Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
11/9/2018 9:21:38 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 3/10/2005 3:15:33 AM EST
This is some of the most fucked up shit I have heard in quite some time. Dude stops 12,000+ illegal pricks, and they are going to sue the sheriff for ALLOWING him to do so? I don't post much on this board, but this really has my panties in an uproar. Thought ya'll might want to be in the know.

Cochise sheriff, rancher face suit
By Michael Marizco
ARIZONA DAILY STAR

Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever is being sued for a share of a $32 million lawsuit filed Friday in U.S. District Court.

The suit alleges the sheriff has done nothing to stop a Cochise County rancher from apprehending illegal entrants on his own property east of Douglas.

Filed by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the suit alleges rancher Roger Barnett held a group of illegal entrants at gunpoint on his property one year ago , shouted obscenities at the group, kicked one of the women twice and threatened to shoot anybody who tried to leave. It also lists 10 un-named co-conspirators who have known of Barnett's actions in the past and did nothing to prevent them.

Calling the group "racist liars," Barnett says he doesn't recall the incident ever taking place and said he hasn't been served with a lawsuit.

Dever has not been served with a lawsuit and therefore had no response, said Cochise County Sheriff's Department spokeswoman Carol Capas.

The suit alleges that on March 7, 2004, 19 illegal entrants were resting in a wash near Douglas when Barnett pulled up on an all-terrain vehicle with a large, barking dog. It claims that Barnett waved his cocked gun at the group, and yelled obscenities at them.

Barnett then walked up to one of the women and kicked her in the leg, then tried to kick her again, the suit alleges. He then called his wife, who arrived with a truck and summoned the U.S. Border Patrol.

The entrants allegedly tried to tell the Border Patrol agents what had happened but were menaced by Barnett.

The suit mentions that Barnett, his brother Donald and his wife, Barbara, have admitted to turning over 12,000 illegal entrants to the order Patrol since 1998.

It names Dever because he has done nothing to stop Barnett from apprehending illegal entrants, said MALDEF lawyer Araceli Perez.

"Little has been done to remedy this in his own back yard," she said.

The civil rights group hopes to send a message to vigilantes that they cannot operate with impunity, Perez said.

She said the illegal entrants had notified the Border Patrol of their treatment and that was the basis of the evidence against Barnett and, subsequently, Dever.

She said MALDEF has the Border Patrol reports proving the entrants reported their treatment to the arriving agents but did not share them with the Arizona Daily Star when asked to.

The suit asks a jury to reward a total of $16 million in actual damages and $16 million in punitive damages against all the defendants, she said. The money sought is not broken up among the defendants in any particular way but lists the Barnetts, Dever and the 10 unidentified defendants.

"They're trying to destroy the United States like this," Barnett said
Link Posted: 3/10/2005 3:26:41 AM EST
WHAT HAS THIS WORLD COME TO? 100 years ago you could have shot them all and it would have been considered defending the USA! Illegals have more rights here than we do? HELL NO!!! This is our country! Stay the fuck out!!! If you INVADE our country your ass just might get shot by a pissed off Farmer!!!
Link Posted: 3/10/2005 3:47:07 AM EST

Originally Posted By NeverEnoughFirePower:
WHAT HAS THIS WORLD COME TO? 100 years ago you could have shot them all and it would have been considered defending the USA! Illegals have more rights here than we do? HELL NO!!! This is our country! Stay the fuck out!!! If you INVADE our country your ass just might get shot by a pissed off Farmer!!!



Robert,

That fancy new .270 still needs to be sighted in, and the Minutemen are going to be down there...

Roadtrip? God, but does this make my pussy hurt! If you are not a legal resident of the United States, how do you have the right to be included in a lawsuit? I can just see the ACLU jumping all over this, screaming how illegals are being mistreated and abused by the big bad American who refuses to share their country's wealth the poor and the afflicted.

Give me a fucking break. I am about sick and tired of walking into a store and having to read spanish printed on the label so the foodstamp wielding mother of 12 can know what kind of corn they are buying. /Rant off.
Link Posted: 3/10/2005 4:39:02 AM EST
[Last Edit: 3/10/2005 4:39:18 AM EST by martinmayhem]
I'm not surprised by these attempts to file the lawsuit. What will really be sad is if it isn't thrown out.
Link Posted: 3/10/2005 7:07:48 AM EST
Link Posted: 3/10/2005 9:10:11 AM EST
maldef+aclu=commie traitors.
Link Posted: 3/10/2005 9:20:05 AM EST
Going to hell in a handbasket I say.
Link Posted: 3/10/2005 3:54:26 PM EST
F _ _ _ K it would have been less trouble to just drop them in place to feed the critters.


