Well that's true.

Another article on this. These illegal trespassers got awarded $87,000.

"This decision vindicates constitutional guarantees for all," the group's president, Thomas Saenz, said in a statement Friday. "Even in Arizona, vigilantes do not have the right to harass and victimize peaceful migrants."
Barnett's attorney, John Kaufmann, said he may ask the panel to rehear the case. He said it was reasonable for his client to have his gun drawn as he approached strangers in the dead of the night.
"As soon as he found out they weren't armed, he put his gun away," Kaufmann said.

How is he supposed to know if they are peaceful or not in the dead of night?
ESPECIALLY in light of:

Ranchers in southern Arizona, the busiest point of entry for illegal immigrants, have complained for years that border crossers trash their land and threaten their safety. At a ranch near Barnett's, Robert Krentz was shot to death last year on his property. Authorities suspect a drug trafficker may have killed him.

I guess he's supposed to ignore them or wait until he gets shot before he stops them and calls authorities?
And it really doesn't make sense with this fact of the proceedings:

The ruling Thursday from a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco found that the 2009 civil judgment against rancher Roger Barnett was proper and that the jury should not have been instructed that they could find Barnett acted in self-defense.

Where's Barnett's rights to not have illegals trespass on his property on a constant basis? Where is his right to act in self-defense? Where is his right to protect what is his and to protect his person/family?
At what point is the law going to be on his side?

Where has our collective thinking gone? What's wrong with this picture?

Am I just THAT heartless and unfeeling? Why can't I understand this?

Why are people so outraged by what this man did (or didn't do, really) moreso than what the illegals did? I mean, if my heart bled that much I'd be dead! Seriously.

My granny used to say "there's a skunk in the woodpile and it stinks!"

OOPS! Forgot the link, here it is:

Court upholds verdict against Arizona rancher who detained illegal immigrants on his land - Los Angeles Times

Reading this:

Thomas Saenz, said in a statement Friday. "Even in Arizona, vigilantes do not have the right to harass and victimize peaceful migrants."

Made Pepsi come out my nose. "victimize peaceful migrants..." Comedy gold.

we are at a disavantage when it comes to our rights concerning illegals because the people with power need them such as the elected officals that use them as cheap labor at their homes and then claim they didn't know they were here as illegal aliens when they get busted.Look at our president and his staff wanting to give illegal aliens the right to vote in our country just so he can be elected to another term.See what would happen if the roles were reversed and this rancher was caught sneaking into another country illegally and was held against his will for tresspassing and then tried to press charges and sue them,he would never be heard from again or he would be in some foreign prison for being in the country illegally.

Center, I have a feeling there may be a bit more to this particular case because it seems like both courts agreed that the self defense argument wouldn't apply for some reason which would seem strange if it was just a bunch of people sneaking around his property in the middle of the night and he didn't know if they were armed or not. So I have a feeling there is something else that makes it so that legally the self defense argument isn't valid.

Though I still don't know why the illegal immigrants can bring civil cases. I'm think they should have the same protection in criminal cases as citizens do because those involve injustices that I shouldn't be allowed on anyone. But civil cases are where the isn't a criminal infraction so I don't really understand the reasoning here. Very confusing.

Was Barnett charged with a crime for this incident?

What has America become?

What Has America Become by Ken Huber of Tawas City
Editor,

Has America become the land of the double standard?

Lets see: if we lie to the Congress, it's a felony and if the Congress lies to us its just politics; if we dislike a black person, we're racist and if a black person dislikes whites, its their 1st Amendment right; the government spends millions to rehabilitate criminals and they do almost nothing for the victims; in public schools you can teach that homosexuality is OK, but you better not use the word God in the process; you can kill an unborn child, but it is wrong to execute a mass murderer; we don't burn books in America, we now rewrite them; we got rid of communist and socialist threats by renaming them progressive; we are unable to close our border with Mexico, but have no problem protecting the 38th parallel in Korea; if you protest against President Obama's policies you're a terrorist, but if you burned an American flag or George Bush in effigy it was your 1st Amendment right.

You can have pornography on TV or the internet, but you better not put a nativity scene in a public park during Christmas; we have eliminated all criminals in America, they are now called sick people; we can use a human fetus for medical research, but it is wrong to use an animal.

We take money from those who work hard for it and give it to those who don't want to work; we all support the Constitution, but only when it supports our political ideology; we still have freedom of speech, but only if we are being politically correct; parenting has been replaced with Ritalin and video games; the land of opportunity is now the land of hand outs; the similarity between Hurricane Katrina and the gulf oil spill is that neither president did anything to help.

