Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jury: Rancher didn't violate illegal immigrants' rights
Houston Chronicle (AP Story) ^ | February 18, 2009 | Arthur Rotstein (AP)

Posted on 02/17/2009 10:58:37 PM PST by UCFRoadWarrior

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.....

(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...


TOPICS: Local News
KEYWORDS: illegalaliens; lawsuit; maldef; rancher
Barnett seems to have won on the major claims by the illegals...but got decided against for their "mental distress". He plans to appeal that part of the verdict.

In all, Barnett fared well, but still you have people who value the rights of illegals over the rights of Americans.

1 posted on 02/17/2009 10:58:37 PM PST by UCFRoadWarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: UCFRoadWarrior

While the illegal immigrants did have civil rights, those rights cannot be denied them by a private citizen.


2 posted on 02/17/2009 11:01:37 PM PST by trumandogz (The Democrats are driving us to Socialism at I00 MPH -The GOP is driving us to Socialism at 97.5 MPH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UCFRoadWarrior

It was a fair decision. He had the right to detain them for trespassing but he didn’t have the right to verbally abuse them and threaten them, even if that threat was absurd.


3 posted on 02/17/2009 11:03:24 PM PST by DiogenesLaertius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: trumandogz

However a private citizen has a right to defend property from trespassers. If these were US citizens suing...the case would have been tossed out before trial.

Not only the illegals broke the law when they trespassed....they broke the law when illegally entering the country


5 posted on 02/17/2009 11:07:35 PM PST by UCFRoadWarrior (The Biggest Threat To American Soverignty Is Rampant Economic Anti-Americanism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLaertius

This guy is going to spend $100,000 at a minimum to fight this ridiculous case. Hope he has some legal insurance.


6 posted on 02/17/2009 11:08:36 PM PST by roscommon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

But they can by a property owner and an American, it was citizens arrest. The man has a right to defend his property. Constitutional rights always trump civil rights. IN fact without a constitution, no one would have any rights. This whole case is an attack on US sovereignty, and the judge should have thrown it out. The illegals should be happy they were not shot for trespassing.


7 posted on 02/17/2009 11:14:40 PM PST by Exton1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black

Barnett followup Ping.


8 posted on 02/17/2009 11:16:44 PM PST by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Exton1

To be more clear, only the government can deny a person civil rights.

The citizenship status of the illegal aliens has no impact on the case as they are protected by the Constitution.


9 posted on 02/18/2009 12:08:26 AM PST by trumandogz (The Democrats are driving us to Socialism at I00 MPH -The GOP is driving us to Socialism at 97.5 MPH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLaertius

“It was a fair decision. He had the right to detain them for trespassing but he didn’t have the right to verbally abuse them and threaten them, even if that threat was absurd.”

This is sarcasm,right?


10 posted on 02/18/2009 2:55:53 AM PST by shaft29 (Just your typical black woman.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLaertius

So “Don’t try to run or I’ll shoot you” is verbally abusive?


11 posted on 02/18/2009 3:10:40 AM PST by panthermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: UCFRoadWarrior; All

Hopefully one of these jury members and the judge has a similar incident in the future, I amazingly predict the their standards would change...

A land owner should be able to protect THEIR property through any form of force, whether it be lethal OR Verbal.

The Constitution is supposed to “Protect” the rights of Citizens... not give rights to Illegals!


12 posted on 02/18/2009 3:22:52 AM PST by AvOrdVet ("Put the wagons in a circle for all the good it'll do")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UCFRoadWarrior
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 ...

But no doubt considered the fact that he could buy several shovels and more than enough bullets to protect his family and his property for a whole lot less than $77,804.

13 posted on 02/18/2009 4:32:28 AM PST by TurtleUp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UCFRoadWarrior

It’s way past time to start suing the local and federal authorities for intentionally not enforcing the law.


14 posted on 02/18/2009 5:05:20 AM PST by Rocketwolf68 (Bring back the crusades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TurtleUp

“But no doubt considered the fact that he could buy several shovels and more than enough bullets to protect his family and his property for a whole lot less than $77,804.”

Brings whole new meaning to “shovel-ready” bailout projects.


15 posted on 02/18/2009 5:07:07 AM PST by Rocketwolf68 (Bring back the crusades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MeekOneGOP; ValerieTexas; txhurl; basil; SwinneySwitch; austinaero; lormand; WhyisaTexasgirlinPA; ..

Comment # -- self censored by Arrowhead1952 ping.


16 posted on 02/18/2009 5:09:49 AM PST by Arrowhead1952 (Each "Yea" vote for porkulus is equivalent to $3,267,973,850. (D) = corruption)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UCFRoadWarrior; roscommon

I tried to search to see if he had an insurance defense firm representing him, which might indicate that he had homeowners insurance that defended him on this case.

but my search of his attorney revealed a very interesting profile, and though an insured has the option to select his own counsel at the company’s expense, Hardy has a long and interesting political background, and probably took on this case as cause worth fighting for.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/waco/waco60.html

You can find out more about him from searching “David Hardy, attorney arizona”.


17 posted on 02/18/2009 5:33:03 AM PST by Canedawg (An acute case of ODS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: roscommon

Mark Levin talked about this case.
I’d be willing to bet he’s going to help.


