Supreme Court Upholds Verdict Against “Vigilante” Rancher

 “The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a 2009 ruling against Cochise County rancher [and Minuteman founding member] Roger Barnett [above left], forcing him to pay about $87,000 in damages related to his assault of illegal immigrants on his ranch in 2004,” azstarnet.com reports. “The 2004 incident occurred close to a wash near Douglas when Barnett approached a group of 16 illegal immigrants while he was carrying a gun and accompanied by a large dog. Attorneys for the plaintiffs — five women and 11 men who had crossed into the U.S. illegally — say that Barnett held the group captive at gunpoint, threatening that his dog would attack and that he would shoot anyone who tried to escape.” The court did not address the issue of how a dog could shoot anyone. Anyway . . .

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund applauded the ruling against the “vigilante” rancher in a news release.

“Roger Barnett can hide no more behind his frivolous appeal,” said Marisa Bono of the organization. “It is time for Barnett to pay the victims for his deplorable actions.”

Barnett’s legal team say he is no vigilante and was only acting in self-defense on that 2004 day. They say Barnett pulled his gun because he was alone and didn’t know whether the group were armed drug smugglers. Once he realized they weren’t, he dropped his gun and called the Border Patrol.

Who proceeded to arrest him. Unlike all the times before:

Barnett has said he’s detained thousands of border crossers on property he owns or leases near Douglas in the last decade, and then turning them over to Border Patrol officials.

Not any more, though.

comments

  1. avatar Aharon says:

    Illegal Aliens caught by an American Rancher on his private property, that he and his gunner dog did not harm with the illegals turned over to the Border Patrol, got himself arrested and fined $87,000 in damages? Who or what got damaged? Besides himself who can seriously claim being victimized? I can imagine how the three feminists on the SC voted on this issue.

    1. avatar Adam says:

      He was holding them captive – “illegal” immigrants or not you cannot hold people against their will. He had no right to keep them hostage and threaten their lives.

      1. avatar Gunnutmegger says:

        Last time I checked, trespassing was still a crime.

        1. avatar Adam says:

          So is false imprisonment.

        2. avatar RickP says:

          And 15 against 1 is disparity of force.

        3. avatar Adam says:

          Unless they are threatening, or actively harming you, disparity of force is not valid.

        4. avatar GS650G says:

          Obviously Adam doesn’t live in a place where this is an issue for him, he clearly relies on 911,

        5. avatar GS650G says:

          Yeah, I guess he should have waited until they tried to kill him and then use all force available, provided he was still alive.

          Arm chair monday morning quarterbacking at it’s finest.
          I take it you don;t live in situations where these decisions come up regularly, you seem more like an Open Border type to me.

        6. avatar Aharon says:

          I thought it was ok for citizens to hold law breakers until the police arrived. Isn’t it against the law for illegal aliens to cross our borders? Isn’t it against the law for them to be on the rancher’s property? Are you an attorney to define False Imprisonment?

          Did he threaten to kill them all or any of them? I understood that he lowered his gun when he realized they were not armed. Why didn’t the border patrol not arrest or warn him on previous occasions?

        7. avatar Leo Atrox says:

          It depends on state and local laws. Some states do permit citizens to detain criminals by force, and some do not. That being the case, this was probably a matter for Texas, not the US government. The SCOTUS took this case as a “civil rights” issue, and it has effectively nullified statutes that permit citizen arrest accross the country. Now no private citizen has the right to detain a person, caught in the act of a crime, by force or threat of force, even on private property. Hooray for criminals.

        8. avatar Leo Atrox says:

          Misread the ruling … The SCOTUS did not take this on as a civil rights issue. Barnett was found not guilty of civil rights violations (including false imprisonment) at the local level.

      2. avatar Leo Atrox says:

        The verdict against Barnett was for assault and infliction of emotional distress, not for holding the immigrants until authorities arrived. He was found NOT GUILTY of violating their civil rights, and consequently found not liable for battery and false imprisonment.

        1. avatar Adam says:

          @Leo Atrox

          So I was wrong about him holding them captive as being the reason for the guilty verdict. Actually your information makes my point even more succinct. Even though holding people (even alleged criminals) captive is a bad idea.

          Mr. Barnett was found guilty of assault. Criminal or not you can’t assault people simply because you feel like it.

          So not we just wait for people to come around and say “it’s ok to assault them because their immigrants”.

  2. avatar Robert says:

    I see no issue with this man defending his property. He should only have been penalized if he indiscriminately fired on the crowd. As it is, there is no reason that the illegal immigrants trespassing on both his land and US soil should be protected.

    1. avatar Adam says:

      @Robert

      “illegal immigrants trespassing on both his land and US soil should be protected.”

      I’ll give you trespassing on his land… but trespassing on US soil?


      Give me your tired, your poor,
      Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
      The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
      Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
      I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

      Where do people get the self-righteous attitude that they somehow hold a privileged place and are the only ones “allowed” in the US?

      Get over yourself – we’re all immigrants.

      In any case – regardless of the threat he may have perceived you cannot hold someone(s) captive against their will; regardless of how wholesome you think your intentions. Barnett got what he deserved… probably less than.

      1. avatar Gabriel says:

        You should read the rest of the poem some time. I have no issue with legal immigrants. My great-great grandmother was one.

        1. avatar Adam says:

          Here is the whole thing:


          Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
          With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
          Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
          A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
          Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
          Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
          Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
          The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
          “Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
          With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
          Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
          The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
          Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
          I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

        2. avatar Adam says:

          @Gabriel

          I’m not sure what you mean “read the rest of the poem”.

          ?

        3. avatar Gabriel says:

          America was meant to be a beacon and an example, a place where people who follow the rules can get ahead and have a better life.

        4. avatar GS650G says:

          And they can do so legally by applying for visa at the embassy in the country they live in. God bless America.

      2. avatar Ralph says:

        Adam, we are all immigrants, but none of us or our parents, grandparents, etc. sneaked across the border. They came legally, unlike this new wave of “immigrants.”

        1. avatar Nate says:

          What a load of crap. For one thing, the US didn’t even have any laws on the books relating to immigration before 1875. There were not any serious immigration related laws on the books until the early 1920s. It’s just a little bit disingenuous to say that you’re immigrant forebearers didn’t break any laws. There probably weren’t any laws for them to break.

          Not to mention the logistical difficulties of sneaking into the United States from Hungary in a day before commercial air travel. What are you going to do? Stow away on a boat and hope you survive the transit? Swim the Atlantic? Oh, wait, you don’t have to. The US is accepting pretty much everyone provided they’re not spreading TB around. At least before we started discriminating against Eastern and Southern Europeans.

          Your current anti-immigrant sentiment is no different from the sentiments that existed amongst old-stock Americans during the earlier part of the 20th century. You are wary of people with different cultures and belief systems. You’re afraid that their numbers will grow and they’ll eventually undermine your ethnic group’s influence in society.

        2. avatar Ralph says:

          My ethnic group has no influence. Neither does yours, Nate, unless idiots have become an important demographic.

      3. avatar Aharon says:

        Are you drawing your rationale for prosecuting him from a poem?

        1. avatar Adam says:

          No. Read my comment – I was responding (via the poem) to the notion that someone could trespass on US soil.

        2. avatar Jack Sparrow says:

          Except that your poem is just that – a poem, not a US law.

        3. avatar Adam says:

          @Jack Sparrow

          Bla.

          I was pointing out that we have this high and mighty attitude about equality, land of the free, etc. We celibate our freedom and prosperity while denying it to others on the guise of “security”.

        4. avatar Jack Sparrow says:

          Except that we don’t. Taking in everyone is a foolish idea – which is why we used to check to see if people had useful skills before allowing them to enter the country. We already have plenty of poor, uneducated, unskilled people in this country – we don’t need to import any more.

        5. avatar Ralph says:

          We celibate our freedom

          I certainly hope not.

      4. avatar Jack Sparrow says:

        “Give me your tired, your poor,
        Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
        The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
        Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
        I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

        You DO know that the poem is just a bunch of words written by some guy – it’s NOT a law or any part of the US Constitution, right?

        There’s a difference between LEGAL and ILLEGAL immigrants.

        1. avatar Adam says:

          @Jack Sparrow

          Dude, at least have the self respect to do a little research before opening your mouth.

          Emma Lazarus (a woman) wrote “The New Colossus”.

  3. avatar Adam says:

    @Robert

    “there is no reason that the illegal immigrants trespassing on both his land and US soil should be protected”

    Your logic is discussing. Because they are immigrants they do not deserve the same protection and right you demand for yourself? Immigrants do not deserve to be treated like humans?

    People like you, your type of racist, discriminatory thinking, make me ashamed of this country.

    1. avatar Todd S says:

      Troll much?

      1. avatar Adam says:

        @Todd S

        I lambaste someone for obviously racist, discriminatory thinking, who advocates treating a group of people as sub-humans and you call me a troll?

        If calling bastards like that out makes me a troll them so be it.

        1. avatar Gunnutmegger says:

          Illegal immigrants are criminals.

        2. avatar Wade says:

          What was racist about that? And how was he referring to them as ‘sub-human’?

        3. avatar Adam says:

          @Wade”there is no reason that the illegal immigrants trespassing on both his land and US soil should be protected”Because they are “illegal”, come from a different place, look different, speak different, they don’t deserve protection?

          That is racist.

        4. avatar Wade says:

          NOBODY CARES WHAT COLOR THEY ARE! So stop pretending as though we are crucifying them because of the color of their skin.

        5. avatar Nate says:

          Another load of crap. If these were English-speaking Canadian professionals, no one would care about them “sneaking across the border” and “breaking out laws”.

        6. avatar Gunnutmegger says:

          Uh, guess again, pal.

          Those damned canucks need to stay the hell out of America.

        7. avatar Luc says:

          Pull your head out of imagination land & think (research) before your reply.

          If you’re Canadian & you’re profession is not on this list prepare to be treated like total garbage by US immigration officials.

          http://www.u-s-a-immigration.com/INS/NAFTA_Professional_Job_Series_List.htm

          Example. My boss has owned a business in California for over a year & a half & was not able to get a work visa until just recently. She wasn’t legally allowed to work at her own company, that she started because she’d be “taking American jobs”. Every Immigration official she had to deal with had different requirements that needed to be met in order to get a Visa, one official would say one thing & another would say another. After spending a long time at immigration offices, being yelled at & treated like garbage she hired an immigration lawyer, got everything straightened out (since immigration officials couldn’t provide her with the correct info) & finally got a work Visa for her own damn business. I have many other coworkers/friends/family who have all experienced the same & every single one of them has said that immigration officials are unprofessional, don’t know their own damn laws, & think that Canadians are all just trying to usurp America.

          More & more Canadian businesses turn away from America & look sell/invest in places like China, India, Brazil, etc. America is Canada’s largest trading partner but that’s changing, in part because of the American economy but also because other countries want Canadian business, they invite Canadian business into their countries & try to build strong bonds with them. America isn’t doing that much anymore, in the name protectionism America is burning its bridges.

        8. avatar reaganmarine84 says:

          Adam. what part of “illegal” do you not understand?? and,No,they don’t have the same protections and benefits of an actual “citizen”. Where in any of our replys has anyone mentioned anything about someones ‘race’??? Lawbreakers come in all sizes,colors,ages,sexes etc. We are a nation of laws,not of men. I’m guessing by your postings you seem to me to be a “everyone is a citizen of the world” type of progressive mentality, that doesn’t believe in borders. Also clued by the fact that when you simply describe them as being ‘immigrants’ without using the word “illegal”. Like it or not even felonious ‘citizen’ criminals of this country don’t have the same rights as those of us who obey the law. Felons who are incarcerated cannot vote. They gave up that right when they decided to break the law. Felons cannot own firearms. Again,they gave up that right when they decided at some point to break the law. They didn’t have to break the law, they decided to own their own volition;and there are certain penalties and consequences that come with that decision. So,again,No; illegal,non-documented blah,blah,blah don’t deserve the same privileges that actual citizens or those who have become ‘legal citizens’ have.

    2. avatar scott says:

      Why does everyone assume it’s gotta be a race thing? If Sweden was to the south and the Swede’s kept muling drugs and illegally migrating across the border- I’d want it stopped.

      1. avatar RickP says:

        “Why does everyone assume it’s gotta be a race thing?”

        Because left leaning trolls always do. When they start to lose arguments, the next thing to come out of their mouth is you’re a)racist ,b) sexist, c) homophobe, d) all of the above.

    3. avatar Philip says:

      “Because they are immigrants they do not deserve the same protection and right you demand for yourself?”

      it is the same protection and rights that i demand of everyone else, including myself. if i was trespassing on someone’s property, i would fully expect the possibility of being shot at. it comes with the territory when you break the law

    4. avatar GS650G says:

      Because they are law breaking invaders. Ellis Island this aint

  4. avatar HAVEGUN says:

    “People like you, your type of racist, discriminatory thinking, make me ashamed of this country.”

    I also don’t like that type of thinking.

    Where I live if I confront a trespasser on my property, or anywhere else last thing is legal status would concern me. The issue should be, as always, is that person an immediate danger.

    Fustrated or not, act according to the law.

  5. avatar oneleg says:

    THIS WAS DECIDED BY THE 9TH CIRCUIT IN FEBRUARY. APPEAL PENDING, AS FAR AS I CAN DETERMINE.poor vision reason for caps.

  6. avatar Turner says:

    @Adam

    I think all should be afforded some basic rights and protection, but don’t try to say they and us are the same. They were here illegally, and my family came here through the right channels.

    None of us were there, nor could any of us know truly what happened out here. I know my ranch in Texas has been vandalized and broken in to by “individuals passing through of hispanic nature” several times. Most the time they are just looking for protection from the heat/cold, food, and water. However, if I encountered a large group on my own I can’t say I wouldn’t be intimidated.

    Yes, Mr. Barnett should’ve probably just called in their location and just observed from a safe distance, but how on earth does his actions translate into $87K in damages???

    Another thing is unless there is something I’m missing here. If you find someone breaking into your home/property shouldn’t you have the right to detain that said person for the police? I mean lesson learned, but still…really?

    1. avatar Adam says:

      @Turner

      “but don’t try to say they and us are the same…”

      Since they look different than you and come from a place your not from then they are not human and it’s ok to treat them like animals? Do I have your logic right?

      “but how on earth does his actions translate into $87K in damages???”

      This is America and money good or bad money is justice. $87k seems rather cheap to me. Mr. Barnett should be spending some time behind bars.

      “If you find someone breaking into your home/property shouldn’t you have the right to detain that said person for the police?”

      You certainly can but as you can see, it can open up legal issues. Because of this it’s almost never advised to try to detain someone for any reason. It’s the same reason most stores refuse to detain shop lifters.

      1. avatar Gunnutmegger says:

        Turner = U.S. citizen (I presume)

        Illegal immigrant = criminal

        All clear now, Adam?

        1. avatar Adam says:

          @Gunnutmegger

          Your point?

          Mr. Barnett held several people against their will and treated them (assuming what were told is true here). Just because the people were “illegal” immigrants does not make that OK.

          That’s all I’m really saying. That and don’t be a racist discriminatory scumbag.

        2. avatar Gunnutmegger says:

          A citizen has no obligation to submit to, or even consider, the will of a criminal.

          Those who break the law do so at their own peril.

          If those borderjumpers didn’t want to be detained, they had every opportunity to stay home and avoid the situation entirely.

          Maybe if they spent the time and money and effort they used to sneak into our country on affecting change in their own country, they wouldn’t have to come here at all.

      2. avatar Wade says:

        It doesn’t matter if they are black, brown, yellow, white, blue, orange, whatever! Nobody here does, either. The point is that they have no regard for the law, and if they did, they would come here LEGALLY. I have no problem with emigrants, my great x 7 grandmother came here legally from Ireland in the 1840s, and raised one of the greatest American lawmen around. I welcome emigrants with open arms, when they learn our language and obey our laws.

        1. avatar Adam says:

          @Wade

          “It doesn’t matter if they are black, brown, yellow, white, blue, orange, whatever! Nobody here does, either.”

          Read what Ordine Nuovo wrote a few post down. You may speak for yourself but for others here it is clearly about the color one’s skin.

  7. avatar Ordine Nuovo says:

    @AdamThat poem you quote is by (private citizen) Emma Lazarus. She was not a director of any kind of immigration policy. Sentimental it is, but authoritative it is not. Emma was one of many kosher open-borders advocates. Her co-ethnics helped open the doors to non-Whites with the 1965 immigration act.America was a proposition nation–for Europeans only. A view held by several Founders and other key American statesmen. For a full description enjoy the following essays :http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2011/08/what_is_white_n.php

    http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/books-immigration.html

  8. avatar Ordine Nuovo says:

    http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/books-immigration.html

    http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2011/08/what_is_white_n.php

    Taylor and MacDonald read back to back provide profound insights into American immigration issues.

    1. avatar Adam says:

      @Ordine Nuovo

      Be that as it may – if we are not going to stand by those words and then we should remove them. Perhaps in their place we put a plaque that says:

      “FUCK YOU! IF YOU DON’T LOOK OR TALK LIKE US STAY THE FUCK OUT!”

      1. avatar Jack Sparrow says:

        The words should be removed from the Statue of Liberty. They should be replaced with something along the lines of “Give me your skilled and hardworking. Give me your educated and productive members of society” etc.

        1. avatar Adam says:

          @Jack Sparrow

          You know, that’s actually not half bad. The only problem is that some people are coming here to gain skills, work hard, and get an education. Not all but some.

        2. avatar Jack Sparrow says:

          Students obviously wouldn’t be the most educated, but that’s an exceptional circumstance. The view some people have of we should take every uneducated person who’s only skill is sweeping is harmful to society as a whole, because we then end up having to pay higher taxes to subsidize that person.

        3. avatar Gunnutmegger says:

          And some come here to rape, murder, and get drunk & run over taxpaying citizens.

      2. avatar TTACer says:

        “FUCK YOU! IF YOU DON’T LOOK OR TALK LIKE US STAY THE FUCK OUT!”

        You got me there. That is exactly what people who believe in the sovereignty of countries and national security sound like.

  9. avatar Derek says:

    So the DHS refuses to do their job and ICE (probably as directed by the White House) refuses to deport people, when states such as Arizona attempt to step in and do their jobs for them they get sued by the DOJ. Now, when someone performs a citizens arrest of a group of people tresspassing on his property he’s ordered to pay $87,000 in “damages” because these people happened to be illegal immigrants? This is called Justice?

    1. avatar Jack Sparrow says:

      Sadly his punishment would probably be less severe if he’d simply killed them. As I keep telling people, with our current society you’re a moron if you try to do the right thing – because you WILL be punished for it.

  10. avatar Ordine Nuovo says:

    @ Adam

    Sorry, but you can’t justify importing the Third World because of a poem. You can’t justify the slow death of White people with a poem. I like your plaque suggestion. We can have it printed in every language 🙂

    1. avatar Adam says:

      @Ordine Nuovo

      Holy fuck. If your not being sarcastic (and I hope you are) then… holy fuck. I don’t have words.

      1. avatar AaronVan says:

        Hey I heard you like some troll in your troll? Also completely disagree with the SC.

  11. avatar Wade says:

    There is no reason at all to use profanity. You are making yourself look like a neanderthal.

    1. avatar Adam says:

      @Wade

      I’ve not read or otherwise been notified that the proprietors of this site mind profanity. In fact they use it quite often in their posts.

      Complaining about “profanity” makes you look childish.

      1. avatar William says:

        Perhaps, but they also show that they do not need to lace their posts with profanity. If you cannot craft your argument any better than to need that much vulgarity, then hang it up.

        Personally, I like to see someone with false views so worked up that all they have left is four letter words.

        Also, crying wolf and racist every time someone accuses a criminal of a crime and the criminal happens to be any color other than white is just plain ignorant and a pathetic attempt to argue from emotion rather than reason.

        1. avatar Adam says:

          “Also, crying wolf and racist every time someone accuses a criminal of a crime and the criminal happens to be any color other than white is just plain ignorant and a pathetic attempt to argue from emotion rather than reason.”

          I agree but I was not speaking against Mr. Barnett’s actions (other than to say that it was probably not a good idea). I was speaking against racist comments.

          And, words are words. just because you don’t like them does not make them any less valid.

          Fuck.

        2. avatar William says:

          Let me reiterate…

          “If you cannot craft your argument any better than to need that much vulgarity, then hang it up.

          Personally, I like to see someone with false views so worked up that all they have left is four letter words.”

          It’s not a matter of my likes, it is a matter of you being vulgar in some pathetic attempt to be shocking. You sound like you just learned the word “fuck” and get excited and feeling naughty just getting to say it. Makes you sound like a 12 year old talking smack in front of his friends to appear tough.

          Invest in your future. Buy a word-a-day calendar.

        3. avatar Jack Sparrow says:

          While I don’t agree with a lot of Adam’s stuff, he’s got a point on the cussing. Instead of debating the merits of his content, you’re fixated on a couple of words.

          It doesn’t matter what words a person uses as long as they have a good point.

        4. avatar Adam says:

          @William

          Ok, dude – you have nothing to add to the discussion other than to criticize the particular words I use and throw around ad hominems around… and you insinuate that I’m uneducated?

          The only thing you’ve done is criticize the words I use. I may have throw in the word “fuck” here and there but at least it was in context to the topic.

          Let me put it this way:

          If you cannot craft a response that pertains to the topic then hang it up.

        5. avatar William says:

          Testy much…

          If you are allowed to bulldoze your opinions and vulgarities here even when you are being rude and ignoring multiple complaints about your language and you know your opinions are going to cause strife and you are name calling and using false attacks by calling the racist/bigot card…

          …then get off your high horse when someone calls you on it.

          Nice try with the attempt at deflecting my comments with the whole “ad hominem” and recycling my words.

          But simply put, you have added nothing but strife and your obvious fixation with “fuck” as your only go to word to attempt to verbalize your opinion.

          Then you cry and whine when someone else has an opinion about what I consider a pollution of comments.

          @ Jack

          He hasn’t really made much of a point. And I think how people represent themselves does say something about their point and whether or not they are really commenting or just stirring up trash. Calling someone for being rude when they are being rude on purpose against several complaints of such is on topic – at least as much as mewling about racism when the issue is whether or not a criminal of any color should be normalized because of color.

          His point that because they are Hispanic they get to flout the law is what is so very racist. He’s too ignorant of his own position to realize it. Is that enough on topic for you, Jack?

          Also think about his rude behavior. Since calling him on it, he has lightened up everywhere but in this discussion thread. What does that tell you about him?

        6. avatar Adam says:

          @William

          Two people making comments about the words I used hardly constitutes “multiple complaints about [my] language”

          I don’t care if my words offend you. Grown up, get thicker skin. You don’t own this site, your opinion on what words are not ok to use here means nothing.

          Yes, I called people out for obviously racist remarks, veiled but nonetheless racist and derogatory. In the end my opinion about what they said does not matter either. You and I don’t own the site so we don’t get to decide who says what.

          That said, my criticisms at least centered around the topic of the post. I tied my criticisms into the topic at hand. You come out of left field and make completely irrelevant comments about my the words I choose to use. You’ve added noting to the conversation other than to complain about the words I use and insult my intelligence.

        7. avatar Jack Sparrow says:

          Like I said, I don’t agree with what he’s saying and I never said he has a good point. =) Heck, read the comments – he and I disagree very much.

          I’m merely saying that the particular words used to MAKE that point are irrelevant and complaining about “bad” words instead of criticizing their argument isn’t much of a counterpoint.

        8. avatar William says:

          I find it funny that I am told to get a thicker skin. Methinks I am not the most thin skinned one here (pot & kettle time)…

          for Jack

          The words used to make erroneous points about an (in)ability to find racism where it isn’t because those views are far more racist – is to the point. The topic is dealing with criminals defined as those who break the law without regard to skin color or nationality. To call the race card is setting a stage. It points to the reality that people like that argue from emotion and to elicit further emotion and not logic, reason or good sense. I have no respect for that means of making a point.

          That includes the points used in an attempt to make this about race on this topic. Because his points are based in emotional response and not reality is my counterpoint. The method of pointing out the utter lack of foundation for an argument is a polemical response and is intentional. I have always preferred polemics to apologetics.

          Also, I tried to point the additional portion of my response. That is the claiming racism comments are the most racist in tone on this topic.

          All in all, I can empathize with Jack’s points. I think the issue contains the irrational attacks made, but will relent for respect of Jack’s point of view. I respect that where I cannot respect emotionalism masquerading as activism.

  12. avatar Aharon says:

    On one hand there are the PC types crying multiculturalism and open-borders, on the other the hating fascist white-racist nationalist. If it wasn’t for the extremists of both camps, America could be a place where most of us could get along.

  13. avatar Adam says:

    It seems that Barnett does not discriminate. From the linked article:


    In that case, Barnett held a family of Hispanic U.S. citizens at gunpoint, screaming racial slurs at them, and threatened to kill them all, including two girls aged 9 and 11, according to MALDEF.

    1. avatar Derek says:

      Riiiiiight, because they have nooo reason whatsoever to lie. I also like how they threw the girls ages in there for extra emotional outrage.

      And even if he did; so what? He has to pay $87,000 for throwing around some racial slurs?

      Btw, you lambast everyone who disagrees with you about this for ‘discriminating’ but have no problem with a group (MALDEF) that openly only supports or defends those of a certain ethnicity?

      1. avatar Adam says:

        @Derek

        “Riiiiiight, because they have nooo reason whatsoever to lie. I also like how they threw the girls ages in there for extra emotional outrage.”

        Riiiight… Barnett does not have any reason to lie either.

        I’ve lambasted people who have made overtly racist/discriminatory remarks. What MALDEF does is their business, I neither support them or oppose them. If they were here making racist/discriminatory remarks… well I’d lambaste them for that.

        1. avatar Derek says:

          I never said he didn’t because I don’t know and neither do you. The only thing you or I know is that Barnett arrested tresspassers, at gunpoint, on his property and turned them over to the proper authorities. Now, some crusading, civil court, litigating body who can probably chalk up a lot of their success to political correctness comes in and gives a group of broke ass people an oppurtunity to make some easy money. And all they have to do is lie and say that the mean, scary, racist white guy who got them arrested threatened them and hurt their feelings.

          On another note: What does their skin color have to do Barnett arresting them for tresspassing?

        2. avatar Adam says:

          “Now, some crusading, civil court, litigating body”

          Exactly – this was a civil case. Not criminal. Don’t you know that in civil court anything goes if you make a good argument.

        3. avatar GS650G says:

          Um not really.

        4. avatar Adam says:

          @GS650G

          Really. In civil court (which I’m not really clear on if this was criminal or civil) there is no burden of proof requirement. All you have to do is convince a jury that you deserve compensation for what you claim the defendant did.

          Case in point – OJ was found innocent in criminal court. Still the family of the victims were able to take him to civil court and he was found to be responsible for their deaths and had to pay out sums of money to the families of the victims.

          It’s the same issue faced with a SD shooting. Even if your actions were found to be in SD and your not prosecuted the BG or their family can still sue you in civil court.

        5. avatar GS650G says:

          It’s a stretch to compare this to the OJ incident and you know it.

          Show me who was hurt or killed? Was Nicole breaking the law at the time? You are not very good at this game.

  14. avatar joe matafome says:

    I guess everyone who doesn’t support these trespassing criminals is a racist in your book. The rancher should get a medal for doing the right thing, and I going to donate to his defense fund for being an upstanding citizen.

    1. avatar Adam says:

      @joe matafome

      You don’t get it. I’m against is the idea that holding people against their will and threatening them is ok simply because they are illegal immigrants.

      Immigrants or not he should not have be holding people captive and threatening them. You talk about them being “illegal” well, what Barnett did is illegal to. There is no indication that the group of people was threting him, or otherwise harming anything yet he held them hostage.

      In fact Barnett held Hispanic US citizens captive at gun point in 2006, and threatened their lives. They were awarded $100,000. Clearly, Barnett bases his actions on the color of people’s skin.

      Regardless if you agree with it or not – it’s a very bad idea to hold people captive, even criminals. False imprisonment laws are very tricky, that’s why its’ never recommended that you, as a citizen, try to apprehend a suspect.

      1. avatar joe matafome says:

        I don’t see anything wrong with what he did to these CRIMINALS. My family and I are all immigrants and none of us are racists. I love it when TROLLS call everyone who wants these CRIMINALS gone a racist.

      2. avatar Jack Sparrow says:

        He did not threaten them. He simply stopped them from escaping until the police could arrive – that’s perfectly legal.

        I guess according to your logic if a burglar breaks into your home, you’re not allowed to tie him up until the cops arrive to arrest him?

        1. avatar Adam says:

          @Jack Sparrow

          “He did not threaten them. He simply stopped them from escaping until the police could arrive”

          You speak as if you were there.

          In any case as has been pointed out -I was wrong about him being fined and whatnot because he was imprisoning the immigrants. He was found guilty of assaulting them. Criminals or not you can’t assault people because you feel like it.

          And to answer your question – I have more to consider if a burger breaks into my home than if I’d “tie him up until the cops arrive to arrest him”. If you take the time to look you’ll find that that type of action is almost always not recommended for a variety of reasons. The least of those reasons is it can open you up to legal trouble. If the person wants to leave, it’s typically best to let them, and I’m saying that from a self-preservation perspective.

          Also, consider that trespassing laws very from state to state. I’m not saying this happened but – If these illegal immigrants… well lets take them out the equation. Let’s just say a group of otherwise legal people wandered onto the property, and the property was not fenced or otherwise posted, and they were never asked to leave then they may have never technically been trespassing depending on the laws of the state.

          In any case – he was found guilty of assault. So my point about holding them captive is invalid.

  15. avatar Brad Kozak says:

    Adam,

    Speaking as a Conservative/Tea Party type, here’s my concern with the whole “illegal immigration” thing:

    We are a nation of laws – not men. We have laws that set forth a specific set of rules for immigration to this country, as does Mexico, Canada, and just about every other country on the planet. If you suddenly decided to immigrate to Mexico, you can bet your bottom peso that you’d be arrested and put in jail, should you do so without getting the proper documents from Mexico. Their country. Their rules. Ditto for here. If you don’t like the rules, get a majority of citizens to vote for change.

    I don’t hate immigrants – legal OR illegal. But I hate the fact that illegal aliens begin their lives here by breaking the law. I’ve lived in the South all my life. I can tell you that, in Dallas, for instance, the city is going broke due to the number of patients (particularly pregnant women giving birth) that are “undocumented workers” who snuck in here to have their kids, all on our dime. Our hospitals (pre-ObamaCare) by law could not turn ANYONE away, based on their ability to pay. Dallas was spending more and more money to treat illegals for free.

    You can argue that companies take advantage of the cheap labor that illegals provide. Fair enough. Jail the upper management for hiring them. I support that. But these illegal workers get paid in cash, off the books. They pay no taxes. They contribute nothing to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps or any other entitlement. Yet the strain they put on the system is pushing it past the breaking point.

    I don’t live on the border, but if I did, and I had groups of people regularly coming across my property, I would damn sure carry a gun (how could he know they aren’t drug cartel gangsters, hmm?), and if I felt threatened, I’d make sure and detain the people and call law enforcement. If you come onto my property without my permission, that is my right as a property owner. It’s called trespassing, and it’s a crime. So to is sneaking into the country. I have a lot of friends who came her LEGALLY. They resent those that snuck in and now expect to be given citizenship. They had to earn theirs, the hard way. Why should anybody get a pass just for sneaking in without being caught?

    Does this philosophy about immigration make me a bigot? Of course not. I don’t hate anybody. But those that are here illegally need to go home (voluntarily or involuntarily) and be told “we will welcome you back if/when you can do it legally.”

    America is a melting pot. But when we allow illegal immigration, illegals do not assimilate the way every other generation of legal immigrants have. They keep to themselves, and serve to drain our resources. I welcome anybody who wants to move here and play by the rules – ALL the rules. For those who choose to cheat, they need to leave.

    1. avatar Adam says:

      @Brad Kozak

      You’ve made the most rational comments. But I’m not speaking for, or against immigration one way or the other. Other than to say that we kind of claim, in various ways, to welcome immigrants and yet you get the kinds of comments you see here.

      That said – I agree, immigrates should follow the law. But I also know that I have no clue what it’s like anywhere but the US. I do understand that for many there is a desperation to get into the US and our bureaucracy can add painful delays; not to mention the costs involved ($320 to $3000 is my understanding).

      I’m sorry but I have some sympathy for their plight and maybe that blinds me the the issues illegal immigration causes.

      What I am against, and what I was speaking against was the overt racism some people showed in their comments. Illegal or not, they are human and them being illegal is not an excuse to treat them like shit.

      I understand they were trespassing on his property but it’s still a bad idea to hold people, even criminals, captive. In a world where you can get sued for defending yourself, what makes you think you can’t get sued for holding someone(s) captive. All I’m saying is that Mr. Barnett probably didn’t exercise his brain when he decided to hold them captive. This look like it was a civil case – were criminal charges filed against him?

      1. avatar Wade says:

        You mentioned the costs involved in legal emigration, ($320-$3000) but FYI, the price an illegal has to pay a coyote (people smuggler) is usually between $2500 and $6000, depending on the ‘quality’ of transport.

        1. avatar Wade says:

          And, please do not assume to know what it is like down here, as my business involves me spending a lot of time on a lot of ranches, all of which are in deep South Texas, and most of which are within 20 miles of the border. I see this stuff every day. I’ve found baby strollers in the middle of nowhere. I’ve seen illegals eating protein feed and corn out of deer feeders. I’ve even seen illegals, next to cattle troughs that had died from drinking too much salty well water. I have bottomless respect for these people, so don’t accuse me of being racist, or anything else before you truly know what you’re talking about.

  16. avatar LC Judas says:

    I don’t see justice in a single comment here. Without bearing witness to the incident its all assumed from the text, anecdotal and speculations at best. We all have a view of what we would do if we had a large crowd trespassing on our property. Being armed does not give us any additional rights but it makes approaching a crowd of unknown intent a lot less dangerous for us hence why we do it.

    It is my belief that this particular rancher was not in the possession of any texts detailing the laws about rightfully detaining any party on his person at the time of the incident. That said…without a law book in his back pocket I doubt proper procedures were his aim. I won’t attempt to quote or guess at what legislation says is right or wrong. I will say odds are I would have done similar but it would be easier for me to say what I would have done if I had actually been there. Reading about it from beginning to end makes it more complete than what the person in question saw as it was happening.

    There’s no good call as the law has fallen different ways on different days for similar cases. Flaming each other won’t solve much either.

  17. avatar Anonymous says:

    Jack Sparrow: ah, but it’s all about the destruction of our “oppressive,” “racist” society. There is no law, only the whim of Black Jesus and his creatures, like Eric Holder and the “Wise Latina,” and the Wall Street money-men like George Soros and Lloyd Blankfein who pull their strings.

    Speaking of poems, I offer “The Solution” by Berthold Brecht, because what we’re seeing here is the Final Solution to the White Problem in action.

    The Solution

    After the uprising of the 17th of June
    The Secretary of the Writers Union
    Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
    Stating that the people
    Had forfeited the confidence of the government
    And could win it back only
    By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
    In that case for the government
    To dissolve the people
    And elect another?

    You’re being replaced. What we’re seeing now is the culmination of generations-long plans to destroy us as a nation and as a people, by people who hate our race and the concept of the nation-state itself. And all of this was predicted long, long ago by people whom it is very PC and very fashionable to vilify as cranks today.

  18. avatar Aharon says:

    Those who advocate for open-borders and people illegally crossing the American borders use the accusations of loudly labelig those who oppose them Racists, Haters, Bigots, etc as a shaming language weapon to control the dialogue. Calling someone who opposes their view by those names forces that person to go into defense mode of their character. In todays PC America, few people want to be publicly thought of by others by those non-PC labels.

    I’m a Men’s Rights Advocate (MRA) and we frequently get labeled misogynist for criticizing feminism, defending men, criticizing the anti-male misandry (hatred of males) laws and government policies, and also for criticizing male bashing that is so accepted in the West. Again labeling is a Shaming tactic that attacks people who have a different view and forces them to defend themselves and takes the topic away from the political discussion or that is the hope of the labelers.

  19. avatar savaze says:

    Living in AZ along a Coyote route I deal with this issue frequently and have held individuals at gun point until the police arrived more than a few times. The first few times I let them run off and the police counseled me (repeatedly) to shoot them, period. I said I would if I felt threatened to do so, but otherwise would hold them until transportation came. This guy got caught up in politics and not anything else, which is very disappointing (but a very familiar game).

  20. avatar Roman says:

    Wow. Some of the longest replies to an article I’ve seen on this site.

    I’m surprised by some of the lefty comments on a gun site. Interesting.

    The only problem with the rancher was that he was in Arizona. Here in Texas we do things just a little different. We take property ownership seriously. Trespassers no matter who they are can be held for the authorities. With the “sun down law” they could be shot on private property after dark. Also, keep in mind we’re fighting a war down here on the border. Over in Arizona there are bands of armed cartel members escorting drug loads and human traffickers thru the border region. Juarez, Mexico is the most dangerous city in the world. The cartels are chopping heads off and leaving them in the streets every day. Things are bad down here. Things are changing………..

    1. avatar Gunnutmegger says:

      Hey, Adam. Why don’t you go to Texas to protect those illegal aliens?

      After dark, though.

      1. avatar Aharon says:

        Now that’s funny.

        I’m probably only writing that because I lived in the San Francisco Bay Area for almost 20 years. While there are many fine people of Hispanic heritage there are huge numbers of others that are against America. The tidal wave of illegal aliens from the South is unlike any other group of new comers. They are a heavy burden on America from crime to entitlements and social programs to using up limited resources. Their goals are citizenship/open borders bringing in more mega millions/ getting their own elected/ kicking us into the gutter.

    2. avatar Jack Sparrow says:

      That’s why I say we should close the border with Mexico. Sorry, but they’ve abused it and shown that they can’t responsibly be treated like a neighbor and should be treated like an enemy.

      Shut down the border completely, put a .5 mile deep mine field along the entire border, surrounded by an electric fence (with concrete going 50 feet deep underneath it to prevent tunneling underneath – deeper if necessary), with guard towers where they are instructed to shoot to kill ANYTHING that moves in that minefield .

      And before someone like Adam wants to call it racist, I’d say the same thing for the border with Canada if they ever started abusing our friendship.

      1. avatar Aharon says:

        Jack, I’ve had those thoughts about the border for many years too. Way to go!

      2. avatar Crispin says:

        It’d be a hell of a lot cheaper and more practical to just legalize drugs. Without the money from American markets, the cartels would collapse and Mexico would become a functioning country again. Ta-da, no more illegal immigration!

  21. avatar Ralph says:

    Well, this was interesting. Note that the Barnett case happened in 2004. By some accounts, the wave of illegal immigration has slowed since the US economy tanked and the gravy train seems to be stuck in the station. Many illegals have returned home, but the legal immigrants don’t seem to be leaving.

  22. avatar Roman says:

    In case anyone thinks it’s fun and games down here:

    http://www.borderlandbeat.com/2011/09/execution-of-two-chapos.html

    1. avatar Aharon says:

      I don’t think anyone imagines that it is fun and games down there. I think many of us (except the lefties) are concerned about that sort of chain saw murdering behavior becoming standard up here.

  23. avatar Adam says:

    @GS650G

    I was not comparing the the cases to one another – simply pointing out that in civil court the rules are not the same and in criminal court. I gave OJ as an example as to how skewed one court can be from the other.

  24. avatar Greg in Allston says:

    Remember the 3 S’s of varmint control; Shoot, Shovel and Shut-Up.

    Just kidding.

  25. avatar Todd S says:

    @Adam
    As an aside, I forgot to mention that I really like your avatar. Gotta get some slack!

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email