16 Illegals Sue Arizona rancher

Kevlar281 · #1 02-09-2009, 03:55 PM

Quote:

An Arizona man who has waged a 10-year campaign to stop a flood of illegal immigrants from crossing his property is being sued by 16 Mexican nationals who accuse him of conspiring to violate their civil rights when he stopped them at gunpoint on his ranch on the U.S.-Mexico border.

Roger Barnett, 64, began rounding up illegal immigrants in 1998 and turning them over to the U.S. Border Patrol, he said, after they destroyed his property, killed his calves and broke into his home.

His Cross Rail Ranch near Douglas, Ariz., is known by federal and county law enforcement authorities as "the avenue of choice" for immigrants seeking to enter the United States illegally.

Link: To Full Article

srmom · #2 02-09-2009, 04:02 PM

The 16 should be happy he just escorted them to the authorities. On property owned by Mexican drug lords along the border they would have just "disappeared".

Now, if he were in Texas he could have just shot them according to our laws.

ThetaDancer · #3 02-09-2009, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by srmom

The 16 should be happy he just escorted them to the authorities. On property owned by Mexican drug lords along the border they would have just "disappeard".

Agreed.

libramunoz · #4 02-09-2009, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by srmom

Now, if he were in Texas he could have just shot them according to our laws.

Now I love that Texas law!

Munchkin03 · #5 02-09-2009, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by srmom

Now, if he were in Texas he could have just shot them according to our laws.

Pretty much.

Kevin · #6 02-09-2009, 05:34 PM

You have the right to use force and even threaten excessive and deadly force to expel trespassers.

What civil right does anyone have to trespass?

KSig RC · #7 02-09-2009, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin

What civil right does anyone have to trespass?

This article is VERY unclear (and literally wrong on the facts, as far as I've read) - the aliens were NOT on the rancher's land, and they may have been up to three miles away from any land he actually owned. Thus the right is against false imprisonment/right to interstate travel. Before everyone gets apeshit on this, there's no element of trespass involved, or I'm sure it would have been thrown out right away.

CrackerBarrel · #8 02-10-2009, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Thus the right is against false imprisonment/right to interstate travel.

I think a claim for false imprisonment may exist even if they were trespassing. I may be wrong, but I think the preferred action to take against trespassers is to eject them OR call the police. I don't think detaining trespassers is looked on particularly favorably.

epchick · #9 02-10-2009, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrackerBarrel

I think a claim for false imprisonment may exist even if they were trespassing. I may be wrong, but I think the preferred action to take against trespassers is to eject them OR call the police. I don't think detaining trespassers is looked on particularly favorably.

You are correct, at least from everything I know. I know that here where I live, there have been a few "illegals" who trespassed in people's backyards (that is what happens when your backyard is literally on the border), were rounded up by the homeowner and the homeowner was the one who got in trouble for the false imprisonment.

It has been said that if you see "illegals" you call the police and let them handle it.

KSig RC · #10 02-10-2009, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrackerBarrel

I think a claim for false imprisonment may exist even if they were trespassing. I may be wrong, but I think the preferred action to take against trespassers is to eject them OR call the police. I don't think detaining trespassers is looked on particularly favorably.

Kevin is much better qualified to speak to this in the abstract, but you very well may be right . . . in the OP's case, though, every other source I have notes that trespass is not an issue, as it wasn't on his owned property.