JPF Home Page Forums Illegal aliens awarded $78,000 in damages against Arizona rancher

here's the story I just wonder had this scene happened in Mexico or any other other countries in the world where these illegals aliens are coming from what would have been the result? That said, how can a guy be liable for holding potentially dangerous trespassers on his property at gunpoint until the cops come? There were “thousands” of illegals that trampled through this guys ranch, killed his livestock, stole his equipment, left tons of trash and human waste and broke into his home.Whoever said crime doesn't pay obviously overlooked a few places it does.


A federal jury found Tuesday that a southern Arizona rancher didn’t violate the civil rights of a group of illegal immigrants who claimed that he detained them at gunpoint in 2004.
The eight-member civil jury also found Roger Barnett wasn’t liable on claims of battery and false imprisonment.
But the jury did find him liable on four claims of assault and four claims of infliction of emotional distress and ordered Barnett to pay $77,804 in damages — $60,000 of which were punitive.

I won't give the solution to this one. I would be tarred feathered and rode out of town on a rail...

now you see who's working against the "we" in the constitution our government, we've been sold out! a long time ago too!

Who?

Post deleted by nubbin

The link you provided suggested something to me and I verified it by digging a little deeper and finding an actual newspaper column:

http://www.svherald.com/articles/2006/11/23/local_news/news1.txt

It seems the members of the hunting party were Americans.

Does this change your opinion of the jury finding?

Scott

Post deleted by nubbin

Post deleted by nubbin

Scott: In other words, don't cloud the issue with facts.

Kevin

these are the kinds od representatives those illegal aliens had

But the SPLC does not list American Border Patrol as being anti-legal-immigrant, only as anti-immigrant, leaving the reader to believe, by omission, that the American Border Patrol is against legal immigration. This is not true; this is, in fact, a lie. How does SPLC respond to the obvious difference between a legal immigrant and an illegal alien? By claiming the distinction is “hogwash.” That the SPLC would claim this distinction is hogwash is telling, indeed

The Far West Regional Office of the National Council of La Raza, a known racist organization (La Raza, literally translated, means ‘the race’), is based in Phoenix, Arizona. Yet this known racist organization is not listed on the SPLC hate map. Neither are any of the other eight regional offices, two of which are based in California. The confrontation, on February 4, 2008, between CNN’s Lou Dobbs and Janet Murguia, president and CEO of the National Council of La Raza, aired live for all to hear (transcript read here, live segment heard here). It became readily apparent, during the segment, that Murguia believes anyone who does not agree with her pro-illegal-alien agenda should be denied their first amendment rights and their second amendment rights; repeatedly claiming, without substantiating her claims, that those opposing illegal-aliens in the U.S. are armed vigilantes who spew hate. Rather sounds like the SPLC whom Murguia referenced repeatedly as the source of much of her vitriolic claims.

Neither is The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) listed with seven regional offices, nation-wide. The co-founder of MALDEF, Mario Obledo, has stated, “California is going to be a Hispanic state and anyone who doesn't like it should leave." Now, if that isn’t racist, what is?

Also not listed on the SPLC website as a hate group is the Progressive Labor Party of California, a pro-illegal-immigrant communist group who has started at least one violent confrontation with anti-illegal-immigrant groups gathered to peacefully demonstrate and request redress of grievances with their government.

These are just three pro-illegal-immigration groups that do not appear on the SPLC “hate map”. There is undoubtedly many more anti-American/pro-illegal-invasion-of-America/pro-Aztlan-overthrow-of-America websites that do not appear on the SPLC “hate map.” Why not?

by clicking on this link it will show that according to the Southern Poverty Law Center one of the groups that represented these illegal aliens in this case that will show the American Border patrol to be a hate group in Arizona

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp#s=AZ

Nubbin: Your title of your thread and the premise of your entire post has been proven to be a falsehood. It might be better if you just acknowledged that you were wrong here and move on. Why would anyone want to read anything more from you when obviously the truth doesn't really matter to you?

Kevin

here's proof on the other group that represented the illegals, whether Kevin likes it or not our borders and it's people living there will protect them


http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/BAN-ARCHIVE/050224.html

here's the latest on that website very interesting and good news for those who care about keeping out illegal aliens


http://www.americanpatrol.com/index.html

what it all boils down to is this, had the illegal aliens stayed where they were and had they not broke the law by entering the USA illegally then anything after that would not have occured on that day between Barnett and them.

Except they weren't illegals. They were Americans. Unless you think the newspaper got it wrong.

Scott

A federal jury found Tuesday that a southern Arizona rancher didn’t violate the civil rights of a group of illegal immigrants

Nub, I think maybe your Jack Elam avatar annoys people. Gotta love Jack though.

Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt; you can get back on track with your thread now.

Only kidding with you Nubbin.

Best, John

LOL, maybe I'll put the really good version of him up for them only

This is from the Sierra Vista Herald:

The hunters, all of whom are Americans of Mexican decent, said Barnett insulted them with racial slurs and threatened to shoot them — charges Barnett denied.

What is your source?

I'm not claiming the newspaper is infallible - for one thing, they don't know how to spell descent. But they are a newspaper, which gives them some credibility. So again, what is your source?

