You just maxed out my fury bar!!!
Global- @SailorET, Justice Server
Sheryl Fiero, 50 AR/Devices Blaster
Louise Fiero, 50 Merc/Traps MM
Various assorted alts
Proudly serving in our military so you don't have to.
I'm tryin' to wrap my head 'round this...they trespassed on his land to enter this country illegally, and they're suing him for stopping them? 
The crazy lawyers for these people and the idiot judge should all be removed from the legal profession. If caught in the commission of a crime involving trespass by the owner of the property you are trespassing on, you don't get to complain about how he reacts. If he'd started blasting off willy nilly, he'd have been in the wrong morally but I'm not sure about legally, as if he felt threatened on his own property he has a right to defend himself.
@Scimifish
Zak the Space Varmit AR/Energy Blaster
Apocryphus Energy/Energy Blaster
Swordwraith Broadsword/DA Scrapper
Brother Bullet AR/Dev Blaster
Sinistrahd DB/WP Brute
Solar Despot En/En Brute
Wow, that rancher guy looks like Lorne Michaels!
[ QUOTE ]
If caught in the commission of a crime involving trespass by the owner of the property you are trespassing on, you don't get to complain about how he reacts.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, you do. I'm not going to take a definitive position on the merits of this case as I am not well acquainted with its facts, although as a general proposition I favor the rights of property owners.
That having been said, the common law of torts does not privilege a landowner to do anything he wants with respect to a trespasser on his property. I'm not sure exactly what the claims of the plaintiffs are--probably at least assault, battery, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress--but there is a good chance that at least one of them represents a valid cause of action against which self-defense, defense of property, or other common privileges do not provide an absolute defense. Certainly the defendant can counterclaim trespass and probably win, but that doesn't mean that the plaintiffs haven't stated claims on which relief could be granted. That's all the judge found and I suspect that he was probably right.
Roger Barnett claims "[he's] the victim here" and he's absolutely correct. But that's not to say that, as a matter of law, he can't also be a perpetrator.
Naphil, 50 Peacebringer
Captain Darkspirit, 50 Warshade
Operative Acier, 50 Bane Spider
Durante Ragno, 50 Fortunata
et al.
Sucks for the property owner but what SpyderNoir has stated is true. If trespassing is the only crime the commit the use of any kind of force turns the property owner from victim to perpetrator. Now if he caught them in the act of another crime while trespassing then it is a different ball game and the property owner has more options. Heck in Texas if someone is trespassing at night and performing an act of criminal mischief the property owner is well within their right to use deadly force.
BigRedOne - I do all my own stunts!!!
Honor Guard of the Big Red Ball
To be stupid, selfish, and have good health are three requirements for happiness, though if stupidity is lacking, all is lost.
- Gustave Flaubert
[ QUOTE ]
I'm tryin' to wrap my head 'round this...they trespassed on his land to enter this country illegally, and they're suing him for stopping them? The crazy lawyers for these people and the idiot judge should all be removed from the legal profession. If caught in the commission of a crime involving trespass by the owner of the property you are trespassing on, you don't get to complain about how he reacts. If he'd started blasting off willy nilly, he'd have been in the wrong morally but I'm not sure about legally, as if he felt threatened on his own property he has a right to defend himself.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's worth doing some research on your rights as a property owner and the laws around that. Assuming that you're safe from anything that you do or that happens to a trespasser on your property can get you into trouble. If you own things like pools, hot tubs, or trampolines and don't put reasonable protections in place to prevent people (I think especially children) from wandering into you yard and drowning or getting injured, you can be held responsible. I think they're called "attractive nuisances." I worked at a camp where the owners also lived on the property and these were things they always worried about and guarded against. I don't know what else is on the list, so there could be more and it may vary by state. Those are the ones I remember from California.
It's probably also worth looking into if you're a dog owner and someone trespasses on your preoperty and your dog bites him. I have no idea what would happen - you might think you're safe, but that's something I'd research before getting a dog.
Sometimes I'm amazed we don't all live in bubbles.
~Missi
http://tinyurl.com/yhy333s
Miss Informed in 2016! She can't be worse than all those other guys!
[ QUOTE ]
I think they're called "attractive nuisances."
[/ QUOTE ]
You're right. Also, I've long wanted to name a villainess that. 
Naphil, 50 Peacebringer
Captain Darkspirit, 50 Warshade
Operative Acier, 50 Bane Spider
Durante Ragno, 50 Fortunata
et al.
[ QUOTE ]
You're right. Also, I've long wanted to name a villainess that.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't remember the details, but with regards to the "rights" of criminals, I think I remember a school was successfully sued for damages because some burglars fell through a skylight. 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm tryin' to wrap my head 'round this...they trespassed on his land to enter this country illegally, and they're suing him for stopping them? The crazy lawyers for these people and the idiot judge should all be removed from the legal profession. If caught in the commission of a crime involving trespass by the owner of the property you are trespassing on, you don't get to complain about how he reacts. If he'd started blasting off willy nilly, he'd have been in the wrong morally but I'm not sure about legally, as if he felt threatened on his own property he has a right to defend himself.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's worth doing some research on your rights as a property owner and the laws around that. Assuming that you're safe from anything that you do or that happens to a trespasser on your property can get you into trouble. If you own things like pools, hot tubs, or trampolines and don't put reasonable protections in place to prevent people (I think especially children) from wandering into you yard and drowning or getting injured, you can be held responsible. I think they're called "attractive nuisances." I worked at a camp where the owners also lived on the property and these were things they always worried about and guarded against. I don't know what else is on the list, so there could be more and it may vary by state. Those are the ones I remember from California.
It's probably also worth looking into if you're a dog owner and someone trespasses on your preoperty and your dog bites him. I have no idea what would happen - you might think you're safe, but that's something I'd research before getting a dog.
Sometimes I'm amazed we don't all live in bubbles.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, but... if they're illegal immigrants what claim do they have to civil rights in the States?
In the States, isn't it the right of the landowner to protect his land? Isn't that where the second amenmdent comes from, ultimately? To allow private citizens the right to bear arms against oppressive governments and to allow them to defend themselves against militaries who would use their property, against the will of the owner, to do things like billot troops and the like?
How the hell did these illegal immigrants even hire a lawyer?
There's a ton about this that makes no sense at all.
Brother of Markus
The Lord of Fire and Pain
The Legendary Living Hellfire
Fight my brute!
The impression I have picked up from the story is that this guy bought that ranch or very shortly thereafter decided to make catching illegals his hobby. It says he was a cop in Cochise county and later went into the propane business (a big part of which is delivering propane to ranchers), presumably in the same area. I don't think he could possibly be unaware of the problems on that ranch before he bought it. $30,000 worth of sensors and holding 3-4 people for arrest every day is a lot of time and expense. I'm not sure whose words "He searches the ranch for illegal immigrants in a pickup truck, dressed in a green shirt and camouflage hat, with his handgun and rifle, high-powered binoculars and a walkie-talkie." are, but that was the impression of what was going on that I got earlier in the story.
I'm also a little suspicious of his claim that cattle ate plastic bottles the illegals left behind and then died. I don't know of any farm or ranch with publicly accessible areas where vandalism is not a problem. In fact, on ranches near the border, a fair amount of vandalism tends to be caused by the border patrol. A friend of my fathers had to put up with fences being cut and cattle being shot because agents reportedly felt threated.
I'm somewhat sympathetic towards people who come over here just to work, but suing someone who stopped you is really pushing it, even though this guy seems to be acting like a jacknapes when he catches people. Particularly for $32 million. My guess on that would be that they are mostly trying to ring some money out of this guy either just for for the money or to try and throw a wrench in what he is doing.
Both sides seem pretty silly to me.
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, but... if they're illegal immigrants what claim do they have to civil rights in the States?
[/ QUOTE ]
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,"
[ QUOTE ]
In the States, isn't it the right of the landowner to protect his land? Isn't that where the second amenmdent comes from, ultimately? To allow private citizens the right to bear arms against oppressive governments and to allow them to defend themselves against militaries who would use their property, against the will of the owner, to do things like billot troops and the like?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, it is the right of the landowner to protect himself and his property, however, this right is not a Carte Blanche for that owner to do whatever he will.
If the article read that he had SHOT them for trespassing, wouldn't you think that he was using excessive force? If not, what if he had forced each of them on their knees and done it execution style? I don't think that's what was intended by the 2nd Amendment.
Now that said, I actually think the guy was in the right. Trespassers had shown a proven habit of vandalizing his property, littering his grounds which were a danger to his livestock, destroying his fences and gates, damaging his water pumps, stealing his trucks, and even breaking into his home. Heck, it even says that some of the people he stops are drug smugglers who are ARMED.
Just as importantly, he didn't kill anyone, he stopped them and held them at bay until they could be turned over to the proper authorities. Isn't that what the border patrol is there for? He claims to have done this on multiple occasions and the border patrol hasn't stopped him or cited him, so I'm guessing that on their end it's not illegal.
[ QUOTE ]
How the hell did these illegal immigrants even hire a lawyer?
[/ QUOTE ]
My guess? An ambulance chaser who thinks there's a big payout here and will work for free until the settlement comes and the will collect his 40%.
[ QUOTE ]
There's a ton about this that makes no sense at all.
[/ QUOTE ]
I trust by that you mean the fact that "U.S. District Judge John Roll rejected a motion by Mr. Barnett to have the charges dropped, ruling there was sufficient evidence to allow the matter to be presented to a jury."
Considering all the man has been through, I can only hope the judge's mindset here is to take it to trial with the inclination that Mr. Barnett would win and therefore set a legal precedence.
-Castle Approved Since March 2009!
-Off the Cape is CURRENTLY RECORDING NEW CONTENT! Once edits, templates, and the new site are up we'll be back to bi-weekly podcasts complete with rampant, wild, unfounded CoH speculation!
[ QUOTE ]
How the hell did these illegal immigrants even hire a lawyer?
[/ QUOTE ]
Quite likely he's doing the job pro bono. Notice who he works for, this is 1/2 publicity stunt and 1/2 setting a precendent.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hyperstrike
English does not borrow from other languages. English follows other languages down dark alleys, hits them over the head, and rifles through their pockets for loose grammar.
|
In other news...
Took 'em long enough! 
[/ QUOTE ]
Lesbian Batwoman is DC Comics' first gay superhero
DC Comics have unveiled their first openly gay superhero - a sapphic socialite called Batwoman.
Telegraph.co.uk
By Caroline Hedley in Los Angeles
Last Updated: 7:43AM GMT 11 Feb 2009
The flame-haired lesbian crime-fighter is taking over from Bruce Wayne, who suffered an untimely demise in a recent issue of Detective Comics' longest-running series.
For over 60 years, Wayne has fronted the iconic Batman publication. His apparent passing has paved the way for Batwoman - who is described as a "lesbian socialite by night and a crime-fighter by later in the night" - to take over the reigns for at least 12 issues in a run that begins this June.
Writer Greg Rucka told the Comic Book Resources website that the introduction of a lesbian character into the DC roster was "long overdue". "We have been waiting to unlock her," he said. "Yes, she's a lesbian. She's also a redhead. It is an element of her character. It is not her character".
He went on to dismiss fears of a possible backlash from fans. "If people are going to have problems with it, that's their issue", Rucka said. "That's certainly not mine."
Batwoman - whose alter-ego is Katherine "Kate" Kane - was introduced into the DC character stable in 1956 as a love interest for the Dark Knight. Her appearance helped stifle persisting rumours about Batman's own sexuality.
She was first 'outed' by her creators in 2006 as a former lover of Gotham City police detective Renee Montoya. She has made cameo appearances in the comic series, but her elevation to alpha superhero has been celebrated by gay rights groups.
The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation praised DC for their efforts to diversify their characters.
Writers have refused to confirm whether Batman may be reincarnated in a future issue, saying simply that he is "elsewhere".
[ QUOTE ]
How the hell did these illegal immigrants even hire a lawyer?
[/ QUOTE ]
From the text:
[ QUOTE ]
The immigrants are represented at trial by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF)
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, but... if they're illegal immigrants what claim do they have to civil rights in the States?
[/ QUOTE ]
The U.N. posted some equality rules for aliens with regards to the civil rights of a country they are in, and we are supposed to be abiding by those rules, assuming we want our citizens treated the same way. I believe they did not specifically address illegal aliens and there is some debate on that point, particularly by people who would prefer to do what they like to them.
edit: meant to post this and didn't.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchas...tenced-for.php
And on the second amendment, I think less at issue is the fact he stopped them with an arm and more the fact that he was reportedly physically and verbally abusing them while holding them captive with it, though I could be wrong.
I only read 52 because Batwoman was in it. I'm quite happy to read this.
@Arwen Darkblade
Proud Member of Hammer of the Gods and Sanguine Syndicate
Arc ID #86194 "Cry Havoc"
Arc ID #103934 "Dr. Thomas' First Day"
[URL="http://tobyfife.blogspot.com/"]Hero Girl[/URL] - my geek culture blog
Manoa quoted:
[ QUOTE ]
He went on to dismiss fears of a possible backlash from fans. "If people are going to have problems with it, that's their issue", Rucka said. "That's certainly not mine."
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, right. They know their fans. They're going to get rich off these 12 issues.
And conservative Christians who rail against the whole thing will only end up selling more of them.
--NT
They all laughed at me when I said I wanted to be a comedian.
But I showed them, and nobody's laughing at me now!
If I became a red name, I would be all "and what would you mere mortals like to entertain me with today, mu hu ha ha ha!" ~Arcanaville
[ QUOTE ]
In the States, isn't it the right of the landowner to protect his land? Isn't that where the second amenmdent comes from, ultimately? To allow private citizens the right to bear arms against oppressive governments and to allow them to defend themselves against militaries who would use their property, against the will of the owner, to do things like billot troops and the like?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. But the immigrants weren't doing any of the above. They were not an imminent threat to his person and they were not in his house. He was outside waiting for them, so it's not self-defense either. And though he claims that immigrants have, in the past, destroyed his property and killed his animals, he has made no claims that these immigrants had done or were doing any of those things. Trespassing is all he has on these immigrants and the laws don't really say that it's ok to hold a gun on people for walking over your property. It's not as easy as it sounds.
Is the lawsuit ridiculous? It sounds like it, though I don't know what happened and what's going on with the part about kicking someone. I don't know of any law that says it's ok for you to kick people who are on your property. I also don't know what led up to that or if it's even true.
Do people who aren't citizens deserve to have the rights accorded to US citizens? I think that's part of what makes us what we are - we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. It doesn't say that only applies to American citizens. The poem of the Statue of Liberty reads "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-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" Granted, we aren't saying "Send them to us and we'll let them break the laws." And we shouldn't. But I can see how people may be confused when we send out a welcoming message, then build fences and have people waiting with guns. We may need to have Lady Liberty issue a memo saying, "Please note: only applicable when said huddled masses come through proper channels." That seems fair to me.
On the one hand, I think these immigrants, considering their status, should let this go (I'm sketchy because of the kicking part and what harm may have actually been done on either side). It seems the wrong way to go about things when you're the huddled masses hoping for a new life. You break into someone's home (America, in this case) and you shouldn't expect them to roll out a red carpet, no matter what some poem says. On the other hand, litigation is the new Apple Pie, so maybe they're just trying really hard to be Real Americans.
~Missi
http://tinyurl.com/yhy333s
Miss Informed in 2016! She can't be worse than all those other guys!
[ QUOTE ]
Manoa quoted:
[ QUOTE ]
He went on to dismiss fears of a possible backlash from fans. "If people are going to have problems with it, that's their issue", Rucka said. "That's certainly not mine."
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, right. They know their fans. They're going to get rich off these 12 issues.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yep...it's pretty evident why DC chose Batwoman instead of say, a male character. 
[ QUOTE ]
[L]itigation is the new Apple Pie, so maybe they're just trying really hard to be Real Americans.
[/ QUOTE ]
Naphil, 50 Peacebringer
Captain Darkspirit, 50 Warshade
Operative Acier, 50 Bane Spider
Durante Ragno, 50 Fortunata
et al.
[ QUOTE ]
It's probably also worth looking into if you're a dog owner and someone trespasses on your preoperty and your dog bites him. I have no idea what would happen - you might think you're safe, but that's something I'd research before getting a dog.
[/ QUOTE ]
As a matter of fact, just this sort of thing happened about two years ago in Florida, I believe. Someone trespassing into a backyard protected by chain link fence and warning signs was attacked by the family dog. Last I had heard, the court ordered the dog put down, but the family was fighting it.
Global- @SailorET, Justice Server
Sheryl Fiero, 50 AR/Devices Blaster
Louise Fiero, 50 Merc/Traps MM
Various assorted alts
Proudly serving in our military so you don't have to.
[ QUOTE ]
Do people who aren't citizens deserve to have the rights accorded to US citizens? I think that's part of what makes us what we are - we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. It doesn't say that only applies to American citizens. The poem of the Statue of Liberty reads "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-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" Granted, we aren't saying "Send them to us and we'll let them break the laws." And we shouldn't. But I can see how people may be confused when we send out a welcoming message, then build fences and have people waiting with guns. We may need to have Lady Liberty issue a memo saying, "Please note: only applicable when said huddled masses come through proper channels." That seems fair to me.
On the one hand, I think these immigrants, considering their status, should let this go (I'm sketchy because of the kicking part and what harm may have actually been done on either side). It seems the wrong way to go about things when you're the huddled masses hoping for a new life. You break into someone's home (America, in this case) and you shouldn't expect them to roll out a red carpet, no matter what some poem says. On the other hand, litigation is the new Apple Pie, so maybe they're just trying really hard to be Real Americans.
[/ QUOTE ]
Here is the thing, all men are created equal, but that doesn't mean they can go about breaking laws, and we are indeed a nation of laws. We chose litigation over regulation as a method to deal with these types of issues which means that often times we get these interesting questions like this case.
I for one am happy that this case is going forth, not because I feel the case has any merit, I don't believe it does, but I do believe that it will set a precedent and offer many important answers regarding illegal immigrants and trespassing.
We had a very noble mission statement when we started this nation. The problem is that now a days we cant just let in any tired, cold, huddled mass, and for safety reasons we want to know who that tired, cold, huddled mass is. Our system for immigration needs to be reworked, but it needs to be there.
Its going to be interesting to see how this case pans out. if the illegal immigrants win, then no legal citizen has a right to defend their property and detain trespassers until the authorities arive, If the rancher wins then we will see a massive upswell in really tall fences and private security patrols. It will be many years though before we get a final decision. I guarantee this will be appealed all the way up.
Again, I don't think it is so much about detaining them and defending property as it is about his actions when engaged in doing so.
[ QUOTE ]
Again, I don't think it is so much about detaining them and defending property as it is about his actions when engaged in doing so.
[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed. And I don't know enough about that to judge one way or another. Of course, the issue then may become "how do you detain someone (or a dozen someones) for arrest if you have no real power." This guy has detained many people over the years, apparently. They were probably all afraid because he had a gun, sounded scary, and presented himself as someone who seemed to have authority. Once word gets out that he has a gun he'll go to jail for using, I doubt people are going to allow themselves to be detained. He'll go from detaining people for arrest to being a fist-shaking "Hey, you kids get off my lawn" guy. That doesn't seem like the best solutuion, either.
How do you detain someone when you have no authority, you don't know the name of the person you're detaining, the person has no known address, and the person likely has little or nothing to lose? If you do it with a gun, the person at the other end of it needs to believe that there's a real probability you'll use it. It seems to me this guy is pretty lucky. Depending on proximity, a group of people desperate enough probably could take one guy down and get away, gun or no. Most of them probably have families back in Mexico they want to send money to and think seeing them again is worth letting this guy hold them. He just needs a few who don't feel that way and he's in more trouble that a lawsuit.
~Missi
http://tinyurl.com/yhy333s
Miss Informed in 2016! She can't be worse than all those other guys!
[ QUOTE ]
Its going to be interesting to see how this case pans out. if the illegal immigrants win, then no legal citizen has a right to defend their property and detain trespassers until the authorities arive, If the rancher wins then we will see a massive upswell in really tall fences and private security patrols. It will be many years though before we get a final decision. I guarantee this will be appealed all the way up.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, let's not be too hasty. This case is currently in Federal district court. Whatever the outcome, it is not going to carry the weight of precedent anywhere. Even if the case is eventually ruled upon by the Ninth Circuit court of appeals, it is only binding precedent within the states of that circuit.
And what precedent would be established? Well, several of the claims at issue are tort law claims, which arise under state law. Anything having to do with what a landowner can and can't do to people who are trespassing on his land is a state law issue. This case is in Federal court on diversity jurisdiction, with ancillary jurisdiction over the state claims (if memory of civil procedure serves; correct me if I'm wrong). That means that despite being Federal court, many of the issues are only significant within the state of Arizona. If the case makes its way to an appellate court which then rules on substantive Federal law, the decision's import will be in that legal sphere. I haven't been able to scrounge up much about the case (the best resource for pleadings and other documents is a pay service), but it looks like most of the federal claims of the plaintiffs have to do with conspiracy to deprive persons of civil rights. Any new law arising out of this case is liable to be associated with narrow issues such as that one, or with state action doctrine (that is, when a specific act can be attributed to the government).
[ QUOTE ]
Do people who aren't citizens deserve to have the rights accorded to US citizens? I think that's part of what makes us what we are - we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. It doesn't say that only applies to American citizens.
[/ QUOTE ]
While the Declaration of Independence is a great document of principle and history, I'd be careful of relying on it to support legal propositions. In fact, even if it ought to be given that significance, there are some rights that are inconsistent with status as an illegal alien. For example, one of the claims in this case is that the defendant illegally interfered with plaintiff's constitutional right to interstate travel. We'll leave aside the origin of the right to interstate travel in the Privileges and Immunities Clause (wherein the right is explicitly conferred on citizens) and just think about the practicality of rectifying it with illegal immigrant status. How can one argue that illegal immigrants have the same rights as citizens when one of the rights of citizens is the right of interstate travel and the meaning of illegal immigrant is that one does not have the right to be in the country? To look at it from the standpoint of enforcement, we'd be saying that the government may properly keep illegal immigrants out of the country and may properly remove illegal immigrants from the country, but it may not properly restrict the movement of illegal immigrants within the country. This seems to me to be impossible to reconcile.
Naphil, 50 Peacebringer
Captain Darkspirit, 50 Warshade
Operative Acier, 50 Bane Spider
Durante Ragno, 50 Fortunata
et al.
16 illegals sue Arizona rancher
On Justice
Super Goober, Scrankster, Dusty McFluffy, SuperHappyFun and others
_____________________________________________
Daily affirmation: net helpmsg 4006
I'm going to need a hacksaw. -- Jack Bauer
I just lost my chicken - Bubbles
Aaawwk! I can feel it in my choadies - Hank Venture