illegals sue Arizona rancher - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Honus · #16 02-09-2009, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim B.

Maybe some lawyer that is not constipated could explain to me how come all those illegals got *STANDING* to sue in a Court in the USA for this...

They have standing because they are the ones injured, at least according to their allegations. You don't need to be a citizen to have standing. For example, if I negligently crash my car into a legal visitor from France, then he is entitled to damages. I'm guessing we can all agree on that. So, the only question is whether being in the country illegally means that they forfeit their rights to seek compensation for wrongs done to them. I don't think they do forfeit those rights, which is a good thing, IMHO. Taking away their rights would reward the defendant's bad behavior.

tankdriver · #17 02-09-2009, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike D

Now, aholt on there fellers! Before you guys decide to canonize Mr Barnett, perhaps you ought to understand the full facts of the case and previous history.

Barnett does not "own" the 22000 acres of property. He leases it from the state of Arizona as "grazing land". He has a small spread in the center of the ranch where his house sits.

In a previous incident, Mr. Barnett held four Hispanic Americans at gunpoint who were legally hunting on the property (State land, remember). Needless to say, the justice system took a dim view of his defense of, "They were armed and I felt threatened".

A "successful" towing business is not what I would ever call Barnett's Towing. Through his contacts in the Sheriff's department he pretty much received a monopoly on all the business from any state highway, police call and pretty much set his price for someone to get their car back minus any property or items which were not welded down.

A suit was filed, the towing contract was put up for bid and he lost it. He retired to his spread and decided to return to his ranching pursuits. Barnett's Trucking filed bankruptcy and is no more. One contract should not make a "succesful" business.

I feel for the man because I know what a trash heap the illegals make of their trails and he should have the right to defend his property and standard of living but driving along state owned land and essentially perorming the duties of law enforcement strikes me as just a bit of vigilanteeism.

Reporting the illegals to the border patrol, yes, taking the law into his own hands, no!

I don't know how the washington times could've missed that. Oh wait, yes I do.

Also, there's a 0% chance this guy yelled 'buttocks' in Spanish.

tonkovich · #18 02-09-2009, 08:39 PM

The Washington Times is the "moonie" newspaper; it makes foxnews look like liberals. And this rancher does seem like a vigilante gone amok.

For the record, i'm a lifelong angeleno, and i have seen my city overrun with illegal immigrants in the last twenty five years. It would be nice if mexico and central america would take care of their own. Instead, most of the building trades have been destroyed by the influx of cheap labor. (I am not a racist, just an observer) And public services (health,education, welfare etc.) are being bankrupted. California is very broke.....and Ahnold can't help us.

Jim B. · #19 02-09-2009, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

They have standing because they are the ones injured, at least according to their allegations. You don't need to be a citizen to have standing. For example, if I negligently crash my car into a legal visitor from France, then he is entitled to damages. I'm guessing we can all agree on that. So, the only question is whether being in the country illegally means that they forfeit their rights to seek compensation for wrongs done to them. I don't think they do forfeit those rights, which is a good thing, IMHO. Taking away their rights would reward the defendant's bad behavior.

Make that "Alleged" bad behavior.

And I think that conversely, one could EASILY say that GIVING the illegals rights like this rewards the ILLEGALS' bad behavior, to wit: Criminally tresspassing into the sovereign territory of the USA.

The thinking in many OTHER countries goes that IF THEY WERE NEVER THERE AS UNINVITED GUESTS IN THE FIRST PLACE, THIS NEVER WOULD HAVE HAPPENED, so it is too bad for them.

If this is allowed to stand, it sets a horrible, dangerous precedent.

I think it is absolutely disgusting and an utter perversion of the American Justice system.

Hatterasguy · #20 02-09-2009, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carleton Hughes

Disgusting what some lawyers will do in this topsy-turvy society of ours.

The rancher should have shot them on sight,stone dead hath no fellow.

X2

I love how they are more than willing to string up a tax paying American for these criminals.

MTI · #21 02-09-2009, 09:30 PM

blather, blather . . . pitchfork and torches talk . . . from a country that call itself proud to be a nations of laws . . .

Hatterasguy · #22 02-09-2009, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

blather, blather . . . pitchfork and torches talk . . . from a country that call itself proud to be a nations of laws . . .

