View Full Version : rancher who held ilegals at gunpoint trial starts !
Feb. 3, 2009 09:24 AM
Associated Press
TUCSON - The trial is now under way in a civil-rights lawsuit against a southern Arizona rancher accused of holding a group of illegal immigrants at gunpoint near Douglas.
Attorneys for the 16 people who were trying to cross into the U.S. illegally accuse Roger Barnett of holding a gun on the group, threatening them with his dog and also threatening to shoot anyone who tried to escape, according to a news release from the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
The group also said Barnett kicked one of the women in the group when she was on the ground.
The federal lawsuit charges Barnett, his wife, Barbara Barnett, and his brother, Donald Barnett, with conspiring to violate the plaintiffs' civil rights, according to the release.
U.S. District Court Judge John Roll in March rejected Barnett's efforts to have the charges thrown out, ruling that sufficient evidence of a conspiracy existed, that the Barnetts denied the immigrants' right to interstate travel and that the actions of the three were motivated by race.
Barnett's attorney, David Hardy, had argued that illegal immigrants didn't have the same rights of interstate travel as U.S. citizens do.
Roll's ruling came on the heels of another judgment against Barnett in February 2008.
At that time, the Arizona Court of Appeals refused to throw out a jury verdict from November 2006 - and a nearly $100,000 monetary award - against Barnett in another civil case where a jury concluded he falsely imprisoned members of a Douglas family.
The current trial is scheduled to go through Feb. 13.
now to comment !!!!
this is a disgrace !!!!
dead people cant sue !!!
lawyer told me that saying :)
this kinda stuff boils my blood big time that this guy can be in trouble for having criminals trespass on his property then he gets in trouble for it is INSANE !!!!
and they are not even US criminals but Mexican criminals !!!!
lawyers and people that stick up for this BS make me sick
I have no problem if you want to come in legally thats fine welcome to the country just obey the law
we really need to make it so anyone who is not from this country can not sue anyone in this country
and if you are a criminal then you loose all rights to sue anyone who you did a crime against even if you are from this country
so does this boil the blood of others ?
in some sick way I hope the US falls under control of some fanatical dictator and cleans out these looser lawyer and bleeding types who slam this country
then he is thrown :) just want him in long enough to flush the sewers of all those that want to harm/slam this country from within !!!!!
MisterWilson
02-03-09, 17:50
Legally speaking...How can an illegal immigrant attend a civil trial?
Or is this a criminal one?
AirmanAtwood
02-03-09, 18:48
Can an illegal actually have civil rights in the US?? I dont understand how a non citizen can have the rights of a citizen:confused::confused:
We have lost our damn minds.
FromMyColdDeadHand
02-03-09, 18:59
Where they on his land? Off his land, I'm not in favor of people being vigilantes and pointing guns at people. How do you know they are illegal?
Illegal or not if they were on his property he has the right to detain them. This is proof that we need more action from citizins to not take this anymore.
...isn't there some kind of rule against entering the US illegally?
I mean, seems like it'd be ok to hold a criminal until LEO or ICE could get there...
I'm obviously thinking of something else...civil rights trumps this somehow...http://emoticons4u.com/smoking/rauch06.gif
John_Wayne777
02-03-09, 19:26
An illegal immigrant's right to interstate travel was violated...uhh....ya. I guess they should haul the INS into court too.
Can an illegal actually have civil rights in the US?? I dont understand how a non citizen can have the rights of a citizen:confused::confused:
+1 on this
Jay Cunningham
02-03-09, 21:03
Feb. 3, 2009 09:24 AM
Associated Press
TUCSON - The trial is now under way in a civil-rights lawsuit against a southern Arizona rancher accused of holding a group of illegal immigrants at gunpoint near Douglas.
Attorneys for the 16 people who were trying to cross into the U.S. illegally accuse Roger Barnett of holding a gun on the group, threatening them with his dog and also threatening to shoot anyone who tried to escape, according to a news release from the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
The group also said Barnett kicked one of the women in the group when she was on the ground.
The federal lawsuit charges Barnett, his wife, Barbara Barnett, and his brother, Donald Barnett, with conspiring to violate the plaintiffs' civil rights, according to the release.
U.S. District Court Judge John Roll in March rejected Barnett's efforts to have the charges thrown out, ruling that sufficient evidence of a conspiracy existed, that the Barnetts denied the immigrants' right to interstate travel and that the actions of the three were motivated by race.
Barnett's attorney, David Hardy, had argued that illegal immigrants didn't have the same rights of interstate travel as U.S. citizens do.
Roll's ruling came on the heels of another judgment against Barnett in February 2008.
At that time, the Arizona Court of Appeals refused to throw out a jury verdict from November 2006 - and a nearly $100,000 monetary award - against Barnett in another civil case where a jury concluded he falsely imprisoned members of a Douglas family.
The current trial is scheduled to go through Feb. 13.
If the above is indeed true, where did this guy get off holding these people at gunpoint? Was he fearful of a potentially lethal threat? Why else would an average citizen point a firearm at someone? Why didn't he call the authorities? Were these illegals threatening his family or other citizens with lethal intent?
I don't like illegal immigration either, but I am not about to go out and point a weapon at illegal aliens - unless they are a potentially lethal threat that I can't safely retreat from.
MisterWilson
02-03-09, 21:21
If the above is indeed true, where did this guy get off holding these people at gunpoint? Was he fearful of a potentially lethal threat? Why else would an average citizen point a firearm at someone? Why didn't he call the authorities? Were these illegals threatening his family or other citizens with lethal intent?
I don't like illegal immigration either, but I am not about to go out and point a weapon at illegal aliens - unless they are a potentially lethal threat that I can't safely retreat from.
Living in a rural ranch where the nearest bit of help is likely 20+ minutes away, hearing a noise, and seeing enough people to constitute a mob, you wouldn't bring a gun to investigate?
Upon seeing such a disparity of force engaged in illegal activity, you wouldn't feel compelled to detain them at gunpoint until help could arrive?
Jay Cunningham
02-03-09, 21:24
I guess I'm not a cowboy.
3 against 16 is gun-drawing time.
Jay Cunningham
02-03-09, 21:30
3 against 16 is gun-drawing time.
Yeah, if you seek out 16 then you'd better have a gun. I prefer the avoidance thing, generally speaking unless I don't have a better choice.
...I guess I thought he was on his own place the whole time...If he went hunting I could see the difference...On his own land...It'd be crazy not to investigate...http://emoticons4u.com/smoking/rauch06.gif
John_Wayne777
02-03-09, 22:06
Yeah, if you seek out 16 then you'd better have a gun. I prefer the avoidance thing, generally speaking unless I don't have a better choice.
In general, so do I...but in a situation where your property is literally being overrun by illegals the calculus might change somewhat.
In any case, the appropriate action would be to charge him with a crime for pointing a gun at people who didn't need a gun pointed at them. A federal lawsuit based on civil rights violations, on the other hand, is 9 kinds of screwed up.
from everything I have heard and talked to a few ranchers and seen plenty pics of border crossing areas
illegals in general are pigs !!!! they liter and crap on your property and cut fences and dont care about your property
so I would say if 16 people came to your property and broke your fences and craped on your lawn and threw their garbage on your lawn and they did this time and time again when you tell them to leave and they say screw you time and time again
so after a few years of tons of people crapping and leaving the garbage on your lawn breaking your property when would enough be enough
also all ranchers are armed against 2 and 4 legged critters
I have to say those who think this is not the thing to do ?
if someone did the above on your property would you never say enough is enough and hold them till authorities come !!!
from what I remember reading
he held them from what I remember till authorities came as he called the authorities when he spotted them but knew it would take some time
I'm not digging up the details of it. But playing devils advocate, in the middle of the South Arizona desert where exactly are you going to avoid TO? 16 bedraggled miscreants come out to your place in the middle of no where looking for god knows what. Best case scenario food and water, worst case; money, guns, vehicles. Best case scenario it's just folks looking to make a better life, worse case it's some MS13 turds. Are you truly proposing inviting them in for tea to figure out which of these scenarios they're from? :eek: Next you have to debate whether you're gonna go out looking for them. It isn't something I think is a good idea, but letting them get up to my doorway is a MUCH worse idea IMHO. Frankly I'd get tired of continually trying to intercept, I'd set up some damn remote cameras so I could call BP long before they reached my home. Maybe invest in some bilingual minefield signs. ;p
If the above is indeed true, where did this guy get off holding these people at gunpoint? Was he fearful of a potentially lethal threat? Why else would an average citizen point a firearm at someone? Why didn't he call the authorities? Were these illegals threatening his family or other citizens with lethal intent?
I don't like illegal immigration either, but I am not about to go out and point a weapon at illegal aliens - unless they are a potentially lethal threat that I can't safely retreat from.
I'm with you up to here. If you retreat, when you have the option to repel with force, a potentially lethal threat.. it is my opinion that you are just leaving that threat to move onto the next guy/girl/child/family etc. I dunno, dealing with the bold part only, I would attempt to handle it so know one else had to.. if I could of course. Don't think that makes me a cowboy....
On to the topic: Citizens in my state are permitted to resist, intervene, and stop forceful felonies. If the people were just walking across the border NOT on his land and were staying clear of him... for him to run out in front of them with a gun is plain retarded. However, I personally feel that if you aren't a citizen OR have permission to be here such as a visitor/work visa etc, you are here at your own risk. But that's a personal conviction. Let a rancher shoot a few of them, without persecution, and watch the frequency of people decline in that particular area.... just saying.
If they were coming on to his land, he stood on his land front of them and told them to stop advancing, and they didn't.... well.... they are making an overt hostile action at that point. How is the rancher to know they won't harm him or his family? Going to a weapon?... eh, i dunno. I'm of the opinion you don't want a weighted piece of metal in your hand if you can't legally use it. We have guys draw their weapon for everything even when they aren't even NEAR the force matrix for shooting someone. Just ties up their hands and makes them more vulnerable. IMO at least.
