16 Illegals sue Arizona Rancher for $32M

[Texsox]

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.

 

http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2008/ballad/about.html

 

How about the marines shooting a goat herder and then trying to cover it up.

In this heated election year, the U.S.-Mexican border is a magnet for debate as Americans grapple with the complex issues of illegal immigration, national security and the war on terror. In recent years many have called for a military solution that would include the deployment of armed troops to the border. But as eloquently demonstrated in the new documentary The Ballad of Esequiel Hernández, the southern border is not simply a line in the sand, nor is it a war zone. Communities such as those near the Rio Grande in Texas are home to hard-working American families and many grow up with ties to both Mexico and the United States. As Judge Jake Brisbin of Presidio County says, "On a map it's an international border, but in reality it's something you walk across in everyday life."

 

In 1997, no one in the small town (pop. 100) of Redford, Texas knew that U.S. Marine teams, fully camouflaged and armed with M16 rifles, had been secretly deployed to their section of the border. No one knew that their town had been designated a major drug corridor and that a team of four Marines had taken up a position near the local river crossing to watch for smugglers. Farmers like the Hernández family, who lived by the river, went on working their fields and tending to their livestock. On the evening of May 20, 18-year-old Esequiel Hernández Jr. left the house to tend to his family's goats, taking with him, as usual, a .22 rifle to keep away wild dogs. It was the last evening of his life.

 

Narrated by Tommy Lee Jones (a native of West Texas whose film The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada was inspired by the Hernández shooting), The Ballad of Esequiel Hernández features a full array of remarkably candid accounts from three of the four Marines on the fatal mission; Esequiel's family, friends and teachers; Marine Corps investigators; FBI investigatorsl and defense attorneys.

 

The film also makes use of military investigative video and audio recordings of radio communication between the Marine team and their commanders before Hernández was shot.

 

Investigators call into question the Marines' decision to follow Hernández when, after firing two shots from more than 200 yards away in their direction, he started slowly back toward his home. They found it unlikely that Esequiel had knowingly fired at the team or that he could have been "flanking" them as they claimed.

 

The Marines and their commanders maintained that Corporal Clemente Banuelos, the team captain, had fired in defense of his men. However, investigators believed that Esequiel was not aiming his rifle at the Marines when he was shot. Although attempts were made to indict Corporal Banuelos for murder in the state of Texas, he was never charged with a crime. As local Redford historian Enrique Madrid explains: "The United States could not allow a legal precedent of that sort to be set in which American soldiers were subject to state laws in the conduct of their military operations."

 

 

[StrangeSox]

While those soldiers may be in the wrong, that's not a case of "rancher vigilantism" and so it isn't really relevant to the topic we were discussing.

[Soxbadger]

These arguments are all over the place.

 

$32 million in damages is what the Plaintiff alleged. That does not mean the court will award them the money, it doesnt even mean if it goes to trial they will win.

 

Ive had a case where the Plaintiff was suing for a $1,500 security deposit. The attorney claimed $25,000 for lost economic opportunity and a bunch of other nonsense.

 

Some attorneys will allege a crazy amount of damages so that if they negotiate for settlement they can use the $32 mil as a number to come down from. So in cases where the numbers are hard to figure out (emotional stress etc) many attorneys will just put down a huge number knowing that theyll never get close.

 

The bottom line is that if the govt wanted to allow this behavior they could write a law to make it illegal. As of now, it does not appear to be legal.

 

Thats the great part about our system, you can change the law. So instead of complaining about "liberal judges", you should complain about the laws as they are written.

[Texsox]

While those soldiers may be in the wrong, that's not a case of "rancher vigilantism" and so it isn't really relevant to the topic we were discussing.

 

Just trying to offer a glimpse of why some of the attitudes happen here on the border. Imagine if the military decides to deploy on your property without telling anyone. It is legal for a person to be on their land target shooting, or even aiming at some predators. The military shoots and kills your son. And of course no one went to trial for the kids murder. It's just some poor Mexican-American kid who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. We both know if this had been some white kid from middle America, all s*** would have come lose. Many Mexican-Americans do not trust the government or their agents. Remember the inaction of the Sheriff, that could be part of why the lawsuit is going on.

 

It should be no surprise that landowners can also do pretty much whatever they want with any dark skinned person they come across. This guy has a pretty damn big spread. I still have not heard if it is fenced or not. If he's down on the river, he would not normally have a fence on the river, and stock he has would need access. They may have crossed without jumping any fences. But I have not gotten that confirmed.

