majorspark;671050 wrote:Some of his cattle died from ingesting the plastic bottles left behind by the immigrants, he said, adding that he installed a faucet on an 8,000-gallon water tank so the immigrants would stop damaging the tank to get water.

Mr. Barnett said some of the ranch´s established immigrant trails were littered with trash 10 inches deep, including human waste, used toilet paper, soiled diapers, cigarette packs, clothes, backpacks, empty 1-gallon water bottles, chewing-gum wrappers and aluminum foil - which supposedly is used to pack the drugs the immigrant smugglers give their “clients” to keep them running.

Environmentalists should be outraged.

PETA should also be outraged.

Those groups should be outraged, but Mr Barnett took action.

stlouiedipalma;671048 wrote:I sure wouldn't want to mess with this man. He sounds like he means business.

Any guy who can round up and turn over to authorities nearly 1,000 people a year for over a decade is bad ass.

I hope the other ranchers learn from his mistake and just start shooting them and leave them where they fall for other illegals to see.Then the vultures and other wild animals will have something to eat,granted they will have to get used to the diarrhea and stomach cramps from eating mexican every day.

fish82;671029 wrote:They're criminals, and trespassing on his property. He's perfectly within his rights to detain them until the authorities arrive.

A normal citizen cannont hold another human at gunpoint...that is simple logic

holding their clients at “gunpoint, yelling obscenities at them and kicking one of the women.”

he yelled at them in Spanish, “My dog is hungry and he’s hungry for buttocks.”

If they can prove those two things....he is screwed

password;671128 wrote:I hope the other ranchers learn from his mistake and just start shooting them and leave them where they fall for other illegals to see.Then the vultures and other wild animals will have something to eat,granted they will have to get used to the diarrhea and stomach cramps from eating mexican every day.

Then they will go to prison...

Your second statement is disgusting and should be removed

Ty Webb;671132 wrote:Then they will go to prison...

Your second statement is disgusting and should be removed

Not if you can keep a secret!

Have you ever eatin Mexican before?

That is pretty gross.

I mean the trash. No excuse for that.

password;671137 wrote:Not if you can keep a secret!

Have you ever eatin Mexican before?

So you're ok with killing someone for no reason?

Ty Webb;671131 wrote:A normal citizen cannont hold another human at gunpoint...that is simple logic

holding their clients at “gunpoint, yelling obscenities at them and kicking one of the women.”

he yelled at them in Spanish, “My dog is hungry and he’s hungry for buttocks.”

If they can prove those two things....he is screwed

If 20 criminals broke into my house, I'd take my chances with a gun. Gibby, you sure seem supportive of the the scum in this world.

The 20 people didn't break into his house though as I understand it they were on his property. Had they been in his house I believe he would have been legally allowed to do what he did (plus it would have been impressive for 20 people to sneak into a house).

believer;670565 wrote:NAW...The illegals will get favorable press, free food, free health care, and free tuition all at the rancher's expense.

And SSI benefits even though they never paid into the system!

Ty Webb;671131 wrote:A normal citizen cannont hold another human at gunpoint...that is simple logic

holding their clients at “gunpoint, yelling obscenities at them and kicking one of the women.”

he yelled at them in Spanish, “My dog is hungry and he’s hungry for buttocks.”

If they can prove those two things....he is screwed

First off, I don't see how they will be able to prove this and even if they could, what exactly will it prove? Also, you are incorrect about being able to hold people at gunpoint. If they would have entered his home, he could have shot them. Seeing as they didn't enter his home but they were on his property. He was outnumbered, he could easily justify the use of a weapon if he was in fear of his life. Let's be honest, anyone would be in fear of their own and their family's life if a group of criminals were on their property.

Ty Webb;671140 wrote:So you're ok with killing someone for no reason?

It isn't killing someone for no reason, you just don't agree with the reason. As I stated above, if he felt in danger of his life, he is justified in detaining (can't believe they're trying to say he imprisoned them) or shooting someone. Of course he would have to prove he felt in danger, but with that many criminals outnumbering him on his private property, I don't see that being hard to prove. Any jury in that area would easily acquit.

Ty Webb;671131 wrote:A normal citizen cannont hold another human at gunpoint...that is simple logic

holding their clients at “gunpoint, yelling obscenities at them and kicking one of the women.”

he yelled at them in Spanish, “My dog is hungry and he’s hungry for buttocks.”

If they can prove those two things....he is screwed

I doubt they have a case to prove everything that they say. I doubt any of them had camera's or recording devices. Also, didn't he at one point holster his gun?
.......................

As for the trash factor and killing of private property (cows), that's not going to help his case. As seen in the case of Arizona where MILES of trails are literally piled up knee-high in filth from illegals coming into this country, the Obama Administration is "OK" with it. Obviously. After all, they're suing the state of Arizona for enforcing a law that is trying to buckle down on that sort of thing.
"Oh say can you see, by the dawns early light, what so proudly we hailed...."

Many of you are missing the point of this post.

The crime committed by the illegals, or the action of the US citizen are not in question. It's whether the illegals should be able to sue the US citizen over it. If the US citizen committed a crime, he should be charged by US law authorities, whoever that may be. But the illegals shouldn't be able to sue him for anything.

WebFire;671263 wrote:Many of you are missing the point of this post.

The crime committed by the illegals, or the action of the US citizen are not in question. It's whether the illegals should be able to sue the US citizen over it. If the US citizen committed a crime, he should be charged by US law authorities, whoever that may be. But the illegals shouldn't be able to sue him for anything.

