U.S. jury finds rancher liable in vigilante trial - Page 6

U.S. jury finds rancher liable in vigilante trial

This is a discussion on U.S. jury finds rancher liable in vigilante trial within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Originally Posted by bbernard Matiki, Here is the Arizona Statute currently on the books.... 13-407. Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises A. ...

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 111

Thread: U.S. jury finds rancher liable in vigilante trial

  1. #76
    VIP Member Array matiki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    N.W.
    Posts
    2,917
    Quote Originally Posted by bbernard View Post
    Matiki,

    Here is the Arizona Statute currently on the books....

    13-407. Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises

    A. A person or his agent in lawful possession or control of premises is justified in threatening to use deadly physical force or in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent that a reasonable person would believe it immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon the premises.

    B. A person may use deadly physical force under subsection A only in the defense of himself or third persons as described in sections 13-405 and 13-406.

    C. In this section, "premises" means any real property and any structure, movable or immovable, permanent or temporary, adapted for both human residence and lodging whether occupied or not.

    What say you now?????
    AZ's lowest threshold for criminal trespass
    13-1502. Criminal trespass in the third degree; classification

    A. A person commits criminal trespass in the third degree by:

    1. Knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully on any real property after a reasonable request to leave by the owner or any other person having lawful control over such property, or reasonable notice prohibiting entry.

    2. Knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully on the right-of-way for tracks, or the storage or switching yards or rolling stock of a railroad company.

    B. Criminal trespass in the third degree is a class 3 misdemeanor.
    Quote Originally Posted by bbernard View Post
    It looks like he will have an excellent case for appeal....

    You my friend, are in the wrong on this case.

    Illegal Aliens crossing the border illegally are in the act of "criminal trespass" both against the USA and the US citizen.

    Have you seen the heeps of trash these people are leaving on the property? What say you about his lost wages due to the "illegals" cutting the barbed wire on his fences and the cattle getting loose?
    I agree that they tend to do these things - but did the illegal immigrants in this particular case do so? There's no mention anywhere of this group having done any of these things, or having been given the option to leave the property. And the definitions for criminal trespass are quite clear in the AZ statutes, I don't see where the threshold for criminal trespass was met.

    I think the outrage this has generated will motivate people to change the law to make such a situation more likely to be legal in the future. Amending the criminal trespass statutes to include those trespassing to gain entry to the country illegally might be a good solution. But you'd still have to prove you were reasonable in your use or threat of force.

    Personally, I'm not sure the public at large is ever going to be comfortable with the idea of being held at gunpoint for wandering onto someones property, unless you were a danger to the property owner.
    "Wise people learn when they can; fools learn when they must." - The Duke of Wellington


  2. #77
    Member Array bbernard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Fort Myers, FL
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by matiki View Post
    Personally, I'm not sure the public at large is ever going to be comfortable with the idea of being held at gunpoint for wandering onto someones property, unless you were a danger to the property owner.
    These people were not "wandering" about and just happen to pass unknowingly on this mans land. They knew they trespassing on U.S soil the minute they crossed the border.

    We know illegals are causing the damage to the property. Maybe not the ones specifically in this case. However, they are following paths previously created by their types (illegals).

    We know that these same paths are being used to traffic drugs. Would you like to "wander" into some 12 or more people on your property where you know criminals (yes, drug trafficking and crossing the border illegally are criminal offenses) and not have your gun. Given what we know for fact, if I wandered into them, I certainly would believe it reasonable and immediately necessary to prevent a crime to use a gun to keep myself safe. For instance; me being killed or hurt, my lively hood being affected, my property being vandelized, my home being burglarized, my truck being stolen. All of which has happened to this rancher.

    I'm guessing if it were your property, you would just sell it right?

    I agree that laws need to be changed.

    I believe a jury trial against this rancher was wrong. How many of the jurors have ties to illegal aliens whether it be relative, friend, friend of a friend, believe in amnesty, etc. You get the point....

  3. #78
    VIP Member Array matiki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    N.W.
    Posts
    2,917
    Quote Originally Posted by bbernard View Post
    These people were not "wandering" about and just happen to pass unknowingly on this mans land. They knew they trespassing on U.S soil the minute they crossed the border.
    I agree. Unfortunately there's not statutory support.

    Quote Originally Posted by bbernard View Post
    We know illegals are causing the damage to the property. Maybe not the ones specifically in this case. However, they are following paths previously created by their types (illegals).

    We know that these same paths are being used to traffic drugs. Would you like to "wander" into some 12 or more people on your property where you know criminals (yes, drug trafficking and crossing the border illegally are criminal offenses) and not have your gun. Given what we know for fact, if I wandered into them, I certainly would believe it reasonable and immediately necessary to prevent a crime to use a gun to keep myself safe. For instance; me being killed or hurt, my lively hood being affected, my property being vandelized, my home being burglarized, my truck being stolen. All of which has happened to this rancher.
    As I demonstrated through citing AZ statute, trespassing alone doesn't rise to such a level. If they (the actual illegal immigrants he detained) were engaged in criminal activity against the rancher aside from trespass I don't see how this case would have even gone forward.

    Quote Originally Posted by bbernard View Post
    I'm guessing if it were your property, you would just sell it right?
    Don't be ridiculous.

    Quote Originally Posted by bbernard View Post
    I agree that laws need to be changed.

    I believe a jury trial against this rancher was wrong. How many of the jurors have ties to illegal aliens whether it be relative, friend, friend of a friend, believe in amnesty, etc. You get the point....
    I think that's a stretch... he lost a previous case too. I don't think he got a stacked jury in both cases.
    "Wise people learn when they can; fools learn when they must." - The Duke of Wellington

  4. #79
    VIP Member Array Patti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Show Me State
    Posts
    2,679
    Update: Looks like Mr. Barnett (the rancher) will win this case on appeal.

    Barnett Wins, MALDEF & Invaders Lose

    IRLI Successfully Defends Border Residents Right
    to Protect Themselves Against Illegal Aliens

    Posted on February 19, 2009 (APR)

    In a major setback for the illegal alien advocacy network’s strategy of legal intimidation, a federal jury in Tucson has rejected nearly all of the substantive claims brought by illegal alien advocacy group Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) against Arizona rancher Roger Barnett. Earlier, on February 10, federal district judge John M. Roll threw out related conspiracy complaints against his wife Barbara and his brother Donald Barnett, and dismissed the claims brought by ten illegal aliens who did not testify in court.

    The Barnetts, who operate the Cross Rail Ranch near the Mexican border, were alleged to have violated the civil rights of 20 illegal aliens whom they detained as the illegal entrants crossed their property in 2004. The Barnetts were represented by the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) including Arizona attorneys John Kaufmann, David Hardy, and Sharma Hammond. IRLI is the legal defense and education arm of the Federation for American Immigration Reform.
    Jurors awarded four female plaintiffs small punitive damages for emotional distress they claim to have suffered. However, a 2006 Arizona constitutional amendment bars awards of punitive damages to illegal aliens. Barnett’s attorneys have already objected that the jury was given legally flawed instructions on this claim.
    “For years, MALDEF and other illegal alien advocacy groups have threatened local governments and individual citizens with lawsuits to intimidate them from protecting their communities and property,” said Michael Hethmon, IRLI co-counsel for Roger and Barbara. “But the Barnett family are Americans who refused to be intimidated. IRLI is honored to have been able to help these honest citizens defend their right to protect their homes and safety.”

    When dismissing the conspiracy claims, the court explained that illegal aliens have no constitutionally protected right to travel in the U.S. and that people, like the Barnetts, who live in close proximity to the border can make a reasonable assumption that large groups of people they encounter hiding or trespassing are doing so with the aid of smugglers, a federal felony for which a citizens arrest is authorized under Arizona law.

    John Kaufmann, the lead trial attorney for Roger Barnett, systematically dismantled MALDEF’s core contention that the plaintiffs were detained because of their ethnicity. The jury became aware that the poor and uneducated plaintiffs were being used by the Mexican government in a crude attempt to discourage border enforcement efforts.

    In rejecting the claim that the Barnetts violated the plaintiffs’ civil rights, the jury not only dismissed MALDEF’s cynical decision to play the race card, but also provided the family members the opportunity to seek full recovery of attorneys fees.

    “Smuggling of illegal aliens is a felony. Citizens who live along the border, like citizens anywhere in the country, have a right to act in such instances,” stated David Hardy, a noted legal scholar and counsel for the Barnetts. “The vindication of the Barnetts should clear the way for other Americans to act responsibly without fear of specious and politically motivated lawsuits.

    “It is regrettable that the Barnett family has been put through a legal ordeal for merely defending their homes,” continued Hethmon. “What is more regrettable is that these conditions are allowed to persist and citizens along the border are faced with growing violence and property damage. IRLI remains committed to defending American citizens who are become the targets of such malicious and politically motivated lawsuits.”
    Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy. — Winston Churchill

  5. #80
    VIP Member Array Patti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Show Me State
    Posts
    2,679
    I seriously doubt the illegal aliens will ever receive one penny of the $78,000.

    1. A 2006 Arizona constitutional amendment bars awards of punitive damages to illegal aliens

    2. The federal jury in Tucson has rejected nearly all of the substantive claims brought by illegal alien advocacy group Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) against Arizona rancher Roger Barnett. Barnett will make application to the court to force Maldef to pay his legal fees. Barnett will win this application.

    3. Maldef will be forced to pay Barnett's legal fees. Barnett can spend as much as he wants on the appeal of the $78,000.

    And the biggest kicker:

    4. Maldef not only lost the case, but now they are losing money. Their reputation has been tarnished. They are wishing they had never sued Mr. Barnett in the first place.

    Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy. — Winston Churchill

  6. #81
    Ex Member Array Acecool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Private
    Posts
    195
    No it is not a felony to invade this country illegally?

    Illegal at the federal level = felony?

  7. #82
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,986
    No it is not a felony to invade this country illegally?
    Yes it is.

    And if you can the difference between right and wrong, then there is NO argument for anything less than arrest and deportation.

    Every other argument is bogus.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  8. #83
    VIP Member Array Patti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Show Me State
    Posts
    2,679
    Quote Originally Posted by Acecool View Post
    No it is not a felony to invade this country illegally?

    Illegal at the federal level = felony?
    Illegal reentry is a felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act, with penalties that start at a fine of $1000 and imprisonment of not more than 2 years for first-time offenders with no prior criminal records and scale up to 20 years imprisonment and a fine of $250,000 for those who have previously been convicted of an aggravated felony.
    Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy. — Winston Churchill

  9. #84
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,986
    Illegal reentry is a felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act, with penalties that start at a fine of $1000 and imprisonment of not more than 2 years for first-time offenders with no prior criminal records and scale up to 20 years imprisonment and a fine of $250,000 for those who have previously been convicted of an aggravated felony.
    How often does that ever get used? Every illegal that I put in jail either someone came and got or they were just let go. I am not aware of any ever going to trial.
    Heck, if they did, thats all the courts would be doing.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  10. #85
    VIP Member Array grady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Near St. Louis, Missouri
    Posts
    2,837
    Finally a bit of sanity in this mixed up world.


    Perhaps MALDEF will sue themselves out of existence.

  11. #86
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,986
    Finally a bit of sanity in this mixed up world
    .

    Where?
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  12. #87
    VIP Member Array matiki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    N.W.
    Posts
    2,917
    Quote Originally Posted by Acecool View Post
    No it is not a felony to invade this country illegally?

    Illegal at the federal level = felony?
    No, it is not (unfortunately, or this case would have never proceeded IMO). It is a misdemeanor unless they've done it before.

    8 USC Sec. 1325

    TITLE 8 - ALIENS AND NATIONALITY


    CHAPTER 12 - IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY


    SUBCHAPTER II - IMMIGRATION


    Part VIII - General Penalty Provisions


    AMENDMENTS


    1991 - Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 102-232 substituted "fined under


    title 18" for "fined not more than $2,000 (or, if greater, the


    amount provided under title 18)".


    1990 - Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 101-649, Sec. 543(b)(2), inserted "or


    attempts to enter" after "(1) enters" and "attempts to enter or"


    after "or (3)", and substituted "shall, for the first commission of


    any such offense, be fined not more than $2,000 (or, if greater,


    the amount provided under title 18) or imprisoned not more than 6


    months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such


    offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2


    years" for "shall, for the first commission of any such offenses,


    be guilty of a misdemeanor
    and upon conviction thereof be punished


    by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by a fine of not


    more than $500, or by both, and for a subsequent commission of any


    such offenses shall be guilty of a felony
    and upon conviction


    thereof shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than two


    years, or by a fine of not more than $1,000".
    "Wise people learn when they can; fools learn when they must." - The Duke of Wellington

  13. #88
    VIP Member Array matiki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    N.W.
    Posts
    2,917
    Quote Originally Posted by Patti View Post
    I seriously doubt the illegal aliens will ever receive one penny of the $78,000.

    1. A 2006 Arizona constitutional amendment bars awards of punitive damages to illegal aliens
    I have read the eight counts that the Jury unanimously ruled against Barnett on and it looks like there are $40,000 in punitive damages, so $38,000 would stick even if this law gets the punitive damages set aside. The punitive damages are two awards of $20,000 each for emotional distress.

    Quote Originally Posted by Patti View Post
    2. The federal jury in Tucson has rejected nearly all of the substantive claims brought by illegal alien advocacy group Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) against Arizona rancher Roger Barnett. Barnett will make application to the court to force Maldef to pay his legal fees. Barnett will win this application.
    Well I certainly hope you are right about the legal fees. As far as all the substantive cases being dismissed, I guess that's a matter of opinion. He was unanimously found at fault for four counts of assault.

    Quote Originally Posted by Patti View Post
    3. Maldef will be forced to pay Barnett's legal fees. Barnett can spend as much as he wants on the appeal of the $78,000.
    I think this is misunderstood. Barnett can spend as much as he wants, but that doesn't mean the other side has to pay it. The standard of reasonableness still applies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Patti View Post
    And the biggest kicker:

    4. Maldef not only lost the case, but now they are losing money. Their reputation has been tarnished. They are wishing they had never sued Mr. Barnett in the first place.

    I don't think they see it as a total loss. I'm happy you're happy though.
    Attached Files
    Last edited by matiki; February 24th, 2009 at 12:22 PM. Reason: Adding Attachments
    "Wise people learn when they can; fools learn when they must." - The Duke of Wellington

  14. #89
    VIP Member Array matiki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    N.W.
    Posts
    2,917
    For those interested, here are the other Jury verdicts that went against Mr. Barnett.
    Attached Files
    "Wise people learn when they can; fools learn when they must." - The Duke of Wellington

  15. #90
    Member Array Scouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Orlando Florida
    Posts
    264

    Americans are so nice!

    How often does that ever get used? Every illegal that I put in jail either someone came and got or they were just let go. I am not aware of any ever going to trial.
    Heck, if they did, thats all the courts would be doing.
    State Attorney Lawson Lamar, Orange County Florida, stopped the do time and leave situation here.

    No Status (illegal) in to Jail, out, and arrest by Immigration? And deported.

    I read about how much money changed hands to buy? Mexico land!

    The Brits drove up in wooden ships, and stole it!

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Jury now deliberating in James Menard trial
    By rigel42 in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: January 16th, 2011, 01:10 PM
  2. Armed Citizen: Grand jury finds woman justifiably killed intruder
    By mrreynolds in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: January 12th, 2010, 08:53 PM
  3. Trial by Jury & Jury Nulification -- Poll
    By DaveH in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: June 9th, 2008, 08:57 PM
  4. Jury finds defendant guilty of first-degree murder
    By socuban in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: May 6th, 2008, 09:58 PM
  5. Jury finds Couey guilty on all charges in the murder of Jessica Lunsford
    By MattInFla in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: March 8th, 2007, 11:05 PM

Search tags for this page

can you detain a trespasser at gunpoint in washington state

,

evans matiki

,

jury finds third parties responsible but not liable in texas cases

Click on a term to search for related topics.