (/G5LI)
That was my point in response to your "I can understand idiot Democrats making idiot
decisions, but a Republican Appointee?". Just because a Republican appointed them, there is no guarantee of Constitutional understanding on their part.

Posted by: Tami-unban Nickless (99.174.64.43) at February 09, 2011 01:53 PM (VuLos)

57 Can't believe the Supremes will take an "intentional infliction" tort case. they probably have better things to do. Gabe?
The principalfailure here occurred with the JURY--the 52%ers who made this ridiculous award, and secondly with the late Judge who didn't throw the case out before trial. But mainly with the jury--your/our friends, family and neighbors who, between them, can't scrape up a few shreds of common sense.

Posted by: some dope at February 09, 2011 01:55 PM (K/USr)

58 This rancher and his neighbours have been abandoned by
their own government and are living on the front lines of a very bloody
war.
I wouldn't blame them for adopting a scorched earth policy on their lands.
--Yes, but my concern is that his judgment may not be what it should be, given the stress he's under. The incident involving legal U.S. immigrants (citizens) suggests that may be the case.
I guess what I'm saying is that I feel a bit nervous not knowing all the facts. At the end of the day, whether he's been abandoned or not, he apparently has more than once chosen a recourse that takes away others' rights... at least in the case of the legal residents.
It just has a Bernhard Goetz feel to it.If he were my loved one, I'd tell him to move. If things are that dangerous that he's having to pull guns on people all the time, it seems foolish to stay.

Posted by: Y-not at February 09, 2011 01:55 PM (pW2o8)

59 Undocumented residents celebrate Mexican Heritage Month by Winning The Future.

Posted by: Ninth Circuit Public Announcement at February 09, 2011 01:55 PM (wBvh8)

60 This defendent should counter. IIEDmay bean intentional tort, but so is trespass and conversion. We can exploit civil actions too.

Posted by: Swamp Yankee at February 09, 2011 01:56 PM (3DIBw)

61 If you have people trespassing on your property, shoot to kill and use the "they're comin' right for us!" defense. Either that, or say you were "thinning out their numbers."
This is a good point and I think it could easily be argued that rulings like this put the illegals in far more danger.

Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at February 09, 2011 01:57 PM (JxMoP)

62 I think Souter (sp) was another Reagan appointee.

Posted by: Soona at February 09, 2011 01:52 PM (UlzA+)

I believe that dubious honor lies with George H.W. Bush.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 09, 2011 01:58 PM (/G5LI)

63 Barnett should probably turn his land into a lion and tiger refuge/sanctuary.

Posted by: Ned Ryerson. I used to bone your sister at February 09, 2011 01:59 PM (AOruP)

64 16 Obviously, the 9th Circus is feeling the need to be bitchslapped again.
Posted by: maddogg at February 09, 2011 01:35 PM (JxMqJ)
And I would expect the Wise Latina to get the chance to write the dissenting decision in this case. Well unless the other liberal stains on the SCOTUS have some modicum of intelligence and realize she's a fucking idiot that would hurt their dissent.

Posted by: buzzion at February 09, 2011 02:00 PM (oVQFe)

65 Yes, but my concern is that his judgment may not be what it should be, given the stress he's under. The incident involving legal U.S. immigrants (citizens) suggests that may be the case.
I have no concerns that would bennefit the illegals in this case.
It is common practice for US immigrants to aid in cross border pot smuggling in the Tucson - Nogales area.
One legal immigrant can cruise the border and pick up their illegal relatives who 'pack' drugs accross the border. Border Guards will let them all go if there is a 'legal' in the car. Almost every time.
Private Properties are the least patrolled. So, the illegals target them.
When I lived in Tucson I was amazed at the sheer volume of this operation. Thousands of border families are here solely to facilitate the drug trade. Doing the Jobs that Americans just won't do. Because the Cartel would kidnap and kill them.

Posted by: garrett at February 09, 2011 02:00 PM (dfFbH)

66 63
Barnett should probably turn his land into a lion and tiger refuge

OK, that's a great idea!

Posted by: Y-not at February 09, 2011 02:01 PM (pW2o8)

67 I guess what I'm saying is that I
feel a bit nervous not knowing all the facts.

Posted by: Y-not at February 09, 2011 01:55 PM (pW2o
What are you talking about? NO ONE is allowed to just come onto your private property. Period. Not even American citizens. But, illegals ... what more do you have to know?And you always have the right to self-defense, especially on your own friggin property!!!These are the most basic, most important, most cherished rights that America is built on. What is it that you have questions about?

Posted by: iknowtheleft at February 09, 2011 02:01 PM (N49h9)

68 I am on the side of the rancher. If you need some help, get ahold of me. The judges presiding over this case should be stripped of all offices because they are not on the side of the US citizens. Keep this shit up boys and you'll start a revolution that will take you down.

Posted by: JOJO at February 09, 2011 02:01 PM (hN4su)

69 Back in Reagan's day, it was his express intent not to stack the deck of the SCOTUS with constitutional conservative appointments, but to maintain the reflection of the America people in a "balance" through representations of all contingencies.

Again, Reagan's "Trust But Verify" mantra was selectively applied to foreign affairs, specifically Russia, but certainly not applicable to Reagan's dealings with the US Legislative and Judicial Branch wherein Reagan went with the popular flow, whatever that was.

Hence, "Just Say No" from Nancy Reagan was as far as the Reagan administration stuck its neck out for the "war against drugs" (her lip service neck, meaning no political capital lost by Reagan's Cabinet). And whatever legislative compromises Reagan signed into law made no effort to enforce agreements made/abandoned by the legislators. After the assassination attempt, Reagan never spoke out for gun rights. Rather, his administration backed the Brady Bill into Law, as if making guns illegal will eliminate crime and murder.

Tell that to all the Mexicans unable to legally protect life, family, home and business against the torturous drug cartels -- no police responding to home invasions, rape, beatings, kidnappings and murders in Mexico. That is the reality in Chihuahua of families possessing dual citizenship, officially Mexican/American citizens. And their plight got one story in the Houston Chronicle, but not a word from Hillary Clinton's State Dept.

Posted by: Plateau Plato at February 09, 2011 02:01 PM (H+LJc)

70 What are you talking about? NO ONE is allowed to just come onto your
private property. Period. Not even American citizens. But, illegals
... what more do you have to know?

Well, something he did crossed a line to the tune of 100,000 smackers.

Posted by: Y-not at February 09, 2011 02:02 PM (pW2o8)

71 So will it be chaos in the end? I think the end will come sooner rather than later. The average tax payer is getting more angry every day.
Please. We must be civil about this. Isn't that the meme now? But we can vote these bastards out in 2012, can'twe? Soon, I'm afraid, our options are going tobe used up to the pointwhere we won't have any at all. All hail the new order.

Posted by: Soona at February 09, 2011 02:03 PM (UlzA+)

72 OK, that's a great idea!
We tacitly approve...and we're readying the paperwork as we type this.

Posted by: Az TORT Lawyers Guild at February 09, 2011 02:03 PM (dfFbH)

73 Back in Reagan's day, it was his express intent not to stack the deck of
the SCOTUS with constitutional conservative appointments, but to
maintain the reflection of the America people in a "balance" through
representations of all contingencies.

Is there a cite for this expression?

Posted by: toby928: Free nickless the still-banned (99.174.64.43) at February 09, 2011 02:04 PM (GTbGH)

74 If things are that dangerous that he's having to pull guns
on people all the time, it seems foolish to stay.


Posted by: Y-not at February 09, 2011 01:55 PM (pW2o

That being the case, the TSA should sit back at tell everyone to find personal means of transportation.

Posted by: LC LaWedgie at February 09, 2011 02:05 PM (wBvh8)

75 Barnett should probably turn his land into a lion and tiger refugeOK, that's a great idea!

Posted by: Y-not at February 09, 2011 02:01 PM (pW2o
It's his property. But you are happy to see him forced to change his own property and it's actual use, to protect himself against illegals invading our nation and trespassing on his property in a way that YOU find legitimate (as if he defending it on his own is illegitimate. That's great. Really.Do you have any respect for the notion of private property rights? Any?
And, BTW, Barnett would go to jail if he did that and one of his lions ate an illegal, you know.I don't think you understand the situation we are in, at all.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at February 09, 2011 02:06 PM (N49h9)

76 I'm stepping into a Devil's Advocate role here, and I'm sure I'll catch shit for it.

I think ranchers have every right to detain illegals and wait for authorities to arrive, then hand them over. If he feared for his life, he should have been permitted to defend himself, with deadly force if necessary.

But isn't there some line here over which it is impermissible to pass? Generally, the law is that a landowner owes no duty of reasonable care to a trespasser. However, the landowner owes a duty to refrain from intentionally or maliciously injuring the trespasser (absent a self-defense argument).

I don't know where the facts of this case fall on that line (I haven't read the case). However, I could justify the verdict if the landowner unnecessarily assaulted these illegals. (Think of Pulp Fiction trespassers Butch and Marsellas in Zed's pawn shop, and "the gimp.)

Landowners should be given sufficient latitude to remove trespassers and/or detain them until the authorities arrive - but be allowed to exert only such force as is necessary to do so. If the force goes beyond that - into torture, or other things that are not necessary to remove the trespasser or transfer the illegals to authorities, the landowner runs the risk.

Posted by: angler at February 09, 2011 02:06 PM (SwjAj)

77 Someone asked why we allow illegal immigrants access to our courts. Um, anyone can access anyone's courts. If I get shot in Germany, I can sue the shooter in a German court. My status there notwithstanding. I sure can't sue him in America as the tort didn't happen here.

I'm not pretending to know all the facts here. But whether he had the right to pull a gun to protect his property or not, the manner in which he did so (and the manner in which they were detained) might still rise to the level of assault. Not all trespasses are the same. If it's rural lands and people are just passing through, it's not like you are entering a dwelling. And even if you have the right to do something, you can still do it in such a way that you injure someone.

I had a case where some hikers had stepped onto some rural private land (not fully realizing it was private) and the guy was a nut. He came out, junior G Man style and held them at gun point. Yes, the hiker (an American) was technically trespassing. But the gun was so ridiculous and unwarranted. And the guy had no right to detain the hiker. He was arrested for assault. And this was in conservative Chelan County.

Posted by: Seattle Slough at February 09, 2011 02:07 PM (JRGA6)

78 Well, something he did crossed a line to the tune of 100,000 smackers.

Posted by: Y-not at February 09, 2011 02:02 PM (pW2o
No. The court(s) and the jury crossed the line.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at February 09, 2011 02:07 PM (N49h9)

79 It looks like buying cheap pistols in Mexico, and vacuum bagging them for border ranchers as drop pieces is going to be a growth business.

Posted by: Jean at February 09, 2011 02:07 PM (WkuV6)

80 If the force goes beyond that - into torture, or other things that are not necessary to remove the trespasser or transfer the illegals to authorities, the landowner runs the risk.
'Bring out the Gimp.'

