16 illegals sue Arizona rancher
 

Another lawyer tries to make it big....


16 illegals sue Arizona rancher
Claim violation of rights as they crossed his land
Jerry Seper
Monday, February 9, 2009

Buzz up!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.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...izona-rancher/

Wow, so someone is being sued because he defended his own property by illegal immigrants who don't even belong in this country? WTF?

The article says he turned over 12,000 in about 10 years. That's a lot for one guy, don't ya think? A hundred a month???

I don't think the fact that they're illegal should even enter into it.

People were trespassing on his land, and it is my understanding that according to your constitution, he has a right to defend his family and property.

That they're illegal immigrants is a whole different issue.

Sounds like he has sustained a lot of damage as they use his place as a super highway to break our laws. At least he was nice enough to carry a radio and call the border patrol when he found the trespassers. They are lucky he just didn't shoot their ass and say it was some drug shoot out or a coyote gone bad.

This is the same vigilante, Roger Barnett, who did something very similar to US citizens:

Illegal immigration needs to be controlled....so does vigilantism. Good for the Morales family for suing this guy's self-righteous ass.

This guy is a danger to society, particularly if your skin is brown and you happen to be near the border!

The only society he is a danger to is the one trying to sneak into our country illegally. Good on him. Maybe they will find a new path to use in the future. They guy is way out there on his own for one reason, because the border patrol can't control the border. It is a big joke.

"A vigilante goes out, rounds up people, holds a trial and executes them. I haven't done that yet," Barnett told USA Today that same year. "But bloodshed could happen." - Roger Barnett

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intel...le.jsp?aid=758

Vigilantism is illegal as well.

"You a lawyer?" he asked with a sneer. "You're full of shit. I can stop 'em out on the road if I want. Didn't you hear what Bush said? Everybody needs to be vigilant and help the homeland security. I can do whatever I want." - Roger Barnett

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feat...te/index2.html

Contrary to Barnett's interpretation of Bush's "message to the people"...vigilantism is not patriotism.

Yea, so what's the problem? :D

Sure the guy stepped out of line in those cases. But yet we are going to go to bat for the people that violated his rights? I don't think so.

I dont know if you're serious or not...and that is scary!

Stepped out of line?

Damn....He is taking the law into his own hands....a repeat offender.

Yep, people can only take so much of being shat on and ignored by the people who are suppose to be protecting them before they have to do something to protect their property and in some case the fear for their lives.

Vigilantism is NOT patriotism.

You are condoning breaking the law to fight breaking the law.

In this particular case I support the guy and not the illegals. They need to find another way into the country that isn't through his property. I have no problem with what he did. I guess his peers will sit on his jury and he can make his case to them.

Sorry..but I dont judge this case in a vacuum....particularly when neither of us know the facts.

I never said a word about patriots. It is about property rights and the ability to prevent illegals from destroying his life, liberty, and ability to make a living. He is protecting it.

The jury will be asked to do so. The facts of the case and nothing more.

Sounds like you are judging him from a few google searches. You have no idea what this guy has put up with for years. But of course I am supporting him by that same notion.

I just hope this guy doesnt kill the next time.

Trespassing is not a capital offense.

I think everyone would hope he wouldn't need to kill anyone, but it does sound to me like he's put up with a lot.

I am judging the one case by an Arizona Supreme Court ruling in favor of the US citizens whose rights he violated.

It is in Texas.

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Arch.../msg03177.html

It will not be admissible in this trial.

Those good ole texas boys!

But this case is a federal lawsuit.

I've put up with alot from Merc in the last few days.

But I dont wanna kill him. :eek:

I don't believe that will make a difference, but I am no lawyer. I will be cheering for the property owner.

I would hope not, not over forum discussion.

We all have to put up with a lot from Merc. ;)

He's just a big scallywag really. :D

Hey! that can mean a whole host of things.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...term=scallywag

Well you are a man of many talents aren't you? lol

Few know the true depths.

And that's probably for the best...

Point made and taken. I can't agree more.

They were US citizens?

*giggle*

Bold mine.

OK, so I didn't read any of the links, I am just going by what was written here on the forum, and what I've heard about the border problems with illegals and the damage they do to people's land when crossing it illegally, which is significant.

I believe people have a right to protect their property. Since the federal government has pretty much tied the hands of border patrol agents, and there are not enough of them anyway, and people are being FORCED to handle the problem themselves, then I side with the property owners. People coming into the states illegally should not be able to sue someone who is protecting their property when they are on it illegally.

I will say this though. It sounds like he is also confronting people on land that does not belong to him. While I support his effort to stop the flow of illegals by calling the border patrol and turning them over, this begins to get more slippery. It is also true though that illegal drug lords are now using our public lands to grow pot. While I believe weed should be legalized and all laws should be repealed, I also recognize that illegals are walking over us and then crying foul when they are the ones breaking the law. To me it is ludicrous. It is like a thief suing their victim because said victim's dog bit the thief while he was burgling their house. WTF...

(for those who want cites...)
http://www.minutemanhq.com/hq/article.php?sid=860
http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_...49043c420677df
http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1141346.html

My concern with this case is the rush to judgement w/o knowing all the facts...particularly based on this guys previous words and actions.

Beyond that, IMO, vigilantism is not the answer to the serious problems of border enforcement.

They admitted they were on HIS land. How much clearere does it get than that?

Where did they admit that...or is that heresay from him?

What is the law in Ariz, re: threatening to kill alleged trespassers vs the civil rights of "people" (not just citizens) under the Constitution. I dont know.

I'm not condoning the action of the illegal immigrants....I'm just wanting to see such actions ruled by law, not by vigilantism.

Particularly regarding someone with such a questionable past.