Keeping human life values in mind, I'm not for shooting a family of whatever just because they are crossing the border, but..... we as LE need to be freed up to defend the tax paying public with these sort of matters. ALSO!!! the court system needs to be pursuing this more aggressively. As it stands, in my area, we turn over the case to the local immigration branch when the offender is released from jail. It is up to them to follow up.......... yeah ****ing right. We arrest the same illegals over and over and over and over. Each time their crimes progressing violently.
eh, my opinions on the matter aren't polished and I'm open to the idea that I'm misinformed on somethings, but I for one and damn tired of it. The current system isn't working. I'm open to new ideas.......
FromMyColdDeadHand
02-03-09, 23:49
The main issue I have is, if they are not on his land, how can he prove that they are illegal? Yea, running thru the desert with trash-bag luggage is a funny way to go for a hike. What I'm not so hip on is some A-hole trying to figure out my legal status and pulling a gun. I am going to be highly annoyed.
If your land is being assaulted, I'm going to be on the side of caution and fire up the back hoe.
Though this article apparently leaves it out, IIRC in this case they were using his ranch, i.e.- his property (larger than just a few hundred sq. ft.) to cross from Mexico to Arizona when he confronted them. So basically they were on his property. If one talks to ranchers in Arizona and Texas they can hear literally dozens of stories like this. Illegals crossing over on their land, leaving trash, and fecal matter all over the place.
Also, in Arizona we do not have a "retreat" clause.
The main issue I have is, if they are not on his land, how can he prove that they are illegal? Yea, running thru the desert with trash-bag luggage is a funny way to go for a hike. What I'm not so hip on is some A-hole trying to figure out my legal status and pulling a gun. I am going to be highly annoyed.
If your land is being assaulted, I'm going to be on the side of caution and fire up the back hoe.
If YOU were the US Feds, and you were making over a $Billion each year form Illegals using some one else's Soc Security number, and you NEVER had to pay them back for ANY of it, would you want the stopping of those Illegals into this country? Now you know why these fed agencies do not want to stop the flow at all, so don't get in their Fing way of making more money, or your ass will get sued and they can make even more $!!!
BTW: Those people know damn good and well they are here illegally, or they fing wouldn't be SNEAKING over the border!!!
WTF gives them the right to do things illegally, BUT NOT ME???
Jay Cunningham
02-04-09, 04:08
Whatever.
I know I am not part of the "I live on the border" culture so I am sure that I am missing a few things. I also can empathize with the type-in-all-caps-and-bold-font we're not gonna take it anymore crowd. But I just don't point a weapon at someone lightly.
What was this guy going to do - kill all of them? The article said that he detained them at gunpoint. Anyway, there's a reason the guy is going on trial - we'll find out how that goes. I suspect I would go on trial too if I went out onto "my property" and detained people at gunpoint - illegals or no illegals.
Jay Cunningham
02-04-09, 05:30
Are you truly proposing inviting them in for tea to figure out which of these scenarios they're from?
You'll need to go back and show me where I truly proposed this.
:rolleyes:
Jay Cunningham
02-04-09, 05:41
The main issue I have is, if they are not on his land, how can he prove that they are illegal? Yea, running thru the desert with trash-bag luggage is a funny way to go for a hike. What I'm not so hip on is some A-hole trying to figure out my legal status and pulling a gun. I am going to be highly annoyed.
If your land is being assaulted, I'm going to be on the side of caution and fire up the back hoe.
Does it matter if they were illegal?
Let's say that they were 16 regular old teenage Americans cutting through his property. Does he get to hold them at gun point? What if they want to leave? Does he get to shoot them in the back?
When emotions run high (I ain't gonna take it no more!) it's probably best to leave the firearms locked up.
Of course we don't know the whole story, but crapping on someone's lawn is not a justifiction for pointing a weapon at them and holding them against their will. That can be considered - and apparently has been in this case - aggravated assault and false imprisonment, among others.
Is it right? No. But it is what it is.
"hold at gunpoint" should be read "citizens' arrest." and no, if he's placed 16 teenagers under arrest for trespassing, they are not allowed to leave whether they want to or not.
we're missing way too much of the story to come to conclusions.. which is evident by the wacky directions we're all taking this.
:)
dwhitehorne
02-04-09, 10:41
Does it matter if they were illegal?
Let's say that they were 16 regular old teenage Americans cutting through his property. Does he get to hold them at gun point? What if they want to leave? Does he get to shoot them in the back?
When emotions run high (I ain't gonna take it no more!) it's probably best to leave the firearms locked up.
Of course we don't know the whole story, but crapping on someone's lawn is not a justifiction for pointing a weapon at them and holding them against their will. That can be considered - and apparently has been in this case - aggravated assault and false imprisonment, among others.
Is it right? No. But it is what it is.
This attitude is why we will never secure the border. Since you are not a "Cowboy" and can't relate, I would like to know what you would do if your 16 teenagers came up to your house camped out on your lawn and refused to leave or maybe they are just sitting around your car in your driveway. Remember you have no police to call because the Sheriff's office forwards all of the immigration calls to the Feds so you have to wait for the Border Patrol. If I am confronting 16 people (aka, trespassers) on my property that refuse to leave I would feel threatened and have a firearm with me.
It is a shame that the homeowner who IS at US citizen and probably has no criminal record is considered the bad guy by people on this forum for doing what he thinks is right. David
Jay Cunningham
02-04-09, 10:45
This attitude is why we will never secure the border. Since you are not a "Cowboy" and can't relate, I would like to know what you would do if your 16 teenagers came up to your house camped out on your lawn and refused to leave or maybe they are just sitting around your car in your driveway. Remember you have no police to call because the Sheriff's office forwards all of the immigration calls to the Feds so you have to wait for the Border Patrol.
If I am confronting 16 people (aka, trespassers) on my property that refuse to leave I would feel threatened and have a firearm with me. David
You're right - I'm what's wrong with America. I've been told that by the open carry advocates as well.
Zane Zackerly
02-04-09, 10:48
I don't want anyone to think I'm advocating anything, but this is only going to make more people shoot, shovel, and shut up.
Sad, sad situation.
Jay Cunningham
02-04-09, 10:50
I also got told that by a mob on TOS once when I criticized a guy who was bragging about running outside and holding a guy at gunpoint because he caught him walking on his lawn.
It turns out he worked for the telephone company - but he was "on his property" so he needed to confront him at gunpoint, apparently.
As some have pointed out, we don't yet know enough about this case. However I have no problem thinking for myself and not automatically being a cheerleader for the guy with the gun.
Zane Zackerly
02-04-09, 10:59
As some have pointed out, we don't yet know enough about this case. However I have no problem thinking for myself and not automatically being a cheerleader for the guy with the gun.
I agree up to a point; however, when you're the one outnumbered and having to confront the trespassers, your mindset is a whole lot different. And when the trespassers are armed it's a whole new ball game.
I recently had to run some hunters off. They were just teens or college kids with Fudd rifles out hunting rabbits. The problem is, they were shooting in my direction and in the direction of the house. I could hear rounds whizzing by me and impacting near my feet. I was not about to confront them without being armed. I chambered a round in my AK, but did not point it at them. I politely asked them not to shoot in my direction or in the direction of the house. As they were not on my property, I didn't try to run them off.
Now, had the situation been different and one of them had lifted his weapon to threaten me, I would have left them both lying in the dust.
I also wonder if they would have been as compliant had I not been armed?
dwhitehorne
02-04-09, 10:59
You're right - I'm what's wrong with America. I've been told that by the open carry advocates as well.
You are not what is wrong with America. You are from PA and I'm from VA and we have no idea what this homeowner is going through living on the border. I can only imagine he is at his wits end with trespassers destroying his property. I just think we should give the gun owner and not the illegals the benifit of the doubt in this situation. David
John_Wayne777
02-04-09, 11:11
You're right - I'm what's wrong with America. I've been told that by the open carry advocates as well.
What did they call you in the Utah mall "Would you go back in?" thread? :D
To ME, this sometimes reads that there are those who seem to think it is OK for our Country to be invaded by those who wish to not obey our policies. Such as coming here the legal way. Were/are these people only defending there property? Or are they trying to also defend their/your Country, which also is THEIR property? Without living in those border towns and seeing what all is going on, we from afar don't really have a clue, do we.
Should we just eliminate the Mexico border? Or should we defend it against Illegal Intruders? After all what goes on on the East Coast, doesn't effect me here in Montana, so should I tell everyone on the East Coast that they are wrong in the way they handle things there? When I don't know their circumstances?
Not sure why everyone is getting defensive and angry over this. Telling Katar that he is what is wrong with America is the only out of line thing I've seen.
Relax dummies. :p :cool:
I live in Colorado in a city which is about 67% Hispanic. Of that 67%, approximately 22% are illegally in this country. I don't live on the border but I do frequently talk with those who have tried to keep out illegals and those that ARE illegals.
What many non-border dwelling types don't understand is not just the influx of "peaceful" illegals, but the swelling tide of vicious drug-smuggling cartels which frequently have the Mexican government out-gunned and absolutely have our border guards out-gunned. Frequently there are armed mercenary escorts into our country of the coyotes who are not just bringing people, but drugs as well. The folks living on the border are in very real fear for their lives from these types who don't hesitate to shoot first.
Now I'm not suggesting this group of individuals was in any way associated with drug smuggling. What I am suggesting is that this rancher was probably a little hyper-vigilant because of it and may have over-reacted.
Our society is so regional that often while we may have some idea what goes on in other areas of the country, we usually don't have a full grasp of the goings-on in the daily life of those from other areas. I liken this to the urban gun-haters absolute inability to understand why anyone would possibly need to own a gun. Truly if they've never had any exposure to them then why would anyone else need or want to use them?
I only postulate this as a reason for what seems like extreme over-reacting in this rancher's case. Until you've walked a mile in his shoes...
BTW, for those who really have no experience with what is really taking place on our southern border may I suggest viewing the documentary "Border" for a little insight. http://www.bordermovie.com/
You're right - I'm what's wrong with America. I've been told that by the open carry advocates as well.
don't put yourself in that group .you just have a different opinion of what you would do in that situation .If i lived on the border I would have a Phone number for the Border patrol .and ask them what would be the SOP for this type of situation so I would not ended up Like this guy.
It might be interesting to look at the court records .
Feb. 3, 2009 09:24 AM
Associated Press
TUCSON - The trial is now under way in a civil-rights lawsuit against a southern Arizona rancher accused of holding a group of illegal immigrants at gunpoint near Douglas.
.... ( Snip for brevity)....
The federal lawsuit charges Barnett, his wife, Barbara Barnett, and his brother, Donald Barnett, with conspiring to violate the plaintiffs' civil rights, according to the release.
U.S. District Court Judge John Roll in March rejected Barnett's efforts to have the charges thrown out, ruling that sufficient evidence of a conspiracy existed, that the Barnetts denied the immigrants' right to interstate travel and that the actions of the three were motivated by race.
... (Snip for brevity ).......
Roll's ruling came on the heels of another judgment against Barnett in February 2008.
At that time, the Arizona Court of Appeals refused to throw out a jury verdict from November 2006 - and a nearly $100,000 monetary award - against Barnett in another civil case where a jury concluded he falsely imprisoned members of a Douglas family.
The current trial is scheduled to go through Feb. 13.
There's an old case and a new case. I agree that there is something very wrong with illegal aliens having a right to interstate travel. This case is just getting started.
The false imprisonment case might shed some light on situation. Maybe Mr. Barnett is getting screwed twice.
Maybe there's some lessons on how to prevail and stay out of jail ( and not lose a lawsuit) along the border.
ETA:
I think that what I'm driving here is that there's these two cases and there's the symbol. There's a huge problem on the border , no doubt . One question is what can people do without getting nailed for "...nearly $100,000..."
FromMyColdDeadHand
02-04-09, 17:53
Can you actually hold someone at gun point for tresspass (posted, non-posted?)? In the house in one thing, at the other extreme is unposted land. Down south near the border with drug gangs and MexMil, things are a bit different, I understand.
Legally speaking...How can an illegal immigrant attend a civil trial?
Or is this a criminal one?
Can an illegal actually have civil rights in the US?? I dont understand how a non citizen can have the rights of a citizen:confused::confused:
We have lost our damn minds.
Yes they can. A illegal sued Ranch Rescue's owner and WON
The guy lost his land, all of it, and the illegals got it, or the market values for it
and yes, we've lost our minds in this nation...
Jay Cunningham
02-04-09, 17:57
Can you actually hold someone at gun point for tresspass (posted, non-posted?)?
The more pertinent question is - what if they decide to walk away? "Stop, or I'll shoot!" Can you justify a shoot under these circumstances?
MarshallDodge
02-04-09, 18:21
I have a good friend that lives down that way (Hereford, AZ) and it's a really nice area. It's a shame that these people have to live there daily lives knowing that there will be trespassers on their property.
As already mentioned, some of the trespassers litter, defacate, thieve, and commit other crimes. I wouldn't be too happy about it if this was my property.
Maybe Mr. Barnett did not handle things the right way but if anybody should be going to trial for not handling things right, it should be the federal gov and the Border Patrol.
Jay Cunningham
02-04-09, 18:28
I have a good friend that lives down that way (Hereford, AZ) and it's a really nice area. It's a shame that these people have to live there daily lives knowing that there will be trespassers on their property.
As already mentioned, some of the trespassers litter, defacate, thieve, and commit other crimes. I wouldn't be too happy about it if this was my property.
Maybe Mr. Barnett did not handle things the right way but if anybody should be going to trial for not handling things right, it should be the federal gov and the Border Patrol.
I agree with you, but that's really not the point. I wouldn't like it if a band of 16 illegal Mexicans were trespassing on my property either. But grabbing my firearm and moving out to confront them would probably land me right where it landed this dude.
There are smarter ways of dealing with this.
I know nothing about living on the border and I know even less about the actual facts of this case.
With 25 years of trial experience, I can tell you one thing ... there's more to this present action than appears. The hint is the conspiracy charge.
I agree with you, but that's really not the point. I wouldn't like it if a band of 16 illegal Mexicans were trespassing on my property either. But grabbing my firearm and moving out to confront them would probably land me right where it landed this dude.
There are smarter ways of dealing with this.
How's this?
You stroll on out CCW style. Talk to them. Wave your arms tell them to NOT advance towards your house and to turn around and go another way. Your hope is they will go back across the border but in reality you are simply concerned with the safety of your household. They continue to advance in your direction which is the same as your household. You continue to yell not giving up ground. They continue to advance... You being to realize there is a language barrier. So then..................? Fill in what you would do from here, or start another scenario.
Do you run back to your house grab your wife and kids and take off in your car? Call LE and wait it out? Fortify your house?
I agree rolling out with the gun 1st was retarded. Start with presence, move to verbal, if out numbered 16-1 I say skip the intermediate weapons and move on to drawing your weapon. If they continue to advance... Oh f-ing well. Maybe here might be the only time I would ever consider a warning shot... ever. Wide open field on your land men women and children... I could justify a warning shot here. Can't believe I just said that. :eek:
the thing about the border areas is lots of drug runners carry guns if you are holding them under gun point chances are they are not going to pull theirs
the other thing remember the drug runners have made the south so unsafe many of the 4x4 guys wont go down to/on some trails unless they have numbers cause lots of stuff happens against us citizens like getting their cars stolen getting robbed at machete point by gangs of illegals etc..
look how now the parks dept wont give out research permits for the southern parks cause the ilegals and ilegal drug runners have made it so unsafe for them !!!!!
maybe people not familiar with the southern border problem really dont understand it sounds like
if you have gangs around where you live ? and gang members were trashing your property nightly what would you do !! please tell me you would just let them keep doing it then ?
if one day you are out working and 16 people come onto your property and you tell them to leave and they tell you to F off what would you really do then !!!!
retreat ? to where ?
what if you are out rebuilding your fence for the 120th time and they come cut it in front of you and say F you what you going to do about it !
again what would you do ?
Jay Cunningham
02-04-09, 18:49
How's this?
You stroll on out CCW style. Talk to them. Wave your arms tell them to NOT advance towards your house and to turn around and go another way. Your hope is they will go back across the border but in reality you are simply concerned with the safety of your household. They continue to advance in your direction which is the same as your household. You continue to yell not giving up ground. They continue to advance... You being to realize there is a language barrier. So then..................? Fill in what you would do from here, or start another scenario.
Do you run back to your house grab your wife and kids and take off in your car? Call LE and wait it out? Fortify your house?
I agree rolling out with the gun 1st was retarded. Start with presence, move to verbal, if out numbered 16-1 I say skip the intermediate weapons and move on to drawing your weapon. If they continue to advance... Oh f-ing well. Maybe here might be the only time I would ever consider a warning shot... ever. Wide open field on your land men women and children... I could justify a warning shot here. Can't believe I just said that. :eek:
I'm not trying to turn this into a "what if" scenario because this can be gamed all kinds of ways and that's not really my intent. But...
Moving to confront 16 strangers by your lonesome is not my idea of smart - armed or not. In fact, it is my idea of "very stupid".
There's a saying where I work: Only two things can come from this; nothing, or nothing good. This saying directly applies to moving out to confront 16 strangers with a firearm.
Jay Cunningham
02-04-09, 18:54
if one day you are out working and 16 people come onto your property and you tell them to leave and they tell you to F off what would you really do then !!!!
retreat ? to where ?
You guys are really not getting it - the guy chose to confront these 16 people. He could have chosen not to confront them. Would this have been "right" or "wrong"? It doesn't matter - he could have contacted police and border patrol, armed himself, and observed them at a discrete distance. Hell he could have taken their picture or recorded them on video. If they moved toward him he could have evaluated the potential threat and assessed the option to safely retreat.
I know - "he shouldn't have to!" etc. Emotion should not trump common sense.
MarshallDodge
02-04-09, 18:59
I agree with you, but that's really not the point. I wouldn't like it if a band of 16 illegal Mexicans were trespassing on my property either. But grabbing my firearm and moving out to confront them would probably land me right where it landed this dude.
There are smarter ways of dealing with this.
I did not say that it was OK to go out and point a firearm at a human being that was not posing a threat. What I am saying is that if I were in his shoes, with illegal aliens trouncing across my land on a daily basis and the border patrol being uncooperative, then I might do something irrational. :)
Jay Cunningham
02-04-09, 19:02
What I am saying is that if I were in his shoes, with illegal aliens trouncing across my land on a daily basis and the border patrol being uncooperative, then I might do something irrational. :)
Indeed.
Average citizens armed with powerful firearms and professional training must exercise extreme discretion. It is a huge responsibility, this thing that we do - one of the reasons so many gun owners choose not to.
I'm not trying to turn this into a "what if" scenario because this can be gamed all kinds of ways and that's not really my intent. But...
Moving to confront 16 strangers by your lonesome is not my idea of smart - armed or not. In fact, it is my idea of "very stupid".
There's a saying where I work: Only two things can come from this; nothing, or nothing good. This saying directly applies to moving out to confront 16 strangers with a firearm.
Understandable and I can see were you are coming form. We are wired differently I suppose. I don't avoid situations because they might be dangerous particularly when the safety of my family is involved. That isn't meant to be taken as a dig. Just an observation. I think we both agree the ability to avoid conflict is the greatest weapon. Sometimes though... Enough is enough. Does it make it right? Arguable till then end of time. Does it make it legal? We'll see. Does it make it smart? Probably not as most "I've had enough" scenarios are ill conceived and executed poorly.
If I deemed it dangerous to my family to go out and confront 16 people then I simply wouldn't do it. If they were 1000 yards off and I could keep visual on them and they weren't heading towards my house, then I would simply call LE and continue to observe. If there were 16 armed men heading towards my house, I would have the family in the fastest vehicle I owned and doing felony speed to get away.
It does sound like this rancher was simply pissed off and had enough. I can sympathize. "should" he have done it is a relative discussion that can't/won't be finalized on a gun forum.
What Katar is getting at, which most people are missing I think, has a lot of merit. However, the other side will argue that the apathetic approach to everything nowadays is the reason for the decline of our nation. Both sides have weight. I for one am not intelligent or arrogant enough, to settle on a conclusion with such little information/education.