Agreed.

And saying this man imprisoned anyone is just ridiculous. There were criminals trespassing on his property and he detained them, called the authorities and they were taken away. If he injured one of them he should be held responsible for that...but for him to be treated like the criminal and to be sued is wrong. Period.

I have no problem with illegals being able to sue a US citizen. But I don't think this guy did anything wrong.

No WebFire, I don't think anybody is missing the point.

For example, my specific point: If the Obama Administration can sue a state of the United States of America for upholding a law, then why shouldn't something like this case be allowed?
I mean if there's going to be stupidity - why not go "all in"???

When I lived in California there was an infamous case that was tried. The case was that a burglar broke into a mans house. The man shot the burglar, the burglar sued the man - and won. A perfect case where Justice was in fact blind, but couldn't read braille.

I don't see how this is so very different than that travesty.

Look at these pictures:





These are only some of the pictures of the mess that illegal immigrants leave on their way of sneaking into this country. The man being charged is clearly trying to prevent this stuff (death of livestock, trash, danger of drug cartels also) from happening on his own PRIVATE PROPERTY and illegals and their cohorts obviously think that they can get away from by making him the criminal based on previous actions of our law(s) and the current/past Presidential administrations.
They are simply following example.

I mean... shouldn't this make sense for everybody?

And, oh yes, my posts concerning this are slathered with sarcasm and embarrassment.

CenterBHSFan;671294 wrote:No WebFire, I don't think anybody is missing the point.

Judging by many posts, I disagree.

Any asshole beaks into my house and I will damn sure hold him at gunpoint until the cops get there. I don't care if he's white, black, brown or yellow. Any judge that would rule againts that is nothing but an activist judge. Heck, i may even throw in the "hungy for buttocks" line for good measure. Give me a break, this is a joke.

Those photos are infuriating. Fuck this and previous administrations for not doing their fucking jobs and defending the border from this human trash.

pinstriper;671581 wrote:Any asshole beaks into my house and I will damn sure hold him at gunpoint until the cops get there. I don't care if he's white, black, brown or yellow. Any judge that would rule againts that is nothing but an activist judge. Heck, i may even throw in the "hungy for buttocks" line for good measure. Give me a break, this is a joke.

They weren't in his house. I think that's the probably why the case was allowed (ignoring the illegal immigrant question). Since I don't believe I can hold someone at gunpoint for walking across my lawn. I can certainly make them get off my property but I don't believe you're allowed to detain someone at gunpoint for merely trespassing (Correct me if I'm wrong).

Now, it could definitely be argued that these people were doing more than walking across his property but unless the man saw them commit the acts of vandalism that he says has been happening of late that's probably why the case was allowed from a legal standpoint (of course I could be very wrong as I'm not an attorney, obviously).

However, it is disgusting that people would treat other people's property so poorly. It certainly makes the case for better border security and common sense policies that discourage illegals and criminals from crossing the border (seems like I harp on this a lot but part, not all, but part of that solution could be more common sense and results based drug policy.).

I Wear Pants;671616 wrote:They weren't in his house. I think that's the probably why the case was allowed (ignoring the illegal immigrant question). Since I don't believe I can hold someone at gunpoint for walking across my lawn. I can certainly make them get off my property but I don't believe you're allowed to detain someone at gunpoint for merely trespassing (Correct me if I'm wrong).

Now, it could definitely be argued that these people were doing more than walking across his property but unless the man saw them commit the acts of vandalism that he says has been happening of late that's probably why the case was allowed from a legal standpoint (of course I could be very wrong as I'm not an attorney, obviously).

However, it is disgusting that people would treat other people's property so poorly. It certainly makes the case for better border security and common sense policies that discourage illegals and criminals from crossing the border (seems like I harp on this a lot but part, not all, but part of that solution could be more common sense and results based drug policy.).

I don't believe it should matter if they were in his house or just on his property. How was he supposed to know whether or not they were armed (guns, knives, etc)? Even if they weren't...16 people can certainly overtake 1 or 2. He had every right to believe they could harm him and/or his wife.

Yes, so he has the right to wield the gun I believe. But I don't think you're allowed to detain people for that. So he could use the gun to tell them to get off the property but not to keep them detained. Or at least that's what I'm guessing.

It's like how I'm not allowed to detain someone who I saw jaywalk or litter. Sure they did something illegal but no so much as to allow me to "arrest" them.

I see how that's not a direct comparison but I'm guessing (and I keep saying guessing because that's all it is, not even really educated guesses) that's similar to the legal reasons this case was allowed.

As a citizen of The United State of America what part of "illegal" is confusing in this thread?
In the Belly book of rules it is simple: Illegal’s have no rights &#8230eriod
They are human and that gives them some sympathy not much but that about it and for rights hell no. Rights come with Citizenship and some rights come with legal documnetation to be in this country.
No rights in a court of law, no right for social programs, no right to vote, no right for employment, no right to beg, no right walk on the same dirt that Americans walk on… They are illegally in this country and that means they are criminals with the potential of terrorist.


As an America you should make it your duty and obligation to turn in and if under direct conflict with an illegal ..Hold and apprehend until proper law enforcement are present. Protect yourself, property and family at all cost and others around from the actions of the illegal’s.
Belly book of rules: We take no prisoners that don’t want to be taken.

Those fucking lawyers, law makers and liberals can take the bunch of illegals home with them for a week ..them come at tell me they have rights.

Belly, does that mean that American citizens are allowed to break the law as long as the victim is an illegal?