Rancher cleared in lawsuit

| February 18, 2009

Regular readers will remember the case of the rancher in Arizona we discussed last week who detained 16 illegal aliens on his property. Those posts are here and here. the Washington Times reports this morning that he’s been cleared, but the jury awarded the illegals $78, 000 in damages;

A federal jury in Tucson ruled Tuesday that an Arizona rancher did not violate the civil rights of 16 Mexican nationals he stopped after they sneaked illegally into the United States, but awarded $78,000 in actual and punitive damages on claims of assault and the infliction of emotional distress.

The jury of four men and four women returned the verdict Tuesday afternoon in U.S. District Court in Tucson after a day and a half of deliberation. The jury, after a nine-day trial, also threw out charges of false imprisonment, battery and conspiracy against Douglas, Ariz., rancher Roger Barnett.

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) had sought $32 million in the case they brought for the invaders of Barnett’s property. One of the plaintiffs happened to be a felon convicted and deported for drug charges in 1993. Barnett’s lawyers plan on appealing the thousands in punitive damages.

I’m shocked actually, that jury would cut the evil landowner protecting his own interests a break. I fully expected a southwestern jury, usually sympathetic to the criminals who illegally breach our borders, to hammer the poor guy into the ground. I hope he escapes paying the fines – he’s been fortunate up until now.

Category: Politics

17 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
UpNorth

I’d bet that MALDEF will bail on the illegals, as there is no big money to be made now, 30 or 40% of $78K isn’t much for what they have tied up in this. Good for the landowner, and the jury should be ashamed, they should have awarded the illegals $1.00.

Southern Democrat

They should be getting 78k a piece. We need to send a message that you need to respect individuals, no matter what their race.

Matt

They should be paying $78k a piece to the rancher. We need to send a message that you need to respect personal property rights, no matter what the race of the owner.

Rory

And people wonder why nobody likes to get involved in protecting there neighbor or strangers. This rancher trying to do the right thing by holding criminals until the law shows up gets dragged into court, fortunatly cleared but then has to pay damages! WTF is wrong with that jury that we cannot even protect ourselves and homes. And to Southern Democrat, just where is the respect of the rancher by these criminals? Your an idiot!

defendUSA

Southern Dem
That is pure bullshit and nothing but a money grab. WHO was violated to begin with? The Farmer. Who squatted on his land? ILLEGAL ALIENS. Not US citizens, nope. They deserve jackshit. Those losers created their own emotional distress. period.

Don Meaker

The jury should have awarded the land owner 78,000, to be paid by the attorneys of the illegal trespassers.

JuniorAG

So-called Democrat, and I call him this because I know real Southern Democrats, won’t “get it” until he suffers a home invasion. He’ll probably, SHOCKA, find himself using “insensitive” language towards the intruders when the deed goes down. Probably have to wash his mouth out with some PC soap after it’s all over…

Claymore

Ok…which one of you asshats is pretending to be this Southern Democrat troll…no one is that effin’ stupid on purpose unless they’re in Congress or they’re retarded, but I repeat myself.

olga

They cleared him from any charges that involved actual physical conduct; however, civil assault only requires “to put someone into apprehension of an offensive touching”, not the actual touching… Not sure about infliction of emtional distress – was it intentional or negligent?? These have 2 different elements to prove…
Anyway, the whole lawsuit thing is a shame and the jury’s award of fines is the reward for lawbreaking. And they say the federal juries are smarter than the state ones…

Driefromseattle

I think he should post a sign on his property in English, Spanish, and Farsi, saying “No trespassing. Violaters will be shot.” Then shoot, bury the bodies way off his property, and call it a day. Much less expensive that way

UpNorth

“They should be getting 78k a piece. We need to send a message that you need to respect individuals, no matter what their race”. “We”? You have a turd in your pocket, SD? They don’t deserve a penny, and they should be happy they got off his property alive.

Frankly Opinionated

Southern Dhimmicrat?:
What rights would you propose that a person entering this country illegally, and trespassing and mis-using private property would have? How about you look into what rights an illegal entering Mexico would have. Check on their conduct on their Southern border, all legal and up and up, and acts that I can endorse. I feel that no one who is here illegally, committing illegal acts has any rights, none! Just as I feel that any US Citizen who commits a crime in this country, by the act alone, has forfeited his/her rights- all of them. Not every act in my past was done totally legal, and as they were committed; I was fully aware that I could well be called on to deal with things as they come.
We Americans who do the best we can for our Country, Our Neighbor, and ourselves have rights- not those who would denigrate us, our country, or our freedoms.
nuf sed

HoosierArmyMom

Southern Democrat Says:
February 18th, 2009 at 8:49 am
They should be getting 78k a piece. We need to send a message that you need to respect individuals, no matter what their race.

WHAT DOES RACE HAVE TO DO WITH THIS??? What is wrong with you moonbats that you do not comprehend that we should all have the right to keep our property safe from intrusion by people breaking the law! Do you know how many thousands of people have died in drug wars along the Mexican side of the border in the last year? It’s bad enough that the Mexican Army has had to go in. If you lived close to the border, you wouldn’t want these people coming through your property on way to entering the US illegally either. You wouldn’t know if they were drug smugglers who would kill you without hesitations or just illegals looking for work would you? All you freakin moonbats do is try to turn people protecting themselves, their property and upholding the law into “RACISTS”. That is stupid and shows me you don’t have very good comprehension skills.

olga

SD,
The “hispanics” are not of the different race – they are “white”…

JuniorAG

I get the impression that our alleged Democrat is a “fighter for social justice” who lives in a gated community. In a perfect world, a milquetoast like So-called Democrat would be the lone whiteboy in a Job Corps program or attend a highschool where whites are the minority. The “situational reality” would scramble his brain.

Irony is that condescending caucasians like alleged Democrat have more racial hangups than me & my melanin enhanced co-workers seem to!

Ray

Intruding on my property is an equal opportunity event. White, Black, Latino, Asian, No Problem… I greet them all with the same Sig Sauer .45, with loud noises to follow if my commands aren’t obeyed. You see it’s not a racial thing… it’s a trespassing thing.

Sacratomato

Citizen’s arrest: A citizen’s arrest is an arrest made by a person who is not acting as a sworn law-enforcement official. In common law jurisdictions, the practice dates back to medieval Britain and the English common law.
However, a person(s) who makes a citizen’s arrest could risk exposing themselves to possible lawsuits or criminal charges (such as charges of impersonating police, false imprisonment, kidnapping, or wrongful arrest) if the wrong person is apprehended or there is even an unsubstantiated claim that suspect’s civil rights are violated. This is especially true is countries such as the United States where political agendas hold more sway than actual law or truth.
A good example if the subversion of this right and the wrong headedness of our era is the law suit brought against the Arizona Rancher for doing what would, under normal reasoning, be considered his duty.