Posted on 08/20/2005 8:15:09 AM PDT by kennedy
Thanks! See no. 70 as well - good summary.
True enough. He was out of money, and obviously knew that Dees intended to spend whatever to win.
But if you're not guilty, you're NOT guilty! A civil trial doesn't change that, regardless of the outcome.
Was there a fight? Did the illegals get hit with a gun or a fist or a rock? Did they initially resist and strike first? There is only the statements of each party to go on. The illegals were in the process of committing a crime, and Nethercott has committed crimes in the past. Why listen to either side?
In general though, I would have said Nethercott had "right" on his side - he was on private property at the owner's invitation. The illegals were standing on foreign soil, and nobody dragged them on to it. In weighing the competing statements, that fact would weigh heavily with me.
Actually they won't. Some jobs aren't even worth the minimum wage, which is why we hire illegals to do them, they don't care about no stinking minimum wage, although they will go where the pay is higher, else they wouldn't come here. Americans won't do many jobs even for the minimum wage, because they can do better on welfare.
That said, this is a basic injustice. The man wasn't even convicted of doing that for which he was relieved of his property in a civil "trial" (judge only and he was not present, being in jail on the felon in possession charge)
Felon in possession laws are as unconstitutional as any other gun control law. Unless the felon in question was punished in that manner by the judge and jury that convicted him or he's out on probation and has not yet served his full sentence. In the past it was customary to reinstate full Constitutional rights to a convict, once they had service their time, paid their debt to society, etc. No longer. His conviction was for assault, which could mean poking the wrong person in the nose, even if that person truly deserved it. (A felony is, by federal definition for his purpose, a crime punishable by more than one year in jail or prison, regardless of the actual sentence handed down. So a jury could convict someone, but believe that their were mitigating circumstances and give someone "time served" or probation only, but that person would still have lost his RKBA forever, and with no ability at present to petition for restoration of that right, as they can for voting rights for example, because the Congress, in it's infinite stupidity, refuses to allow BATFE to spend any money reviewing such cases, and the courts refuse to intervene unless the BATFE has denied the reinstatement. A classic Catch-22 situation)
In Texas you can use deadly force to protect property, even that of a third party. In this case, less than deadly force was used. Besides the man was NOT convicted of the alleged "pistol whipping", the Jury hung on that one.He was convicted of felon in possession, due to a previous conviction for assault.
It will be sold right away. The awardees live in different states (CA and TX) and are not related. They have no use for an Arizona ranch. Besides, the SPLC and Morries (Spit!) Dees have to be paid. Their reward is their green card, plus a little money each to maybe buy a modest car or put down a down payment on a modest house (at least for the one who lives in Dallas).
Actually, are there any states that still allow you to gun down someone merely for trespass?
§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
===================================================
Now that's not a justification for deadly force, but if the actor reasonably believes that any number of crimes are in progress or imminent, including theft during the nighttime, burglary, and others, then deadly force may be used.
But otherwise, you'd have ask Carl
At the time of the incident they were not legal. They took advantage of a federal law/regulation which allows temporary legal status for those who aid law enforcement by testifying in court, or providing information to LEOs. However that provision was most likely intended for small fry drug mules who turned in their bosses, or folks who turned in coyotes (illegal immigrant smugglers)
Of course they are, but who's going to turn them in, the illegals that they are illegally paying sub minimum wages? I don't think so.
The SPLC is basically Morris Dees, and a small staff. He's always been a perversion. Look at the other thread on this story (linked above), it has links to all sorts of interesting stuff about "The Militia Watchdog" (which is one of his nome de web s). I think I may have debated the old SOB, or one of his minions, back in the "newsgroups" days on talk.politics.guns. After he got shellacked, not just by me of course, he'd go away for awhile.
But Morris Dees, chief trial counsel for the Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center, which represented the Salvadorans in the suit, said signing the ranch over to the immigrants is "poetic justice."
Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my ‘miscellaneous’ ping list.
BTTT!
Actually, I never said for "minimum wage". A said at a wage the free market supports. This means that you have to keep raising the wage until an AMERICAN *will* do that job. At a certain price, an American will do ANY job. That is the way it is supposed to work. You aren't suppose to say "Nobody will pick my strawberries for $5.50/hour, so I have to hire Mexicans". You raise the wage of picking strawberries until you have Americans applying for that job. Cheap foreign labor dilutes the American middle and lower class standard of living.
If it is an unpleasant job with poor working conditions, Americans can and will demand a higher wage, but if paid, they will do that job.
That is the whole idea behind a free market economy.
Minimum wages is not relevant to the discussion.
Mike Savage quoted a blogger who said Governor Napolitano (D-TX) used tenets of the Patriot Act to jail and detain the rancher, a knowing misuse of the act since no suspicion of terrorism existed.
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.