16 illegals sue Arizona rancher

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

We have entered the realm of the surreal.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/9/16-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.

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."

**chaos0xomega**

Only in America. I wish the guy the best of luck in court, he's going to need it knowing the past trend of these sorts of things.

**Platuan4th**

Surreal indeed.

It's his land,he has a right to keep people he doesn't want on it off it. If that means they're reported to Border Patrol, oh well.

Next thing we know, we won't be able to turn away unwanted visitors and solicitors because it violates their Civil Rights.

And for people that don't know better(before they start flaming), that last intended to be humorous exaggeration and hyperbole.

**Fafnir**

I don't know what's worse: the fact that someone actually thought they had a case against this guy, or the fact that it actually went through.

**Scrabb**

There are circumstances where someone can be in the wrong while defending their own property, especially if these abuses take place after apprehension of trespassers is completed. I don't know if they have a good case or not at this point.

**Kilkrazy**

It's all a bit of a mess, really.

On the one hand, you can't just go around holding people prisoner at gunpoint. On the other hand, doesn't US law allow for citizen's arrest?

I'm amazed at the man's energy, though. It must take a lot of work to round up an average of three border crossers a day and hand them over to the police.

**Platuan4th**

Kilkrazy wrote:On the one hand, you can't just go around holding people prisoner at gunpoint. On the other hand, doesn't US law allow for citizen's arrest?

Depends on where you are. You'd have to check your local laws. For example, Jefferson Parish doesn't allow it(at least from what I've gleaned from friends that work for the Sheriff).

**Frazzled**

Its a rural county not New Orleans. Apprehension of tresspassers is a time honored tradition. Carrying at least a pistol is absolutely required for safety from human smugglers and drug dealers who run the border now.

But you're right. He shouldn't be doing this. the US Army should be doing this.

**Thaanos**

I don't know enough about American Law, or enough about the facts. But I don't deny his right to defend his property, although I do disagree about doing it at gun point. Personally if I had the money this guy seems to have, I would encircle my property with a small moat, fences, and signs in English and Spanish. This way they can not deny knowledge of private property. Hopefully that would prevent trespassing.

**Avatar 720**

It is going up against a jury, and if the people picked for it have any common sense they'll vote not guilty. The guy has stopped over 12,000 illegal immigrants getting in; that's a potential 12,000 jobs that are now able to be filled by US citizens instead of illegals; more homes; more food etc.

Weigh up holding at someone at gun-point on your own land with the intent to stop a crime and what he's already done for the country, what he's had to endure over the years he's been doing it and the fact that he doesn't even get paid for doing a job that someone else is paid to do, and even someone with smallest IQ can see the pros of his actions vastly outweigh the cons. Either that or they can wait until they're kicked out of their job in favour of a cheaper illegal.

The fact that it even has to go to a jury however, is beyond my understanding.

**Scrabb**

Thaanos wrote:I don't know enough about American Law, or enough about the facts. But I don't deny his right to defend his property, although I do disagree about doing it at gun point. Personally if I had the money this guy seems to have, I would encircle my property with a small moat, fences, and signs in English and Spanish. This way they can not deny knowledge of private property. Hopefully that would prevent trespassing.

It won't help. The risks the illegal immigrants are already running are a lot higher than trespassing on private property. They know what they're doing as well. A wall would solve nothing.

**Kilkrazy**

Avatar 720 wrote:It is going up against a jury, and if the people picked for it have any common sense they'll vote not guilty. The guy has stopped over 12,000 illegal immigrants getting in; that's a potential 12,000 jobs that are now able to be filled by US citizens instead of illegals; more homes; more food etc.

Weigh up holding at someone at gun-point on your own land with the intent to stop a crime and what he's already done for the country, what he's had to endure over the years he's been doing it and the fact that he doesn't even get paid for doing a job that someone else is paid to do, and even someone with smallest IQ can see the pros of his actions vastly outweigh the cons. Either that or they can wait until they're kicked out of their job in favour of a cheaper illegal.

The fact that it even has to go to a jury however, is beyond my understanding.

It is called the Rule of Law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law

**Tyyr**

Thaanos wrote:I don't know enough about American Law, or enough about the facts. But I don't deny his right to defend his property, although I do disagree about doing it at gun point. Personally if I had the money this guy seems to have, I would encircle my property with a small moat, fences, and signs in English and Spanish. This way they can not deny knowledge of private property. Hopefully that would prevent trespassing.