[Texsox]

These arguments are all over the place.

 

$32 million in damages is what the Plaintiff alleged. That does not mean the court will award them the money, it doesnt even mean if it goes to trial they will win.

 

Ive had a case where the Plaintiff was suing for a $1,500 security deposit. The attorney claimed $25,000 for lost economic opportunity and a bunch of other nonsense.

 

Some attorneys will allege a crazy amount of damages so that if they negotiate for settlement they can use the $32 mil as a number to come down from. So in cases where the numbers are hard to figure out (emotional stress etc) many attorneys will just put down a huge number knowing that theyll never get close.

 

The bottom line is that if the govt wanted to allow this behavior they could write a law to make it illegal. As of now, it does not appear to be legal.

 

Thats the great part about our system, you can change the law. So instead of complaining about "liberal judges", you should complain about the laws as they are written.

 

And to add to that, people are added to the lawsuit that may only be associated. The target in this suit seems to be the Sheriff, not the land owner. But since he was the aggressor, he is brought into it. Certainly most of y'all agree the Sheriff should not stand by while this guy threatens people and kicks them? Or do you?

[Iwritecode]

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

 

I'm sure there are plenty of people living in this country legally that could use that minimum wage job right about now. Plus, they'd actually pay taxes on the money they made from that job.

[StrangeSox]

I'm sure there are plenty of people living in this country legally that could use that minimum wage job right about now. Plus, they'd actually pay taxes on the money they made from that job.

 

If they're on a payroll (using a fake/ stolen SS), they're paying taxes. They're also paying all sorts of sales tax.

 

How many laid off engineers from Caterpillar or Motorola are going to work minimum wage jobs as dish washers or apple pickers?

Edited February 11, 2009 by StrangeSox

[Texsox]

I'm sure there are plenty of people living in this country legally that could use that minimum wage job right about now. Plus, they'd actually pay taxes on the money they made from that job.

Check the tax code. People at the minimum wage do not pay much of anything in Federal taxes. With the EITC and other deductions, some actually receive more than they paid in.

 

And, if the illegal does not have a social security number, they do not receive much in benefits. So when someone with a social security number takes that job, we actually lose revenue.

 

Which is why the government has not tackled a problem that has been around since Reagan.

 

From the IRS website calculator. Head of Household with two children earning $16,000 per year.

 

Based on the information you previously entered, your anticipated income tax for 2009 is $0. If you do not change your current withholding arrangement, your withholding for 2009 will approximately equal your tax, and any refund or balance due should be less than $25.

 

Tip It’s a good idea to review your withholding at the beginning of 2010 (or anytime there is a change in your tax situation).Following is a recap of information you entered on the preceding pages on which the above advice is based. Review this information for accuracy. You may want to print this page for your records. Note: some spaces in the recap table were left blank intentionally. Prepared February 11, 2009.Filing Status: Head of householdSomeone else can claim you as a dependent: NoNumber of jobs: 1Number of dependents: 2Will you be 65 or older 1/1/2010: NoAre you blind: NoChild & dependent care credit qualifying persons: 0Child & dependent care credit expenses: Eligible children for child tax credit: 2Other credits: Total salary: 16,000Total retirement plans: 0Tax withheld to date: 0Projected withholding for rest of year: 0Total earned income other than salary: Other nonwage income: Adjustments to income: Total itemized deductions: 0

[Texsox]

If they're on a payroll (using a fake/ stolen SS), they're paying taxes. They're also paying all sorts of sales tax.

 

How many laid off engineers from Caterpillar or Motorola are going to work minimum wage jobs as dish washers or apple pickers?

 

I know three people, who have been laid off for over a few months, and none are looking to accept anything close to a minimum wage job.

[Iwritecode]

If they're on a payroll (using a fake/ stolen SS), they're paying taxes. They're also paying all sorts of sales tax.

 

How many laid off engineers from Caterpillar or Motorola are going to work minimum wage jobs as dish washers or apple pickers?

 

The ones that need money and can't find another job making whatever they were making before. I've read plenty of stories about people that were making 6 figures and are now working 2 parttime jobs to make ends meet.

[Iwritecode]

I know three people, who have been laid off for over a few months, and none are looking to accept anything close to a minimum wage job.

 

Unless I find something within the next year or two, I'll be taking whatever job I can get, minimum wage or otherwise because I'm certain that I won't be able to support my family on unemployment alone.

[Texsox]

The ones that need money and can't find another job making whatever they were making before. I've read plenty of stories about people that were making 6 figures and are now working 2 parttime jobs to make ends meet.

