Illegals Get Uppity, Court Might Be Buying It

[OzzyKP]

Now you are trying to equate minors who are actual citizens with adults who illegally cross the border. Come on, you know better.

Are you saying minors have more rights than illegal immigrants?

[David Floyd]

No, I'm saying that a kid who doesn't understand the concept of property rights shouldn't be held at gunpoint when he plays on your lawn. Tell him to leave, yes, call his parents, yes, hold his parents responsible for any damage he causes, yes. Pull a gun on him, no.

Which, by the way, is why minors don't, can't, and shouldn't have the same rights as adults - they don't have the same reasoning ability. You can argue where to draw the line, but you can't argue that a 7 year old and a 27 year old are the same thing and have the same rights and responsibilities under the law.

[Ramo]

However, I'll grant you that there is at least a possibility that the kicking was excessive, if you grant my point about how this has nothing to do with kidnapping.

I was being glib, but my point is that the landowners' rights are obviously not absolute. I don't know what specifically happened here (and I don't trust the Washington Times to tell the whole story), but the details are important.

[David Floyd]

Ramo, no one is saying that landowner's rights are absolute. No one is even saying that there is nothing else going on here.

My point was - and I think everyone pretty much agreed - that from the information available, the lawsuit is ridiculous and the rancher did nothing wrong.

The smart money says that the unknown information involves allegations of abuse - the kicked woman, in this case. The smart money also says that this is either drummed up bull**** on the part of the illegals and their chicken-****-deserves-to-die attorney, or the result of an attempted action against the rancher on the part of the illegals.

After all, he's been doing this for over a decade. He doesn't exactly have a history of abusing any of the other 12,000 illegals he has turned over to the police. It doesn't add up that he would start now, for no reason.

[Ramo]

No, I'm saying that a kid who doesn't understand the concept of property rights shouldn't be held at gunpoint when he plays on your lawn.

So the parent accompanying the kid can be held in my attic till the authorities come by?

[onodera]

I was also going to suggest landmines. You could probably use barbed wire to protect the cattle, like:
The ranch
Barbed Wire
Landmines
Border
Mexico

Or just authorize the guy to shoot trespassers on sight.

[Ramo]

My point was - and I think everyone pretty much agreed - that from the information available, the lawsuit is ridiculous and the rancher did nothing wrong.

According to the information here, there was an allegation of assault, abetted by law enforcement. Yes, I'm glad we have a legal system that doesn't dismiss this sort of thing out of hand.

[Solomwi]

According to the information here, there was an allegation of assault, abetted by law enforcement. Yes, I'm glad we have a legal system that doesn't dismiss this sort of thing out of hand.

I don't often agree with you, but your last sentence is dead on. Those disappointed in the judge also need to bear in mind that if there is any issue as to the material facts, the judge has to construe it in the plaintiff's favor (since it was a defense motion, either to dismiss or for summary judgment). If, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, it looks like there's any possibility he could prevail at trial, the judge has to let it go forward.

[David Floyd]

So the parent accompanying the kid can be held in my attic till the authorities come by?

You're missing the concept of reasonableness. It isn't reasonable to pull a gun on a neighbor and his kid, and force them into your attic, while you wait for the cops to arrive, just because the kid wandered onto your lawn. It is reasonable to, when you come across 16 illegal immigrants knowingly trespassing across your property, to detain them at gunpoint while you wait for the police.

In the first example, no crime is committed, because it isn't legally possible for a 7 year old to trespass on your lawn. The kid doesn't understand the concept of trespassing, and has no intent to trespass. If the kid's parent tells you to **** off, that the kid can do whatever he wants, I guess that's a little different, but it's also ludicrous. It's not going to happen, and if it does, you just call the police. Your neighbor isn't going anywhere - he's your neighbor.

In the second example, a crime WAS committed, AND you have a reasonable belief that more crimes will be committed based on past experience. If you don't detain them, and just call the police, they will get away. They are adults who are fully responsible for their actions. It's completely different.

According to the information here, there was an allegation of assault, abetted by law enforcement. Yes, I'm glad we have a legal system that doesn't dismiss this sort of thing out of hand.

In this particular situation, the allegation is almost certainly bull****. Anyone with any sense can tell. Unless there is something SERIOUSLY wrong with the Washington Post's story, the judge should have called bull****, too.

[Solomwi]

In this particular situation, the allegation is almost certainly bull****. Anyone with any sense can tell. Unless there is something SERIOUSLY wrong with the Washington Post's story, the judge should have called bull****, too.

The problem is the judge doesn't get to just run it by his bull**** detector. If there's a question of how much force was used, and the amount the plaintiff claims puts it outside the defense of defending his property, even if that question is ultimately decided for Barnett, the judge can't properly toss the case (at least not without one of those much-decried "technicalities"). It's not hard, even under the substantial evidence rule, to get enough evidence to create an issue of fact, especially when the only defense evidence will probably be Barnett swearing to an affidavit saying he didn't do it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Are you saying minors have more rights than illegal immigrants?

In this particular situation, the allegation is almost certainly bull****. Anyone with any sense can tell. Unless there is something SERIOUSLY wrong with the Washington Post's story, the judge should have called bull****, too.

I've learned a long time ago, that newspapers usually tend to get legal stories way wrong.

[Ramo]

Unless there is something SERIOUSLY wrong with the Washington Post's story, the judge should have called bull****, too.

Washington Times. Right wing rag run by a South Korean cult. Maybe the claim is bull****, maybe it's not. I'm glad we have a legal system that goes through the trouble of checking it out.

You're missing the concept of reasonableness.

Yes, and given that I didn't observe this situation, I don't know which specific actions were reasonable. That's why we rely on courts to decide these things, and not crappy newspapers.

[duke o' york]

he yelled at them in Spanish, "My dog is hungry and he's hungry for buttocks."

Can someone please tell me the Spanish for this?

[David Floyd]

Yes, yes I am aware there are legal niceties to be observed. I'm just using the reasonable person standard, and saying that from looking at Barnett's history, and looking at the axe to grind that the plaintiff has, the plaintiff's claim is 100% bull****.

[Ming]

Since it was "alleged assult", you would think that it would start as a criminal case first.
But the story doesn't mention if any criminal charges were filed. I would assume that since the story doesn't mention any, the local authorities didn't see enough evidence to press any charges. Maybe the plantifs tried to have the locals press charges... but something tells me this is just your typical money grab.

If he assulted her, and what he did was illegal, punish him. But 32 million dollars.. OH PLEASE...