Posted by: Barnett at February 09, 2011 02:09 PM (dfFbH)

81 Generally, the law is that a landowner owes no duty of reasonable care
to a trespasser. However, the landowner owes a duty to refrain from
intentionally or maliciously injuring the trespasser (absent a
self-defense argument).

So no tiger pits or land mines?

Posted by: Jean at February 09, 2011 02:09 PM (WkuV6)

82 70 I posted a tale this morning about how the illegals are having "cell phone soccer" on fields all over the dc metro area and probably many other areas as well. Citizens cannot take over a field without a permit but the illegals show up in such numbers, the city is loath to ask for their permit or id, and the police are afraid of starting a problem because there are too many of them, they get to tresspass at will.
Citizens=screwed
Illegals= free rein
This is what happens if you can't ask people for ID. They have taken the "racist" meme and used it to keep people from interfering with the illegals in any way.

Posted by: dagny: Release logprof damnit! at February 09, 2011 02:10 PM (HLFbQ)

83 I had a case where some hikers had stepped onto some rural private land (not fully realizing it was private) and the guy was a nut. He came out, junior G Man style and held them at gun point. Yes, the hiker (an American) was technically trespassing. But the gun was so ridiculous and unwarranted
Hikers. Plural. He was isolated and outnumbered. Sounds threatening enough to me.

Posted by: Devil's Advocate also reasonable at February 09, 2011 02:11 PM (dfFbH)

84 his is what happens if you can't ask people for ID. They have taken the "racist" meme and used it to keep people from interfering with the illegals in any way.
Sounds like CAIR has been teaching the Mexicans a thing or two.

Posted by: garrett at February 09, 2011 02:13 PM (dfFbH)

85 AOL stock diving.

Posted by: dagny: Release logprof damnit! at February 09, 2011 02:13 PM (HLFbQ)

86 38 I hate these sorts of cases because I always get the sneaking feeling that there's more going on than meets the eye. On the face of it, the ruling against this guys seems completely insane... but I just have to wonder if there are circumstances we don't know about.
Posted by: Y-not at February 09, 2011 01:44 PM (pW2o
Been following this case for awhile. The guys problem was that in a prior incident, he held a Latino family at gunpoint on State land, thinking they were illegals, and they were American Citizens... he ended up paying them First.
So when this case came up, he already had a "history" of discrimination... and that what they nailed him for.
Question becomes, do Private Citizens have a RIGHT to discriminate? or is Discrimination prohibitied to the Government only...

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 09, 2011 02:13 PM (AdK6a)

87 I had a case where some hikers had stepped onto some
rural private land (not fully realizing it was private) and the guy was
a nut. He came out, junior G Man style and held them at gun point.
Yes, the hiker (an American) was technically trespassing. But the gun
was so ridiculous and unwarranted. And the guy had no right to detain
the hiker. He was arrested for assault. And this was in conservative
Chelan County.

Posted by: Seattle Slough at February 09, 2011 02:07 PM (JRGA6)
The hikers were responsible to know where they were hiking. Your example is stupid. And that arrest was insane. You seem to think that people have the right to just walk anywhere they want and they can be excused for their ignorance?If you want to go hiking, it is YOUR responsibility to know where you can hike and where you can't. But, you seem to think that you can just throw on a backpack and trample over anyone's property.
And just becaue they were held at gunpoint, on land that they had no right to be on, that qualifies as "assault"? Please.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at February 09, 2011 02:13 PM (N49h9)

88 iknowtheleft,
You seem awfully confident that all the courts and juries are corrupt and this guy has never crossed the line.
I am less confident.
I'd like to see a few dispassionate legal analyses of the decisions (this one and the one in which $100k was awarded to U.S. citizens) by lawyers before concluding that this guy is 1000% in the right and not another Bernhard Goetz in the making.

Posted by: Y-not at February 09, 2011 02:13 PM (pW2o8)

89 They have "Casa de Maryland" and the like. Same as Cair--different language.

Posted by: dagny: Release logprof damnit! at February 09, 2011 02:13 PM (HLFbQ)

90 AOL stock diving.

Posted by: dagny: Release logprof damnit! at February 09, 2011 02:13 PM (HLFbQ)
Bwahahahaha! Good.

Posted by: Tami-unban Nickless (99.174.64.43) at February 09, 2011 02:14 PM (VuLos)

91 67-iktl,
Its not inconceivable that a person could in defending his property act in a way that goes beyond what a jury concluded was reasonably necessary to defend himself and his property, and in a way that was intended, for lack of a better term, to scare the livin shit out of the trespassers, giving rise to a claim in tort. there are limits on what you can do to defend self and property, and these limits are not new--go back to common law of England.
I don't know that it happened that way in this case; but if it did, that would explain why the trial judge couldn't throw the case out. In that scenario, it all comes down to whether the jury concluded that the guy went overboard. Sounds to me like the jury screwed up--but it happens all of the time. Nothing that will get the Supremes' attention.

Posted by: some dope at February 09, 2011 02:14 PM (K/USr)

92 I had a case where some hikers had stepped onto some rural private land (not fully realizing it was private) and the guy was a nut. He came out, junior G Man style and held them at gun point. Yes, the hiker (an American) was technically trespassing. But the gun was so ridiculous and unwarranted. And the guy had no right to detain the hiker. He was arrested for assault. And this was in conservative Chelan County.
Posted by: Seattle Slough at February 09, 2011 02:07 PM (JRGA6)

Is Chelan county on the Mexican border? If not, perhaps you should find a website describing what these people on the border have to put up with. I can tell you this. They're not puting up with just a random tresspass by a couple of hikers.