Link Posted: 3/10/2005 5:01:39 PM EST
Larry Dever is a great guy. I wish him the best.

-Luke
Link Posted: 3/10/2005 5:49:52 PM EST
This guy is a HERO in my book. He's defending his property from these law breakers.

WTF, OVER ???

We should be cheering for this guy.

II hate to say it, but the border is going to remain open untill the next terrorist attack comes across it.

MINE THE BORDERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Link Posted: 3/10/2005 9:09:39 PM EST
Kicking an unarmed woman while keeping her at bay with an attack dog while waving a gun around isn't heroic in my book. Doesn't matter if she is an illegal immigrant or not, thats just plain wrong.

Flame suit on.
Link Posted: 3/10/2005 9:57:20 PM EST
Ok..I feel compelled to admit something deeply personal on these boards that may be relevant. I entered the U.S. legally in 1991. Proper Visa and everything. But my intentions were to obtain false documents so I could enlist in the USMC so I could go fight Saddam in Gulf War I. I was eventually discovered (just after completing Weapons School @NAS Whidbey in 1993) and was processed for discharge. Normally, procedure called for immediate Dishonorable discharge. I was given an Honorable and was kept in an additional 3 mths in order to receive my E-3 promotion. The authorities were convinced my intentions were admirable but the Corps was unable to keep me in. I then went through the legal quagmire and received my green card. I am now 3 and a half months away from filing for citizenship! My point is this...regardless of my intentions, I was wrong. I learned my lesson and went through the process legally at great financial cost. I happen to support any and all means necessary to protect our (I have taken enemy fire (Bosnia) so I believe I can claim the right to call this country mine) southern border against the scourge of illegal immigration! Americans should be free to protect their personal property by all legal means. If this land is located on the border, then all trespassers should be held until the relevant LEOs get there. As for kicking the woman?? I am sure it was a knudge to get her moving. I will take the word of a law-abider over a criminal (Yes, its a crime to illegally enter the U.S.) unless there is videotape showing an assault involved! Forgive the rant!
Link Posted: 3/10/2005 10:04:43 PM EST
How would they know that the gun was cocked???

­

God-Damn Illeagals!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

God-Damn LIBS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Link Posted: 3/10/2005 10:15:04 PM EST

Originally Posted By azeagle:
Kicking an unarmed woman while keeping her at bay with an attack dog while waving a gun around isn't heroic in my book. Doesn't matter if she is an illegal immigrant or not, thats just plain wrong.

Flame suit on.



Keep in mind that that is MALDEF's spin on events.
Link Posted: 3/10/2005 10:25:47 PM EST

Originally Posted By Corporal_Chaos:

Keep in mind that that is MALDEF's spin on events.



And I'm sure that hes telling nothing but the truth too and has absolutly no reason to lie or spin things.
Link Posted: 3/10/2005 10:26:36 PM EST
I forget, is turning in a suspect amidst convicting a federal offense a crime nowadays?

I dont remember correctly so please correct me if I am wrong, but is it wrong to forcefully(without assault on a non violence-based offence) stop the suspect from further completing their act?

Back in the day, the Samurai would hack your head off if you even LEGALLY went to Japan.
Samurai rule.
Link Posted: 3/10/2005 10:30:20 PM EST
what about a CITIZENS arrest of an illegal invading non citizen? itsn't that legal?
Link Posted: 3/10/2005 10:33:18 PM EST
[Last Edit: 3/10/2005 10:42:26 PM EST by azeagle]

