There are so many problems with this story and I would like to highlight a few.
16 illegals sue Arizona rancher
By Jerry Seper
Washington Times
Monday, February 9, 2009
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 Monday 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. Also named are Mr. Barnett's wife, Barbara, his brother, Donald, and Larry Dever, sheriff in Cochise County, Ariz., where the Barnetts live. The civil trial is expected to continue until Friday.
The lawsuit is based on a March 7, 2004, incident in a dry wash on the 22,000-acre ranch, when he approached a group of illegal immigrants while carrying a gun and accompanied by a large dog.
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 immigrants are represented at trial by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), which also charged that Sheriff Dever did nothing to prevent Mr. Barnett from holding their clients at "gunpoint, yelling obscenities at them and kicking one of the women."
In the lawsuit, MALDEF said Mr. Barnett approached the group as the immigrants moved through his property, and that he was carrying a pistol and threatening them in English and Spanish. At one point, it said, Mr. Barnett's dog barked at several of the women and he yelled at them in Spanish, "My dog is hungry and he's hungry for buttocks."
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.
In March, U.S. District Judge John Roll rejected a motion by Mr. Barnett to have the charges dropped, ruling there was sufficient evidence to allow the matter to be presented to a jury. Mr. Barnett's attorney, David Hardy, had argued that illegal immigrants did not have the same rights as U.S. citizens.
Mr. Barnett told The Washington Times in a 2002 interview that he began rounding up illegal immigrants after they started to vandalize his property, northeast of Douglas along Arizona Highway 80. He said the immigrants tore up water pumps, killed calves, destroyed fences and gates, stole trucks and broke into his home.
[Destruction of property - something the Founding Fathers Frowned Upon More than Almost Anything Else - for it is nothing less than theft, stealing someone elses property when it is destroyed. Stealing trucks - in the 19th century you would be hung for stealing a horse or taking someones property. If you snuck into Barnett's home at night and he shot you, he would be justified under all the laws of the US (at present). Yet thousands of illegals, who are violating federal laws, state laws, county laws - they get to do these deeds without fear of punishment, for if they are found, they are deported, not tried for the destruction of property.]
Some of his cattle died from ingesting the plastic bottles left behind by the immigrants, he said, adding that he installed a faucet on an 8,000-gallon water tank so the immigrants would stop damaging the tank to get water.
Mr. Barnett said some of the ranch´s established immigrant trails were littered with trash 10 inches deep, including human waste, used toilet paper, soiled diapers, cigarette packs, clothes, backpacks, empty 1-gallon water bottles, chewing-gum wrappers and aluminum foil - which supposedly is used to pack the drugs the immigrant smugglers give their "clients" to keep them running.
He said he carried a pistol during his searches for the immigrants and had a rifle in his truck "for protection" against immigrant and drug smugglers, who often are armed.
A former Cochise County sheriff´s deputy who later was successful in the towing and propane business, Mr. Barnett spent $30,000 on electronic sensors, which he has hidden along established trails on his ranch. He searches the ranch for illegal immigrants in a pickup truck, dressed in a green shirt and camouflage hat, with his handgun and rifle, high-powered binoculars and a walkie-talkie.
His sprawling ranch became an illegal-immigration highway when the Border Patrol diverted its attention to several border towns in an effort to take control of the established ports of entry. That effort moved the illegal immigrants to the remote areas of the border, including the Cross Rail Ranch.
"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. And I always watch my back."
[From this article, and it is only this article I can go by - he saw a group of 16 individuals who had just broken federal, state, and county laws - he stopped them, showed them a badge of some sort, which they didn't understand because they didn't understand English, brandished a shotgun/rifle and a handgun, he told them his dog was hungry for buttocks (in English and Spanish) which they understood and feared he would unleash the dog, cowering on the ground in fear, and he kicked a woman, and held them at gunpoint so they could not run away into the US (which would, I would think be a violation of federal, state, and county law if he did) by threatening to shoot them if they fled.
They went on his property in violation of county and state laws, violated federal law by entering the US illegally, violated several county laws during the crossing of the property, threatened the safety of Barnett and his family by their continued crossing, threatened the well-being of his business with their continued crossing, fully aware that Mexican drug cartels aided illegals in crossing, and occasionally used armed coyotes or armed soldiers to get them across the border, aware that many stories have circulated, some taken seriously by the Department of Homeland Security of males of Middle Eastern background crossing into the US from Mexico, with the 2001 attack on the US always on his mind, never sure who may be part of the group he stops on any given day - he did what he did.]
So, what was the conclusion of this case ....
Mixed verdict for Roger Barnett Trial
Immigration Clearinghouse
The website owners have the following to say about who and what they are:
Immigration Clearinghouse is a Pro-Reform Action Group working for logical immigration reform and pushing back and countering the hateful rhetoric of the radical right
Roger Barnett of Arizona, the border vigilante, must pay $78,000 to four immigrants after holding them at gunpoint, a jury found, but he was cleared of violating their civil rights.
This is about right coming from a state where a small majority of the population, think they speak for the majority, and any crime against a hispanic is viewed as perfectly acceptable by juries in this State.
[The article was written by someone who, unlikely an American, doesn't write well at all, nor do they think logically - which is a problem given their mission statement.
A small majority of the population think they speak for the majority - is a confusing statement, but a better way to express this is, a MAJORITY of the state does not support illegal Mexicans or anyone illegal crossing into Arizona nor does the MAJORITY support the federal government on legalizing the illegals. You cannot count all the illegals in Arizona as a component of the population when considering electoral issues. If you have 2 million illegals in Arizona and 3 million legals, of which 40% of the 3 million are Mexican by birth or heritage and 80% of those side with the 2 million, which would take the number to at least 800,000 plus 2 million = A MAJORITY. Except this majority does not get to dictate to the LEGAL majority what the laws should be nor what should be allowed. You do not get to overwhelm a population by sheer number and then claim a majority. That is not how this country has worked, NOR is it how Mexico has ever worked (not that Mexico works but)].
This is one example. Roger Barnett has a long history of confronting trespassers on his ranch property in Southern Arizona, something he is perfectly within his rights to do.
However, those rights do not include kicking defenseless women cowering on the ground in front of him while being forced to listen to the tirade of racist filth spewing from his lips.
[No, no law permits kicking women. The law however does not prohibit anyone from saying anything to anyone else - so he can sit there all day and spew out hateful slogans and the law does not have any say in whether it is legal or not. You were not paying attention to the decision. You were paying attention to the defense argument, but that again is irrelevant once the decision is reach and then what is important is not all the exaggerated claims, but how they reached the decision. Given that they had consorted with coyotes, paid upwards of $7,000 US to cross into the US illegally, crossed a hot and desolate land where they could easily have died with their diapers on - a man cussing at them doesn't seem so serious. When you look at everything objectively.]
Nor do he have the right to threaten to turn lose trained attack surs on those he apprehends.
[No, the law does not give you the right to threaten that either. Bad, and he should be punished for that. Scaring people. Versus violations of county, state, and federal laws going UNPUNISHED.]
Arizona law does not give him the rights to flash a phony badge at those detained, a badge that looks suspiciously like an official Arizona law enforcement badge, especially at those who are ignorant of it’s value.
[Again, true - if he implied or otherwise held himself out to be a law enforcement officer, he should be held for this and be punished to the fullest extent possible - a criminal offense, not civil. However, if these 16 people are ignorant of the badge and its value, and they didn't know what it looked like, yet they saw it close enough to notice it looked like an Arizona law enforcement badge ... you just have to say this really smells. if you saw a badge from a distance of 15-20 feet, could you identify it - a large dog foaming at the mouth, tired, a gun pointed at you by a man cussing and kicking women, you would take the time to notice in that brief moment some indication it was an Arizona badge - and yet you had no problem breaking the laws of the US and Arizona. There are 16 of you and 1 of him and he should not have pointed his weapon at you, nor should he have brought his large dog with him. YOU just paid a coyote upwards of $7000 to cross, a coyote who works for a drug cartel that has kidnapped thousands of illegals each year, murdered hundreds more, crossed a desert and beat the elements of nature and you are afraid of a dog. You should not be too surprised I simply do not believe you.]
In interviews after the verdict, Barnett claims he was merely “discussing calmly” the breach of the law by those caught trespassing, and seeing a woman who appeared non responsive, he touched her with his toe.
However, testimony in Court suggested, Barnett kicked this woman hard enough to break a religious figurine she had in her rucksack.
[He was informing the 16 individuals who had violated County, State, and Federal laws what they had done and what he was about to do, when one of the women, unable to understand him speaking English found something else to stare at (other than the terrifying dog they were all fearful of - I know when I see a terrifying dog I turn my back to it), he kicked her, not like you'd kick a door in, but probably like you'd boot or kick or push a rock over to see what was under it. As for that broken figurine of the Holy Mother, she paid a coyote $7000, traversed land controlled by a drug cartel that randomly murders people, crossed a desert through gullies, ditches, hills ... and in that process she broke her figurine. But hey, why not blame Barnett.]
Barnett claims he “holstered his weapon” upon seeing the group was unarmed. Again, testimony suggested that contrary to this, Barnett continued to wave his weapons, pointing them randomly at the group while calmly ranting about “Fucking Mexicans” and “how he was going to sic his dogs on their ass if they moved”.
[His dogs? or his dog. We have already been told he had a handgun and a rifle/shotgun. He would not - a reasonable person would not, keep a handgun and a rifle in each hand - it simply does not work well. Perhaps in Mexico they do this when they are executing large numbers of people so hey can shoot the ones who are running away, but typically this doesn't work well. He noticed they were unarmed, and shouldered his rifle while holding the handgun. As for waving it about ... if your safety is on and your finger is not on the trigger - waving it or painting with it wouldn't make much difference.]
Sheriff’s deputies confirmed the latter version of events.
So once again, in Arizona, crimes against Hispanics flourish and rights are routinely violated under color of law.
[And once again Mexicans routinly violate state and federal laws placing private homeowners in jeopardy for their lives.]
We all remember the case of Border Patrol Agent Nicholas Corbett who murdered in cold blood, a migrant who was on his knees before the agent surrendering, when Corbett shot him in the side, killing him instantly, in front of three witnesses.
Despite eyewitness testimony, forensic and ballistic evidence proving the prosecutions case, Corbett walked not once, but twice, due to mistrials. The result of Arizona jurors not doing their sworn duty, as was the case in this trial.
[The problems began with the Mexicans paying a drug cartel thousands of dollars. Fortunately they were not slaughtered as was the case for 72 illegals who were discovered in a mass grave - killed by a coyotes or the drug cartel or one and the same.]
I would suggest your indignation be focused where it should be or you forfeit teh right to be indignant and become an accomplice to the murder ot the 72 and so many more.]
Mexicao
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments