You've got to be kidding.

[NBVegita]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/f...rizona-rancher/

 

Can you say WTF?

 

This is simply ridiculous.

 

I honestly can't believe a federal Judge is allowing this case to continue.

 

No wonder America is in such a sad state of affairs.

[»Ducky]

The thing that matters in the case is that he did not let them leave at gunpoint. Had he let them return from where they came from at gun point, I don't think this would be an issue.

 

Does it matter though? That dude in Texas put a few in the backs of some trespassers and got off clean. This guy probably will too.

[Tigron-X]

My guess is that he's probablly hearing it to prevent people from taking matters into their own hands.

[NBVegita]

The way I'm looking at it is that if he's delivered the supposed 10,000-12,000 illegal immigrants to border patrol already, do you really think he stood there and asked them to stand still while he called the authorities?

 

Logically this case makes no sense.

[SeVeR]

This is ridiculous. With NBV on this one. Isn't he within his rights to shoot them on his land? That would have been an over-reaction, but what he did do was sensible and should be protected in law.

 

I think Tigron is right to say it's a case to set an example for others.

[Hoch]

Now this is an interesting test case of US federal law. I would be keen to

see the claimant's statement of case. I would also like to see the vetting

procedures for the jury. Assembling an objective jury on a case like this

and in a state like Arizona undoubtedly puts the claimant's on the defen-

sive.

 

'Tis a shame this did not happen in Maricopa County. I am sure Sheriff

Joe Arpaio would have a field day.

 

-Hoch

[FMBI]

If they were such a big problem, and if the Border Service knew about it but wasn't dealing with it, then why was he putting so much effort into this, rather than just selling his ranch or putting up a couple rows of barbed wire? My personal guess would be that he had some sort of "Last Man of Freedom" fetish or something, which, I would think, would harm his credibility.

 

Still, though, these cases are always good for a laugh. The justice system is amazingly fun sometimes - I wonder how serious the immigrants really were?

 

Also, something I like, regardless of the stupidity of this particular case, is that they're willing to prosecute people who brandish a weapon and threaten (presumably) unarmed people. Which is good.

 

 

@Hoch - Arpaio is a nut, and he's a classic example of how "get tough" methods, combined with a healthy dose of racial profiling and Jim Crow-style methods, can make crime worse. The thing that amazes me is that anyone was stupid enough to re-elect him, even when it was obvious, statistically and visually, that he wasn't doing his job.

[NBVegita]

If they were such a big problem, and if the Border Service knew about it but wasn't dealing with it, then why was he putting so much effort into this, rather than just selling his ranch or putting up a couple rows of barbed wire? My personal guess would be that he had some sort of "Last Man of Freedom" fetish or something, which, I would think, would harm his credibility.

 

Are you freaking serious?

 

This mans ranch, all 22,000 acres of it is valued at $34,000,000 dollars. He is a rancher, this is his home, livelihood and life. That is why he was putting so much effort into it. For him it's not like he can just up and move to a different location, nor should he have to. A couple of rows are barbed wire?

 

Pedro: Hey look man...they put up barbed wire...

Pablo: No shit man?

Pedro: Yeah holmes, don't know what we're gonna do now...

Pablo: Well guess back to Mexico it is...

Pedro: Yeah...and we came this far...

Pablo: But that barbed wire man...no way we can get past that!

 

I mean with all of the things they go through to get to America, do you really think barbed wire would help? Besides he'd most likely get sued by the exact same group for intentionally trying to cause harm to illegal immigrants.

 

Also, something I like, regardless of the stupidity of this particular case, is that they're willing to prosecute people who brandish a weapon and threaten (presumably) unarmed people. Which is good.

 

What you forget to mention is that they are trespassers on his private property where trespasser are frequent and cause massive amounts of damage to his property and livelihood.

[FMBI]

My point was that, if the situation was "that bad," he could either leave it altogether, or take more serious passive measures against it, instead of standing out there in the dark and pulling guns on people for the fun of it.

 

Also, I did mention how stupid it was that they were suing him - I fully agree with you on that - but the fact that those laws are still intact, after all the other gun laws that have fallen apart, is very heartening to me.

[NBVegita]

Yeah but I don't see how being able to sue someone for trespassing on their property and having them threaten you with a fire arm should be illegal. You are taking away the whole concept of self defense.

 

I also find it funny that if someone captures a fugitive, they're a hero. This man catches illegal immigrants to defend his property so he's just out pulling guns on trespassers on his property for the fun of it? I mean do you honestly think that his man can realistically(fiscally too) create a better barrier around his 22,000 acre compound than we have at the Mexico/American border? No matter what passive measures he takes, they will make it through. Note: He may have barbed wire up, we don't know. Again he would most likely get sued for doing that too for "knowing endangering illegal immigrants".

 

God I love the double standards in our country.

[»doc flabby]

Well the lesson from all this is simply to just to shoot them....Dead men can't sue and theres plenty of places to bury the bodies in an area that large...and because they are illegals...no will notice if they disappear...

 

I'm not saying thats the right thing to do, but court cases like this make these options look much more attractive.

 

so many things like this have "unintended concequences"

[Hoch]

Yeah but I don't see how being able to sue someone for trespassing on their property and having them threaten you with a fire arm should be illegal. You are taking away the whole concept of self defense.

I would not describe this case in the way that you did NBV. Without having

read the statement of the case, but bearing in mind that this is a civil case

brought in a federal court, the issues concern civil rights violations.

 

Properly framed, though based on the scant information made available, are

the defendants liable to the claimants for violating their civil rights and inflict-

ing emotional distress based on those violations. It is, of course, important

to the defendants case that these events occurred as a result of the claimants

traversing one of the defendant's land without permission. As a general rule,

you cannot profit for an illegal act. However, this is not without exceptions. In

this particular case, I would say that one the issue is whether the force used

by one of the defendant's was proportionate to the presented threat. Indeed,

you have a right to defend your property, and the laws in the US are more gen-

erous than here in England, but this is not carte blanche.

 

Further, and without going into great detail, the right to self-defence is not taken

away because it is not absolute. Irrespective of one's personal views on illegal

immigrants, basic civil (human) rights must be maintained.

 

-Hoch

[NBVegita]

Aye, I was more posting that statement on a broad level in support of other statements I had made. Else I would have phrased the statement more so as:

 

The concept that a man who constantly has his property vandalized, his home ravaged, his livelihood diminished by continuously trespassing offenders, who continue to do so after he makes accommodations for the same illegal trespassers on his property, should be denied the right to defend that very same property with a gun, is taking away his right to defend his property, livelihood and family.

 

As to the magnitude of threat, there are 16 people unknown to a man trespassing on his property, following a route commonly known for drug trafficking, which is also the same route traveled by other vandals who have desecrated his property. I feel that would give any man the right to use a firearm in a threatening manner.

[Hoch]

As I wrote previously, at issue is not whether there is denial of a right to

self defence or to defend personal property. Rather, it may come down to

whether it was just and appropriate in the circumstances to use that kind

of force and when used this amounted to a violation of the claimants civil

rights.

 

I understand what you are saying, and perhaps I am applying too much

legalese into a sensational article, but on face of it the case raises impor-

tant questions of basic civil (human) rights and whether there has been a

violation of those rights. This may not seem to be important but the judg-

ment could have far-reaching implications (unless the case is later disting-

uished on facts).

 

Personally, I have no view on the matter because I approach every legal

case that is reported with an open mind. Unless you (generally) have read

the papers there is no way of knowing all of the issues beyond the headlines.

That said, as a barrister and as someone who has lived in Arizona for an ex-

tended period of time, I do have a feeling for the case without having read

the papers, which is why I suspect the claimants will have an uphill battle on

their hands.

 

-Hoch

[NBVegita]

I do agree 100% with you on that, without further knowledge of the case and ALL of the details I am only making a partially education summarization of the case at hand.