Post deleted by nubbin

Post deleted by nubbin

Post deleted by nubbin

Gary:

So where in all that does it say they are illegal aliens?

I haven't expressed an opinion the case. Actually, I think the Barnetts acted stupidly, but then so did the trespassers. I don't believe the Barnetts should have to pay them any money.

My whole reason for getting involved here is simply to correct what appears to be a factual error in the subject line of this thread - according to the news reports I've seen, the trespassers were Americans and not illegals.

I haven't seen you post anything to refute that. If you can't, I'd consider editing the subject line. I'm going back to music related posts now.

Scott

Nub, I don't mean to pile on because I agree with you on a number of issues regarding illegals, but don't you think your fixation on this issue kind of borders on obsession?

here is where the original post came from here is that link

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6267853.html

living in a border state as I do this is a daily concern, maybe in your neck of the woods everything is peaches n cream?

Nubbin,

Even the gun owner community is very divided on this one, with most of the posters I've read thinking Barret was over the line with Morales.

Barret held Ronald Morales and his 11 year-old daughter at gunpoint for crossing his land to go to public hunting land. Morales is an employee of the Department of Defense and both he and his daughter are U.S. born citizens. That's the sticking point.

I am against illegal immigration and for gun ownership. Barret is not a good poster boy for either, he feeds into the stereotype that the pro-illegal, anti-gunners like to use, knowing most folks fall for the faulty logic of using one example to prove a general point.

Gary

Your post title states

Illegal Aliens awarded $78,000 in damages against Arizona Rancher

Further digging shows they were NOT illegal aliens but American born persons of Mexican heritage.

You repeatedly state you are only against Illegal aliens yet persist with this story. The story has nothing to do with Illegals.
It is OK to be outraged by the story but you are using it out of context.

I agree this whole thing sounds bogus and the trespassers should not have received anything. Why children were in this "hunting" party is a little strange. My guess there was a little more going on.

But to blame it on illegals ain't workin'

I'm telling you Nubbin, it's the avatar.

Best, John

this is from the Houston Chronicle paper that it came from and the date of the newspaer was Feb 18, 2009


A federal jury found Tuesday that a southern Arizona rancher didn't violate the civil rights of a group of illegal immigrants who said he detained them at gunpoint in 2004.

All six plaintiffs are citizens of Mexico, five of whom are living in the United States with visa applications pending, and the sixth resides in Mexico but was allowed into the U.S. for the trial, said Nina Perales, an attorney with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. She declined to say where in the U.S. they're residing.

just in case you won't go to the link here that I provide to it I will show the whole story and the title caption from the Houston Chronicle that came from the AP :

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6267853.html

Jury: Rancher didn't violate illegal immigrants' rights

TUCSON, Ariz. — A federal jury found Tuesday that a southern Arizona rancher didn't violate the civil rights of a group of illegal immigrants who said he detained them at gunpoint in 2004.

The eight-member civil jury also found Roger Barnett wasn't liable on claims of battery and false imprisonment.

But the jury did find him liable on four claims of assault and four claims of infliction of emotional distress and ordered Barnett to pay $77,804 in damages — $60,000 of which were punitive.

Barnett declined to comment afterward, but one of his attorneys, David Hardy, said the plaintiffs lost on the bulk of their claims and that Barnett has a good basis for appeal on the two counts on which he lost.

"They won a fraction of the damages they were seeking," Hardy said.

All six plaintiffs are citizens of Mexico, five of whom are living in the United States with visa applications pending, and the sixth resides in Mexico but was allowed into the U.S. for the trial, said Nina Perales, an attorney with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. She declined to say where in the U.S. they're residing.

Perales called the outcome "a resounding victory that sends a message that vigilante violence against immigrants will not be tolerated."

David Urias, attorney for the plaintiffs, said, "Obviously we are disappointed with some aspects of the verdict. But I think that overall this was a victory for the plaintiffs."

For years, Arizona has been the busiest point along the Mexican border for illegal immigrants entering the United States.

For more than a decade, Barnett has been a controversial figure in southern Arizona. He's known for aggressively patrolling his ranch property and along highways and roads in the area, often with his wife and brothers, on the lookout for illegal immigrants.

The plaintiffs alleged that Barnett threatened them with his dog and told them he would shoot anyone who tried to escape.

Barnett's lawyers argued that his land was inundated with illegal immigrants who left trash on his property, damaged his water supply and harmed his cattle.

Barnett's wife and a brother were dismissed as defendants; in addition, 10 more people initially named as plaintiffs were dropped from the proceedings.

Barnett has been known to wear a holstered 9-mm pistol on his hip and upon coming across groups of migrants, to flash a blue and gold badge resembling that of the highway patrol, with the wording "Barnett Ranch Patrol. Cochise County. State of Arizona."

The Barnetts detain and turn over those whom they encounter to the U.S. Border Patrol. In 2006, Barnett estimated that he had detained more than 10,000 illegal immigrants in 10 years.

His actions have resulted in formal complaints from the Mexican government against what it considers vigilante actions, and in several other lawsuits, including one stemming from an October 2004 incident.

In that case, a jury awarded a family of Mexican-Americans on a hunting trip $100,000 in damages, later upheld by the Arizona Supreme Court.

Barnett's 22,000-acre ranch, about five miles north of the Mexican border, includes private and federal lease holdings in addition to nearly 14,000 acres of state-leased land.

OK so now the dispute is whether or not they were American citizens?
So they were here on visas? did that make them illegal?

Like I said there seems to be a little more to the story.
IF they were here illegally it is a different story.

O.K., nub, sometimes I'm worried that you might be wearing a tinfoil sombrero. Ronald Morales is a citizen and a six-year veteran of the U.S. Navy.

http://www.svherald.com/articles/2006/11/21/local_news/news12.txt

so now you dispute the AP and the Houston Chronicle? ok dispute them not me I just reported the story

Bill, from all I've read, the Morales hunting party were all American born of Mexican descent.

If you say things long enough and loud enough, people start to believe it -- author unknown.

Mike where does it say that they were all American born citizens? I'd like to read in those words all American Born citizens, give me the link because what information I gave you is from 2 reliable resources and current dated as of yesterday

here is another link from the washington times dated Feb 9 2009 that states the same thing that they (16) 5 men and 11 women (illegals)sued Roger Barnett

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/09/16-illegals-sue-arizona-rancher/

Looks like there are two different cases being talked about in the same story. Analysis and a brief explanation would have cleared this up 20 posts ago.

it's 1 story same case just another paper that shows they were illegals

Good Gawd, you are pretty much impossible to communicate with. From your one (1, uno, un, ein, jedynka) article:



It is just not worth the effort talking about these things with you. While you may or may not be factual every once in a while, you cloud it with enough false propaganda so you come off looking like a raving lunatic.

Kevin

Nub,

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2006/nov/24/news/chi-0611240180nov24

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/14/AR2006111401054.html

http://www.douglasdispatch.com/articles/2004/12/01/news/news1.txt

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/23/america/NA_GEN_US_Border_Confrontation.php

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/nov/24/20061124-105913-3897r/

http://alaskapride.blogspot.com/2006/11/arizona-rancher-and-immigration-reform.html

http://www.bensonnews-sun.com/articles/2006/11/29/news/news9.eml

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/altss/printstory/local/33820

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/altss/printstory/arizona/97572
(not a repeat, an interesting addition)

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20061124/news_1n24rancher.html

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=2006-11-23_D8LJ07N80&show_article=1&cat=us

Mike I looked and saw what you're saying but everyone of these papers are outdated from 2006. Can you show as I have a recent paper 2009 that states these people were legal American citizens as of 2009 ? You state that one of them was in the service, don't you think there are illegal aliens in our service still and have been for many years?

OK, in the interest of clarity, I'll try to summarize the facts. Kevin has already figured it out....

There were two incidents: One in March 2004 involving Mexican nationals. Another in October 2004 involving Americans. Your subject line apparently refers to the first story. But the first link you gave, in which you state that we can get "the rest of the story" refers to the second incident. On top of that, throughout the thread, you continue to refer to the Morales case (the October incident) as the source of your irritation. Based on your most recent posts, it seems like you STILL think both cases are the same case.

If YOU can't figure it out, it's a little much to expect the reader to. I finally did - after spending time I could have better spent thinking about the ramifications.

Gary, you might have an argument - but unless you can frame it in a coherent fashion, you ain't gonna convince anyone of anything.

Scott

you can dispute my words all you like, like I said earlier my information was based on the newspaper sources that are current and if they are wrong then you can dispute them and email them to correct theirs until then I will believe they are correct

I have found out that there was another case that involved Barnett and I got my cases confused since they both happened in 2004 and my original post is correct but when I gave further information by a link to a alaskan paper that was on another case that I was not aware of and thought the case was the same, so I was wrong about 1 case and I'm man enough to admit it.I shall remove every thing linked to that case and leave only the original case that I first posted.

Exactly, that's what Scott and Kevin were saying. The Morales trial outcome you posted was about Barnett holding a family of U.S. citizens, including an 11 year old girl, at gunpoint for crossing a disputed area of land while attempting to hunt on public hunting land.

The Morales' were U.S. citizens.

Barnett is not a poster boy for our cause.

Besides, pointing out single cases, or in this instance, two single cases, does nothing to further debate against illegal immigration. We must argue from the general to the particular. Instead of crying wolf every time there's an illegal alien incident, we should be presenting general statements, then arguing toward the specific. What we need are statistics of problems that result from our porous borders and expert opinions on the dangers to our security that they cause.

Running around yelling, "There's an illegal under my bed." doesn't help.

Posting individual stories, especially when they are mistakenly mixed, are not helpful at all.

Folks will think we wear tinfoil sombreros.

I'd rather have a "tinfoil sombero"(why a sombero?) on than to have no protection at all on, and I applaud this man he was standing up for his rights as protecting his property and has apprended 1000's of illegals that might have entered and did more than just look for an illegal hiring employer.Maybe if there were more Roger Barnetts then there would be less illegals even thinking of coming?I will continue to do my part as anyway I can .