Posted by: Soona at February 09, 2011 02:14 PM (UlzA+)

93 Perhaps the 9th circuit could chat with Imanutjob and get the american "hikers" back? Of course, I think those Berkley douchebags were trying to spy on americans or just didn't believe the Iranians were bad guys and they would tell the tale. He can keep them for all I care BUT trespassing has always been met with some force.

Posted by: dagny: Release logprof damnit! at February 09, 2011 02:16 PM (HLFbQ)

94 So when this case came up, he already had a "history" of discrimination... and that what they nailed him for.

That's what it looks like.

I gather he's a former sheriff who has rounded up thousands of trespassers over the past decade or more.

Posted by: Y-not at February 09, 2011 02:16 PM (pW2o8)

95 Been following this case for awhile. The guys problem was that in a prior incident, he held a Latino family at gunpoint on State land, thinking they were illegals, and they were American Citizens... he ended up paying them First.
Was he theowner of the lease of theses State lands?
Many Ranches have internal and adjacent pieces of State Lands that they Lease and have Property Ownership Rights to.

Posted by: garrett at February 09, 2011 02:16 PM (dfFbH)

96 Let's bring all the illegal immigrants caught to washington, where they will be accepted with open arms. Ha Ha. Then they can get their votes just by speaking on the white house lawn. That could save some tax payers money also.

Posted by: JOJO at February 09, 2011 02:16 PM (hN4su)

97 What are you talking about? NO ONE is allowed to just come onto your
private property. Period. Not even American citizens. But, illegals
... what more do you have to know?

Well, something he did crossed a line to the tune of 100,000 smackers.


Posted by: Y-not at February 09, 2011 02:02 PM (pW2o
McDonalds had to pay out big bucks because their coffee was hot.You can never assume tort cases have justice behind them.

Posted by: Oldcat at February 09, 2011 02:17 PM (z1N6a)

98 So when this case came up, he already had a "history" of discrimination... and that what they nailed him for.

That's what it looks like.

I gather he's a former sheriff who has rounded up thousands of trespassers over the past decade or more.



Posted by: Y-not at February 09, 2011 02:16 PM (pW2o
How is defending his rights more than once a crime?

Posted by: Oldcat at February 09, 2011 02:18 PM (z1N6a)

99 You seem awfully confident that all the courts and juries are corrupt and this guy has never crossed the line.I am less confident. Posted by: Y-not at February 09, 2011 02:13 PM (pW2o

Less confident of what? Whether he "crossed the line" before has nothing to do with the facts of this case. Nothing. And this case shows you that "crossed the line" means respecting private property rights and self-defense rights and basically honoring the most important foundations of America.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at February 09, 2011 02:18 PM (N49h9)

100 While its true there is a lot of gray area regarding trespass and property rights that often revolve around reciprocity. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress??? I think that's the outrageous thing here.
Doing an illegal act causes distress, so how can someone prove that and intentionally outrageous act caused the distress, and how is defending one's property ever outrageous or extreme if no one is physically hurt. And keep in mind the distress must be severe.

Posted by: Swamp Yankee at February 09, 2011 02:19 PM (3DIBw)

101 Whether he "crossed the line" before has nothing to do with the facts of this case. Nothing.

So you've read all the trial transcripts? Because all I've read from your posts is emotion, not analysis.

Posted by: Y-not at February 09, 2011 02:20 PM (pW2o8)

102 Y-not has to be a woman.

Posted by: Sexist at February 09, 2011 02:21 PM (Bs8Te)

103 and in a way that was intended, for lack of a
better term, to scare the livin shit out of the trespassers, giving rise
to a claim in tort.
Posted by: some dope at February 09, 2011 02:14 PM (K/USr)
If "scar[ing] the living shit out" of someone who is trespassing on ones property is going to be the basis for these torts, then I don't know how horror movies and amusement parks are going to last much longer. They scare the living shit out of tons of people.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at February 09, 2011 02:21 PM (N49h9)

104 You can never assume tort cases have justice behind them.
Posted by: Oldcat at February 09, 2011 02:17 PM (z1N6a)
May favorite was the Psychic in San Fransico, who KNEW she had a brain tumour, so badgered her doctor to give her a CatScan... after numerous requests he finally gave in.
And of course, found nothing BUT, the Scan supposedly destroyed her powers, and she could no longer make a living... so she sued the Doctor...
She won millions...
If I had been defending the Doctor, I would have just had a couple of questions...
"Maam, as a pshychic, you can see the future?"
"Maam, how come therefore insisted on the CatScan when you HAD to have known it would destroy your powers, as you COULD see the future?"

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 09, 2011 02:21 PM (AdK6a)

105 How is defending his rights more than once a crime?

Where did I suggest this is a criminal case? It's not.

All I did is acknowledge Romeo's point that the prior case that he lost was likely a contributing factor to how this case went down.

Posted by: Y-not at February 09, 2011 02:22 PM (pW2o8)

106 102
Y-not has to be a woman.

Gee, the emotionalism is coming from other quarters. Some of you need your diapers changed.

Posted by: Y-not at February 09, 2011 02:23 PM (pW2o8)

107 Who's going to pay him for the emotional distress inflicted on him by illegal judges?

Posted by: ObamaCare at February 09, 2011 02:23 PM (71LDo)

108 Y-not has to be a woman.
Posted by: Sexist at February 09, 2011 02:21 PM (Bs8Te)

A squishy woman. Not a woman like dagny or laceyu.

Posted by: Soona at February 09, 2011 02:24 PM (UlzA+)

109 I would actually like a link that works because these guys were crossing over from Mexico AND there had been a similar rancher murdered.

Posted by: dagny: Release logprof damnit! at February 09, 2011 02:24 PM (HLFbQ)

110 Y - You are just wrong here.
What this guy did ammounts to bad form, not bad action. He was right to do what he did.
If anyone thinks that all illegals immediately sit down and co-operate when they are discovered has been watching too much Nat'l Geographic Channel.
These are more often than not dangerous criminals who are more afraid of failing to make their 'drop' than of getting caught and processed. If they lose a load of Heroin, they are going to be killed.
Quite profoundly, and painfully killed.

Posted by: garrett at February 09, 2011 02:25 PM (dfFbH)

111 Because all I've read from your posts is emotion, not analysis.

Posted by: Y-not at February 09, 2011 02:20 PM (pW2o
Oy.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at February 09, 2011 02:25 PM (N49h9)

112 Y-not at February 09, 2011 01:55 PM

Y-not,

I'm surprised you haven't noticed until now.

Seriously, you weren't aware of the Bush/McCain/Kennedy comprehensive immigration reform package that motivated Michelle Malkin's rise to fame? You didn't hear of the MinuteMen who organized real-time watches of the border relaying information for response from Border Patrol? You missed GWBush calling constitutional conservatives "vigilantes". Did you hear Jeb Bush calling American conservatives "stupid" for not agreeing with the Bush reconstruction of both the Republican Party and the Federal Government?

The illegal alien immigration route that crosses the US Border through Arizona passes through Utah in a federally tax subsidized grant funded historical foundation's green-recreation of the foot path from Mexico all the way into Canada.

And that historically refurbished aesthetic pedestrian path with cardiovascular benefits does not begin to take into account the massive transportation problems on our highways from truckloads of the human slave and sex trade compounded by drugs.

All of that still ignores the problem on our highways from illegal aliens driving without any insurance, and illegal aliens driving while under the influence of alcohol/drugs "accidentally" killing and maiming American citizens.

Regardless of transportation, you've not stayed aware of the economic impact of US Dollars leaving the country? You've never noticed the employment problem as illegal aliens invade the workplace and undercut pricing in the blue collar trades and municipal positions?

Here's something you must have noticed, living in Utah as you do. Sen.Hatch is an activist spearheading tax funded federal programs to provide businesses with imported labor, his visa programs for highly skilled international workers to replace the US citizen workforce.


Posted by: Plateau Plato at February 09, 2011 02:25 PM (H+LJc)

113 A squishy woman. Not a woman like dagny or laceyu.
I'm pretty sure they have squishy parts.

Posted by: garrett at February 09, 2011 02:26 PM (dfFbH)

114 The nuaghy 9th has struck again americas most over turned appeals court those idiot judges should all be removed from the bench and retired to the home of th dorks and dweebs

Posted by: Spurwing Plover at February 09, 2011 02:29 PM (vA9ld)

115 I'm pretty sure they have squishy parts.
Posted by: garrett at February 09, 2011 02:26 PM (dfFbH)

Speaking of which. I going back to the last thread and look a Xena again.

Posted by: Soona at February 09, 2011 02:30 PM (UlzA+)

116
Quite profoundly, and painfully killed.

Posted by: garrett

These same "down todden" illegal aliens indiscriminately shoot US law enforcement officers and US citizens alike.

The drug cartels have functioning fortresses above Tucson from which gunners shoot Sheriffs and Police.

National and State Parks are posted with warning signs to keep out because of the VIOLENT illegal aliens trespassing.

US Border Patrol suffer from artillery gunshots regularly not only from Mexican drug cartel militia but from the Mexican Army.

Fort Huachuca regularly posts warnings because the illegal aliens trespass that installation without regard, knowing they'll be left alone by virtue of the enforced PC in-security policy. An officer has posted relevant arguments for serious attention at American Thinker on several occasions.

Posted by: Plateau Plato at February 09, 2011 02:37 PM (H+LJc)

117 The lesson of all this is, unfortunately, that next time you're pointing a gun at a bunch of trespassers, make sure you have a shovel.

Posted by: JSchuler at February 09, 2011 02:38 PM (yKEQc)

118 JSchuler

That most certainly should NOT be the lesson.

Posted by: Plateau Plato at February 09, 2011 02:39 PM (H+LJc)

119 What are you talking about? NO ONE is allowed to just come onto your private property. Period.
This isn't really the case. All kinds of poeple can come on to your property, including the postman or the gas man or a hiker.
If your ranch contains a trail that hikers have been using for years, good luck getting anybody charged wth trespassing. I'm pretty sure even Slough-bag can confirm this.

Posted by: spongeworthy at February 09, 2011 02:39 PM (rplL3)

120 spongeworthy at February 09, 2011 02:39 PM

So long as the landowner's policy has been NO TRESPASSING and efforts to maintain barbed wire postings exist, your arbitrary dismissal is without basis.

Posted by: Plateau Plato at February 09, 2011 02:42 PM (H+LJc)

121 Anyone know how many illegals the guy was holding at gunpoint and for how long, and their background?
Just asking because circumstances matter and one would hope some common sense would eventually be applied.
If the trespassers were say, a man, a woman, and a young child who were pretty obviously a family, and he put the gun to the terrified kid's head with the hammer pulled back threatening to kill the kid and things went further and further down this road... well...
But if there were say,8 salty looking dudes, maybe a couple with ski masks on, several of them reaching in pockets, a couple of them trying to fade away from the group... Then he might decide if he doesn't keep control over the situation and throw a little fear, a few of them may pull weapons on him, or a few may get away and come backthe next night. And maybe cut his family's throats for inconveniencing them.
These are obviously extremes, but this is a case that makes my blood boil and would like to know more.

