0
   

Citizen Border Patrols and the Law

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Nov, 2006 12:38 pm
Warning: the link below links to a PDF format document.

Details of the three lawsuits brought against Roger, Donald and/or Barbara Barnett.

Do a web search based on "Roger Barnett+Arturo Morales." Barnett confronted five individuals, including three minor children, and threatened them with a loaded assault rifle, while they were on land leased by Barnett from the Arizona State Land Department. He used racist eptithet, and referred to them as "filthy Mexicans." Mr. Morales and his four companions are all United States citizens. They were not on private property, and they had threatened no one. Barnett was convicted in a civil action in Bisbee, Arizona, and was ordered by the jury to pay damages of $100,000. During the civil action, an Arizona Fish and Game officer and other bow hunters testified that they had been threatened by Barnett on other occasions, when Barnett had been carrying a loaded weapon.

Your hero, huh, Baldimo?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Nov, 2006 12:41 pm
Baldimo wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Guess is the appropriate verb, since there is absolutely no good reason to make that assumption.


People protecting their land are getting sued and losing their land. Doesn't that tell you that protecting your land will cost you? It would seem that it is cheaper to just let illegals do what they want instead of stoping them. It seems they are more interesting in protecting the "rights" of illegals then the rights of citizens.


To repeat--Barnett threatened Arturo, Ronald, Vanese and Angelique Morales and Emma English while they were on land owned by the State of Arizona, and leased to Barnett. Mr. Morales was legally entitled to hunt on that land, which is not and never has been the private property of Mr. Barnett.

Don't let me stop you, though, Baldimo. I know you love a good hyssy fit.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Nov, 2006 12:43 pm
Baldimo wrote:
So I guess what I am reading here, is that Citizens are not allowed to protect their land from trespassers?


I suppose one could look at the price of milk charged by a dairy in Pennsylvania and then guess as to whether cows have an anti-gravity device up their bum.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Nov, 2006 12:54 pm
Mame wrote:
No kidding - of course citizens should defend their borders, but not to the exclusion of anything else and not beyond the bounds of reasonableness...


Mr. Barnett was not on his own land, he was on land leased from the Arizona State Land Department. Mr. Morales, and his four companions, who are all United States citizens, were legally hunting on that land. Mr. Barnett went to his truck, and threatened them with a loaded assault rifle--no one had threatened him.
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Nov, 2006 12:55 pm
I'm agreeing with you, Setanta.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Nov, 2006 01:17 pm
Setanta wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Guess is the appropriate verb, since there is absolutely no good reason to make that assumption.


People protecting their land are getting sued and losing their land. Doesn't that tell you that protecting your land will cost you? It would seem that it is cheaper to just let illegals do what they want instead of stoping them. It seems they are more interesting in protecting the "rights" of illegals then the rights of citizens.


To repeat--Barnett threatened Arturo, Ronald, Vanese and Angelique Morales and Emma English while they were on land owned by the State of Arizona, and leased to Barnett. Mr. Morales was legally entitled to hunt on that land, which is not and never has been the private property of Mr. Barnett.

Don't let me stop you, though, Baldimo. I know you love a good hyssy fit.


Now that you have broken down the situation for me, it makes more sense.

I'm not wanting to throw a "hyssy" fit as you call it, was searching for clairification. Must you be so confrontational towards me?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Nov, 2006 01:19 pm
Baldimo wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Guess is the appropriate verb, since there is absolutely no good reason to make that assumption.


People protecting their land are getting sued and losing their land. Doesn't that tell you that protecting your land will cost you? It would seem that it is cheaper to just let illegals do what they want instead of stoping them. It seems they are more interesting in protecting the "rights" of illegals then the rights of citizens.


To repeat--Barnett threatened Arturo, Ronald, Vanese and Angelique Morales and Emma English while they were on land owned by the State of Arizona, and leased to Barnett. Mr. Morales was legally entitled to hunt on that land, which is not and never has been the private property of Mr. Barnett.

Don't let me stop you, though, Baldimo. I know you love a good hyssy fit.


Now that you have broken down the situation for me, it makes more sense.

I'm not wanting to throw a "hyssy" fit as you call it, was searching for clairification. Must you be so confrontational towards me?


The Scorpion and the Frog
One day, a scorpion looked around at the mountain where he lived and decided that he wanted a change. So he set out on a journey through the forests and hills. He climbed over rocks and under vines and kept going until he reached a river.

The river was wide and swift, and the scorpion stopped to reconsider the situation. He couldn't see any way across. So he ran upriver and then checked downriver, all the while thinking that he might have to turn back.

Suddenly, he saw a frog sitting in the rushes by the bank of the stream on the other side of the river. He decided to ask the frog for help getting across the stream.

"Hellooo Mr. Frog!" called the scorpion across the water, "Would you be so kind as to give me a ride on your back across the river?"