18 posted on 02/18/2009 5:42:53 AM PST by netmilsmom (Psalm 109:8 - Let his days be few; and let another take his office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

>>The citizenship status of the illegal aliens has no impact on the case as they are protected by the Constitution.<<

Could you please give a reference to where the Constitution talks about civil rights for illegal aliens?


19 posted on 02/18/2009 5:46:45 AM PST by netmilsmom (Psalm 109:8 - Let his days be few; and let another take his office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: UCFRoadWarrior

illegal= no rights.

shoot on sight.


20 posted on 02/18/2009 5:48:19 AM PST by bestintxas (It's great in Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UCFRoadWarrior
bttt ....good news, but better is when he also wins his appeals.

This (case) should never have been allowed ....but for now, the outcome is better than what many feared.

21 posted on 02/18/2009 6:01:13 AM PST by Guenevere ("He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain that which he cannot lose")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UCFRoadWarrior

The illegals’ visas are pending. In other words, their slimy lawyer made a few quick phone calls to make sure they had paperwork. Those visas need to be stamped “Denied” along with their foreheads right before they’re shipped back to Mexico.

Ok, wishful thinking. You just know they’re going to be granted extended stays and we’re going to be footing their bills for now on.


22 posted on 02/18/2009 6:40:32 AM PST by bgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz
A private citizen may in these United States make a Citizens Arrest. The illegal immigrants do have human rights and that is to be recognized however nothing in our Constitution makes or grants illegal immigrants or any other criminal coverage.
23 posted on 02/18/2009 7:22:47 AM PST by BellStar (Buy Gold/lead and head for the hills please God give us another chance!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

While the illegal immigrants did have civil rights’

PLEASE explain what RIGHTS an illegal has?>??

While you are at it—please tell the world what you would have done, given the history of the illegals against Rancher Roger and the losses he has suffered for over 12 years.

If your house was repeadedly being broken into be illegals, tell us what YOU would have done.


24 posted on 02/18/2009 7:35:53 AM PST by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: roscommon

This guy is going to spend $100,000 at a minimum to fight this ridiculous case. “

If anyone can private message me and tell me where to send some money to Roger the Rancher, I will send him some today. I am living on Soc Sec, but I will give up something else to help this man.

IMO, he did absolutely NOTHING wrong.

Can anyone in Arizona help me with an address or phone number to contact Mr Barnett? Thanks much.


25 posted on 02/18/2009 7:38:11 AM PST by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ridesthemiles

Found This!
Feb 9, 2009 ... If you wish to contribute to his legal defense you may send your contribution to: Roger Barnett Legal Defense Fund 1498 E Fry Blvd Sierra ...

http://www.croswhite.com/croswhite/donald/19750627donalderic/blog/donblog/2009/02/american-hero-roger-barnett.html


26 posted on 02/18/2009 7:55:25 AM PST by BellStar (Buy Gold/lead and head for the hills please God give us another chance!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: UCFRoadWarrior

The enemy is the group that is representing these criminals.

http://www.maldef.org/


27 posted on 02/18/2009 7:59:28 AM PST by BellStar (Buy Gold/lead and head for the hills please God give us another chance!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Exton1
The illegals should be happy they were not shot for trespassing.

Next time, the ranchers will know better. And a quiet burial can be had under the manure heap.

28 posted on 02/18/2009 8:23:58 AM PST by hunter112 (SHRUG - Stop Hussein's Radical Utopian Gameplan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLaertius
It was a fair decision. He had the right to detain them for trespassing but he didn’t have the right to verbally abuse them and threaten them, even if that threat was absurd.

I'm sorry, what country do you live in? Here is the USA we have the right to verbally abuse anyone we please, especially when they are trespassing on our property and causing untold damage. As far as threats go, he has that right also. I hope he wins on the appeal. Winning what he did will go a long ways toward stopping any more of these lawsuits that should never have been allowed to proceed to this point. However, losing any type of money award will only encourage other illegal, a**hat, scum bag, invading jerks to bring suits against other land owners.

29 posted on 02/18/2009 9:14:22 AM PST by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom; BellStar; ridesthemiles

All people, even illegal aliens are granted all the protections under the Constitution and Bill of Rights that are granted to the “people” or “person(s).”

Thus, illegal aliens can protest, practice religion, may not have soldiers quartered in their homes, cannot have their homes searched without a warrant, have the right to remain silent etc. etc.

Read Plyler v. Doe.


30 posted on 02/18/2009 12:40:19 PM PST by trumandogz (The Democrats are driving us to Socialism at I00 MPH -The GOP is driving us to Socialism at 97.5 MPH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

So that includes trespassing?


31 posted on 02/18/2009 1:38:15 PM PST by netmilsmom (Psalm 109:8 - Let his days be few; and let another take his office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom
No, trespassing is not protected by the Constitution.

However, illegal aliens have Equal Protection under the Constitution as you and I, the people.

32 posted on 02/18/2009 2:43:22 PM PST by trumandogz (The Democrats are driving us to Socialism at I00 MPH -The GOP is driving us to Socialism at 97.5 MPH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

The ILLEGAL ALIENS won in this case. He should have shot them all then he would have been protecting his property. Case closed!


33 posted on 02/20/2009 5:10:36 AM PST by KwHorn77 (Tired of the GOP being the minority party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson