Skip to comments.Arizona Rancher Will Fight Court Order To Pay Damages to Undocumented Immigrants
Posted on 02/10/2011 5:31:32 AM PST by La Lydia
An Arizona rancher who was ordered to pay nearly $90,000 in punitive damages to undocumented immigrants he confronted, with a gun, is going to request a rehearing, his attorney said. Well be filing a motion for a rehearing, said David T. Hardy, who is representing Roger Barnett. He feels he got screwed. I have some sympathy for that view.
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals last week upheld a lower court verdict ordering Barnett to pay the damages for the 2004 incident, in which the plaintiffs claimed that he approached them with his dog and said hed shoot them if they tried to leave. The court said that an Arizona law permitted a person to threaten to use or actually use physical force against someone else when that person believes it is necessary for protection against the others use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.
But the court said that Barnett held them at gunpoint even after becoming aware that no one in the group of 16 men and women was armed, and so he could not use the argument of self-defense....
Hardy took exception at MALDEFs description of Barnett as a trigger-happy vigilante.
He said Barnett has been swamped by the impact of undocumented immigrants and drug smugglers coming onto his property. Hardy said "the FBI twice told him his life was in danger."
Whole areas of his land have been covered in trash left behind by people crossing on it illegally, Hardy said. Some are parties of illegal entrants, sometimes there are groups of 40 or 50. He has drug smugglers come through too. They take vehicles and plow through his fence....
(Excerpt) Read more at latino.foxnews.com ...
A group of 16 can certainly overpower a man and a dog. No need for the “they were not armed defense”.
‘Barnett held them at gunpoint even after becoming aware that no one in the group of 16 men and women was armed, and so he could not use the argument of self-defense....’
16 on 1 is a cause for armed self protection.
What was the rancher suppose to do, hold a drum circle and sing kumbaya??
Did he strip search each one?
While the numbers of illegal aliens crossing the ranch where we live is down, we still carry at least a side arm daily and whenever we see illegals we add at least one 12 gauge shotgun. Most illegals stop when confronted but I have had some take off running. The border patrol collects the ones who sit and wait but the runners get away for at least a while.
No dog! That’s unfair. He should have brought a cat.
I gather the issue was he kicked one woman and he was yelling and cussing and they were afraid of his dog and he was waving his gun around. Well, he shouldn’t have kicked the woman but, the yelling and cussing I can understand. He’s probably tired of it. The dog scaring them is to darned bad. He can have whatever dog he wants to, it’s a free country. Or at least it use to be. The only thing he should be charged with is kicking the woman. The other stuff needs to be dropped I don’t care if the illegals were scared or not, to bad. Stay out of our county and off private property, if your coming here illegally and you won’t be scared.
Let’s put those bastard so called judges on this man’s property without gun alone at night...see how threatened those cowards feel.
If he had not had the gun and the dog, would they have attacked him? Who knows, but 16 on 1, they could have beat him to death easily.
The Arizona Rancher should use this procedure to protect his property.
In 1996, Congress expanded the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to include violations of federal immigration law.
1 While this expansion may not have received much publicity, it could potentially change the face of U.S. immigration law enforcement. Under the new RICO provisions, a violation of certain provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) meets the definition of racketeering activity, also known as a "predicate offense,"
2 and an entity that engages in a pattern of racketeering activity for financial gain can be held both criminally and civilly liable.
3 Among other things, the INA makes it unlawful to encourage illegal immigration or employ illegal aliens,
4 which violations were included as predicate offenses under RICO.
The 1996 law changes in the INA made hiring illegal aliens a predicate act of racketeering activity under RICO, but illegal hiring wasnt the only violation of the INA made a predicate act. Other INA prohibitions made RICO predicate acts were encouraging or inducing illegal immigration, smuggling, and harboring illegal aliens.10 Together, these additions make the RICO Act potentially a very strong new tool in the hands of private parties against persons and companies that profit by violating U.S. immigration law.
Additionally, the RICO provision regarding the unlawful encouragement of illegal immigration could justify a suit against a private entity, such as a bank, that accepts foreign-issued identification cards that are only needed by illegal aliens. One example of this, of course, is the matricula consular issued by the Mexican consulates in the United States.
Since both the supporters of the matricula and those who oppose its acceptance agree that only illegal aliens have need to rely on the card, acceptance of the card knowingly encourages illegal immigration. Part of the legislative intent of the RICO laws in general was to afford private citizens a remedy for lawbreaking when authorities normally charged with such enforcement became derelict in their duties.
For example, in a town in which political corruption and racketeering activity have combined to the detriment of law-abiding citizens and the rule of law, the RICO Act was intended to provide private citizens the ability to initiate court action to compel enforcement and respect for the law.
“But the court said that Barnett held them at gunpoint even after becoming aware that no one in the group of 16 men and women was armed, and so he could not use the argument of self-defense....”
How did he “become aware” of that? No No Senior. No weapons here. We are all American ceetizens out for a walk.
The world is upside-down.
Welcome to Aztlan.
He captured foreign agents invading our nation. He should have gotten a medal
Remember back in the day when our govt was on the side of honest, land owning American citizens rather than trespassing foreigners entering the country illegally?
Of course not, that would be ridiculous.
He is supposed to pull out a guitar and sing "La Bamba".
But it’s a good thing that Sarah Palin and other republican leaders are so passionate about defending ordinary Americans in such cases... /s
We don’t need a US Atty or a private atty.
ANYBODY can file a RICO case——even private citizens.
A good bet is to file the RICO case against deep-pocketed mexico——b/c the litigant gets a share of the financial damages.
After the Ninth Circuit Courts ruling, MALDEF released a statement that said: Today’s ruling sends the strong message that “vigilantes will not be tolerated in Arizona.
I guess that means that only people breaking the law are tolerated.