"Well now, Mr. Scorpion! How do I know that if I try to help you, you wont try to kill me?" asked the frog hesitantly.

"Because," the scorpion replied, "If I try to kill you, then I would die too, for you see I cannot swim!"

Now this seemed to make sense to the frog. But he asked. "What about when I get close to the bank? You could still try to kill me and get back to the shore!"

"This is true," agreed the scorpion, "But then I wouldn't be able to get to the other side of the river!"

"Alright then...how do I know you wont just wait till we get to the other side and THEN kill me?" said the frog.

"Ahh...," crooned the scorpion, "Because you see, once you've taken me to the other side of this river, I will be so grateful for your help, that it would hardly be fair to reward you with death, now would it?!"

So the frog agreed to take the scorpion across the river. He swam over to the bank and settled himself near the mud to pick up his passenger. The scorpion crawled onto the frog's back, his sharp claws prickling into the frog's soft hide, and the frog slid into the river. The muddy water swirled around them, but the frog stayed near the surface so the scorpion would not drown. He kicked strongly through the first half of the stream, his flippers paddling wildly against the current.

Halfway across the river, the frog suddenly felt a sharp sting in his back and, out of the corner of his eye, saw the scorpion remove his stinger from the frog's back. A deadening numbness began to creep into his limbs.

"You fool!" croaked the frog, "Now we shall both die! Why on earth did you do that?"

The scorpion shrugged, and did a little jig on the drownings frog's back.

"I could not help myself. It is my nature."

Then they both sank into the muddy waters of the swiftly flowing river.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Nov, 2006 01:42 pm
Baldimo wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Guess is the appropriate verb, since there is absolutely no good reason to make that assumption.


People protecting their land are getting sued and losing their land. Doesn't that tell you that protecting your land will cost you? It would seem that it is cheaper to just let illegals do what they want instead of stoping them. It seems they are more interesting in protecting the "rights" of illegals then the rights of citizens.


To repeat--Barnett threatened Arturo, Ronald, Vanese and Angelique Morales and Emma English while they were on land owned by the State of Arizona, and leased to Barnett. Mr. Morales was legally entitled to hunt on that land, which is not and never has been the private property of Mr. Barnett.

Don't let me stop you, though, Baldimo. I know you love a good hyssy fit.


Now that you have broken down the situation for me, it makes more sense.

I'm not wanting to throw a "hyssy" fit as you call it, was searching for clairification. Must you be so confrontational towards me?


Well, Baldimo, you jump into a topic and start throwing around tendentious statements--in this case suggesting that people will get their land taken away from them if they attempt to defend it--without, apparently, having investigated the situation. What kind of reaction would you expect when you haven't even bothered to research the situation?

Edgar's very first post concerns itself with Mr. Barnett. Seeing that, the first thing i did was to search for Mr. Barnett to get as much information as i could. I would recommend that to as a good method for joining the discussion, and preparing yourself to defend the statements you do make.

************************************

Very cute, McG--you're so silly. (Bet you've waited forever to use that--even though it's not germane to the exchange between Baldimo and me.)

But tell me, why do you hate America and its freedoms?
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Nov, 2006 02:01 pm
Setanta wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Guess is the appropriate verb, since there is absolutely no good reason to make that assumption.


People protecting their land are getting sued and losing their land. Doesn't that tell you that protecting your land will cost you? It would seem that it is cheaper to just let illegals do what they want instead of stoping them. It seems they are more interesting in protecting the "rights" of illegals then the rights of citizens.


To repeat--Barnett threatened Arturo, Ronald, Vanese and Angelique Morales and Emma English while they were on land owned by the State of Arizona, and leased to Barnett. Mr. Morales was legally entitled to hunt on that land, which is not and never has been the private property of Mr. Barnett.

Don't let me stop you, though, Baldimo. I know you love a good hyssy fit.


Now that you have broken down the situation for me, it makes more sense.

I'm not wanting to throw a "hyssy" fit as you call it, was searching for clairification. Must you be so confrontational towards me?


Well, Baldimo, you jump into a topic and start throwing around tendentious statements--in this case suggesting that people will get their land taken away from them if they attempt to defend it--without, apparently, having investigated the situation. What kind of reaction would you expect when you haven't even bothered to research the situation?

Edgar's very first post concerns itself with Mr. Barnett. Seeing that, the first thing i did was to search for Mr. Barnett to get as much information as i could. I would recommend that to as a good method for joining the discussion, and preparing yourself to defend the statements you do make.

************************************

Very cute, McG--you're so silly. (Bet you've waited forever to use that--even though it's not germane to the exchange between Baldimo and me.)

But tell me, why do you hate America and its freedoms?


Set this quote from the from post says that other illegals had won someone elses land in a simular dispute where they were tresspassing on private land. They won and now plan to sell said property.