Read the link! (post 37)
Lemme say this - as someone who lives in suburbia, it is probably quite difficult to imagine what life is like where he lives.

I agree.

But I honestly cant see how this guy's past words and actions wouldnt raise a flag, at the very least.

By many accounts (and his words and actions), he is a hard core militant member of a growing vigilantism movement.

That should concern any law abiding citizens, IMO.

Well, if you had a bunch of land, and people were constantly invading it under cover of darkness, and they were leaving all kinds of trash on it, and killing your livestock, not to mantion all the human waste that would be left, wouldn't you eventually become a little militant, especially if the government was unwilling/incapable of doing anything about the problem? I know I would.

Perhaps I would.

And perhaps if I was a dirt poor Mexican with no future, I might try to sneak across the border for a better life.

Both, illegal immigration and extremists vigilantism, are against the law.

That is fine, just do it legally and we'll welcome you with open arms.

Detain illegal immigrants legally and I have no problem either.

nor do I - In fact lets detain them all then ship their asses right the eff outta here. It would certainly free up some jobs for legal residents.

I'm not against immigration, I'm against illegal immigration (and I'm a raging liberal).

Maybe we should be working with Mexico to make it a better place for their people, so they will want to stay there. The truth is, Mexico has MUCH stricter immigration policies than we do, and much worse punishment for breaking their laws.

It's also true that Mexico's elite support those people coming here, because they don't want them there.

It's also true that illegals send hundreds of billions of dollars back home every year. Money they earned here, illegally, using someone's SS# illegally. We NEED that money here. Especially now. And wouldn't that be identity theft?

I am not defending illegal immigration....it is a serious national problem.

I am defending the Constitution.

Just keep in mind that our Constitution refers to rights of "people" not just "citizens."

While the courts have limited the civil rights of illegal immigrants, there are still rights that apply...so if you want to "detain them all and ship their asses right the eff outta here"..do it legally and not with vigilante justice.

Or just acknowledge that if you dont follow the rule of law, you are also wiling to ship out the Constitution

We could never do it. It would cost too much. The best way to do it is just make it impossible for them to get work here. They will leave on their own. PUNISH people who hire them. Like, SERIOUSLY punish them.

I think every job created by the stimulus should ONLY go to American citizens, or people who are here legally. NO ILLEGALS. Otherwise, what's the point?

Wrong. "We the people" is the people of the United States, not the people of Mexico, the Sudan, Cambodia, Iceland, or anywhere else you want to throw in. It was written by and for people who are legal citizens. No one else. If that were the case why don't we just go to Iraq and apply it there? We can't because it does not apply to them.

The right of habeus corpus is extending to persons in the US and not limited to citizens....unless you share Alberto Gonzales' interpretation of the Constitution.

That doesn't change the fact that criminals on private property can be legally detained by the property owner for the authorities.

If he frightens them, or hurts their feelings, but doesn't use unnecessary force, fuck 'em.

The concept of habeaus corpus applies to all human beings, but the problem is how or should the U.S. enforce adherance to it on those who are not U.S. citizens?

Why? From Who? Who brought that up in this conversation? No one is attacking the Constitution.

Agreed, but ??? (Long thread about that elsewhere)

Absolutely - Oh, and by the way - Lets put some more Americans to work and build a nice wall to stop the uncontested flow from the Mexican border. We can also build a nice facility to welcome and process those that would like to enter legally. That will create more jobs. Additionally, I'd be in favor of setting up a medical facility on the Mexican side of the border as well so that those who are about to have children can have a clean,safe & modern facility with qualified personnel in their own country.

I am not talking about one part of habeus, which is not listed in our Constitution, but implied by collective parts of it. There is nothing that says our Constitution applies to anyone other than US Citizens, the writ of hc is an important aspect of our judicial system. No one is saying that these individuals are being denied that writ.

CompletelyYes.The Constitution applies to the US government, wherever it operates. The Bill of Rights is not a list of things US citizens can do, it's a list of things the US government can't do. If it happens on US soil, they don't even have the flimsy Guantanimo excuse.

On the other hand, the guy was probably within his rights while on his property. Especially in Texas, there is a lot of latitude when it comes to protecting your property. He's not the US government, but he handed the people over to them. Any habeas issues would come up with how they handled it.

On the gripping hand, what he did on US government land was illegal, and would have been illegal even if the family he terrorized had turned out to have been illegal immigrants.

I would agree with that much. Although I would think that the writ of hc is more about what the state can and cannot do, not what someone can or cannot do to others on their own property. I would guess they could try to charge him with unlawful detention or something along those lines.

These illegal immigrants were on private property, trespassing, and the owner of the land has a legal right backed by precedence to detain them until law enforcement arrives. Once LE arrives is when Habeas comes into the argument. Habeas only comes into play when we're talking about government authorities detaining people.

Habeas Corpus does not apply to non-citizens. The US Constitution is a contract between US citizens and the federal government. Regardless of what "case law" may imply, non-US citizens, especially known enemies captured during wartime and held outside of US territorial jurisdiction, are not protected by the US Constitution.

More info about Habeas here.

Now, when we're talking about detaining people for purposes of calling the US Border Patrol, that falls under Citizen's Arrest statutes.

In other words, this guy was doing what he should have done. IMO, vigilante-ism would have come into play if he'd have shot them on sight. And if he loses this case, and has to pay illegals millions of dollars, do you really think he *won't* do that in the future?

Secondary question: how is it that illegal immigrants are ALLOWED to sue US Citizens for infringing on their civil rights, when they don't have US civil rights to begin with? They have Mexican civil rights, but the incident didn't happen in Mexico, and isn't against a Mexican.

The more I think about shit like this, the more I want to move out of this God forsaken place.