Originally Posted By The4thHorseman:
Ok..I feel compelled to admit something deeply personal on these boards that may be relevant. I entered the U.S. legally in 1991. Proper Visa and everything. But my intentions were to obtain false documents so I could enlist in the USMC so I could go fight Saddam in Gulf War I. I was eventually discovered (just after completing Weapons School @NAS Whidbey in 1993) and was processed for discharge. Normally, procedure called for immediate Dishonorable discharge. I was given an Honorable and was kept in an additional 3 mths in order to receive my E-3 promotion. The authorities were convinced my intentions were admirable but the Corps was unable to keep me in. I then went through the legal quagmire and received my green card. I am now 3 and a half months away from filing for citizenship! My point is this...regardless of my intentions, I was wrong. I learned my lesson and went through the process legally at great financial cost. I happen to support any and all means necessary to protect our (I have taken enemy fire (Bosnia) so I believe I can claim the right to call this country mine) southern border against the scourge of illegal immigration! Americans should be free to protect their personal property by all legal means. If this land is located on the border, then all trespassers should be held until the relevant LEOs get there. As for kicking the woman?? I am sure it was a knudge to get her moving. I will take the word of a law-abider over a criminal (Yes, its a crime to illegally enter the U.S.) unless there is videotape showing an assault involved! Forgive the rant!



Do I really need to tell you how your story makes you sound?

BTW, if he did in fact kick anyone thats illegal as well and makes him a criminal as well. But remember that one of the things in this country is that EVERYONE is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Even the illegal immigrants.

And good luck on your application for citizenship. I hope it goes well for you.
Link Posted: 3/10/2005 10:33:42 PM EST

Originally Posted By NeverEnoughFirePower:
WHAT HAS THIS WORLD COME TO? 100 years ago you could have shot them all and it would have been considered defending the USA! Illegals have more rights here than we do? HELL NO!!! This is our country! Stay the fuck out!!! If you INVADE our country your ass just might get shot by a pissed off Farmer!!!



100 years ago the border was open. In fact 50 years ago the border was open.
Link Posted: 3/10/2005 11:02:32 PM EST
OK azeagle..please clarify how it makes me sound? Two-faced perhaps? There are differences between what I did and what they do everyday! I entered LEGALLY and wanted in the Corps NOW before the fighting ended! As it would turn out the bloody fight lasted 100 hours! It was never my intent to come to the U.S. and commit crimes, sell drugs, stifle the economy by not paying taxes and sending earnings to another country, increase insurance premiums by driving wihout proper credentials and getting into accidents! So I resent any implication that what I did was in any way the same as what they do! I came, I saw and I paid my taxes from day 1! And NO! illegal immigrants are not innocent until proven guilty..they are guilty the minute they cross the border illegally! So please azeagle..tell me how my story makes me sound. So there is no miscommunication! and thank you for your kind words on my application.
Link Posted: 3/10/2005 11:23:21 PM EST



Originally Posted By The4thHorseman:

OK azeagle..please clarify how it makes me sound? Two-faced perhaps?



You got it. It makes you sound two faced


Originally Posted By The4thHorseman:

There are differences between what I did and what they do everyday! I entered LEGALLY and wanted in the Corps NOW before the fighting ended! As it would turn out the bloody fight lasted 100 hours! It was never my intent to come to the U.S. and commit crimes, sell drugs, stifle the economy by not paying taxes and sending earnings to another country, increase insurance premiums by driving wihout proper credentials and getting into accidents!



You didn't come here with any intention to break the law. Gee thats funny, because you admitted it was your intention to break the law.


Originally Posted By The4thHorseman:
Ok..I feel compelled to admit something deeply personal on these boards that may be relevant. I entered the U.S. legally in 1991. Proper Visa and everything. But my intentions were to obtain false documents so I could enlist in the USMC so I could go fight Saddam in Gulf War I



So tell me how obtaining forged documents isn't illegal. Yes you came here legally but that didn't mean you could obtain forged documents even if it was to join the Marines. So you made yourself a criminal and possibly an illegal immigrant.


Originally Posted By The4thHorseman:

So I resent any implication that what I did was in any way the same as what they do! I came, I saw and I paid my taxes from day 1!



And you are free to resent the implication. But that doesn't change the facts. And wether you paid taxes or not doesn't make you any better or worse than illegal immigrants. You still committed a crime. Thats the important thing.


Originally Posted By The4thHorseman:

And NO! illegal immigrants are not innocent until proven guilty..they are guilty the minute they cross the border illegally! So please azeagle..tell me how my story makes me sound. So there is no miscommunication!



Under the law, yes they are innocent until proven guilty. That is the law in this country. And it doesn't matter what your crime is or who you are. Once you are takin into custody you are innocent until proven guilty


Originally Posted By The4thHorseman:

and thank you for your kind word
s on my application.



Your welcome. I have no reason to hope wish anything bad for you. You came here legally. Even though you committed a crime you paid the price for that crime. Just as anyone who committs a crime should. Just don't screw up again or your gone.
Link Posted: 3/10/2005 11:36:52 PM EST
Well azeagle..I wont take offence to your words! If the INS, FBI, NIS or DIA (all the agencies that questioned me!) wanted me gone they would have deported me on the spot or in short order! I was on a federal/military installation and did not hide or run. We can argue the intricacies and the fine lines but I did not enter this country illegally and if I had committed a crime I would have ended up in the brig! And we will have to agree to disagree on the innocent until proven guilty! They recently showed a doumentary on Discovery on the path taken to enter the U.S, illegally via the trains. It seems to me that a lot of planning goes into trying to enter this country illegally by the southern illegalanos! Again..I entered the country legally..they do not/I served honorably in the USMC..they have not...I pay taxes..they do not...I drive licensed and fully insured...they do not...I have corrected my situation and they do/have not! I can show you my INS entry stamp, in my passport any time you wish chap!
Link Posted: 3/10/2005 11:55:11 PM EST
No hijack intended, but reading azeagle's comments was very bad for my blood pressure. I will leave it at that.
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 12:50:49 AM EST
Well, gentlemen, at least you have been able to keep your disagreement civil. Thank you for that.

Illegal immigration is a hot topic. I believe you both have valid points. AZEagle, I will agree with you--to a point--concerning the innocent until proven guilty point. However, crossing our border illegally is, in fact, commiting a crime. This rancher did not try them, he simply held them there until BP was able to respond. Illegal detention, perhaps, but they were on his land (read: private property), so I am not sure exactly what the law affords for rights in that case. I admit my own ignorance in that area.

I would never, ever advocate kicking a woman, but I highly doubt that was what actually transpired. The important word to remember here is LAWSUIT; we all know how trumped up terminology gets when the lawyers get a hold of it and break out their legal thesarus! So yes, I do see your side and can agree that we are still responsible to presume innocence and treat other human beings with dignity, regardless of their country of origin. We are, after all, God's creatures, and abusing each other because of a title (illegal in this case) is just plain wrong in my book.

4th Horseman, I commend your service in the military. I am ex-Army, Gulf War 1, combat arms... I never deployed, though, because I was stationed in Germany at the time and our unit was never called up. I understand your motivations. Funny how the same people who claim every illegal act makes you a criminal are the same ones who openly admit to concealed carry in places that are illegal to do so in, claiming constitutional freedom.

Um, just to clarify, AzEagle, that was NOT directed at you - just putting things in perspective, I think. I am not claiming or assuming anything about you, including the fact you carry in places you are not permitted to, so please do not take me wrong. Again, it wasn't directed at you, sir.

4th Horseman, I do not agree with obtaining false documents for any reason, but I pass no judgement. You did what you did for the reasons you thought right at the time - that reflects integrity, if not poor decision making skills and compulsive thinking. Either way, the fact you were man enough to admit it, stand up for your "wrong," and pay your penance speaks volumes for your character. Again, I will throw no stone from my glass house.

The rancher in this particular case may or may not be right... None of us here know the full story. What we do know is that the sheriff is being sued for supposedly allowing an alleged illegal action to continue, but this is where the story becomes convoluted. Is stopping a criminal activity using less-than legal means a crime in itself? Some would say yes, and others would say no.... Many more, myself included, would say it depends on the totality of the circumstances.

Thanks to the slant of the media, the legal wording of the lawyers, and the groups involved, we don't know what really happened. I detest illegal immigration, but I also see the reasoning behind it - the motivation. Just like I did in your case, Horseman. It doesn't make it right, and it CERTAINLY doesn't mean I condone it, it simply means I refuse to consider any circumstances in black and white thought patterns.

Still, these lawsuits are ridiculous. The border issue is a tightly wound spring, waiting to uncoil. When it does, someone is going to get hurt. I pray that, illegals or not, the women and children on both sides of the border will be spared injury. As men, we take our own chances. I feel no sympathy for any man who makes a choice and gets burned for it in the end. Well, that's not an entirely accurate statement, but it is the best I am able to sum it up. Like I said, I know they are looking for a better life, but I also know they are taking away from us to do so, taxing our system and our patience, hurting our ability to provide for our own families.

In the utopian society, there would be enough to go around for all. Unfortunately, this is the real world, and commodities are in short supply. When my ability to care for my family is hindered, I take issue with that. And no where does that drain on assets occur more than illegal immigration. I am exhausted and at wit's end with the entire immigration issue.

But, as I posted in the thread 4th Horseman began concerning race, ya'll are welcome at my house anytime for some beer and steaks on the grill. Thanks for keeping the discussion civil, guys!

Richard

Link Posted: 3/11/2005 1:46:41 AM EST
Does AZ have a Good Samaritan law? If so, could someone please post the exact phrasing?
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 2:10:09 AM EST
This pisses me off. Declare the border a Terrorist Infiltration Zone and allow popping anyone there on sight.
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 5:41:12 AM EST
[Last Edit: 3/11/2005 5:42:20 AM EST by ASUsax]
Look, this guy is entirely within his rights and this should be thrown out...



13-407. Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises

A. A person or his agent in lawful possession or control of premises is justified in threatening to use deadly physical force or in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent that a reasonable person would believe it immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon the premises.

B. A person may use deadly physical force under subsection A only in the defense of himself or third persons as described in sections 13-405 and 13-406.



So he is justified in threating deadly physical force to prevent criminal tresspass. Or he can use physical force at hit the woman.


13-1502. Criminal trespass in the third degree; classification

A. A person commits criminal trespass in the third degree by:

1. Knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully on any real property after a reasonable request to leave by the owner or any other person having lawful control over such property, or reasonable notice prohibiting entry.



It's also pretty clear that they WERE committing criminal tresspass.


13-413. No civil liability for justified conduct

No person in this state shall be subject to civil liability for engaging in conduct otherwise justified pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.



Furthermore, they can't sue him for it, because he was justified under the provisions of ARS, section 13, Chapter 4.

Case dismissed.
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 5:43:29 AM EST

Originally Posted By The4thHorseman:
snip



I respect your motives, if not all of your methods, and I think it speaks highly of your charecter that you admitted that here.
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 6:58:38 AM EST

Originally Posted By azeagle:

Originally Posted By Corporal_Chaos:

Keep in mind that that is MALDEF's spin on events.



And I'm sure that hes telling nothing but the truth too and has absolutly no reason to lie or spin things.



Yeah, Roger is telling the truth. These morons go after him on a regular basis. Dozens of complaints have been filed against him, so many in fact, that the FEDS investigated him... and found the complaints unsubstantiated. He defends his property and will hold illegals for the USBP when he finds them. He doesn't go looking for them. He doesn't have to.

And thats why MALDEF and the ACLU hate him. He doesn't make mistakes which would allow them to get his grazing lease removed. He is a major roadblock on the road north to you fine gents upstate.
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 7:46:36 AM EST
The 4th Horseman,

You are more of an American than azeagle will ever be, in my opinion.
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 11:42:17 AM EST

Originally Posted By ASUsax:
Look, this guy is entirely within his rights and this should be thrown out...



13-407. Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises

A. A person or his agent in lawful possession or control of premises is justified in threatening to use deadly physical force or in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent that a reasonable person would believe it immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon the premises.

B. A person may use deadly physical force under subsection A only in the defense of himself or third persons as described in sections 13-405 and 13-406.



So he is justified in threating deadly physical force to prevent criminal tresspass. Or he can use physical force at hit the woman.



yes he had the right to threaten use of physical force. But he didn't have the right to use it. There is a difference.



Originally Posted By ASUsax:

13-1502. Criminal trespass in the third degree; classification

A. A person commits criminal trespass in the third degree by:

1. Knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully on any real property after a reasonable request to leave by the owner or any other person having lawful control over such property, or reasonable notice prohibiting entry.



It's also pretty clear that they WERE committing criminal tresspass.



That would be up for debate. Yes they illegally crossed the border but that doesn't mean that they are guilty of criminal trespassing.

Were there signs where they crossed into his property? If there wasn't then they couldn't have known it was private land.

And they sure weren't staying there against his will since he was holding them a gunpoint so he can't use the part of the law that says its illegal for them to stay there since they weren't staying of their own free will.

So it would seem that wether they are in fact guilty of criminal trespass is up for debate. Just based on the information at hand they weren't. Just because the guy says so doesn't make it true under the law.



Originally Posted By ASUsax:

13-413. No civil liability for justified conduct

No person in this state shall be subject to civil liability for engaging in conduct otherwise justified pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.



Furthermore, they can't sue him for it, because he was justified under the provisions of ARS, section 13, Chapter 4.

Case dismissed.