I've made clear under what circumstances I would approach, solely, 16 people on my land and what circumstances I wouldn't. Oddly, the "would not"s outweigh the "would".
Sttrongbow
02-04-09, 19:38
Can an illegal actually have civil rights in the US?? I dont understand how a non citizen can have the rights of a citizen:confused::confused:
The Constitution does not limit rights to citizens. The rights apply to ANYONE within the jurisdiction of the Constitution. That's why Bush set up the prison in Guantanamo... he was trying to avoid the jurisdiction of the Constitution.
One thing we do NOT want to do is start decided who is and isn't protected by the Bill of Rights.
I think the farmer may have violated the law by threatening deadly force in a circumstance he wasn't permitted to do so, but I'm not sure I see a civil rights violation here.
citizens cant violate civil rights of other citizens- i thought this was established case-law?
i can do you wrong, and you can sue me- but only the government can violate your consitutional rights. are "civil rights" different than constitutional rights?
You guys are really not getting it - the guy chose to confront these 16 people. He could have chosen not to confront them. Would this have been "right" or "wrong"? It doesn't matter - he could have contacted police and border patrol, armed himself, and observed them at a discrete distance. Hell he could have taken their picture or recorded them on video. If they moved toward him he could have evaluated the potential threat and assessed the option to safely retreat.
I know - "he shouldn't have to!" etc. Emotion should not trump common sense.
Be glad you don't live on the Border or in the Southwest.
Can you actually hold someone at gun point for tresspass (posted, non-posted?)? In the house in one thing, at the other extreme is unposted land. Down south near the border with drug gangs and MexMil, things are a bit different, I understand.
The answer apparently is 'No'.
But, in Arizona the law used to be that a trespasser could be shot. Really.
It was changed about 30-35 years ago when some college student was killed by the homeowner for walking across the guy's lawn. Sorry, but I don't recall the history of the law.
And, regarding the civil rights of the illegals, it seems that the Supreme Court settled that about 1979 or so when Iranians in the country were demonstrating against the Shah and some were arrested and there was a lawsuit and it went to the Supreme Court which gave, again IIRC, the same rights to anyone in the country, citizen or not. At least that's the way I remember it and an attorney can certainly correct me as needed.
Understandable and I can see were you are coming form. We are wired differently I suppose. I don't avoid situations because they might be dangerous particularly when the safety of my family is involved. That isn't meant to be taken as a dig. Just an observation. I think we both agree the ability to avoid conflict is the greatest weapon. Sometimes though... Enough is enough. Does it make it right? Arguable till then end of time. Does it make it legal? We'll see. Does it make it smart? Probably not as most "I've had enough" scenarios are ill conceived and executed poorly.
If I deemed it dangerous to my family to go out and confront 16 people then I simply wouldn't do it. If they were 1000 yards off and I could keep visual on them and they weren't heading towards my house, then I would simply call LE and continue to observe. If there were 16 armed men heading towards my house, I would have the family in the fastest vehicle I owned and doing felony speed to get away.
It does sound like this rancher was simply pissed off and had enough. I can sympathize. "should" he have done it is a relative discussion that can't/won't be finalized on a gun forum.
Or, just for effect, the hundred thousandth?
What Katar is getting at, which most people are missing I think, has a lot of merit. However, the other side will argue that the apathetic approach to everything nowadays is the reason for the decline of our nation. Both sides have weight. I for one am not intelligent or arrogant enough, to settle on a conclusion with such little information/education.
I've made clear under what circumstances I would approach, solely, 16 people on my land and what circumstances I wouldn't. Oddly, the "would not"s outweigh the "would".
But what if it's not just sixteen but the 50th or five hundredth or such and it's been going on for years?
Might that change your perspective?
Or, just for effect, the hundred thousandth?
I'm not trying to turn this into a "what if" scenario because this can be gamed all kinds of ways and that's not really my intent. But...
Moving to confront 16 strangers by your lonesome is not my idea of smart - armed or not. In fact, it is my idea of "very stupid".
There's a saying where I work: Only two things can come from this; nothing, or nothing good. This saying directly applies to moving out to confront 16 strangers with a firearm.
You are absolutely right. And I'm glad I'm not in the shoes of the man who confronted them or in the shoes of the people who, most likely, are just trying to make a better life for themselves and their families.
Many of the illegals I've talked to don't even try to come here legally as it's easy to do it illegally and nearly impossible to do it legally. The obstructions to coming here legally are apparently nearly insurmountable. The new administration might change that.
Katar.. you are clearly a product of urbania w/o perspective on simple survival
one could ask any resident of central or south america on how to handle tresspassers.. w/o getting a pile of theoretical bs...
all answers relative to survival relate directly to the ground in question.. key terrain.. were the tresspassers taking the high ground? did this need to be mitigated? taking controlling the area necessary for water or feeding yourself, family, or stock? or your movement.. if so.. this need be addressed before one is a victim.
All battles are won before fought, only those who haven't spilt or smelt blood don't understand..
99.99%+ of people, in the US, don't understand the reality of the surviving w/o the 24hr supermarket and the illusion of a 911 call safety net. You can delude yourself that a phone call will help... that the the "rule of law" matters.
When persons choose to ingnore the social contract, only violence can rectify this. I have seen , numerous times, sworn officers of several different Fed Agencies avoid their duty when armed oppostition was involved... don't think you & yours bear any special consideration to the bureocrat. So.. who's gonna do it?
variablebinary
02-05-09, 00:15
If you dont live in a border state, you cant possibly understand what ranchers and border towns have to deal with.
What you also dont hear is how many border state property owners end up shot at, killed, raped and robbed daily.
Being on the ass end of a war our government wont even attempt to fight will make people feel like their hand is forced.
But what if it's not just sixteen but the 50th or five hundredth or such and it's been going on for years?
Might that change your perspective?
Or, just for effect, the hundred thousandth?
I don't understand your post/question. Partially because I'm not sure you read/got mine. Would you mind trying again so I can answer your questions?
You guys are really not getting it - the guy chose to confront these 16 people. He could have chosen not to confront them. Would this have been "right" or "wrong"? It doesn't matter - he could have contacted police and border patrol, armed himself, and observed them at a discrete distance. Hell he could have taken their picture or recorded them on video. If they moved toward him he could have evaluated the potential threat and assessed the option to safely retreat.
I know - "he shouldn't have to!" etc. Emotion should not trump common sense.
I get it I would not have got it before I moved here though
again I want a answer please :) and I am a civil guy :) not trying to pick a fight :)
every night gang members damage your property and cut fences you have up and crap on your property and many other things
you just keep repairing stuff and try to live your life hoping they dont do more ?
so one day you are out making your rounds and you spot a bunch of people who are cutting your fence and cutting across your property
so you are working on a cut up fence and here come 16 people !
what do you do
again you did not go hunt them down
problem from what I understand is the BP is so hand tied and also can take a long long time to get out to these places
again !!!!!!
WHY does a US citizen who is protecting his property get put through this from CRIMINALS that are from another country !!!!!!!!!
this is what pisses me off the most
right or wrong about what he has done he should not be put in that position !!!!!
try this you are just fixing the fence in the spot they rip down every week and here they come !!!!
wow now all of a sudden you are facing a dozen or more people who are criminals and some who might be armed murderers as many of the runners are very hard criminals !!!
remember its your property !
I dont feel I should have to run away on my property
and I should not have to just say yeah keep on going let me cut my fence for you !!!!!
this stunt is a BS for/from the lefties who want to destroy this country !!! and destroy our rights
think of this soon you wont be able to protect yourself in your house or on your property at all
If you dont live in a border state, you cant possibly understand what ranchers and border towns have to deal with.
What you also dont hear is how many border state property owners end up shot at, killed, raped and robbed daily.
Being on the ass end of a war our government wont even attempt to fight will make people feel like their hand is forced.
DITTO !!!!!!
:mad:
The federal lawsuit charges Barnett, his wife, Barbara Barnett, and his brother, Donald Barnett, with conspiring to violate the plaintiffs' civil rights, according to the release..
These are not our citizens and should not have civil rights under our laws. I believe our country has a right to deport them. I also believe in protecting Americans' Rights over those who are not Americans.
Jay Cunningham
02-05-09, 04:13
Katar.. you are clearly a product of urbania w/o perspective on simple survival
Just as you are a product of your own environment, Dano. Do you really think the ROE that you live by now can be overlaid as a template onto the average civilian? You think the average gun owner has anything remotely resembling your training or skill? You think the teams will be there to back up Joe Sixpack? Or that FM 27-10 will cover their ass?
That is movie stuff - in the real world (modern-day America) acting precipitously can and will get you arrested and prosecuted and quite possibly convicted. Maybe it shouldn't and maybe America would be better if more of us could take matters into our own hands, but I don't deal in "should" - I deal in reality.
Morons get into gunfights over road rage here. They blast at unidentified threats in the middle of the night only to find out it was their wife or teenage son. They run out into their yard and hold people at gunpoint because they were walking on their grass. They don't know how to shoot, don't understand tactics, don't understand local and federal laws nor what does and does not constitute a potentially lethal threat.
You are right Dano in that I understand how I need to accord myself with respect to the force continuum in the really real world that I live in - suburbia! Cities! Rural areas!. My goal is to stay out of fights and under the radar. I long ago established what will trip my mental triggers, and my criteria for pointing a weapon at another human being is very restrictive.
I'm kinda disappointed that the thread seems to being jumping off the rails.
The thread is getting pretty heavy on theory , what-if's and symbols.
I thought that the topic was "rancher who held illegals at gunpoint trial starts!"
I'm interested in what went on and what is going on with the two real court cases? What are the real world lessons to be learned from the actual events ?
ETA: Seems to be more of a dog pile on The Katar than a discussion of the real cases.
Got court records?
Jay Cunningham
02-05-09, 05:39
This guy has been in the news quite a bit:
After three hours of deliberations in the Superior Court in Bisbee, Arizona, the jury in the civil trial found Roger Barnett guilty of intentionally inflicting emotional distress, negligence, unlawful imprisonment and assault and ordered that Barnett pay the group close to $100,000 in damages.
The charges stem from an October 30, 2004 incident when Roger Barnett, his wife and brother, Donald Barnett stopped Arturo, Ronald, Vanese and Angelique Morales and the girls’ friend, Emma English, while the group was on a hunting trip. Upon finding the group on land he leases for grazing livestock from the Arizona State Land Department, Barnett yelled racist obscenities and pointed his chambered, AR-15 assault rifle at the three young girls (ages 11 and 9) and the two men and threatened to kill them.
The trial began on November 14th and included emotional and intense testimony from the children, their parents, psychologists, land surveyors, sheriffs’ deputy, Arizona Game and Fish employee, and other bow hunters who had also been physically assaulted and barraged with racist insults by Barnett. The families were represented by Jesus Romo Vejar, a long-time civil rights and immigrant rights attorney.
“The real impact of this terrific decision has not hit me yet,” commented Ronald Morales. “The girls, Vanese and Angelique, feel like it was all worth it. Finally, they can see that we do have a justice system that works and that no one, not even Roger Barnett, is above the law.”
The Morales and English families, with the support of the Border Action Network, a human rights community organization based in southern Arizona, uncovered a vicious cycle of public officials who demonstrated no political will or interest in supporting Arizona border communities’ calls for prosecuting Barnett and others for assaulting not only undocumented immigrants, but U.S. citizens.
Jay Cunningham
02-05-09, 05:46
The Verdict
With 15 counts to weigh, the jury begins deliberations. Ed English and Ron Morales head down to a café to wait. Roger Barnett and his wife remain in the courtroom. Camera crews hover outside.
When the jury files back into the courtroom after just three hours of deliberation, the plaintiffs are stiff in their chairs. An ashen Ron Morales seems to stop breathing entirely as the jury foreman rises to read the verdicts, one by one.
The jury finds for the plaintiffs on 14 of 15 counts, and orders Barnett to pay the Morales and English families nearly $99,000.
Kelliher and his clients leave the courthouse swiftly, refusing to comment. He also declined to reply to a later letter from the Intelligence Report requesting an interview.
Ron Morales appears stunned, pacing back and forth to one side of the courthouse door and whispering, "Thank God, thank God, thank God." Romo Vejar expresses his satisfaction to reporters and television cameras, calling the verdict a "landmark decision," and calling on County Attorney Rheinheimer to reconsider filing criminal charges against Barnett.
A few days later Rheinheimer tells the Bisbee Herald-Review, "It's obvious that the civil jury saw something, and so we're going to take a good look at the jury's findings."
Three months later, Rheinheimer still has not filed a single criminal charge against Roger Barnett.
The Heat Goes On
The civil verdict was hailed by civil and immigrant rights organizations around the United States and reported in newspapers from coast to coast. Without question, it represented a gleam of hope to those in Arizona, in particular, who feel vigilantes and vigilantism have been allowed to run roughshod over the rule of law and basic humanity. But, at the end of the day, it was only a civil verdict.
Local support for Barnett galvanized in the trial's aftermath and seemed to grow even stronger with passing weeks. "I think most of the people of Cochise County support Roger Barnett in principle, as far as rightfully protecting his family and property from the invasion of illegal immigrants," read one of many pro-Barnett comments published in the Bisbee Herald-Review after the trial. "My personal thanks to the Barnetts and Mr. Kelliher for standing up for us all."
At the same time, prosecutors like Andrew Thomas in Maricopa County, where Phoenix is located, continue to decline similar prosecutions — and are even now charging illegal immigrants with conspiracy, a novel legal construction, for conspiring to smuggle themselves. The first months of 2007 were marked by several murders of border crossers, and although authorities continue to attribute such deaths to human- and drug-smuggling disputes, suspicions are mounting that some immigrant-bashers may actually be murdering people.
Meanwhile, the Roger Barnett story goes on.
Last Dec. 30, five weeks after the verdict, Barnett got into a heated confrontation with paramedics attempting to administer medical aid to an injured Mexican who Border Patrol agents had just arrested on Barnett's land.
The man, who was carrying a backpack full of marijuana, told sheriff's deputies that Barnett had set three dogs on him and that he ran, fell, and injured his knee. He also said he was diabetic and hadn't eaten in three days.
The EMTs had just put him in the back of the ambulance when Barnett flagged them down and demanded they let him inside to look at the man's shoes to see if he was the same person Barnett had been tracking earlier in the day. When the paramedics refused, Barnett, who was armed with a pistol, became abusive, according a criminal complaint EMT Robert Vega filed with the Cochise County Sheriff's Department.
According to the deputy assigned to the case, Barnett stated the EMTs were "****in' lying" and claimed that the encounter, as they described it, "never happened." He also refused to give his own account of what happened.
Two months later, Cochise County Attorney Ed Rheinheimer, citing a lack of evidence, officially declined to press charges.
Jay Cunningham
02-05-09, 05:51
Excerpts from an interview with Roger Barnett, April 2004
Question: Have you felt endangered?
Barnett: Oh, yeah. Several times you can just feel the hate in their eyes and you don't want to turn your back on them or they would hurt you. They're illegals. We don't get hold of mules [drug runners], I mean they run so much faster... I yell at them and they don't stop a bit. I've only caught one - scared the shit out of him so bad he passed out on the side of a mountain.
Border Patrol agents on the ground, they said if they were in the same position I was in, they'd be doing the same thing. Most of the supervisors... they appreciate it too. There's only a few at the top that don't like it because I think they think it's an embarrassment.
Last year they had agents at least on weekends when we were there, trying to keep us from catching them. In fact, I've had different agents come out and follow me around, and I said "what are you following me around for" and they said "well, we've got orders - you're not to catch nobody this weekend".
Question: Do you put these people at gunpoint when you catch them?
Barnett: Don't need to. Generally they give up. With authority, you just tell them to sit down, and they sit down.
Question: And you call the Border Patrol in...
Uh, huh.
Question: And you have how many friends helping you do this?
Myself, my brother and my wife.
Question: 12,000 in the last 6 1/2 years by a 3 person... oh my...
Barnett: Sometimes when I'm driving down the road, I'll see a group of 12, 15, or even one, I'll call Border Patrol and I'll stand there until they get there.
Jay Cunningham
02-05-09, 05:54
Agree or disagree with this guy and his actions and the whole concept of property protection and so-called "vigilante justice" - but don't blow smoke up my ass and tell me that Barnett felt threatened by these 16 illegals. He was out hunting them, just as he is out on the hunt, every day. As Austin Powers might say: "It's his bag, baby!"
BTW, for the record I support a sealed border with Mexico.
I support a sealed border , too. And don't have a problem with legit self defense ,
including Texas property defense laws .
Note: That's the real Texas property defense laws , not the errornet/Arfcom urban legend edition.
While we talking about Texas-- History pop quiz:
Full name of the first Vice President of the Republic of Texas ?
;)
Sttrongbow
02-05-09, 06:33
:mad:
These are not our citizens and should not have civil rights under our laws. I believe our country has a right to deport them. I also believe in protecting Americans' Rights over those who are not Americans.
The Constitution guarantees certain rights, it does not GRANT them. Therefore, anyone under the jurisdiction oh the Constitution is protected by it. Only rights which are EXPLICITLY limited to citizens (such as voting) are withheld from non-citizens. And Constitutional rights cannot be withheld without due process of law.
Sttrongbow
02-05-09, 06:38
citizens cant violate civil rights of other citizens- i thought this was established case-law?
i can do you wrong, and you can sue me- but only the government can violate your consitutional rights. are "civil rights" different than constitutional rights?
That's not quite correct. Citizens are not bound by the Constitution in the same way the government is. That's why it's perfectly legal to be a racist prick and have a private club with a "no blacks" policy.
I'm curious to see what the civil rights at issue are. I would think the rancher could be charged with unlawfully detaining the illegals, or maybe brandishing a weapon in a threatening way (or whatever the applicable law is in that jurisdiction), but I just don't see a civil rights case.
I don't understand your post/question. Partially because I'm not sure you read/got mine. Would you mind trying again so I can answer your questions?
"I've made clear under what circumstances I would approach, solely, 16 people on my land and what circumstances I wouldn't. Oddly, the "would not"s outweigh the "would"."
Okay. If you were a landowner near the border, and let's make this theoretical and leave the original character out of it, and you have literally thousands of people crossing your proprty over the last few years-- looking for a better life-- at what point do you over react?
Now as Katar has pointed out the man in the original post has a history that will not serve him well, but if you were the landowner and you had that going on would you react in a similar fashion?
Rangers have been quoted in the newspapers as saying that so many illegals cross over that the combination of humans waste and garbage left makes the state parks a sewage/garbage dump.
It's a problem that continues and the Border Patrol has tried to impact the illegal flow, probably has, but some people are having a hard time coping with the influx.
And, I definitely agree with your assessment of 'would not outweighing would'.
But when ranchers/residents near the border tell about repeated breakins, vandalisms and such it's not hard for me to understand their frustration.
That's not quite correct. Citizens are not bound by the Constitution in the same way the government is. That's why it's perfectly legal to be a racist prick and have a private club with a "no blacks" policy.
I'm curious to see what the civil rights at issue are. I would think the rancher could be charged with unlawfully detaining the illegals, or maybe brandishing a weapon in a threatening way (or whatever the applicable law is in that jurisdiction), but I just don't see a civil rights case.
If you 'kidnapped' me by unlawfully detaining me you would probably have a civil case from that incident. Maybe the words 'civil rights' and 'civil case' are being used loosely. Not a lawyer so I don't know.
Sttrongbow
02-05-09, 10:18
If you 'kidnapped' me by unlawfully detaining me you would probably have a civil case from that incident. Maybe the words 'civil rights' and 'civil case' are being used loosely. Not a lawyer so I don't know.
