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 ...
In all, Barnett fared well, but still you have people who value the rights of illegals over the rights of Americans.
While the illegal immigrants did have civil rights, those rights cannot be denied them by a private citizen.
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.
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
This guy is going to spend $100,000 at a minimum to fight this ridiculous case. Hope he has some legal insurance.
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.
Barnett followup Ping.
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.
“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?
So “Don’t try to run or I’ll shoot you” is verbally abusive?
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!
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.
It’s way past time to start suing the local and federal authorities for intentionally not enforcing the law.
“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.
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”.
Mark Levin talked about this case.
I’d be willing to bet he’s going to help.
>>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?
illegal= no rights.
shoot on sight.
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.