Sure, there are some.

 

Now place yourself in the position of the employer. Do you want to hire someone who may quit tomorrow when a job comes that will actually support their family? Or will you hire the person who has at least a chance of staying with you for a while?

[Texsox]

Unless I find something within the next year or two, I'll be taking whatever job I can get, minimum wage or otherwise because I'm certain that I won't be able to support my family on unemployment alone.

 

Sure, $250 per week. for 40 at minimum wage.

 

What's your rent? Food bill? Health Insurance? Car payment? Gas? Clothing?

 

How much more than unemployment is that?

 

And would you take time off from your minimum wage job to interview for a "real job"? Believe it or not, many companies do not want a revolving door and a well qualified person looking for a bus boy job or mowing lawns job do not get hired.

[Iwritecode]

Sure, there are some.

 

Now place yourself in the position of the employer. Do you want to hire someone who may quit tomorrow when a job comes that will actually support their family? Or will you hire the person who has at least a chance of staying with you for a while?

 

Pretty much all minimum wage jobs run the risk of the employee quiting after a day or a week. I don't think there are many people that really make it a goal to work for minimum wage.

 

I worked a second parttime job for 2 years but my orignal plan was only to work there for 6 months. The employer knew it and I was way over-qualified for the job but they hired me anyway. It's not those jobs are hard to fill.

 

 

[EvilMonkey]

Sure, there are some.

 

Now place yourself in the position of the employer. Do you want to hire someone who may quit tomorrow when a job comes that will actually support their family? Or will you hire the person who has at least a chance of staying with you for a while?

Minimum wage jobs are not meant to be supporting families, but stepping stones towards bigger jobs. Job that pay that low expect higher turnover than others. It's the $12 an hour jobs where they want more stability, and are afraid of hiring that guy who was making $70k last year.

[Iwritecode]

Sure, $250 per week. for 40 at minimum wage.

 

What's your rent? Food bill? Health Insurance? Car payment? Gas? Clothing?

 

How much more than unemployment is that?

 

I don't know but if working for minimum wage > unemployment, that's what I'll take. It's possible that we'll be filling bankrupcty either way because we are barely making it as is. If my income gets cut in half, we're toast.

 

[Texsox]

Minimum wage jobs are not meant to be supporting families, but stepping stones towards bigger jobs. Job that pay that low expect higher turnover than others. It's the $12 an hour jobs where they want more stability, and are afraid of hiring that guy who was making $70k last year.

 

Bottom line, those jobs that the lowest skilled immigrants (legal and illegal) take are not in high demand by people that were born and raised in the US.

 

And what the government likes are illegals who do not have social security cards who accept no benefits, but pay sales taxes, property taxes, fuel taxes, etc. etc. If all of a sudden we unleashed 10,000,000 workers receiving benefits on the system, we'd be in a world of hurt. So that is a big fat reason why we've done nothing besides flap our gums and rattle swords.

 

Remember Reagan and Bush's answers.

[longshot7]

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?

 

Citizens' Arrests are legal - that's all this was. Don't see how the rancher was not within his rights.

[EvilMonkey]

Bottom line, those jobs that the lowest skilled immigrants (legal and illegal) take are not in high demand by people that were born and raised in the US.

 

And what the government likes are illegals who do not have social security cards who accept no benefits, but pay sales taxes, property taxes, fuel taxes, etc. etc. If all of a sudden we unleashed 10,000,000 workers receiving benefits on the system, we'd be in a world of hurt. So that is a big fat reason why we've done nothing besides flap our gums and rattle swords.

 

Remember Reagan and Bush's answers.

But Tex, they DO accept benefits, every time they go to an emergency room for a cold or worse, because they can't be refused treatment.

[Soxbadger]

Citizens' Arrests are legal - that's all this was. Don't see how the rancher was not within his rights.

 

Even if they are legal (im not sure and its not really relevant to the argument) it does not change that its an issue of fact.

 

Police officers are allowed to arrest people, but if they go to far into police brutality they are no longer protected by the law.

 

If I allege that the Police Officers beat me down for no reason, it doesnt matter that they could legally arrest me, it matters what the facts are.

 

On a Summary Judgment, the facts have to be taken in a light most favorable to the non-moving party (in this case Plaintiff).

 

Thus the court has to take it for fact everything the Plaintiff said, so if they said: "The rancher broke my nose with a rifle" its deemed true.

