Posted on 02/17/2009 2:35:59 PM PST by Nachum
A federal jury on Tuesday ruled that an Arizona rancher did not violate the civil rights of 16 Mexican nationals he detained at gunpoint after they had snuck illegally into the United States in 2004, but the jury awarded $78,000 in actual and punitive damages to six of the illegal immigrants on claims of assault and infliction of emotional distress
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Yes!!!!!
Was this a criminal or a civil trial? I’m sure it must have been a civil trial, but some of the charges looked like they were criminal in nature.
The damages are still an outrage. They violated the law by illegally entering this country and trespassing on his land. They should have been shot.
Not the best result, but far better than I was expecting.
It would seem that the “emotional distress” stress would have been brought on when they broke the law slinking across the border. I don’t know how the jury could blame that on the rancher.
Govt should seize the $78,000 for being in this country illegally.
snuck?
Expenses for deportation. Confiscate the award.
Plus I am assuming that the reancher pays court costs his lawyer etc.
Illegal immigrants are going to lawyer people into poverty if they dare resist.
I hope he appeals the award.
How would the situation have been different from an “emotional distress” standpoint had the Mexicans been detained by official Border Patrol Agents? Hmmm?
Criminals caught in the act, suffer emotional distress...and are awarded damages for it.
Is that how it is?
“It would seem that the “emotional distress” stress would have been brought on when they broke the law slinking across the border. I don’t know how the jury could blame that on the rancher.”
Not to mention Barnett and his family and neighbors emotional distress...years of watching your property, livestock, pets, home being torn apart by these ‘trusted travelers’.
So the rancher's out $78 grand, plus lawyer's fees to alien trespassers.
How's this good?
The verdict could have been worse (and I feared that it would be). Nevertheless, that $78,000 awarded the plaintiffs still reflects the contempt the American political class has for the property rights of taxpayers. I fervently hope it gets overturned on appeal, otherwise this case was a legal pinata for MALDEF.
They didn’t deserve to get one damn dime.
The overall decision is a real win! It’s about time some sanity hit the courtrooms in this type of case.
The damages award is a travesty but it will probably get dropped on appeal. If MALDEF thinks it’s going to have to spend more money to collect they just might drop the whole thing.
Forget the government, the rancher should get it for damages to his property.
A suit is a civil proceeding. Criminal proceedings are just that
oh, i wrote yes before i read the money thing. i would like to sue
all the illegal aliens in atlanta area due to the stress they cause
me plus the use of my taxpayer money. i also feel stressed
having to read or listen to spanish when i call a business or
use my atm. who declared the us a bilingual country? who decided
it was spanish?
Outrageous! Damages paid to the illegals? Who is the traitor that allowed this to go to trial?
How does this guy get stuck with actual and punitive damages?
Any of it was a direct result of the Mexican violation of law.
Illegal aliens have standing to file lawsuits but citizens who file lawsuits asking to see the Kenyan’s birth certificate do not have standing. I’m confused.
but the jury awarded $78,000 in actual and punitive damages to six of the illegal immigrants on claims of assault and infliction of emotional distress
Not exactly off the hook and given the traffic across the ranch, this might open the floodgates. Watch for lawyers to advertise on the Spanish channels.
Jury: We’re going to screw him anyway. $78K?
I am emotionally damaged having read about their reward (although it could have been worse). Where’s my $$$$$?
I wonder if he has sufficient grounds (and he resources) to counter-sue MALDEF?
FROM A TRIAL OBSERVER VIA EMAIL:
Here’s the verdict on Roger Barnett’s trial. There is a lot more to say on the subject, but here are the verdicts as I heard them announced by the clerk of the court. The attorneys plan on appealing some inconsistencies in the verdict. Roger says he feels good about the
verdict. More about this later..... Doug
* Third Claim - Violation of Civil Rights- equal protection under the law
- Finding for the Roger Barnett - Not Guilty as to all Plaintiffs
* Fourth Claim- Assault
- Finding for Adela Vicente - 25% at fault - $1400. compensatory damages
- Finding for Ana Maria Vicente- 25% at fault - $1400 compensatory damages
- Finding for Sandra Velazquez - $1. in nominal damages
- Finding for Sara Vazquez - $1. in nominal damages
-Finding for Roger Barnet vs Jorge Perez - not guilty
- Finding for Roger Barnett vs Rogoberto Perez- not guilty
* Fifth Claim - Battery
- Finding for Roger Barnett vs Ana Maria Vicente - not guilty
* Sixth Claim - False Imprisonment
- Finding for Roger Barnett as to all 6 plaintiffs - not guilty
* Ninth Claim- Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
- Finding for Adela Vicente ( 25% her fault) - $7500. compensatory damages
$20,000. punitive damages
- Finding for Ana Maria Vicente ( 25% her fault) - $7500 compensatory damages
$20,000 punitive damages
- Finding for Sandra Velazquez - $1.00 nominal damages
$10,000. punitive damages.
