 Roger Barnett and his brother Brent |
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.
Trial continues in the federal lawsuit, which seeks $32 million in actual and punitive damages for civil rights violations, the infliction of emotional distress and other crimes.
Attorneys for the immigrants – five women and 11 men who were trying to cross illegally into the United States – have accused Mr. Barnett of holding the group captive at gunpoint, threatening to turn his dog loose on them and saying he would shoot anyone who tried to escape…
The lawsuit said he then called his wife and two Border Patrol agents arrived at the site. It also said Mr. Barnett acknowledged that he had turned over 12,000 illegal immigrants to the Border Patrol since 1998.
“This is my land. I´m the victim here,” Mr. Barnett said. “When someone’s home and loved ones are in jeopardy and the government seemingly can´t do anything about it, I feel justified in taking matters into my own hands.”
Good enough for me.
Two words: land mines.
#1 Agreed.
It’s hard to graze cattle in a minefield…much hamburger ensues.
All he has to do is ask the court to have the illegals post a bond that they will pay his lawyer’s fees if they lose.
Anyone is allowed to make an arrest if they find someone committing a crime. Since he was outnumbered, I don’t see the use of a firearm or dog as excessive.
A M-40A1 and 16 rounds of 175-grain 7.62x51mm hollow point boat tail would have made this a non-issue.
When I read this I said what idiot took on this case, after reading the full article I found out… MALDEF, it figures…
# 3 Floyd said, “It’s hard to graze cattle in a minefield…much hamburger ensues.”
I guess that would be the result if one were stupid enough to put the mines on the wrong side of the fence.
We3 ought to take up a collection for this guys legal defense.
The lawyer ought to be shot.
>> SparkyOne said,
>> A M-40A1 and 16 rounds of 175-grain 7.62×51mm hollow point boat tail would have made this a non-issue.
What the hell!?!?!
If liberals want the US to be Sweden, the conservative want it to be Somalia.
I’ve lived in countries where land owners had private prisons, security forces and were a law to themselves. I have not doubt they even executed people, without trial.
IT SUCKS!!!!!!!!!! That’s not the America I envision.
# 9 Greg Allen said, “IT SUCKS!!!!!!!!!! That’s not the America I envision.”
So, the America you envision is one where criminal illegals pour across the border and end up as 40% of the prison population (as exists in LA County)?
Greg A…that’s not the America any of us envision. But if the Fed refuses to enforce its borders shall we just sit here and let these immigrants burden our systems?
Since when did illegal aliens get civil rights. Civil rights are those rights granted to you by The Constitution, as they are not citizens they don’t qualify to said rights under our Constitution.
Shouldn’t the case of illegal entry into the US be tried first? Wouldn’t that legitimize the arrest in the first place? Only if they were found innocent or beaten or something would the arrest be illegal. Am I missing something?
# 13 Rob said, “Only if they were found innocent or beaten or something would the arrest be illegal.”
Resisting arrest can legally lead to physical violence against those resisting…
Speaking about immigration, here is a story you’ll find interesting:
http://cnn.com/2009/US/02/10/immigrants.economy/index.html
#12 – “Civil rights are those rights granted to you by The Constitution, as they are not citizens they don’t qualify to said rights under our Constitution.”
The Constitution of the United States does not, for the most part, differentiate between citizens and non-citizens of the country. None of the amendments do.
Also, “civil rights” as a concept exist separate and apart from the Constitution. The battle lies in getting those rights recognized in the Constitution (14th, 15th, and 16th amendments anyone?)
#13 – “Shouldn’t the case of illegal entry into the US be tried first? Wouldn’t that legitimize the arrest in the first place? Only if they were found innocent or beaten or something would the arrest be illegal. Am I missing something?”
You know, I think we all are. The article seems to gloss over the entire issue of these individual’s deportation/status. Were they actually illegals, or were they legal immigrants trespassing? (Still a breach of the law, though not necessarily a crime, depending on the state.)
Still, that wouldn’t answer your question, no. Torture and abuse, which seems to be the gist of the claim here, are not validated by a legitimate arrest. Especially a citizen’s arrest. The claim the plaintiffs are making isn’t “The man arrested me illegally”, so the validity of the arrest/right to detain issues don’t enter into it.
The question is one of degrees of force – man says he held a gun and threatened to use his dog; they say the man slapped them around and threatened to have the dog actually bite them.
This is just another misleading bit of legal news, tantalizing only because it has immigrants in the title.
Using a pejorative like “illegals” just shows what insecure bullies you are.
We’re techies. We’re supposed to be the smart ones.
The key in the story is here:
“In March, U.S. District Judge John Roll rejected a motion by Mr. Barnett to have the charges dropped”
Outrageous this case is not subject to judicial review and dismissal.
If these illegals win, then the legal system of this country is truly a joke. No only should these people have NO civil rights, they should be thrown in jail and deported for entering the country illegally.
#17 – “Outrageous this case is not subject to judicial review and dismissal.”
Uhm… reread the sentence you quoted. That’s exactly what it said: A judge reviewed it, and found [the case] had merit. Now – you’re either doubting the judge (which is fair, judges make mistakes), or you’re doubting the process of review, which is baseless.