 

Thats why it was not dismissed, because there are issues of fact.

[Texsox]

I don't know but if working for minimum wage > unemployment, that's what I'll take. It's possible that we'll be filling bankrupcty either way because we are barely making it as is. If my income gets cut in half, we're toast.

 

As noted, the minimum wage jobs are stepping stones, and guys like you have stepped past them. With a little creativity to get past those $12 per hour jobs where underemployment is a concern, you would be making better than minimum wage.

 

What many people think of as minimum wage, really isn't. We rarely see minimum wage workers.

[Texsox]

But Tex, they DO accept benefits, every time they go to an emergency room for a cold or worse, because they can't be refused treatment.

 

Again, the same for anyone working that job. No difference.

 

But who do you think is more likely to show up, a documented, legal worker, or an illegal?

[longshot7]

here's the bottom line. This guy may be one of the good guys, he may not. But sit across from a few human beings and listen to their stories. The women are raped, the children are abused, and the men are beaten when some of these guys catch them. They believe, truthfully, that no one will care because they are here illegally. Most Americans, when hearing of abuses will shrug it off and say, we'll they are dangerous criminals and got what they deserve. So a woman was kicked, or a child was punched, or a guy was pushed to the ground. This is America and people should expect that. That's what we believe in.

 

In many counties, the Sheriff watches and does nothing as this stuff happens. If he does anything, he'll lose the next election. Both sides have compelling stories. This land was part of Mexico. We waged war to take it from them. Then after the war, all Mexicans, even those that fought for the US, were basically screwed over. And that wasn't that long ago. In the Rio Grande Valley up until around 1930 a white man had never been found guilty of raping or murdering a Hispanic. The Texas Rangers were as likely to shoot a Mexican than save him. Sadly, for me at least, a lot of those attitudes exist today.

 

You see it as a brave ranch owner preserving his property. Just as likely, he's hoping for a confrontation and a chance to hassle some "wet backs". If they have money he may accept that as payment. If the women look "hot" he may accept that. Sometimes calling the Border Patrol is the nicest thing he will do.

 

If his story is correct, I suspect he may be somewhere in the middle. To his credit, he did add faucets so people would not break his pumps. Also likely, because I've spent enough time on a working cattle ranch, are live stock busting up pumps and such. He's quoting 10" of trash. Think about that number. Illegals are not staying in one place long enough to generate that much trash. They would have had to carry all that stuff. More often than not, they are carrying a couple one gallon plastic milk jugs for water, and a little food in their pockets. To generate that much trash takes vehicles.

 

I know a couple ranches down here that are hiker friendly. They have many people hiking across their property. I image some may be illegal, I don't ask. But there is no where near that much trash. In fact, most illegals learn to bury/hide their trash to avoid detection. I see far more garbage from teenagers having parties away from the eyes of mom and dad.

 

And while the focus is on the homeowner getting sued, the list is actually longer. From what I just heard, it is the Sheriff that is the true target. What hopefully will come of this is some guidelines as to what behavior is acceptable, and what is not.

 

I'm still not sure why these people can't immigrate LEGALLY.

 

If they're on a payroll (using a fake/ stolen SS), they're paying taxes. They're also paying all sorts of sales tax.

 

How many laid off engineers from Caterpillar or Motorola are going to work minimum wage jobs as dish washers or apple pickers?

 

Considering the 7% unemployment, I'd guess a bunch.

 

[longshot7]

Even if they are legal (im not sure and its not really relevant to the argument) it does not change that its an issue of fact.

 

Police officers are allowed to arrest people, but if they go to far into police brutality they are no longer protected by the law.

 

If I allege that the Police Officers beat me down for no reason, it doesnt matter that they could legally arrest me, it matters what the facts are.

 

On a Summary Judgment, the facts have to be taken in a light most favorable to the non-moving party (in this case Plaintiff).

 

Thus the court has to take it for fact everything the Plaintiff said, so if they said: "The rancher broke my nose with a rifle" its deemed true.

 

Thats why it was not dismissed, because there are issues of fact.

 

Yes, I don't think anyone has disagreed with this. If the rancher inflicted bodily injury on the illegals, he should answer for it.

[Balta1701]

Considering the 7% unemployment, I'd guess a bunch.

The U.S. government actually tracks these data through its unemployment surveys. It's considered underemployment; when people take jobs below their pay grade because they're the only things available. As of the Feb. numbers, it appears that roughly 5% of the work force fits in to that category. Like everything else in the job market, those #'s are at something on the order of a 20 year high.