Maybe the terms are being used loosely. a "civil right" violation would imply to me that the rancher did what he did because of the ethnicity of the illegals. Perhaps they have some evidence that is the case. But even if they did, I'm not sure how it applies. It's not illegal to be a bigot.
madisonsfinest
02-05-09, 10:57
There is simply too much speculation here. Not enough good information. I would say based on the track record created by the rancher in this case, it would be easy to form an opinion that he was most likely in the wrong. As I have always lived in a city its harder for me to imagine my property going beyond my immediate view. Clearly here this guys property sounds to be pretty vast. I wonder was this confrontation done near his home, or a mile away from his home. Personally If I lived near the border, with all of the problems there, I would probably have a rifle on me when I'm far from home on my property. That being said I don't think that I would point it anyone unless I felt that I was in imminent danger. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be in my hands. Of course I haven't read anything saying that he actually pointed his gun at the 16. Again falling back on the previous case where he is reported as pointing an ar-15 at children, well that seems a little ridiculous. More facts here would be nice. I could not imagine living on the border. Reading about what's going on on the other side of the border, it sounds like it's worse than Iraq or Afghanistan. I read somewhere that it was like the second most deadly place for reporters. Needless to say that I would never visit Mexico to vacation under the current climate there! Just my $.02
This guy has been in the news quite a bit:
Upon finding the group on land he leases for grazing livestock from the Arizona State Land Department,
In the States I've lived in, you can hunt all you want (But you better not be hunting his stock) on state leased grazing land because all they leased out were the grazing rights. Providing it is not closed to hunting by the STATE, but not the leaser. Them trespassing on that land he cannot control, if he only has the grazing rights.
maybe when you live here and everything is getting closed and to dangerous to travel some get sick of it and reach the breaking point !!!
check out this story for the mess they leave behind !!!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354398,00.html#
also read this page
http://www.nps.gov/orpi/planyourvisit/camping.htm
where it says:
Backcountry areas are closed indefinitley to overnight camping due to an increase in illegal border activity.
where are own parks have to be shut down thanks to these illegals !!!
or read this
http://www.nps.gov/orpi/planyourvisit/road-closures.htm
Due to our proximity to the International Boundary with Mexico, some areas near the border are closed for construction and visitor safety concerns.
then read this about the rape trees !
http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/002160.html
but yeah great people we have trashing our land and making it unsafe for me to enjoy the national parks we should give them rights to sue us Americans !!!! I mean how bad of us who want to protect our land from garbage have our parks safe to travel bad Americans
maybe after you see/live this long enough ? you reach a breaking point ? dont know
:confused:
Could be some apples and oranges problems in the first civil case .
What was the citizenship and/or legal status of the victims in the first case?
Not that calling little girls names and pointing a loaded gun at them can be explained away or excused. Unless there is a reasonable and prudent fear of death or serious bodily harm to the gun pointer , even then the racist name-calling is .. unwise. I seem to remember that the jury supported almost all of the items against the defendant.
That guy doesn't make the hero/martyr cut , IMO.
YMMV
Rollin Thunder
02-05-09, 13:31
Does anyone have a link to this?
Who knows if these people were the good, bad or ugly? You have the Mexican drug cartels, smugglers and who knows what else?
Sixteen people walking across my property would be detained.
RT
Jay Cunningham
02-05-09, 13:32
Does anyone have a link to this?
Who knows if these people were the good, bad or ugly? You have the Mexican drug cartels, smugglers and who knows what else?
Sixteen people walking across my property would be detained.
RT
What if they decided not to be detained? What if they all began walking away from you?
Sttrongbow
02-05-09, 13:33
Sixteen people walking across my property would be detained.
RT
What you do if they chose not to be detained?
How do we know that it was his property?
The first incident happened on state range land. that guy had leased the grazing rights , but rules for hunting on the state land are unclear.
Did he lease the graze on the land where the 16 were stopped?:confused:
madisonsfinest
02-05-09, 13:47
All I know is if you have even a few of the 16 armed amongst them, you are going to have one hell of a time living past that one if a firefight goes down. To me its not worth it to confront a group like that out in the open. I would call Law Enforcement. Tell them you think you have some burglars or something rather than illegal immigrants to get a local response if its an option.
I hear the argument about frustration and all, but that will not help you out if you use bad judgement, and find yourself in over your head.
What if they decided not to be detained? What if they all began walking away from you?
let em walk at least they wont get the jump on you !
Jay Cunningham
02-05-09, 14:21
let em walk at least they wont get the jump on you !
Well yeah, I agree. But I am posing this question to the guy who said that they "would be detained"... by what means? Threat of force? Actual use of force?
A plan is a good thing to have, especially when considering confronting 16 unknowns. As someone so astutely pointed out, if even a couple of them are armed you are probably a dead man if you directly confront them. If it is really a gang then they might all be armed - so are you going to engage in a gunfight with 16 dudes?
As I said a long time ago, there are smart ways of doing things.
sounds like he's doing a great service to his country to me. sounds like he has a passion for it- and you cant do anything well without passion. in his passion, perhaps he takes things too far sometimes- we can only speculate. being a private citizen, he's not bound by any department use of force continuum, the constitution, section 1983, etc- so its easy to get a little cowboyish. should be expected- but it wouldnt happen at all if big daddy government would do their job and protect our boarders.
until then, expect this.
sounds like he's doing a great service to his country to me. sounds like he has a passion for it- and you cant do anything well without passion. in his passion, perhaps he takes things too far sometimes- we can only speculate. being a private citizen, he's not bound by any department use of force continuum, the constitution, section 1983, etc- so its easy to get a little cowboyish. should be expected- but it wouldnt happen at all if big daddy government would do their job and protect our boarders.
until then, expect this.
Amen. He's doing what the government refuses to do. Protecting the borders of his country.
Is vigilantism (sp?) so wrong when the government refuses to enforce the law? What right does the government have to refuse to enforce the laws and protect our borders?
Rollin Thunder
02-05-09, 17:49
What you do if they chose not to be detained?
If your looking for an answer like... "well I'd light 'em up" you won't get it from me.
I certainly don't think these were criminals of any type and after all he did detain them.
I certainly don't think these were criminals of any type
By definition, an ILLEGAL alien is a criminal.
Here is some more info on this story. Seems like the Washington Post has alot more background on this.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/09/16-illegals-sue-arizona-rancher/
Here is some more info on this story. Seems like the Washington Post has alot more background on this.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/09/16-illegals-sue-arizona-rancher/
this lawsuit is a terrible injustice.
Thanks I G.
Looks like we as US citizens only have one right left, and that is to pay taxes. Taxes to support the Illegals. It wouldn't hurt for people to read a good book about Vigilante's and see why they did what they did to reclaim their own property. These Vigils held trials for those criminals, they didn't just kill for killing, they had a trial and voted. If they were guilty they were hung right there. Those illegals should feel fortunate they were not hung right there for the crimes they committed.
MarshallDodge
02-09-09, 11:48
Thank you for the link, IG.
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.
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.
Like I said, I might start doing some irrational things if they did that to my property. :mad:
By definition, an ILLEGAL alien is a criminal.
Well Said
shadowalker
02-09-09, 13:48
The more pertinent question is - what if they decide to walk away? "Stop, or I'll shoot!" Can you justify a shoot under these circumstances?
No BUT the vast majority of the time an officer points their firearm at or in the direction or someone they aren't justified to shoot them either, yet. Most the time they re-holster, arrest them and move along.
Even before someone runs, office draws the weapon tells the guy to get out of the car, the BG looks at the office and drives away.
Citizens have the right to make an arrest just like a LEO. In most states they can detain people breaking the law, it is a very risky thing to do due to lawsuit but people do it successfully.
The people on his property were illegal immigrants and were also trespassing. So long as he didn't assault anyone this guy deserves our thanks, his actions have resulted in the arrest of thousands of illegal immigrants. These are people that can be very serious threats to the citizens of our country.
If our government would do its job he wouldn't have been in a situation where he needed to do this.
As the disconnect between government and citizens grows you are going to see FAR more things like this happen. People feel isolated, unrepresented, unfairly taxed and they have had about enough of it. It is going to be a very interesting next few years.
I am waiting to see what happens if he looses ?
then illegals are going to start suing U.S. citizens right and left with the help of POS lawyers who will help them !!!
then when will people snap and say enough is enough ? and what will that snap be !!!!!
this cant loose cause if it does there goes another large piece of our country as it should be !!!!
to the other poster who said we are going to be left with one right ! to pay taxes :) you forgot the right to be sued by illegal people not from this country and other criminals !!!
madisonsfinest
02-09-09, 19:06
Check out this news story. It's not really new information but it illustrates our own role in this whole mess.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090209/ap_on_re_us/border_spillover_violence
There have been running gun fights between occupants of two cars, going down the Interstate between Tucson and Phoenix.
The article just begins to touch on the violence these people have brought to the US.
madisonsfinest
02-09-09, 22:56
The Key is the demand for drugs in the US, and the fact that most of the guns they have, we supplied them
geezerbutler
02-09-09, 23:22
8 USC 1325 & 1324 cover illegal entry and the smuggling or transporting of a person or persons illegally in the United States.
Read here : http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc_sec_08_00001325----000-.html
This happened in Douglas, AZ, the ballsack of America.
I'm just sayin'.
Did I mention there are human feces on the ground every 50 yds. or so? They call them land mines. And yeah they can be fatal.
You slip on one of those puppies and then land on an AIDS/Hep A/b/c/Tb/Cholera tainted syringe discarded by one of the aliens in mesquite bushes that punctures your sclera and severs your optical nerve.
You just bought the farm.
Jury: Rancher did not violate Mexicans' rights
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/17/jury-rancher-did-not-violate-mexicans-rights/
A federal jury on Tuesday afternoon ruled that an Arizona rancher did not violate the civil rights of 16 Mexican nationals he detained at gunpoint after they had snuck illegally into the United States in 2004, but the jury awarded $78,000 in actual and punitive damages to six of the illegal immigrants on claims of assault and infliction of emotional distress.
After a nine-day trial, the eight-person jury -- four men and four women -- returned the verdict in U.S. District Court in Tucson, Ariz., after a day and a half of deliberation, also tossing charges of false imprisonment, battery and conspiracy against Douglas, Ariz., rancher Roger Barnett. Most of the award, about $60,000, was for punitive damages.
Mr. Barnett's attorney, David T. Hardy of Tucson, described the decision as an "80 percent victory," adding that he wished he and his client "would have gotten the other 20 percent." But he said he would appeal the decision, citing what he called "solid grounds." He also said U.S. District Judge John M. Roll had been "scrupulously fair" during the landmark trial.
