Illegals Get Uppity, Court Might Be Buying It

[David Floyd]

That's true too - the local authorities CAN use their bull**** detectors when decided whether or not to file charges. Also, in a civil case, AFAIK the judge has more leeway than in a criminal case when it comes to tossing it out.

Any lawyers want to confirm/rebut that for me?

[Ramo]

The plaintiffs are alleging that the local authorities were complicit in the assault.

[David Floyd]

Maybe, but if you read the article it is very clear that the lawsuit is against Barnett, and it is a civil case.

[Ramo]

Once more:

The immigrants are represented at trial by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), which also charged that Sheriff Dever did nothing to prevent Mr. Barnett from holding their clients at "gunpoint, yelling obscenities at them and kicking one of the women."

And:

Trial continues Monday in the federal lawsuit, which seeks $32 million in actual and punitive damages for civil rights violations, the infliction of emotional distress and other crimes. Also named are Mr. Barnett's wife, Barbara, his brother, Donald, and Larry Dever, sheriff in Cochise County, Ariz., where the Barnetts live. The civil trial is expected to continue until Friday.

[Solomwi]

That's true too - the local authorities CAN use their bull**** detectors when decided whether or not to file charges. Also, in a civil case, AFAIK the judge has more leeway than in a criminal case when it comes to tossing it out.

Any lawyers want to confirm/rebut that for me?

A civil case is what I was describing above, since that's what the article was about. Consider also that we bend over backwards to give criminal defendants protections civil defendants don't get (e.g., preponderance vs. reasonable doubt, nearly half the Bill of Rights being essentially criminal procedure measures), and I'd say the judge has more leeway (legal, though political leeway may be the opposite in a particular case) to toss a criminal case than civil. You're right about local authorities having the discretion on whether to prosecute, but that they didn't says nothing about the civil case in question.

[David Floyd]

Yes, Ramo, but the case is still a civil case, not a criminal one.

Also, if you want to sue an agency of a state government, I'd imagine that you'd be better off bringing a separate cause of action, rather than lumping him in with a private citizen.

Probably, the attorney knows that there is no case at all, but even less case against the sheriff in his official capacity.

[Ramo]

I never disputed that it was a civil action. Those are easier to win. I don't know what your point is.

Again, I was pointing out that it's not likely that the local authorities would've charged the defendants given that the Sheriff was named in the suit.

[David Floyd]

Sorry, I misunderstood your point.

Saying that because the Sheriff was named in the suit, it's unlikely the defendants would have been charged is pretty presumptive. I could just as easily say that the Sheriff is in the suit because, since no crime existed, he didn't charge the defendants, but he was named in the suit to insinuate your point to jurors.

[Ben Kenobi]

Heard about this.

The correct response is for the Judge to report all the plaintiffs to the immigration folks and deport them all.

I don't understand this attitude at all. If you are going to immigrate to America, you should follow the rules.

[Solomwi]

The sheriff was named because plaintiffs' attorneys are great at drawing in any party who might bear even the most remote liability. It's easier to dismiss a defendant before the trial than try to add one later, particularly if the statute of limitations has run in the meantime.

[Ramo]

Saying that because the Sheriff was named in the suit, it's unlikely the defendants would have been charged is pretty presumptive. I could just as easily say that the Sheriff is in the suit because, since no crime existed, he didn't charge the defendants, but he was named in the suit to insinuate your point to jurors.

So you believe that Sheriffs frequently charge themselves, or that deputies charge their bosses? I don't think it's "presumptive" to assume that's generally not the case.

[David Floyd]

The sheriff was named because plaintiffs' attorneys are great at drawing in any party who might bear even the most remote liability. It's easier to dismiss a defendant before the trial than try to add one later, particularly if the statute of limitations has run in the meantime.

Bingo.

So you believe that Sheriffs frequently charge themselves, or that deputies charge their bosses?

I think that Sheriffs frequently charge people who deserve it with criminal assault charges.

[Ramo]

The Sheriff was named as complicit. Your reasoning is circular.

[David Floyd]

Not so much. It's really the same as yours. We are drawing opposite inferences from the same facts. Both are logically plausible. I just think mine makes more sense, especially based upon what Solomwi said above.

[Ramo]

I didn't make an argument. I was pointing out the logical error in yours.

You (and Ming) said:

That's true too - the local authorities CAN use their bull**** detectors when decided whether or not to file charges.

Again, that is a circular argument.