Thats only if its justified. Which is up for debate since it doesn't look like he had any justification at all. They don't appear to have been armed, they don't appear to have been violent and don't appear to have actually been trying to escape so what justification under the law did he have to touch the woman at all? Under the law, absolutly none.
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 11:50:02 AM EST
[Last Edit: 3/11/2005 12:01:23 PM EST by azeagle]

Originally Posted By AZ_Hi_Desert:

Yeah, Roger is telling the truth. These morons go after him on a regular basis. Dozens of complaints have been filed against him, so many in fact, that the FEDS investigated him... and found the complaints unsubstantiated. He defends his property and will hold illegals for the USBP when he finds them. He doesn't go looking for them. He doesn't have to.
upstate.



I would debate wether he is telling the truth or not. I find it very hard to believe that he doesn't remember the incident. And that is what he said in the article. So it looks like to me that he does in fact have something to hide.

Since I don't know wether he has been investigated before or not. And to tell you the truth it really doesn't matter if he has been or not. If he did in fact break the law then whatever he did in the past doesn't matter. If he did break the law then he should be punished for it just like everyone else.

I'm sure the ACLU hates him and that there are others that do as well. Thats why I take what they say for what they are. But I also take what Barnett and Denver say for what it is as well.

If he or anyone else wants to detain these people legally then I certainly don't have a problem with that. Its when they start doing it illegally that I have a problem with it. Is that so hard for anyone here to understand.
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 11:51:28 AM EST

Originally Posted By mylhouse:
The 4th Horseman,

You are more of an American than azeagle will ever be, in my opinion.



We are all allowed to our own opinions. And we all know what those are like.

Have a nice day.
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 11:58:32 AM EST

Originally Posted By The4thHorseman:
Well azeagle..I wont take offence to your words!



Thats good, because none was certainly meant. I was just being honest in the way that it looks.

I realize that you took care of things to the satisfaction of the US Government. Not saying you didn't or even that you are a bad person for what you did.

We are all human and make mistakes. I realize that. Some people stand up and take responsibility for them such as you did and thats to be respected.

But others don't and thats a problem in all facets of life.

But I think this world would be alot better place if more people realized that no one is perfect and that mistakes will be made. After all, someone did do that for you.
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 11:59:09 AM EST

Originally Posted By Corporal_Chaos:
Does AZ have a Good Samaritan law? If so, could someone please post the exact phrasing?



Don't know if it does or not. And I doubt that this would be covered under it.
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 12:50:38 PM EST
[Last Edit: 3/11/2005 12:51:53 PM EST by TopCrest]

Originally Posted By azeagle:

Originally Posted By ASUsax:
Look, this guy is entirely within his rights and this should be thrown out...



justified in threatening to use deadly physical force or in threatening or using physical force against another







yes he had the right to threaten use of physical force. But he didn't have the right to use it. There is a difference.



Um, no. The law clearly states he has the right to use physical force.

Did i miss something?


Link Posted: 3/11/2005 1:18:48 PM EST
[Last Edit: 3/11/2005 1:30:06 PM EST by azeagle]

Originally Posted By TopCrest:
Um, no. The law clearly states he has the right to use physical force.

Did i miss something?



Yeah, the part where it says a reasonable person.

No reasonable person I know would say that it was reasonable for him to just walk up to a woman and kick her. Especially when he has a dog and is waving a gun around.

You also missed the part that said:

would believe it immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon the premises.

Tell me how walking up and kicking the woman was in anyway necessary at all to stopping the commission of the crime that he had already ended.

I would also debate on how reasonable he was as he was shouting obscenities at them. Thats a pretty good sign that reason has gone out the window.
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 1:36:12 PM EST

Originally Posted By azeagle:
<snip>



Have you ever drawn down on people trespassing on your property or committing heinous acts? It's a bit of a rush. He shouted naughty words and kicked a woman. I commend him for practicing such restraint.
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 1:56:11 PM EST
Azeagle you seem to have no clue, but thats ok.
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 2:07:18 PM EST

Originally Posted By Biggame223:
Azeagle you seem to have no clue, but thats ok.



And tell me why I have no clue.

None of you can say that what he has supposidly done is in anyway legal.

And just because they are illegal immigrants doesn't mean you can assault them. Which is what people are trying to defend.
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 2:10:15 PM EST

Originally Posted By TopCrest:

Have you ever drawn down on people trespassing on your property or committing heinous acts? It's a bit of a rush. He shouted naughty words and kicked a woman. I commend him for practicing such restraint.



You mean to tell me after all the times he has apprehended these people that he couldn't act any better than that.

BTW: That isn't a defense. But your honor, it was such a rush that it was all I could do to keep from doing more. Again, there went that reasonable theory out the window.
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 2:54:36 PM EST

Originally Posted By azeagle:

Originally Posted By TopCrest:

Have you ever drawn down on people trespassing on your property or committing heinous acts? It's a bit of a rush. He shouted naughty words and kicked a woman. I commend him for practicing such restraint.



You mean to tell me after all the times he has apprehended these people that he couldn't act any better than that.

BTW: That isn't a defense. But your honor, it was such a rush that it was all I could do to keep from doing more. Again, there went that reasonable theory out the window.



well i guess cops arent reasonable people either. asked them if theyve ever said mean things that hurt suspects feelings. or if they even went so far as to take a sucker punch. they must be bloody savages like this man.

Link Posted: 3/11/2005 3:07:17 PM EST
Mr. Barnett has had a bullseye on his forehead for MANY years now, he has been investigated by Local, State and Fed entities as well as private groups.

If the Feds had ANYTHING on him they would have persued it w/o hesitation.

He is still in business

I will give him the benefit of the doubt before I give it to a criminal invader.

Thats for sure

Have a nice day

Link Posted: 3/11/2005 3:44:33 PM EST
azeagle said , "Were there signs where they crossed into his property? If there wasn't then they couldn't have known it was private land."

It is your responsibility to know where you are at all times. Being an avid outdoorsman and 4wheeler, I've been reminded of this a few times in the field.
As for the ALLEGED kicking of the woman, while I certainly do not condone said action I wasn't there at the time and neither were you, so neither one of us knows the circumstances surrounding the actual events. The difference is, I'm willing to give the law abiding, tax paying, US citizen, land owning rancher the benefit of doubt over the word of an illegal alien who's been here in this country for a matter of minutes and has already committed a federal offense. I'm not against immigration, but there's a right way and a wrong way to do things.
By the way, these illegals were fluent in English to know they were being shouted obsceneties at?!?!
Link Posted: 3/11/2005 4:47:48 PM EST
WTF is this cunt complaining about being kicked (if in fact it is true) anyway? She's lucky he didn't:
a) shoot her
b) sic the dog on her
or, drum roll....

c) whip out the trusty 6 D-Cell MAGLITE!!!

Stupid whore.
Link Posted: 3/12/2005 6:50:32 AM EST

Originally Posted By azeagle:
Kicking an unarmed woman while keeping her at bay with an attack dog while waving a gun around isn't heroic in my book. Doesn't matter if she is an illegal immigrant or not, thats just plain wrong.

Flame suit on.



Repeat after me....



"allegedly kicking a woman..."

I also like how you managed to insert "attack" in front of "dog." Sounds like MALDEF could take some lessons from you when it comes to twisting things in an inflammatory fashion.
Link Posted: 3/12/2005 1:36:08 PM EST
azeagle said , "Were there signs where they crossed into his property? If there wasn't then they couldn't have known it was private land."

You know, the more I think about this statement the more I think...."what kind of a mindless asshole do you have to be to think that a group of people who have just shown a total and complete disregard for the border of a sovereign nation, are going to give a rat's ass about the private property sign of a common citizen?!?!" Assuming they could read it in the first place.
azeagle may be on to something here. Suppose we just put up some "no tresspassing" signs along the border, problem solved, eh?? Pure genius!
Pull your head out of your ass and come up for some air. hinking.gif
Link Posted: 3/12/2005 6:46:23 PM EST
Sometimes the solution is obvious........


Link Posted: 3/13/2005 8:17:09 AM EST

Originally Posted By zukem:
Larry Dever is a great guy. I wish him the best.

-Luke



+1
Link Posted: 3/13/2005 10:25:36 AM EST
I would be proud to stand next to these guys to defend nation and property. and to 4th horeseman, if we ever meet, your beers are on me!
Link Posted: 3/13/2005 4:53:40 PM EST

Originally Posted By azjeeper:
"what kind of a mindless asshole do you have to be to think that a group of people who have just shown a total and complete disregard for the border of a sovereign nation, are going to give a rat's ass about the private property sign of a common citizen?!?!" Assuming they could read it in the first place.




+1
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top