And how do we handle a major crisis today? The government appoints a committee to determine who's at fault, then threatens them, passes a law, raises our taxes; tells us the problem is solved so they can get back to their reelection campaign.

What has happened to the land of the free and home of the brave?

- Ken Huber





http://www.usacarry.com/forums/politics/14344-what-has-america-become-ken-huber.html

Pants,

I guess that's what burns me the most; the fact that it doesn't appear that he wasn't guilty enough to spend any jail time (that we know of) but guilty enough to fork over $87,000 to illegal immigrants who shouldn't have been on his property to begin with.
From what the articles say, it does appear that the initial confrontation happened at night? I don't see anything else to contradict that, but who knows?

I just don't get it. "There's a skunk in the woodpile and it stinks!"
.............................

bulldog, yes, he's done this for several years apparently, and previously had to pay something like $100,000 to illegals.

The federal government should be paying this man for doing their job. The feds just stand by while the illegal invasion continues.

I respect and honor this guy for willingly pay the price(s) for taking a stand!

They don't have a right to trespass, little, endanger and kill his livestock, endanger his family/himself.

That is HIS property, not theirs.
Period.

CenterBHSFan;672676 wrote:Pants,

I guess that's what burns me the most; the fact that it doesn't appear that he wasn't guilty enough to spend any jail time (that we know of) but guilty enough to fork over $87,000 to illegal immigrants who shouldn't have been on his property to begin with.
From what the articles say, it does appear that the initial confrontation happened at night? I don't see anything else to contradict that, but who knows?

I just don't get it. "There's a skunk in the woodpile and it stinks!"
.............................

bulldog, yes, he's done this for several years apparently, and previously had to pay something like $100,000 to illegals.

To clarify your statement and to answer my own question, he has never been found guilty, tried or even charged with ANYTHING according to the LAW. Yet somehow, he is found liable in civil court?! That is an absurd double-standard if there ever was one.

In regards to those of you calling these humans trash....

Then you can go right ahead and call every single one of us trash and all of our ancestors trash because they entered this country without permission of the people already here(Indians) and proceeded to destroy their land and threaten their lives. Should the Indians been able to kill all of them also,because it's the same thing

Ty Webb;673853 wrote:In regards to those of you calling these humans trash....

Then you can go right ahead and call every single one of us trash and all of our ancestors trash because they entered this country without permission of the people already here(Indians) and proceeded to destroy their land and threaten their lives. Should the Indians been able to kill all of them also,because it's the same thing

When the Indians saw what was going down they did kill many of our ancestors. But our ancestors were stronger and returned the favor many fold. This world is governed by the aggressive use of force and its lands have changed ownership many times throughout history.

Ty Webb;673853 wrote:In regards to those of you calling these humans trash....

Then you can go right ahead and call every single one of us trash and all of our ancestors trash because they entered this country without permission of the people already here(Indians) and proceeded to destroy their land and threaten their lives. Should the Indians been able to kill all of them also,because it's the same thing

While I completely agree that calling another human being 'trash' is wrong on any level, you are using a terrible argument. The Native Americans did try to kill the immigrants when they invaded their areas. Also, there was no form of organized government or even defined tribal boundaries that existed, so the comparison really falls apart when considering that.

Ty Webb;673853 wrote:In regards to those of you calling these humans trash....

Then you can go right ahead and call every single one of us trash and all of our ancestors trash because they entered this country without permission of the people already here(Indians) and proceeded to destroy their land and threaten their lives. Should the Indians been able to kill all of them also,because it's the same thing

First of all, they are trash for littering all over OUR country, while illegally entering it. Second of all, you are a fucking piece of shit douche bag for defending this act.

CenterBHSFan;672676 wrote:Pants,

I guess that's what burns me the most; the fact that it doesn't appear that he wasn't guilty enough to spend any jail time (that we know of) but guilty enough to fork over $87,000 to illegal immigrants who shouldn't have been on his property to begin with.
From what the articles say, it does appear that the initial confrontation happened at night? I don't see anything else to contradict that, but who knows?

I just don't get it. "There's a skunk in the woodpile and it stinks!"
.............................

bulldog, yes, he's done this for several years apparently, and previously had to pay something like $100,000 to illegals.

That's the difference between civil and criminal law. Burden of proof is much easier in civil. That being said, I completely disagree with the outcome of this case.

BCBulldog;673732 wrote:To clarify your statement and to answer my own question, he has never been found guilty, tried or even charged with ANYTHING according to the LAW. Yet somehow, he is found liable in civil court?! That is an absurd double-standard if there ever was one.

I agree that it is a double standard. It's like when OJ was found not guilty of murder in criminal court, but found guilty of wrongful death in civil court. Burden of proof is the difference.

Ty Webb;673853 wrote:In regards to those of you calling these humans trash....

Then you can go right ahead and call every single one of us trash and all of our ancestors trash because they entered this country without permission of the people already here(Indians) and proceeded to destroy their land and threaten their lives. Should the Indians been able to kill all of them also,because it's the same thing

Horrible analogy, as others have stated, since the natives did try to kill the settlers. Also, it is quite different comparing something from centuries ago to something now. Now there is established borders and nations. What the settlers were doing they didn't believe they were wrong, these illegals knowingly break the law and continue to do it.

iclfan2;673899 wrote:First of all, they are trash for littering all over OUR country, while illegally entering it. Second of all, you are a fucking piece of shit douche bag and I wish you the worst.

I mean you can disagree with someone without wishing them the worst. That is quite petty.

Ty Webb;673853 wrote:In regards to those of you calling these humans trash....

Then you can go right ahead and call every single one of us trash and all of our ancestors trash because they entered this country without permission of the people already here(Indians) and proceeded to destroy their land and threaten their lives. Should the Indians been able to kill all of them also,because it's the same thing

Do you think before you post on here?
I guess you think MJ was not a MOLESTER either?

password;673933 wrote:Do you think before you post on here?
I guess you think MJ was not a MOLESTER either?

Do you think illegal immigrants could sue MJ if he molested their kids? I mean when he was alive, obviously they couldn't sue him now; or could they? Either way, I'm guessing he molested many illegal migrant workers. Neverland was a big ranch, someone had to be doing the gardening.

Ty Webb;673853 wrote:In regards to those of you calling these humans trash....

Then you can go right ahead and call every single one of us trash and all of our ancestors trash because they entered this country without permission of the people already here(Indians) and proceeded to destroy their land and threaten their lives. Should the Indians been able to kill all of them also,because it's the same thing

#1 Many of our ancestors came over after the United States was already a country. They were coming to United States territory LEGALLY.

#2 The Indians sold some of the land to the settlers.

#3 As many others have already said, the Indians did try to kill the settlers.

Al Bundy;673948 wrote:#1 Many of our ancestors came over after the United States was already a country. They were coming to United States territory LEGALLY.

#2 The Indians sold some of the land to the settlers.

#3 As many others have already said, the Indians did try to kill the settlers.

Many of the Indians had no idea what they were signing when they entered these land "agreements". Our ancestors took advantage of them and then proceeded to continue to fuck them over for the next 200 years.

So what all of you are saying is that the Indians were justified in killing those illegal immigrants?

Ty Webb;674033 wrote:Many of the Indians had no idea what they were signing when they entered these land "agreements". Our ancestors took advantage of them and then proceeded to continue to fuck them over for the next 200 years.

Which Indian tribe will you be returning your land to?

Ty Webb;674033 wrote:So what all of you are saying is that the Indians were justified in killing those illegal immigrants?

In some cases yes.

Ty Webb;673853 wrote:In regards to those of you calling these humans trash....

Then you can go right ahead and call every single one of us trash and all of our ancestors trash because they entered this country without permission of the people already here(Indians) and proceeded to destroy their land and threaten their lives. Should the Indians been able to kill all of them also,because it's the same thing

I must have missed the part where this rancher killed (or tried to kill) these illegals. Terrible comparison.

Ty Webb;674033 wrote:Many of the Indians had no idea what they were signing when they entered these land "agreements". Our ancestors took advantage of them and then proceeded to continue to fuck them over for the next 200 years.

So what all of you are saying is that the Indians were justified in killing those illegal immigrants?

In many cases, terrible things were done to the Indians. In some cases, the Indians signed agreements. Some of the Indians were justified in killing Europeans. To the best of my knowlege no one is living today that did the Indians wrong in 1600s, 1700s, or 1800s. I know that you have tendency to support human garbage (such as these criminals and MJ). Before you said that you were leaving the internet until you grew up a little. I don't think that you waited long enough.

majorspark;674039 wrote:Which Indian tribe will you be returning your land to?



In some cases yes.

I'm a 1/4 Indian,so shouldn't some of you be returning your land to me?

Al Bundy;674072 wrote:In many cases, terrible things were done to the Indians. In some cases, the Indians signed agreements. Some of the Indians were justified in killing Europeans. To the best of my knowlege no one is living today that did the Indians wrong in 1600s, 1700s, or 1800s. I know that you have tendency to support human garbage (such as these criminals and MJ). Before you said that you were leaving the internet until you grew up a little. I don't think that you waited long enough.

But unlike the human trash you support (Limbaugh,Rove,etc...)?