As to it not being subject to (further) judicial review – not true at all. A case is subject to judicial review until the Supreme Court says they’re cool with it (either by accepting a writ of certiorari saying so, or denying one.) Now, the judge’s order that the case proceed forward isn’t subject to *immediate* review (at least as far as I’m aware, there are no interlocutory appeals in civil cases) because it’d be truly a waste of judicial resources to let civil parties duke out every minor disagreement with the judge whenever they crop up. Finality would never settle, and appeals would truly be endless.
#18 – “No only should these people have NO civil rights, they should be thrown in jail and deported for entering the country illegally.”
Well your statement has two points, so I’ll address them both. First off, to your second point, they probably either are in jail/are being deported or they *have* been deported. United States citizens aren’t beyond suit simply because the plaintiff is in another country. So, fret not, whatever justice you require in that end has probably already been addressed.
Second – remove the concept of “illegal immigrant” from the equation. Now you have a group of people trespassing on someone’s land, claiming that when caught he beat them and threatened to have his dog eat them. Shouldn’t they at least deserve the right to have a judge hear their tale of woe? Or should the landowner be allowed to run his property like his private fiefdom, torturing peasants who he doesn’t like with impunity and immunity?
Wouldn’t he be allowed to hold trespassing people for the authorities even if they were citizens? If so, their status doesn’t matter.
If the authorities find they were illegals, not his problem.
Excuse me? What civil rights? Foreign felons in the act of committing a federal offense do not have civil rights to violate. If he didn’t beat them or deprive them of basic essentials and if he called the Border Patrol as soon as reasonably possible, then it sounds to me like he made a fair citizen’s arrest.
One does have to wonder at his persistence: 1,200 per year average? The Border Patrol must just keep a bus parked on his ranch.
#17 said: “Using a pejorative like ‘illegals’ just shows what insecure bullies you are.”
Using a wussy description like ‘undocumented immigrants’ just shows what an insecure weenie doormat you are.
The correct legal term for the nearly 20 million persons illegally in the U.S. is illegal aliens.
The term “undocumented immigrants” is purposely incorrect in order to sway the public in favor of special interest groups and only clouds the reality of the situation.
Most undocumented border crossers never had a document to lose. The incorrect and understated implication is that legal status can be achieved merely by completing some paperwork. By law the illegal alien must leave the country in order to apply through the proper immigration procedure.
Burglars are not uninvited house guests.
Car-jackers are not under-rated drivers.
Bank robbers are not making unauthorized withdrawals.
Illegal aliens are not undocumented immigrants.
#20–Alex==what part of “dismissal” did you not understand? I have no doubt the judge ruled correctly as the law currently stands==thats why I said it was outrageous.
Take out the issue of the trespassers being illegal aliens. The judge is saying any trespasser can sue for emotional damages.
That should not be.
Its also outrageous this rancher has to defend his property because of the failure of the Feds to protect the border.
Just another example of the USA being sold down the river to select business and political interests.
Actually, lol, watch the outrage when Barnette loses this case based on this riddled with errors version of events.
The first factual error with this telling of the story??? It wasn’t actually Barnettes land that the incident occurred on.
The other factual error, OMG ROFL, the 16 people he detained, LOL, are not actually illegal immigrants.
So this story like ALL these neo-con stories is just more histrionics. And that is why the media is not carrying this version of events.
LOL.
Greg Allen I’ve been to Douglas, AZ and I can tell you that it is overrun with illegal activity. It’s the MEXICAN CARTELS that are making it like Somalia not the law abiding U.S. citizens. There have been over 8,000 killed on the border in the last 2 years because of drug and people smuggling. The drug runners and coyotes have tons of safe houses, usually houses that have been repoed, and are the ones carrying AK-47’s. They don’t care about anyone’s property. The trash littering the smuggling routes is an environmental disaster. They’re the ones having shoot outs down I-10 between rival Mexican gangs. They’re the ones impersonating SWAT teams when in reality they are hit squads. Pull your head out of your ass. Our border states have been over run with this scum. And yet, we now have a second President that doesn’t see the urgency of this problem.
“It also said Mr. Barnett acknowledged that he had turned over 12,000 illegal immigrants to the Border Patrol since 1998.”
This guy is a hero, but I don’t see how he has time to raise cattle.
#26,
And one more thing just for you;) You (sic)moran;)
This will not be the first case exactly like this one that Barnette will lose.
Dumb ass.
#27,
Actually, You are mistaken. The guy has turned over 12,000 brown people to the sheriff. Border patrol wont have anything to do with him because he is a practicing white supremacist.
The 16 people in this case were on public land camping when he assaulted them and kidnapped them. Oh and they were not illegal;) Thats why they have standing to sue the guy, and why the motion to dismiss was denied;) They have also named the local Sheriff as a defendant.
OMG. You guys are soooooooo easy to troll along. You utterly fail at google. LOL!
#17 Mickleby:
“We’re techies. We’re supposed to be the smart ones.”
Will you *please* stop repeating this bullshit meme? Idiocy is overrepresented in techies due to this attitude.