Posted by: RM at February 09, 2011 02:42 PM (GkYyh)

122 This isn't really the case. All kinds of poeple can come on to your property, including the postman or the gas man or a hiker.
If your ranch contains a trail that hikers have been using for years, good luck getting anybody charged wth trespassing. I'm pretty sure even Slough-bag can confirm this.
Posted by: spongeworthy at February 09, 2011 02:39 PM (rplL3)
Actualy? untrue. If your land is posted as No Trespassing, and its Fenced, no they cannot enter without permission.
Gas man cannot come in unless he has a Contracted need, ie, you signing up for service gives him permission.
Postman? You can put your mailbox at the Entrance to your property (which most ranchers I know do).
And if you put a SIGN up on the Trail... yes you CAN keep people off it... historical use does NOT force you to give up property rights.

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 09, 2011 02:46 PM (AdK6a)

123 I going back to the last thread and look a Xena again.
That image ishappily residing in the 'Bunk Bank'.

Posted by: garrett at February 09, 2011 02:48 PM (dfFbH)

124 --This isn't really the case. All kinds of poeple can come on to your property, including the postman or the gas man or a hiker.
The postman isn't allowed to walk anywhere on your property he wants. A mailbox probably qualifies as federal property, or somethign of the sort. If you have gas lines on your property, then it isn't YOUR private property, as some rights had to be signed away before the gas line could go there. If you have no gas lines, then the gasman isn't allowed on.


--If your ranch contains a trail that hikers have been using for years,
good luck getting anybody charged wth trespassing. I'm pretty sure even
Slough-bag can confirm this.

Posted by: spongeworthy at February 09, 2011 02:39 PM (rplL3)
Again, you are taking a restricted property ownership and using it to argue that people have the right to trample all over anyone's property.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at February 09, 2011 02:48 PM (N49h9)

125 Posted by: RM at February 09, 2011 02:42 PM (GkYyh)
16 people, on his Fenced land, posted no trespassing.
He was alone, with his dog... did draw on them, threaten them with the dog, or that he would shoot them if they moved... and did "kick" one lady who was on the ground (but he says was moving) which brought on the Battery charge (which was dismissed).

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 09, 2011 02:48 PM (AdK6a)

126 and did "kick" one lady who was on the ground (but he says was moving) which brought on the Battery charge (which was dismissed).
Shit, sometimes Wayne Brady has to kick a Bitch.

Posted by: Wayne Brady at February 09, 2011 02:54 PM (dfFbH)

127 Romeo13,
Thanks. That kinda puts things in perspective.
What would the court have him do? Take them into his home, wake his family up and have them serve the undocumented workers trying to get out of the shadows tea and cookies until the authorities arrived?

Posted by: RM at February 09, 2011 02:57 PM (GkYyh)

128 It looks like the problem here is Arizona state law and an excess of Californian immigrants on juries.

Arizona needs a victim protection law like Oregon's ... one that forbids lawsuits by criminals against their victims.


Posted by: Kristopher at February 09, 2011 03:11 PM (atS82)

129 You know what they call a system of government in which killing one person even has the potential to overturn the law?

A monarchy.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 09, 2011 03:20 PM (T0NGe)

130 Oh come on. One time my husband caught some guys on our place. They were not only trespassing, they were rolling big hay bales out into the road. He had a gun. He called the law on his cell and then when they tried to run off he told them to give him their keys. They refused so he made them strip down to their shorts. I am not kidding.

Now that was emotional distress. I showed up before the law did and told my husband to let them put their jeans back on. I could just imagine how that would look.

Nothing happened, to them or him.

Posted by: Terrye at February 09, 2011 03:21 PM (f8jKx)

131 Plaintiffs lawyer Nina Perales, legal director of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said the case "sends a very important message that people cannot take the law into their hands."

Just curious, but didn't the wetback decide to take the law into his own hands when he slipped across the border? I wonder if a wise latina woman could ever recognize the original cause of the offense. Don't lawyers always talk about tainted fruit of a crime?

Posted by: Tigtog at February 09, 2011 03:29 PM (Q5+Og)

132 I am beginning to dislike liberals.

Posted by: Bill Mitchell at February 09, 2011 03:35 PM (x3Anv)

133 I don't think liberals in general or the wise Latina are real interested in looking at what creates these type of situations in the first place. If these (protected victim class workers trying to better themselves) weren't breaking the law in the first place, trespassing ON HIS PROPERTY, they wouldn't have had ANY%!*%#* emotional distress at all.

Posted by: RM at February 09, 2011 03:40 PM (GkYyh)

134 Again, you are taking a restricted property ownership and using it to argue that people have the right to trample all over anyone's property.
No I'm not. I'm trying to point out that there is danger in drawing conclusions based upon blanket statements like:
What are you talking about? NO ONE is allowed to just come onto your private property. Period.
If it's true that affirmative steps had been taken to keep people out, like posts and fencing, then this rancher should be able to claim the swimmers were trespassing. Absent that, they were "cutting across his lawn", which is not a crime.
Finally, in this part of the country (east), you cannot fence and post across a trail that hikers, farmers or others have historically used as egress. Not only will it be ignored, you'll have to take it down.