- Finding for Sara Vazquez - $1.00 nominal damages
$10,000. punitive damages
-Finding for Roger Barnet vs Jorge Perez - not guilty
- Finding for Roger Barnett vs Rogoberto Perez- not guilty
I suppose this is just another disgusting form of wealth distribution and confiscation of wealth.
EXAMPLE
I have always wanted to go Hunting on Ted Turners Montana properties, if done with preperation and a Lawyer waiting in the wings to sue for EMOTIONAL DAMAGES when you are arrested the current path to the American Dream can be acheived.
Hard work and honesty certainly does not do it any longer.
I am outraged that they got anything.....is there any testimony that he did anything untoward toward the women...?
I hope he has a strong appeal.
That was always my understanding until I read this passage:
“After a nine-day trial, the eight-person jury — four men and four women — returned the verdict in U.S. District Court in Tucson, Ariz., after a day and a half of deliberation, also tossing charges of false imprisonment, battery and conspiracy against Douglas, Ariz., rancher Roger Barnett.”
I don’t know about you but “false imprisonment”, “battery” and “conspiracy” sound an awful lot like charges in a criminal complaint.
Border PING
Uh, why did the illegals get 78 grand? If anything the ranch owner should press tresspassing charges and then civilly sue the illegals (yes I know, they have no pesos but sue their asses anyway). The illegals got money for emotional distress? How does the judge think the rancher “feels” when thousands of invaders cross his land, kill his calves, leave human waste and garbage all over his property? The man is a US Taxpayer! He should have done the 3 S’s with those invaders. The gov’t is at fault for not securing the borders. The rancher is only doing the job the US Gov’t won’t do!
From reading a prior story, the rancher evidently verbalized a few negative personal feelings and nudged one woman.
He will most likely have learned from this experience that, when detaining illegals on his property for border patrol response, rather than communicate in English, he should, instead, practice to himself those french, italian or tagalog lessons he’s been studying hard to learn for a rainy day ;)
The cynic in me has a hard time believing that any of that $78 grand found its way past the lawyers and into the pockets of any of the Plaintiffs. I'm guessing the billable hours will be inflated to eat up all those dollars.
Civil trial.
Roger is Golden - untouchable - in a criminal court. That’s why MALDEF is taking the civil route.
Ping!
The rancher is the one who should have been awarded 78,000 for emotional distress. It’s good he wasn’t charged with a crime, but maybe he can turn around and counter-sue the illegal immigrants now.
Well stated.
Thanks, you know I really feel for this rancher. I only have a small farm, but I understand how this man feels. I will never understand how President Bush could keep that border wide open after 9-11. I know he likes the cheap labor, but the risk to national security should have trumped that for him. His #1 job was to protect America and he should have closed that border. With the current bleep we have in the White House, the border will only get worse.
“Illegal aliens have standing to file lawsuits but citizens who file lawsuits asking to see the Kenyan’s birth certificate do not have standing. I’m confused.”
***** *
Perverting the American justice system was the 45th goal of the communists- it was the unmentioned one.
Good and bad news.
Yeah but you can sue for those things in a civil court. Kind of like wrongful death ....(if you win you get compensation think OJ)
Which means that property owners will start shooting first.
OK. I can understand that. I guess the only difference between a private citizen defending his property against trespassing illegals and a Border Patrol Agent doing the same is that the latter has immunity from civil prosecution? Doesn’t seem right.
And the border patrol agent doesn’t have immunity if convicted of a crime (ie Ramos and Campeon). If their appeals don’t overturn this miscarriage of justice then they too might face such an action.
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.