Well the government has failed the people, they refuse to enforce the border laws. So the people must try to enforce them for the government. Sad state of affairs.

derburger · #23 02-09-2009, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim B.

Make that "Alleged" bad behavior.

And I think that conversely, one could EASILY say that GIVING the illegals rights like this rewards the ILLEGALS' bad behavior, to wit: Criminally tresspassing into the sovereign territory of the USA.

The thinking in many OTHER countries goes that IF THEY WERE NEVER THERE AS UNINVITED GUESTS IN THE FIRST PLACE, THIS NEVER WOULD HAVE HAPPENED, so it is too bad for them.

If this is allowed to stand, it sets a horrible, dangerous precedent.

I think it is absolutely disgusting and an utter perversion of the American Justice system.

I know someone that would agree!

MTUpower · #24 02-09-2009, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by derburger

I know someone that would agree!

just one?

Honus · #25 02-09-2009, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim B.

Make that "Alleged" bad behavior...

That's true. I was just responding to your comment about standing. If the allegations are true, then it appears that there is a valid claim. I know nothing about the facts of that specific case beyond what was written in the article.

Quote:

And I think that conversely, one could EASILY say that GIVING the illegals rights like this rewards the ILLEGALS' bad behavior, to wit: Criminally tresspassing into the sovereign territory of the USA.

So, people are going to take all the risks associated with illegal border crossings in the hopes of being injured by someone who will then owe them damages? Seems far fetched to me.

Quote:

The thinking in many OTHER countries goes that IF THEY WERE NEVER THERE AS UNINVITED GUESTS IN THE FIRST PLACE, THIS NEVER WOULD HAVE HAPPENED, so it is too bad for them.

That's not the thinking here, as far as I know.

Quote:

If this is allowed to stand, it sets a horrible, dangerous precedent.

I think it is absolutely disgusting and an utter perversion of the American Justice system.

You might be correct, I haven't researched the specific laws that apply to this case. On the surface, the lawsuit causes me no heartburn whatsoever. Seems like it's right down the middle of the plate as a good legal claim, assuming that the plaintiffs have the facts to back their claims.

kknudson · #26 02-09-2009, 11:18 PM

Well how about we look at this in reverse.

A group of Americans cross into Mexico and are turned over to the Mexicalies by a Mexican rancher.

Where would those Americans be, what rights would they have ??

Jim B. · #27 02-09-2009, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kknudson

Well how about we look at this in reverse.

A group of Americans cross into Mexico and are turned over to the Mexicalies by a Mexican rancher.

Where would those Americans be, what rights would they have ??

Oh, I don't know.

To choose the colors of the flowers that will be put on their graves, MAYBE.

MTI · #28 02-09-2009, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

Well the government has failed the people, they refuse to enforce the border laws. So the people must try to enforce them for the government. Sad state of affairs.

Yes, sad state of affairs indeed when the efforts of "enforcement" focus more on the immigrants and not as much on the US businesses that hire and often exploit their status. Dehumanization is also a sad state of American affairs.

cmac2012 · #29 02-09-2009, 11:44 PM

Holy crap, if this isn't dismissed soon or adjudicated (is that the word?) with some meaningless slap on the wrist, we've crossed into new territory.

Hatterasguy · #30 02-09-2009, 11:47 PM

Well the reason they don't enforce the laws are so the companies can have cheap labor and avoid taxes. A guest worker program would solve the illegal trafficing and provide the labor. But than the companies would have to pay them, and they don't want to do that. The government is essentialy in bed with these guys, heck most congressman probably have there lawns cut be illegals.

They don't really give a damn if a whole bunch die trying to get across every year, since it doesn't affect anyones bottom line. The taxpayer gets a nice burden, but as we have seen a lot of government officials don't pay taxes so they don't give a damn about that either.

The Mexican people are not to wild about this state of affairs either because it is such a huge drain on there country, but there officials are so totaly corrupt that they won't try to stop it. The drug cartels want the border to stay nice and open, so they pay them off/threaten them. Heck the Mexican military has run drugs accross the border for them.

This really is yet another example of how corrupt and morally bankrupt the US Government is.