Mr. Barnett owns the Cross Rail Ranch near Douglas, Ariz., where he maintains cattle on 22,000 acres of private and leased land. A $32 million lawsuit, brought by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), sought damages for civil rights violations and the infliction of emotional distress. It also accuses Mr. Barnett of assault, battery and false imprisonment.
Also named were Mr. Barnett's wife, Barbara, and his brother, Donald, although the jury dismissed the allegations against both the wife and the brother.
The trial was based on a March 7, 2004, incident in which Mr. Barnett approached a group of illegal immigrants while carrying a gun and accompanied by his dog.
variablebinary
02-17-09, 18:49
Jury: Rancher did not violate Mexicans' rights
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/17/jury-rancher-did-not-violate-mexicans-rights/
A federal jury on Tuesday afternoon ruled that an Arizona rancher did not violate the civil rights of 16 Mexican nationals he detained at gunpoint after they had snuck illegally into the United States in 2004, but the jury awarded $78,000 in actual and punitive damages to six of the illegal immigrants on claims of assault and infliction of emotional distress.
After a nine-day trial, the eight-person jury -- four men and four women -- returned the verdict in U.S. District Court in Tucson, Ariz., after a day and a half of deliberation, also tossing charges of false imprisonment, battery and conspiracy against Douglas, Ariz., rancher Roger Barnett. Most of the award, about $60,000, was for punitive damages.
Mr. Barnett's attorney, David T. Hardy of Tucson, described the decision as an "80 percent victory," adding that he wished he and his client "would have gotten the other 20 percent." But he said he would appeal the decision, citing what he called "solid grounds." He also said U.S. District Judge John M. Roll had been "scrupulously fair" during the landmark trial.
Mr. Barnett owns the Cross Rail Ranch near Douglas, Ariz., where he maintains cattle on 22,000 acres of private and leased land. A $32 million lawsuit, brought by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), sought damages for civil rights violations and the infliction of emotional distress. It also accuses Mr. Barnett of assault, battery and false imprisonment.
Also named were Mr. Barnett's wife, Barbara, and his brother, Donald, although the jury dismissed the allegations against both the wife and the brother.
The trial was based on a March 7, 2004, incident in which Mr. Barnett approached a group of illegal immigrants while carrying a gun and accompanied by his dog.
That works for me. Justice is mostly served. The illegals should have got paid zero. They have no business in the USA period
was just reading this !!!
still pisses me off any illegal can do this to a citizen
I hope these scumbag lawyers get whats coming to them one day by one of the illegals that are so bad here
they say some %50 or more of violent crimes are by illegals now in Phoenix !!!
that will be justice for them !!!!!!
here is the phoenix papers article this of course is from a left wing paper so you know :) their angle
TUCSON — A federal jury found Tuesday that a southern Arizona rancher didn't violate the civil rights of a group of illegal immigrants who claimed that he detained them at gunpoint in 2004.
The eight-member civil jury also found Roger Barnett wasn't liable on claims of battery and false imprisonment.
But the jury did find him liable on four claims of assault and four claims of infliction of emotional distress and ordered Barnett to pay $77,804 in damages — $60,000 of which were punitive.
Barnett declined to comment afterward, but one of his attorneys, David Hardy, said the plaintiffs lost on the bulk of their claims and that Barnett has a good basis for appeal on the two counts on which he lost.
“They won a fraction of the damages they were seeking,” Hardy said.
All six plaintiffs are citizens of Mexico, five of whom are living in the United States with visa applications pending, and the sixth resides in Mexico but was allowed into the U.S. for the trial, said Nina Perales, an attorney with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. She declined to say where in the U.S. they're residing.
Perales called the outcome “a resounding victory that sends a message that vigilante violence against immigrants will not be tolerated.”
David Urias, attorney for the plaintiffs, said, “Obviously we are disappointed with some aspects of the verdict. But I think that overall this was a victory for the plaintiffs.”
For years, Arizona has been the busiest point along the Mexican border for illegal immigrants entering the United States.
For more than a decade, Barnett has been a controversial figure in southern Arizona. He's known for aggressively patrolling his ranch property and along highways and roads in the area, often with his wife and brothers, on the lookout for illegal immigrants.
The plaintiffs alleged that Barnett threatened them with his dog and told them he would shoot anyone who tried to escape.
Barnett's lawyers argued that his land was inundated with illegal immigrants who left trash on his property, damaged his water supply and harmed his cattle.
Barnett's wife and a brother were dismissed as defendants; in addition, another 10 people initially named as plaintiffs were dropped from the proceedings.
Barnett has been known to wear a holstered 9-mm pistol on his hip and upon coming across groups of migrants, to flash a blue and gold badge resembling that of the highway patrol, with the wording “Barnett Ranch Patrol. Cochise County. State of Arizona.”
The Barnetts detain and turn over those whom they encounter to the U.S. Border Patrol. In 2006, Barnett estimated that he had detained more than 10,000 illegal immigrants in 10 years.
His actions have resulted in formal complaints from the Mexican government against what it considers vigilante actions, and in several other lawsuits, including one stemming from an October 2004 incident.
In that case, a jury awarded a family of Mexican-Americans on a hunting trip $100,000 in damages, later upheld by the Arizona Supreme Court.
Barnett's 22,000-acre ranch, about five miles north of the Mexican border, includes private and federal lease holdings in addition to nearly 14,000 acres of state-leased land.
hillmillenia
02-17-09, 21:38
They're ILLEGALS! commiting a crime by entering a foriegn country without a visa. I understand they're on his land. Not only would I hold 'em at gun point, I'd hog tie 'em and gag them and call the border patrol. This is getting to be bullshit. We are being invaded and the Gov does nothing about it.:mad:
They're ILLEGALS! commiting a crime by entering a foriegn country without a visa. I understand they're on his land. Not only would I hold 'em at gun point, I'd hog tie 'em and gag them and call the border patrol. This is getting to be bullshit. We are being invaded and the Gov does nothing about it.:mad:
yup scary isnt it !!!!!
variablebinary
02-18-09, 00:11
They're ILLEGALS! commiting a crime by entering a foriegn country without a visa. I understand they're on his land. Not only would I hold 'em at gun point, I'd hog tie 'em and gag them and call the border patrol. This is getting to be bullshit. We are being invaded and the Gov does nothing about it.:mad:
Damned if you do, damned if you dont. I dont envy the border states at all.
It's terrible to see that path that this country is going down. Socialism being forced down our throats veiled as a bail out and citizens of this country being victimized by ILLEGAL criminals while our country sits on its' hands and does nothing.
OldNavyGuy
02-18-09, 08:10
against the illegals.
how many of you will come to the aid of a fellow poster who lives near the border who will take a stand against these criminals ?
personally i have been preparing for a fight on my own land for the past 3-4 years simply because as stated above, the .gov will do NOTHING to stop the illegal aliens, and being less than 100 miles from Mexico, i see and hear things most Americans never get wind of because the liberal media is hiding the truth from you, and our local N.P.s are nothing but Hussein Obama parrots, in fact one of our N.P.s is going under next month because they went from a fairly conservative view point to an extremist liberal rag whose editor run the paper into the pits of liberal hell.
ONG,
I moved from California to Arizona about 6 months ago. Both states have been impacted by illegals as has the whole country. If I were back home and I was needed by one of my statesman I would do what I could to help. However, as we see in this case doing the right thing, will probably be the wrong thing to do.
Medicine Calf
02-18-09, 11:19
It's terrible to see that path that this country is going down. Socialism being forced down our throats veiled as a bail out and citizens of this country being victimized by ILLEGAL criminals while our country sits on its' hands and does nothing.
And their American lawyers.
hillmillenia
02-18-09, 13:51
against the illegals.
how many of you will come to the aid of a fellow poster who lives near the border who will take a stand against these criminals ?
personally i have been preparing for a fight on my own land for the past 3-4 years simply because as stated above, the .gov will do NOTHING to stop the illegal aliens, and being less than 100 miles from Mexico, i see and hear things most Americans never get wind of because the liberal media is hiding the truth from you, and our local N.P.s are nothing but Hussein Obama parrots, in fact one of our N.P.s is going under next month because they went from a fairly conservative view point to an extremist liberal rag whose editor run the paper into the pits of liberal hell.
Yeah but you can bet the Gov will do something to you if you start poppin' 'em. And going to help this guy was my first inclination when I saw the news article. I probably can't get time off work for constitutional defense. But it's bound to get mighty ugly before long.:mad:
citizens of this country being victimized by ILLEGAL criminals while our country sits on its' hands and does nothing.
well I would say they are not doing anything :) they are prosecuting you for violating the illegal aliens/criminals civil rights !!!!
how dare you protect your land/family and life from criminals form another country who are here illegally !
Rome falls about 500 AD
Mayan about 900-1000 AD
England starts to loose all their colonial control a few hundred years ago
the U.S. 2010 ?
Yeah but you can bet the Gov will do something to you if you start poppin' 'em. And going to help this guy was my first inclination when I saw the news article. I probably can't get time off work for constitutional defense. But it's bound to get mighty ugly before long.:mad:
sadly this is what I see happening its easier to pick on honest law abiding folks over criminals !!!!
and I then see a breaking point when we honest ones have had enough !!!!!!
I do wonder if there will be more dead bodies found in the desert though ?
Jay Cunningham
02-18-09, 16:27
and I then see a breaking point when we honest ones have had enough !!!!!!
I do wonder if there will be more dead bodies found in the desert though ?
What do you mean by this statement?
hillmillenia
02-19-09, 09:13
What do you mean by this statement?
Check the news, they have been finding bodies on the Mexican side in the desert. Lot of violence down there and it's moving this way...:rolleyes:
What do you mean by this statement?
will clarify :) sorry about that :)
first ditto the above this goes two ways
the bad guys south of the border are killing people in alarming rates !!!
and how much is going to spill over to our country
and when they do will people move or fight back against these thugs !!!!
so my main part is them bringing the violence and problems from the south up to us !!!!!!
also will these cartels then meet ranchers and decide I am not going to be detained and kill them !
one other part is the people who try to report on these crimes are getting killed at a alarming rate anyone who tries to turn in these criminals ends up dead !!!