Given the conditions on the border defending your property at anything less than gunpoint is suicidal.

**Platuan4th**

Tyyr wrote:
Thaanos wrote:I don't know enough about American Law, or enough about the facts. But I don't deny his right to defend his property, although I do disagree about doing it at gun point. Personally if I had the money this guy seems to have, I would encircle my property with a small moat, fences, and signs in English and Spanish. This way they can not deny knowledge of private property. Hopefully that would prevent trespassing.

Given the conditions on the border defending your property at anything less than gunpoint is suicidal.

Indeed. They should count themselves lucky he did what he did and didn't just shoot them for being on his property(not familiar with Arizona law of course, so they might not allow fatal protection of self and property like Colorado does, IIRC).

**Da Boss**

Yeah, if these guys are already trespassing in an entire country, I really don't think a few signs and a fence are gonna put them off trespassing on a farm.
"Right, let's do this! A new life in America!"
"No no! Stop! There's a sign! Better go back to living in desperate squallor!"

**Frazzled**

I don't see where they have standing to sue, but thats the US legal system, crappiest in the Western Hemisphere.

**Grakmar**

Platuan4th wrote:
Tyyr wrote:
Thaanos wrote:I don't know enough about American Law, or enough about the facts. But I don't deny his right to defend his property, although I do disagree about doing it at gun point. Personally if I had the money this guy seems to have, I would encircle my property with a small moat, fences, and signs in English and Spanish. This way they can not deny knowledge of private property. Hopefully that would prevent trespassing.

Given the conditions on the border defending your property at anything less than gunpoint is suicidal.

Indeed. They should count themselves lucky he did what he did and didn't just shoot them for being on his property(not familiar with Arizona law of course, so they might not allow fatal protection of self and property like Colorado does, IIRC).

http://www.jeffco.us/jeffco/sheriff_uploads/revised_statutes.htm

You can't just blindly use deadly force in Colorado either.

The intruder has to:
1) Be in your dwelling
2) They have to be committing a crime other than just being in your dwelling (or you have to have a reasonable belief that they are)
3) Be in the reasonable belief that they will use physical force against you or other occupants

Some illegal immigrant crossing your land wouldn't meet these criteria.

**Da Boss**

Probably because he had them at gunpoint and continued to threaten them and kick them and stuff. I can understand how frustration would lead him to act like that, and why he did it, but I guess it might be against the law.
I don't think they should be able to get any money out of him, though.

**yeenoghu**

Can the people of the united states of america take the illegals' lawyers to court for wasting our money with such a stupid court case? That's like someone trying to sue a car company because the breaks on the car he just stole gave out.

**Emperors Faithful**

Frazzled wrote:But you're right. He shouldn't be doing this. the US Army should be doing this.

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.

Sounds like he's doing a pretty good impression of it.

**Melissia**

While I have sympathy for immigrants, he was well within his right to keep trespassers off of his lawn. Even if his lawn was inordinately big.

And the fact that they were killing his cattle and breaking into his home? feth that, they're lucky he didn't just shoot them in self defense, which is what I'd have done if they broke into MY home (mind you, I live in Texas, where there's the famous Castle law that protects homeowners in defending their homes).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grakmar wrote:The intruder has to:
1) Be in your dwelling
2) They have to be committing a crime other than just being in your dwelling (or you have to have a reasonable belief that they are)
3) Be in the reasonable belief that they will use physical force against you or other occupants

Wow, that's some draconian laws there.

I think that if they're breaking into my home it's reason enough to believe they're going to do something bad. So what, am I supposed to say "are you going to rape me, or just steal my stuff?" to any intruder?

**Platuan4th**

Grakmar wrote:
You can't just blindly use deadly force in Colorado either.

The intruder has to:
1) Be in your dwelling
2) They have to be committing a crime other than just being in your dwelling (or you have to have a reasonable belief that they are)
3) Be in the reasonable belief that they will use physical force against you or other occupants

Some illegal immigrant crossing your land wouldn't meet these criteria.

Armed Illegal Immigrants would. Border Crossing without permission is a crime, no matter how sympathetic you are to their situation. Killing someone's cattle is, too. As well, armed illegal immigrants aren't exactly carrying weapons because of a doctor's prescription.

**Emperors Faithful**

Melissia wrote:While I have sympathy for immigrants, he was well within his right to keep trespassers off of his lawn. Even if his lawn was inordinately big.

And the fact that they were killing his cattle and breaking into his home? feth that, they're lucky he didn't just shoot them in self defense, which is what I'd have done if they broke into MY home (mind you, I live in Texas, where there's the famous Castle law that protects homeowners in defending their homes).

While Illegal Immigrants may have damaged his property (or even broken into it) there's no evidence to suggest that this group was the one responsible. The damage has been occuring since 2002.

Grakmar wrote:The intruder has to:
1) Be in your dwelling
2) They have to be committing a crime other than just being in your dwelling (or you have to have a reasonable belief that they are)
3) Be in the reasonable belief that they will use physical force against you or other occupants
Wow, that's some draconian laws there.

I sincerely hope you're joking here.

**Melissia**

Read the edited post.

Also, it's rather irrelevant if he thought this one was the group in particular that was doing it, because he had PLENTY of reason to suspect they'd do something bad because of all of that.

**Emperors Faithful**

Melissia wrote:I think that if they're breaking into my home it's reason enough to believe they're going to do something bad. So what, am I supposed to say "are you going to rape me, or just steal my stuff?" to any intruder?

Breaking into your home is different than just being in your dwelling. The first one requires a forced entry or opening of a door/window. And yes, it's reasonable enough to assume that they intend to do soemthing other than hang around.

However if, for example, someone just walked through the open door and sat down on your couch, that doesn't give you reason to shoot them. You can ask them to leave, call the police, but shooting them (unless they act in a threatening or intimidating manner) is right out.

**Frazzled**

Platuan4th wrote:
Grakmar wrote:
You can't just blindly use deadly force in Colorado either.

The intruder has to:
1) Be in your dwelling
2) They have to be committing a crime other than just being in your dwelling (or you have to have a reasonable belief that they are)
3) Be in the reasonable belief that they will use physical force against you or other occupants

Some illegal immigrant crossing your land wouldn't meet these criteria.

Armed Illegal Immigrants would. Border Crossing without permission is a crime, no matter how sympathetic you are to their situation. Killing someone's cattle is, too. As well, armed illegal immigrants aren't exactly carrying weapons because of a doctor's prescription.

We should also note killing or stealing livestock, especially cattle or horses, has some interesting law and caselaw behind it. Try to steal a man's horse and it was legal to shoot his sorry

(it was viewed that stealing a horse left you stranded in the wilderness, effectively a potential death sentence). it still may be.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:
Melissia wrote:I think that if they're breaking into my home it's reason enough to believe they're going to do something bad. So what, am I supposed to say "are you going to rape me, or just steal my stuff?" to any intruder?

Breaking into your home is different than just being in your dwelling. The first one requires a forced entry or opening of a door/window. And yes, it's reasonable enough to assume that they intend to do soemthing other than hang around.

However if, for example, someone just walked through the open door and sat down on your couch, that doesn't give you reason to shoot them. You can ask them to leave, call the police, but shooting them (unless they act in a threatening or intimidating manner) is right out.

Don't argue direct legal points. There are vastly different strata and caselaw between states, much less countries.

**Emperors Faithful**

Frazzled wrote:Don't argue direct legal points. There are vastly different strata and caselaw between states, much less countries.

Grakmar wrote:
You can't just blindly use deadly force in Colorado either.

The intruder has to:
1) Be in your dwelling
2) They have to be committing a crime other than just being in your dwelling (or you have to have a reasonable belief that they are)
3) Be in the reasonable belief that they will use physical force against you or other occupants

Some illegal immigrant crossing your land wouldn't meet these criteria.

Melissia wrote:I think that if they're breaking into my home it's reason enough to believe they're going to do something bad. So what, am I supposed to say "are you going to rape me, or just steal my stuff?" to any intruder?

1) Be in your dwelling
2) They have to be committing a crime other than just being in your dwelling (or you have to have a reasonable belief that they are)
3) Be in the reasonable belief that they will use physical force against you or other occupants

breaking into my home

1) Be in your dwelling

Breaking and Entering

Spot the difference.

**yeenoghu**

Deleted by modquisitor Frazzled. Ethnic names are not permitted on Dakka.

**Platuan4th**

Taken care of by frazzled, removing as unneeded at this point.

**Melissia**

2) They have to be committing a crime other than just being in your dwelling (or you have to have a reasonable belief that they are)

IE, breaking and entering is not enough legal reason to defend your home.