16 Illegals sue Arizona Rancher for $32M

Texsox · February 10, 2009

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Feb 9, 2009 -> 05:27 PM)

Then what is the proper response for frivolous lawsuits? I still believe that the group representing them should be sued for at least court costs, even if the case ends up being dropped or dismissed.

A judge already ruled there was enough merit for the case to move forward. That is the gate that was put in to stop frivolous lawsuits.

EvilMonkey · February 10, 2009

QUOTE (Texsox @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 10:08 AM)

First of all, let's put this situation in your neighborhood instead of mine. If your neighborhood is 90% white, have the illegals be white as well.

You have guy that sits in your neighborhood with a rifle and handgun ready to point it at anyone on his front lawn. His dog is menacing and he threatens to have the dog attack anyone, man, woman, or child, that steps on his lawn. Then he stops your neighbor, and while the sheriff is standing there, kicks the woman and continues to hold everyone at rifle point. Most stretches of the border are 80% or greater people of Hispanic origins. Those are often times US Citizens that are harassed by some of these guys. Would you want rifles pointed at you?

This time they happened to be illegals. But soon, there will be a bloodbath out there. Cases like this, help to define the lines that will be drawn.

The Border Patrol is doing the best job they can. But again, let's look at your neighborhood. How about armed men roaming the streets of Downers Grove detaining every white person they see? Every once in a while they catch a criminal, is that justification to have them pointing rifles and handguns, threatening with attack dogs, and kicking women?

I don't know what y'all think the border looks like. For most of us it is our backyard.

And another great border wall update. Twenty water districts will be bisected by the wall. Each of them need access to the river. So there will be gates all up and down the wall so the communities can continue to have water. :lolhitting

All this to stop humans from working minimum wage jobs we want to save for Americans to work for the foreign born Doctors etc. This is so f***ed up.

Slight difference in the locals, Tex. In my neighborhood, easy for someone to 'accidentaly' walk on my lawn. Out there in the middle of nowhere, not very likely the people he finds got their by accident while looking for the local TexMex restaurant. And he isn't roaming the neighborhood, he is on his own land. Also not like they just stepped over the border a little bit, he finds them all throughout his land on thier way to destinations unknown. Your comparison doesn't work.

And I am not gonna get into the wall debate with you on this thread, maybe elsewhere. Wall or no wall, this man has every right to keep illegals and others off his land.

Soxbadger · February 10, 2009

Why do people keep thinking that if your not a US citizen you cant use our court system?

The US system is designed to allow people to sue as long as the court has jurisdiction and the Plaintiff's have standing.

Jurisdiction can be based where the Plaintiff or Defendant reside.

In this case US jurisdiction is proper because: The Defendant's reside in the US and all of the acts alleged in the complaint occurred in the US.

The Plaintiff's have standing because they can show a connection to the harm (ie they were the ones actually being hurt).

The US system is created to allow almost anyone the ability to sue so long as the court has some sort of jurisdiction, this is an easier case because there is no other court that could possibly have jurisdiction.

Just because some one is not from the US does not mean that we deny them access to the court system.

This does not mean that they cant be deported to Mexico, it just means that even if they are in Mexico they can still sue for something that happened in the US.

Edited February 10, 2009 by Soxbadger

Texsox · February 10, 2009

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 10:32 AM)

Slight difference in the locals, Tex. In my neighborhood, easy for someone to 'accidentaly' walk on my lawn. Out there in the middle of nowhere, not very likely the people he finds got their by accident while looking for the local TexMex restaurant. And he isn't roaming the neighborhood, he is on his own land. Also not like they just stepped over the border a little bit, he finds them all throughout his land on thier way to destinations unknown. Your comparison doesn't work.

And I am not gonna get into the wall debate with you on this thread, maybe elsewhere. Wall or no wall, this man has every right to keep illegals and others off his land.

Actually, you must not hike or backpack. Out here it is really easy to get lost. Depending on his ranch, it may be easy to to pass from a neighbor ranch to his. I've done it. We thought we were leaving one area of a ranch to another area of the same ranch. Instead it was the neighbor's place. Good thing he was a ask questions first type of guy.

Again, there are limits to what people can do to protect their property. For example, booby traps are illegal. You have the same right to keep trespassers off your property. Do you want your neighbor in his backyard pointing a gun at your kids when a ball falls over the fence? Remember he has rights.

If your house was broken into three times in a week, would you be justified to sit on your porch and point a gun at everyone who steps on your lawn?

And what about the Sheriff who stood there while this man kicked women and continued to train a rifle on these people? You don't have a problem with that?

EvilMonkey · February 10, 2009

QUOTE (Texsox @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 10:55 AM)

Actually, you must not hike or backpack. Out here it is really easy to get lost. Depending on his ranch, it may be easy to to pass from a neighbor ranch to his. I've done it. We thought we were leaving one area of a ranch to another area of the same ranch. Instead it was the neighbor's place. Good thing he was a ask questions first type of guy.

Again, there are limits to what people can do to protect their property. For example, booby traps are illegal. You have the same right to keep trespassers off your property. Do you want your neighbor in his backyard pointing a gun at your kids when a ball falls over the fence? Remember he has rights.

If your house was broken into three times in a week, would you be justified to sit on your porch and point a gun at everyone who steps on your lawn?

And what about the Sheriff who stood there while this man kicked women and continued to train a rifle on these people? You don't have a problem with that?

Then maybe they should try to have the guy arrested for assauly instead of 'violating their civil rights'. Again, your comparrison doesn't quite hold. To pass from a neighbor ranch to his, you first have to be on the neighbor ranch. So they tresspassed there first. Does the guy have a right to set up hidden pits with punji sticks in them? No. He did set up some sensors to tell him people are there which is fine, and taking his dog and gun with him is also fine. Since he was outnumbered, there is every expectation of danger on his part. However, if you are injured while committing a crime, your avenues for restitution are severly limited. break into my house and slip and fall on a wet floor, oh well. What happened after the authorities got there seems to me to be a problem with the authorities. Maybe they should be the ones being sued. And by 'having his gun still trained on them', does that mean he was aiming it at them, or simply still holding it? His word agains a bunch of people who probably can't speak the language and are merely following the instructions from the advocasy group that is representing them. I have no explination for the kick, but fail to see how that would violate any rights they have, especially $32 million dollares worth of them.

Texsox · February 10, 2009

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 11:07 AM)

Then maybe they should try to have the guy arrested for assauly instead of 'violating their civil rights'. Again, your comparrison doesn't quite hold. To pass from a neighbor ranch to his, you first have to be on the neighbor ranch. So they tresspassed there first. Does the guy have a right to set up hidden pits with punji sticks in them? No. He did set up some sensors to tell him people are there which is fine, and taking his dog and gun with him is also fine. Since he was outnumbered, there is every expectation of danger on his part. However, if you are injured while committing a crime, your avenues for restitution are severly limited. break into my house and slip and fall on a wet floor, oh well. What happened after the authorities got there seems to me to be a problem with the authorities. Maybe they should be the ones being sued. And by 'having his gun still trained on them', does that mean he was aiming it at them, or simply still holding it? His word agains a bunch of people who probably can't speak the language and are merely following the instructions from the advocasy group that is representing them. I have no explination for the kick, but fail to see how that would violate any rights they have, especially $32 million dollares worth of them.

Whoa, every expectation of danger? :lolhitting

It just isn't worth discussing.

Steve9347 · February 10, 2009

Even if they were Americans, I think he'd have the right to protect his land from trespassers. All he did was detain them until the proper authorities could arrest them. I'm shocked this wasn't thrown out.

EvilMonkey · February 10, 2009

QUOTE (Texsox @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 11:10 AM)

Whoa, every expectation of danger? :lolhitting

It just isn't worth discussing.

Why do you scoff at the idea that he has every reason to believe that he could be in danger? The tresspassers have vandalized his property, tore up pumps, killed calves destroyed fences, stole trucks, broken into his home and he has found garbage that could be from drugs.

Being outnumbered 10 - 1, without a weapon, what is to stop them from committing harm to him? Or are all illegal immigrants just peacefull people only looking for the land of milk and honey? No criminals in them at all? None?

NorthSideSox72 · February 10, 2009

Not often I say this, but... I'm with Alpha on this one. That rancher, as far as I know the law (admitedly limited) and what I think is right, had every right to detain them with a firearm. If he had shot at them, that is a whole different thing, but he didn't. 16 people on your property illegally with everything to lose, with repeated illegal acts prior to reckon with, against you by yourself? You'd better believe I'd be armed out there too.

EvilMonkey · February 10, 2009

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 11:18 AM)

Even if they were Americans, I think he'd have the right to protect his land from trespassers. All he did was detain them until the proper authorities could arrest them. I'm shocked this wasn't thrown out.

The judge probably didn't want to piss off the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund who is representing them. Let it go to trial and then get defeated. If he just throws it out like he should have, they could come after him. They love to scream for the firing of anyone that dares look crosseyed at the illegal immigration issues down there. They also have rumors of ties to LaRaza, who can be real pains in the ass to anyone they don't like.

EvilMonkey · February 10, 2009

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 11:21 AM)

Not often I say this, but... I'm with Alpha on this one. That rancher, as far as I know the law (admitedly limited) and what I think is right, had every right to detain them with a firearm. If he had shot at them, that is a whole different thing, but he didn't. 16 people on your property illegally with everything to lose, with repeated illegal acts prior to reckon with, against you by yourself? You'd better believe I'd be armed out there too.

Did it just get colder outside? :lolhitting

Texsox · February 10, 2009

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 11:19 AM)

Why do you scoff at the idea that he has every reason to believe that he could be in danger? The tresspassers have vandalized his property, tore up pumps, killed calves destroyed fences, stole trucks, broken into his home and he has found garbage that could be from drugs.

Being outnumbered 10 - 1, without a weapon, what is to stop them from committing harm to him? Or are all illegal immigrants just peacefull people only looking for the land of milk and honey? No criminals in them at all? None?

Perhaps the dirty diapers tipped you off to the danger?

These are people looking to walk 300 miles for a minimum wage job at some restaurant or farm.

Don't worry about the drug supply for Illinois, that arrives in semi's and on airplanes. Remember they are walking, they aren't carrying massive quantities of drugs.

And you believe everything he says? Come on. There are coyotes and other wild animals that kill calves. Maybe there was some drug stuff, but that would be rare. Again they are walking hundreds of miles. They aren't carrying 6 pounds of worthless firearms. The danger will be from these guys slaughtering humans like the Iraqi's did.

EvilMonkey · February 10, 2009

QUOTE (Texsox @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 11:27 AM)

Perhaps the dirty diapers tipped you off to the danger?

These are people looking to walk 300 miles for a minimum wage job at some restaurant or farm.

Don't worry about the drug supply for Illinois, that arrives in semi's and on airplanes. Remember they are walking, they aren't carrying massive quantities of drugs.

And you believe everything he says? Come on. There are coyotes and other wild animals that kill calves. Maybe there was some drug stuff, but that would be rare. Again they are walking hundreds of miles. They aren't carrying 6 pounds of worthless firearms. The danger will be from these guys slaughtering humans like the Iraqi's did.

Tex, we are just gonna disagree on this. You think they are all helpless people just looking for a leg up, and I think that some of them very well could be dangerous. if they are willing to break the law to come into this country, what is to prevent them from breaking one more to get away? And with the larger number of them, firearms aren't needed if the rancher is also unarmed.

Soxbadger · February 10, 2009

The law is clear, you can not enter summary judgment unless there is no possible way for the Plaintiff to recover or there are no facts in dispute.

As soon as its an issue of fact it goes beyond summary judgment.

Does the Defendant have a legal argument for what he did?

Perhaps, but its dependent on facts and the facts have to be taken in a "light most favorable to the Plaintiff" which means all allegations are deemed true.

The only way you can win this early is by a legal argument.

StrangeSox · February 10, 2009

QUOTE (Texsox @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 11:27 AM)

Perhaps the dirty diapers tipped you off to the danger?

These are people looking to walk 300 miles for a minimum wage job at some restaurant or farm.

Don't worry about the drug supply for Illinois, that arrives in semi's and on airplanes. Remember they are walking, they aren't carrying massive quantities of drugs.

That doesn't matter and you're trying to argue from an emotional stance here. It doesn't matter what they were doing. They were on his property illegally. He has had his home broken into and his property littered by people there illegally before. They have no more right to be there than the drug runners.

And you believe everything he says? Come on. There are coyotes and other wild animals that kill calves. Maybe there was some drug stuff, but that would be rare. Again they are walking hundreds of miles. They aren't carrying 6 pounds of worthless firearms. The danger will be from these guys slaughtering humans like the Iraqi's did.

Let me know the first time that happens, and I'll be right there with you demanding he goes to jail for life. Otherwise, I'll continue to support a person's right to protect their property from criminals.

Texsox · February 10, 2009

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 11:35 AM)

Tex, we are just gonna disagree on this. You think they are all helpless people just looking for a leg up, and I think that some of them very well could be dangerous. if they are willing to break the law to come into this country, what is to prevent them from breaking one more to get away? And with the larger number of them, firearms aren't needed if the rancher is also unarmed.

Of course some could be dangerous. So are ex-military living in this country. Oklahoma City, DC sniper, for example. And so too are some of the people walking in your neighborhood. What this country does not need are vigilantes.

I know dozens of people who came to this country illegally to find work. I have met many, many, more. As a group they are a hell of a lot more peaceful than any of the projects in the city. But perhaps the ones you know are dangerous.

This Sheriff was allowing someone to hold a rifle on the group. Then watched as the guy kicked a woman. Perhaps that is acceptable in Chicago, but I doubt it.

Texsox · February 10, 2009

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 12:09 PM)

That doesn't matter and you're trying to argue from an emotional stance here. It doesn't matter what they were doing. They were on his property illegally. He has had his home broken into and his property littered by people there illegally before. They have no more right to be there than the drug runners.

Let me know the first time that happens, and I'll be right there with you demanding he goes to jail for life. Otherwise, I'll continue to support a person's right to protect their property from criminals.

How far is he entitled to go? The Sheriff was there and allowed the man to kick a woman and continue to hold a rifle on them.

I've had my home in Wildwood broken into, so f*** the next kid that hops my back fence to get their ball. I'm going to kick the mom and hold a gun on them while the cops watch, and of course y'all will defend me :lolhitting

You don't get to make up your own laws on your property. This person trespassed, so I'm going to kick some ass for a while.

But hey, you guys are experts. I just live on the border.

StrangeSox · February 10, 2009

QUOTE (Texsox @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 01:44 PM)

This Sheriff was allowing someone to hold a rifle on the group. Then watched as the guy kicked a woman. Perhaps that is acceptable in Chicago, but I doubt it.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 01:49 PM)

How far is he entitled to go? The Sheriff was there and allowed the man to kick a woman and continue to hold a rifle on them.

Allegedly. Think they might be enticed to exaggerate or lie in order to win $32M? You're relying on the words of the illegals over the rancher because ?

I've had my home in Wildwood broken into, so f*** the next kid that hops my back fence to get their ball. I'm going to kick the mom and hold a gun on them while the cops watch, and of course y'all will defend me

Please tell me you don't actually think that's a valid comparison.

You don't get to make up your own laws on your property. This person trespassed, so I'm going to kick some ass for a while.

"Kick ass" = patrols his property and turns in illegals. Good for him.

Now, IF IF IF he did kick that woman, he should be charged with the appropriate assault/ battery charges. Maybe some amount of money goes her way.

$32M? Slippery slope to vigilante mass murders of illegals? Those are both a bit of a stretch.

But hey, you guys are experts. I just live on the border.

Please be less condescending next time.

Edited February 10, 2009 by StrangeSox

Texsox · February 10, 2009

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 01:51 PM)

Allegedly. Think they might be enticed to exaggerate or lie in order to win $32M? You're relying on the words of the illegals over the rancher because ?

Because I live down here. Because I have met hundreds of illegals. Because I have friends that originally came to this country illegally. Because I have seen the vigilantes. Because a Judge allowed the case to go forward.

And you based who you believe on????

You say a property owner has a right to protect his property. So why can't I kick someone and hold a gun on them while the sheriff watches? I can't believe anyone actually thinks cops should stand by while someone kicks another person and holds a gun to them. Wow.

StrangeSox · February 10, 2009

QUOTE (Texsox @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 02:04 PM)

Because I live down here. Because I have met hundreds of illegals. Because I have friends that originally came to this country illegally. Because I have seen the vigilantes.

And you based who you believe on????

I don't believe either of them.

But, really, the fact that you've met hundreds of illegals doesn't matter unless one of them were there to witness it. How good of people they are has no bearing on these 16 individuals.

You say a property owner has a right to protect his property. So why can't I kick someone and hold a gun on them while the sheriff watches? I can't believe anyone actually thinks cops should stand by while someone kicks another person and holds a gun to them. Wow.

Keep putting words in peoples' mouths and making emotional arguments.

From the post above yours:

Now, IF IF IF he did kick that woman, he should be charged with the appropriate assault/ battery charges. Maybe some amount of money goes her way.

Now please justify $32M for being kicked.

Edited February 10, 2009 by StrangeSox

Texsox · February 10, 2009

You guys win. I'm just a stupid guy living on the border and reading and seeing this stuff daily.

jasonxctf · February 10, 2009

online research leads to...

Basically, if you are not a deputized law enforcement officer and you

are not inside your home, the only time you may legally fire a gun at

someone or even deliberately brandish or point a gun at someone is if

that individual initiates an immediate, believable, and deliberate

threat to your life or the life of another innocent person. The threat

must be deadly (specifically, a reasonable person in your shoes would

have to believe that if the assailant were to carry through with his

threat, it would likely result in death or great bodily injury to you or

another innocent person). A person threatening to throw a ping-pong

ball at you is not posing a deadly threat. On the other hand, someone

pointing a firearm at you definitely poses a deadly threat. We should

especially point out, in this context, that simple trespassing does not

consitute a deadly threat. The classic hillbilly approach of

brandishing a shotgun at someone who has wandered onto your property

might not only land you in jail, but it could, quite possibly, entitle

the trespasser to legally shoot you in self-defense. In additional to

being deadly, the threat must be immediate (i.e. it has to be happening

NOW). Note that an unarmed individual who verbally threatens to go

fetch a gun so he can come back and shoot you is NOT posing an immediate

threat. The threat must also be credible; you have to believe that your

assailant has the means, the ability, and the intention to follow

through with the threat. When it comes to credibility, deception

intended to make you believe that your assailant is armed can count.

Thus, for example, a thug who confronts you on the street with his hand

placed in his coat pocket with a finger extended (so as to convincingly

create the outward appearance of a concealed gun being pointed at you)

and who then demands your wallet, is, in fact, creating a believable

deadly threat, even though he isn't actually armed. On the other hand,

if your best friend comes up to you during a backyard barbecue, slaps

you on the back in a good-natured fashion, and says, ìHey, Bob, I'm

gonna kick your ass for taking the last beer that was in the cooler,î he

is not posing a credible deadly threat and, therefore, you are not

entitled to shoot him. Furthermore, the threat must be deliberate (i.e.

you should have good reason to believe that you assailant's threatening

actions are intentional rather than inadvertent). If a little old lady

is backing her Cadillac out of the driveway, oblivious to the toddler

playing on the sidewalk directly behind her, you are not entitled to

shoot her. Finally, the threat must have been initiated by your

assailant in the absence of any such threat from you.

EvilMonkey · February 10, 2009

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 03:07 PM)