I would worry about being killed for turning anyone in cause if its a cartel guy they might come back in force !!!!
so the second part ties in below
with the increasing drug traffickers and the bad guys coming over the border more and more packing guns and the drug cartels that are moving in to border towns on the US side
since these are bad guys with guns I wonder if they will start coming over the border looking for a way to sue ranchers and American citizens by confronting them ?
so there will be more confrontations now since instead of running from people they might think HEY I can make a buck these days and sue them !!!!!!
I meant many of the ranchers and others who live on the border ?
wonder if they have run ins what is going to happen ? and if they meet resistance with these armed thugs looking to sue what the outcome will be !!!!
so I guess to sum it up now they know they can confront people and sue and bad guys thinking here is a way to make money but we better arm ourselves ! did the outcome of this trial just put our citizens and border folks at a much much higher risk of having confrontations with bad guys out to make a buck !!!!
I was not saying the ranchers are going to kill unarmed illegals these guys are good people on the border who have ranches I just fear more hard criminals are going to come and try to sue them and maybe try to intimidate them with force to react more since its a easy cash they will think and we know these types are armed and might start to pick fights !!!!
I dont write well :) so hope this kinda makes sense what I was thinking :)
Hono,
I do think you bring up a valid point. Aside from the deaths that are occurring there is a good chance that the next time a citizen has a run in with a small group they may taunt or antagonize that person knowing that they can sue in court, thereby prompting action from the property owner. Especially when one faces a 36 million dollar lawsuit which could cost them everything they own.
FWIW:
Part of the process might be fine-tuning tactics so good people don't get crucified in court. That's tactics on the ground and tactics in court. Part of the drill is being smarter than illegal invaders , crooked lawyers , and dumb judges.
This rancher is on the hook for how much from the two cases?
Some where around $160,000, not counting his defense lawyer bills ?
IIRC , it's not over yet, he has appeals going-- but the lawyer meter is still ticking.
The good guys have got to get better at CYA. That's only part of fix , but it's a important part.
CNN is reporting that it is our fault!
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/02/18/mexico.drug.violence/index.html?iref=newssearch
Drug violence spins Mexico toward 'civil war'
By Arthur Brice
CNN
(CNN) -- A shootout in a border city that leaves five alleged drug traffickers sprawled dead on the street and seven police wounded. A police chief and his bodyguards gunned down outside his house in another border city. Four bridges into the United States shut down by protesters who want the military out of their towns and who officials say are backed by narcotraffickers.
That was Mexico on Tuesday.
What is most remarkable is that it was not much different from Monday or Sunday or any day in the past few years.
Mexico, a country with a nearly 2,000-mile border with the United States, is undergoing a horrifying wave of violence that some are likening to a civil war. Drug traffickers battle fiercely with each other and Mexican authorities. The homicide rate reached a record level in 2008 and indications are that the carnage could be exceeded this year. VideoWatch a reporter duck to avoid gunfire »
Every day, newspapers and the airwaves are filled with stories and images of beheadings and other gruesome killings. Wednesday's front page on Mexico City's La Prensa carried a large banner headline that simply said "Hysteria!" The entire page was devoted to photos of bloody bodies and grim-faced soldiers. One photo shows a man with two young children walking across a street with an army vehicle in the background, with a soldier standing at a turret machine gun.
Larry Birns, director of the Washington-based Council on Hemispheric Affairs, calls it "a sickening vertigo into chaos and plunder."
By most accounts, that's not hyperbole.
"The grisly portrait of the violence is unprecedented and horrific," said Robert Pastor, a Latin America national security adviser for President Jimmy Carter in the late 1970s.
"I don't think there's any question that Mexico is going through a very rough time. Not only is there violence with the gangs, but the entire population is very scared," said Peter Hakim, president of the Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington-based policy center.
Speaking on a news show a few weeks ago, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich called it a civil war. Birns agrees.
"Of course it's a civil war, but that only touches the violence of it," he said Wednesday. "It's also a civic conflict, as an increasing number of people look upon the law and democratic values as something that can be violated."
Hakim is not prepared to go that far.
"One has to be careful and not overdo it," he said. "Mexico is a long way from being a failed state. Mexico has real institutions. It paves roads and collects the garbage. It holds regular elections."
Enrique Bravo, an analyst with the Eurasia consulting group, points out that the violence so far is mostly affecting just drug gangs and is primarily localized along the U.S. border and Mexico's western coast.
The violence along the border is particularly worrisome, analysts say.
"The spillover into the United States is bound to expand and bound to affect U.S. institutions," Birns said.
Pastor and Hakim note that the United States helps fuel the violence, not only by providing a ready market for illegal drugs, but also by supplying the vast majority of weapons used by drug gangs.
Pastor says there are at least 6,600 U.S. gun shops within 100 miles of the Mexican border and more than 90 percent of weapons in Mexico come from the United States.
And it's not just handguns. Drug traffickers used a bazooka in Tuesday's shootout with federal police and army soldiers in Reynosa, Mexico, across the border from McAllen, Texas.
"The drug gangs are better equipped than the army," Hakim said.
Pervasive corruption among public officials is central to the drug cartels' success.
"There is so much money involved in the drug trade, there is so much fear involved in the drug trade, that no institution can survive unaffected," Birns said.
"This has really revealed just how corrupt Mexican officeholders are," Hakim said.
In one recent instance, Noe Ramirez Mandujano, who was the nation's top anti-drug official from 2006 until August 2008, was arrested on charges that he accepted $450,000 a month in bribes from drug traffickers while in office.
Such dire problems call for a new way of looking at the situation, some say.
"The unthinkable is happening," Birns said. "People are beginning to discuss decriminalization and legalization. ... There's only one thing that can be done: Take the profit out of it."
Pastor calls the problem in Mexico "even worse than Chicago during the Prohibition era" and said a solution similar to what ended that violence is needed now.
"What worked in the U.S. was not Eliot Ness," he said, referring to the federal agent famous for fighting gangsters in 1920s and '30s. "It was the repeal of Prohibition."
That viewpoint has picked up some high-level support in Latin America.
Last week, the former presidents of Mexico, Colombia and Brazil called for the decriminalization of marijuana for personal use and a change in strategy on the war on drugs at a meeting in Brazil of the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy.
"The problem is that current policies are based on prejudices and fears and not on results," former Colombian President Cesar Gaviria said at a news conference, in which the 17-member commission's recommendations were presented.
Mexican President Felipe Calderon has taken the war on drugs to the cartels and some say it's not working.
"It's as if the burden of being the main arena of the anti-drug war has overwhelmed Mexican institutions," Birns said. "The occasional anti-drug battle is being won, but the war is being lost. And there's no prospect the war is going to be won."
In the meantime, the killings will continue at a record pace.
On Wednesday, the Mexican cities of Torreon and Gomez Palacio reported at least eight shootouts involving heavily armed men.
The toll: seven dead, seven wounded.
What a shit pot! Their corrupt government has allowed this to spiral out of control and now it is our fault!?
I cannot even begin to rant!!!!
Buckaroo
CNN needs to go belly up !!!!
I love this part
Pastor says there are at least 6,600 U.S. gun shops within 100 miles of the Mexican border and more than 90 percent of weapons in Mexico come from the United States.
And it's not just handguns. Drug traffickers used a bazooka in Tuesday's shootout with federal police and army soldiers in Reynosa, Mexico, across the border from McAllen, Texas.
my local shop has a wall full of bazookas !!!! and ammo for them !!!!!
I think there are a few U.S. guns for sure but a lot more from the Mexican army !!!
losbronces
02-19-09, 22:50
CNN needs to go belly up !!!!
I love this part
Pastor says there are at least 6,600 U.S. gun shops within 100 miles of the Mexican border and more than 90 percent of weapons in Mexico come from the United States.
And it's not just handguns. Drug traffickers used a bazooka in Tuesday's shootout with federal police and army soldiers in Reynosa, Mexico, across the border from McAllen, Texas.
my local shop has a wall full of bazookas !!!! and ammo for them !!!!!
I think there are a few U.S. guns for sure but a lot more from the Mexican army !!!
I keep seeing the claims about most of the guns coming from the U.S., but I have not seen any proof. FARC, Sendero Luminoso (yes they are back), and others are very well armed and their weapons did not come from the U.S. I think the Mexican drug lords can access the same sources, not to mention the Mexican millitary and police as sources for weapons.
Its called institutionalized corruption for a reason.
Yeah, if you seek out 16 then you'd better have a gun. I prefer the avoidance thing, generally speaking unless I don't have a better choice.
I'm not avoiding a damn thing on my own land, nor do I have to. That's not a knock on you, but just pointing something out that should be obvious.
Not politically correct ---BUT WHO GIVES A '_ _ _!'
A Mexican, a Black, and a Texas Redneck were walking together on a beach
when the Black stumbled over a bottle in the sand. He picked up the bottle,
rubbed the sand off it, and a Genie appeared.
"I can only grant three wishes," the Genie said. "Since there are three of
you, you may have a wish apiece." Pointing at the Black, he said, "Since
you found the bottle, you may have the first wish."
The Black studied for a moment then said, "I wish for a fleet of ships so
that I can gather all my people and take them back to our homeland, Africa ."
Poof! It was done! Hundreds of ships appeared on the skyline.
The Mexican said, "I weesh for enough Cheby peekups to take all my people
back to our homeland, May-he-co!"
Poof! It was done! Row after row of Chevrolet Pickups appeared on the
beach.
Turning to the Redneck, the Genie asked, "And what is your wish?"
The Redneck watched as the loaded pickups began moving toward the border,
then looked out to sea and watched the loaded ships sailing off into the
sunset and said,
"Just give me a Bud Light. It doesn't get any better than this!"
Jay Cunningham
03-01-09, 10:47
This thread has more than run its course.
For those of you who are the most vocal, you might want to read some of your own posts sometimes - then perhaps that will clue you in to why you are often not taken more seriously by the nation as a whole.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.