Quote:
They have won civil judgments in Texas, and this year two illegal Salvadoran immigrants who had been held against their will took possession of a 70-acre southern Arizona ranch after winning a case last year.


I wasn't jumping the gun, I was refering to the same article.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Nov, 2006 02:09 pm
Fair enough, Baldimo. However, you did lard your remark with a claim about "defending" property--which is not supported by the quoted article.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Nov, 2006 02:25 pm
Online searches aren't difficult, Baldimo. (Please note that clicking on this link may first lead you to an advertisement, after which you can access the article.) This report by The New York Times gives details of the lawsuit against a vigilante group on the border who lost their property to satisfy the judgement against them. There is no evidence that a private individual lost his or her property simply because he or she attempted to defend it.

(Nota Bene: I found this article, literally, in a few seconds. However, i was logged off, and unable to respond for several minutes. It is never difficult to find articles on controversial subjects such as this.)
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Nov, 2006 06:33 pm
Oh well, the NAU will soon take care of all of this. I can hardley wait for the pro invasion of illegal immigrants to stomp all over their property, see what side of their mouth they talk from then.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Dec, 2006 10:53 am
Setanta wrote:
Online searches aren't difficult, Baldimo. (Please note that clicking on this link may first lead you to an advertisement, after which you can access the article.) This report by The New York Times gives details of the lawsuit against a vigilante group on the border who lost their property to satisfy the judgement against them. There is no evidence that a private individual lost his or her property simply because he or she attempted to defend it.

(Nota Bene: I found this article, literally, in a few seconds. However, i was logged off, and unable to respond for several minutes. It is never difficult to find articles on controversial subjects such as this.)


So as I said before, they detained someone trespassing on his property and as a result he was tried and found guilty and had to give over his ranch to people who were tresspassing on HIS land.

I stand by my first statement. It is cheaper to not protect your land and just let people or in this case illegals tresspass.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Dec, 2006 11:51 am
Read the NYT article again, Baldimo.

You've got the ownership of the original property (trespassed on) wrong.

Mr. Nethercott was protecting someone else's (Joe Sutton) property - had to pay the judgment against him by giving up his property.

Being a felon, it wasn't particularly smart of Mr. Nethercott to be involved in the situation, let alone caught with a weapon.

~~~

It's an interesting article in a number of ways. I'm glad I took a look at it.
0 Replies
 
LittleBitty
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Dec, 2006 11:02 pm
blatham wrote:
Little Bitty wrote
Quote:
Guilty as charged! This article was somewhat irrelevant, but I chose to interject something that would encourage debate in place of the ever so popular "I know you are, but what am I" back and forth I had read. Nevertheless, at this point I feel compelled to respond to your missive.

I have been in several hit and run accidents involving illegal immigrants, the first time ending with my chasing after the person that hit me. On the next occurrence, I had to go to the police station and attempt to identify the offending party. In the third case, I was hit by an illegal immigrant that worked in a body shop. His boss begged me to keep the matter between us and leave the authorities out of the matter.

It would be rather presumptuous of me to assume that I was the only one to have had so many accidents and with such frequency at that. Please note: the legal or illegal status of those involved in these accidents was reported to me by the police in the first two cases and by the above mentioned boss in the third accident.

That would surely be unlikely. But on the other hand, it doesn't follow that your experiences will be broadly representative in the US. We have to be careful that we don't assume local conditions or anecdotal evidence is given more warrant that deserved. Propagandists use precisely this trick to stir emotions and to introduce a false impression of how common or pervasive some unwanted behavior might be. For example, propagandists in the Muslim world will take an incident of cruelty committed by coalition forces and say "See what they are doing!". It's in Bill O'Reilly's bag of tricks, too.

I disagree with your statement concerning racism. How an individual looks acts and speaks is of no consequence to me, and that may well be true of many others. Unless and until I am told otherwise, I will give these protestors the benefit of the doubt. I see this as more a matter of legal versus illegal.

I didn't mean to suggest you were being racist. My point was simply that racism (broadly defined as resentment towards newcomers who are different) is a persistent reality in human affairs and that it is part of this particular debate/problem too. From my childhood through to the present, waves of immigrant groups have moved into rich farming area of my hometown (Chilliwack, BC). Each wave was met by negative reactions within the existing population. It's a very predictable thing.


blatham,

I must be brief, as I have an injury that requires my full attention. With regard to the accidents, I have a few sources and will start another more appropriate thread.

I didn't take the comment about racism personal, however, I wanted to interject my feelings and the fact that others may share the same views. I can understand and do wholeheartedly agree with your comment about O'Reilley.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Dec, 2006 07:14 am
Wet sloppy kiss tossed in the general direction of injured part.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 05/06/2024 at 03:47:02