Posted by: spongeworthy at February 09, 2011 04:00 PM (rplL3)

135 Lesson: Dead men tell no tales.

Posted by: libertarianjim at February 09, 2011 04:23 PM (PReJ3)

136 Everyone has a right to expect that their property rights will be respected, and that when they are not, the appropriate remedy will be applied.

The appropriate remedy for trespass is for the trespassers to leave the property, especially once they are advised that they are on private property, and that they are not welcome.

In most jurisdictions, trespass of this type (walking across someones property) is a violation of the civil code, which means that it is equivalent to jaywalking in seriousness (it is not even treated as a misdemeanor). If you notify someone that they are trespassing, and they wish to exit your property - you have to let them. That is the appropriate remedy. You can call the police to report the crime - but you can not prevent the trespassers from leaving.

If they want to leave, you can not detain them. Obviously, this is different than trespass to break and enter, or vandalize. If they refuse to leave, that is a separate issue. Of course, under that scenario, detaining them is not much of a problem.

While I am sympathetic to the rancher, and his private property rights, he did go over the line, and I do not expect that he will get relief in an appeal.

Posted by: cdm at February 09, 2011 05:28 PM (NTuzn)

137 Posted by: cdm at February 09, 2011 05:28 PM (NTuzn)

You maybe right, in that case the illegals should be awarded $1.00 and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund should pay court costs and legal fees for all.

Posted by: Vic at February 09, 2011 05:52 PM (M9Ie6)

138 Unfortunately for the rancher, they are not contesting the award, but the underlying premise.

I am a property owner, too, and I don't like the idea that someone can trespass, but I also understand that I cant pull a gun on someone to prevent them from leaving once they are advised that they are trespassing.

Posted by: cdm at February 09, 2011 06:02 PM (NTuzn)

139
Ace asserts in his post that the Tucson shooter, Jared Loughner was not aiming at Judge Roll.

How do we know this. In all of the reading I did about the Tucson shooting, I came across no solid evidence that Loughner went to that gathering with plans to shoot specifically Congressman Giffords. It has been asserted over and over that Giffords was the target, but there has been no evidence, concrete or circumstanial that Giffords was the target.

It's also been missed that Judge Roll was presiding over a case that involved Arizona demanding increased Federal resources for the deportation of illegals.

Given the fact that Giffords was shot once and not killed, I'll just go ahead and assert that Giffords was not the intended target of Jared Loughner. Much about this whole incident is very fishy.

Posted by: sartana at February 09, 2011 06:35 PM (+fNcw)

140 I don't thin the SCOTUS hears these cases de novo, do they? If not then he needs to get ready to pay.

The SCOTUS will probably just look for meaningful judicial error.

Posted by: Pigilito at February 09, 2011 06:36 PM (CU+o0)

141 Sartana: ?????


Posted by: cdm at February 09, 2011 07:02 PM (NTuzn)

142 Honey, I'm hooooome????

Posted by: sartana at February 09, 2011 09:36 PM (+fNcw)

143

Normal
0

7.8
0
2

false
false
false














MicrosoftInternetExplorer4






/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:ͨ;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}








are replica omega
temperamenteritable centenary replica iwc
brand. Today, just mention replica tag heuer
crystal products, the experts replica breitling
think the first one replica rolex
brand is Swarovski. Swarovski jewelry luxury rolex
and imitated crystal gucci handbags
at the top, the senior hublot replica
industry replica gucci
prestigious replica handbags jewelry hublot replica
products.

replica IWC replica omega
Replica tag
replica breitlingluxury rolex
replica rolex replica hublot gucci handbags

Posted by: cheap replica watches at February 12, 2011 04:18 AM (Ioilo)

144 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1432- - - - 2011- - -
- - -

Posted by: at February 14, 2011 06:47 AM (D+IUI)

145 altın ilek - fx15 - leke kremi - yudali - maurers - ozon yağı

Posted by: petrelli at February 14, 2011 04:14 PM (xZ63V)

146 Avondjurken
Cocktailjurken
Avondjurken
Avondjurken Online
Goedkope Avondjurken
Cocktailjurken
Cocktailjurken Online
Goedkope Cocktailjurken

Posted by: gogogu.nl at February 18, 2011 03:40 AM (vFIOF)

147 شات
العراق
جات
العراق
شات
عراقي
جات
عراقي
شات
جات
حظك
ابراج
اغاني
افلام
دردشة
شات
طرب
ماليزيا
صور
ازياء
وظائف
اخبار
برامج
مجلة
موسيقى
الحان
2011
سياحة
المحيط
فنادق
حجوزات
شكشكة
استضافة
فلم
قوقل
كوكل
جوجل
جات
افلام هندية
العراق
Iraq
Chat
film
حدث في مثل هذا اليوم
شخصيات من التاريخ
قيمرز
العاب الموبايل
العاب فلاش
العاب جديدة
صور
تحشيش
رسائل SMS
مسلسلات تركية
يوتوب
youtube
برامج موبايل
هكر
بنرات
صور رمزية
الستلايت
تحميل برامج
راب
اغاني اجنبية
اغاني عربية
طرب
اغاني VEVO
موسيقى الافلام
كلمات الاغاني
اغاني عراقية
مسلسلات مدبلجه
صور تركيه
مسلسلات كوريه
مسلسلات تركية
افلام تركيه
صور رومانسية
صور
2011
صور
حب
صور جديدة
صور الفنانين العراقيين
اخبار الفنانيين العراقيين
فنانات عربيات
مشاهير العرب
صور ممثلين عرب
افلام عربيه
اخبار مشاهير
صور ممثلين اجانب
افلام جديدة
افلام 2011
افلام رومانسية
الصور الهنديه
الاغاني الهنديه
اخبار بوليود
افلام هندية
افلام كورية
ايمو
صور عراقية
مادة الرياضيات
ملازم الدراسية
جامعة بغداد
روضة
الروايات
المحبين
شعر
شعبي
ابوذيات
دارمي
خواطر رومانسية
خواطر حزينة
الالكلات العراقية
مشاكل زوجية
الديكورات
عطور نسائية
ازياء
شباب العراق
اعطال السيارات
سيارات 2011
صور سيارات
كأس الخليج
كمال الاجسام
نادي برشلونة
نادي ريال مدريد
كووورة
iraq news

Posted by: دردشة عراقية at February 20, 2011 12:09 PM (R1rXZ)

148
ملتقى - ملتقى صبايا العربي - صبايا - بنات العرب - شات - حسابي - شركة جوال - دليل مواقع - شاتاخر الاخبار - معلومات عامة - الاسهم والفوركس - السياحه - السوق الحرة - وظائف شاغرة - فتاوى نسائية - أناشيد إسلامية - خواطر رومانسية - شعر غزل - قصص رومانسية - مواضيع اجتماعيه - الأسره والطفل - موضه شباب - ازياء صبايا - ديكور - وصفات , طبخ - الطب البديل - مسابقات - نكت جديده - وطن على وتر - صور مسخره - فيديو مضحك - اخبار رياضيه - برامج - العاب - ماسنجر - فوتوشوب - ثيمات رومانسية - اخبار التكنولوجيا - مناسبات قوقل - دورات - تطوير المواقع - دعم فني للمنتدي - هاكات - هاكات - مواضيع متنوعه

Posted by: الملتقى العربي at April 04, 2011 10:34 PM (FfbL2)

149 trading 2011 mp3 8 8

Posted by: at April 23, 2011 10:32 PM (p5/Yl)

150 knockoff christian louboutin
shoes

Posted by: shoes by christian louboutin at April 27, 2011 03:26 AM (EpuE9)

151 This l o un effortless petit fichier texte two lignes appel robots.txt vient in.Robots.txt rside dans sur le website tous les together.vos internet sites rpertoire Sac Louis Vuitton Monogram Perfo Monogram Leopaprincipal (sur les systmes Linux C'est votre / public_html / rpertoire), et ressemble de la suivante: User-agent: * Disallow: La premire ligne contrôle le "bot" qui sera visitent votre site, la deuxime ligne de contrôle si elles sont autorises, ou dont les occasions du website ne sont pas autoriss visit.If vous voulez grer plusieurs «bots», Sac Louis Vuitton Monogram Miroi puis simple sacs Louis Vuittonrptition du

Posted by: sac at June 22, 2011 05:35 AM (Q2Fa0)

152 Different seasons of marriage have different styles elegant wedding
dresses , different styles can create different romantic unusual wedding dresses , then
leave a different feeling. Where, how to reflect the different preloved wedding dresses feeling
come from? Of course, the bride's vintage
wedding gowns ! Wedding day is the bride's most important day in her life,
and she is also the focus of oscar dresses
2010 everyone that day, so in any case that day the bride must be the most
special, then choose an excellent but also suitable wedding dresses
2011 for her wedding is very important. So what, it quickly began to select.
The spring wedding dresses
will have an annual prevalence of new summer dress 2011 elements
every year, but not all people like the trend, like the new elements. Now there
are much more people like the special occasion dress
elements, so according to different people, different personality, different
hobbies , we have different years of the popular elements winter ball dresses are
revealed, so you will have a better choice. Believe us, choose us!

Posted by: wedding gowns 2011 at June 26, 2011 04:47 AM (Nkkb4)

153
bird houses for sale
african masks for sale
how to get rid of dandruff

Posted by: Steve at June 29, 2011 08:20 PM (ha0jB)

154


1024x768



Normal
0

7.8
0
2

false
false
false




















st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }



/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:ͨ;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}



75. The
person of next Karen
Millen dresses consideration is Sir Andrew Freeport, a merchant of great eminence in the city of London, a person of
indefatigable industry, strong reason, and great experience. His notions of
trade Karen Millen sale are noble and generous, discount Karen Millen and (as every rich man has usually some sly
way of jesting, which would make on great figure were he not a rich man) he
calls the sea the British Common. He is acquainted with commerce in all Karen Millen online its parts, and will tell you that
it is a stupid and barbarous way to extend dominion by arms; for true power is
to be got Karen Millen dress by arts and industry. He will often argue,
that if this part of our trade were well cultivated, we should gain Karen Millen sale coats from one nation; and of another,
from another. I have heard him prove that diligence made more lasting Karen Millen coats sale acquisitions than Valero, and that
sloth has ruined more nations than the sowed. He abounds in several Karen Millen skirts frugal maxims, among which the
greatest favorite is.

Posted by: karen millen uk at July 07, 2011 12:03 AM (BHYDa)

155
so nice site for
me! how much important site for us. thanks for your free!!!

Posted by: buy cheap sunglasses at July 12, 2011 04:40 AM (7Gsyc)

156
I found so many
interesting stuff in your blog especially its discussion. From the tons of
comments on your articles, I guess I am not the only one having all the
enjoyment here! keep up the good work. I am always trying to foster good
relationships with people who can help my cause. This really breaks it down
to a step by step process

Posted by: Birkenstock shoes at July 14, 2011 05:05 AM (/wbcT)






Processing 0.03, elapsed 0.0482 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0251 seconds, 165 records returned.
Page size 116 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat