Illegals Get Uppity, Court Might Be Buying It

[Solomwi]

This is just a guess, but one I'm fairly confident in if the article is even remotely accurate:

The sheriff's involvement in the suit stems from what the plaintiffs allege is a pattern of previous behavior that encouraged Barnett to commit the direct actions being complained of. The next most likely scenario is he was on the scene and didn't stop Barnett (but that doesn't sound like the case at all). He's in the suit under 42 USC 1983, I'll all but promise you. It has nothing to do with not bringing charges against Barnett this time, or making that point to the jurors.

[David Floyd]

Ramo, don't you think it is AT LEAST equally plausible that the Sheriff's bull**** detector went off, so he didn't file charges, and as a result the plaintiff's attorney decided to include him in the suit, as per Solomwi's point about including everybody under the sun?

[Saras]

Sad state of affairs when a situation is so clear-cut that the resident Communist agrees with the resident-whatever-the-hell-I-am, Ming, an DinoDoc, yet a US district judge begs to differ and actually wants to hear the case.

Someone stole his login. He makes sense TOO OFTEN.

[DanS]

Maybe he'll pull a Ted Striker.

[Saras]

good guys equalize and we're 1:1 YAY

[DanS]

[Ramo]

Dave, as I said, I have no idea what had gone on here. You might be right. All I'm saying is that I'm glad that the government isn't in the habit of tossing cases like this out of hand.

This is just a guess, but one I'm fairly confident in if the article is even remotely accurate:

The sheriff's involvement in the suit stems from what the plaintiffs allege is a pattern of previous behavior that encouraged Barnett to commit the direct actions being complained of.

If there's a pattern of negligence, it's also implausible that the Sheriff would charge Barnett. In either case, inaction by the local authorities is entirely consistent with the allegations.

[David Floyd]

I see your point. I know you'll strongly disagree, but I just don't really agree with the courts wasting it's time on cases like this, anyway. I'd go so far as to stipulate the facts as presented by the plaintiffs, and say "So what? You don't get civil rights when you are here illegally. Leave. Now.". Of course, I know that's not the way things work, but it damn well should be, especially when the courts tend to be backlogged as it is.

[Solomwi]

Dave, as I said, I have no idea what had gone on here. You might be right. All I'm saying is that I'm glad that the government isn't in the habit of tossing cases like this out of hand.



If there's a pattern of negligence, it's also implausible that the Sheriff would charge Barnett. In either case, inaction by the local authorities is entirely consistent with the allegations.

True. I'm saying nothing about the sheriff's decision to charge or not, merely speculating about the alleged grounds against the sheriff. It's possible they're also claiming that the absence of charges inflicted additional distress or violated some civil right, but that's a lot more shaky, based on my limited information about the case, than a previous pattern charge (which is probably plenty shaky on its own).

[Solomwi]

I see your point. I know you'll strongly disagree, but I just don't really agree with the courts wasting it's time on cases like this, anyway. I'd go so far as to stipulate the facts as presented by the plaintiffs, and say "So what? You don't get civil rights when you are here illegally. Leave. Now.". Of course, I know that's not the way things work, but it damn well should be, especially when the courts tend to be backlogged as it is.

You still haven't disposed of the tort claim if you've done that. You've just gotten the sheriff out of it, and possibly gotten it remanded to state court.

[David Floyd]

I'm saying that no court, state or federal, should care if some rancher happens to kick the **** out of an illegal immigrant who is trespassing on his property.

[duke o' york]

Are the immigrants in custody now?

[Tuberski]

Ummm, later in the year:

[q]
« VIEW ALL PRESS RELEASES »

---

ARIZONA SUPREME COURT REJECTS APPEAL OF VIGILANTE RANCHER WHO ATTACKED U.S. CITIZENS ON ARIZONA BORDER
September 23, 2008
PHOENIX, AZ – Today, the Arizona Supreme Court rejected the appeal of border vigilante Roger Barnett who was found liable by a jury after assaulting a family of Latino U.S. citizens while they were hunting on state land in southern Arizona. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), which represents the plaintiffs in the case, urged the Supreme Court to reject Barnett’s appeal and argued that the jury had rightfully found Barnett at fault for his vicious attack upon the family.

The Morales family and Emma English, a family friend, filed suit after Barnett confronted them on state leased land in November 2004, while they were on a family hunting trip. Armed with a semi-automatic military-style assault rifle, Barnett held the family at gunpoint, cursed and screamed racial slurs at them and threatened to kill them all. The jury heard the testimony of three young girls, all under the age of 12 at the time, that vividly described the event and the trauma they suffered at the hands of Barnett. The jury ultimately awarded the family $100,000 in damages, which Barnett must pay now that the Supreme Court has rejected his appeal.

“Today, more than the Morales family emerges victorious. The principles of freedom shared by Latinos and Americans of all ancestries stand tall. We will not accept racially motivated violence against members of our community at the border or anywhere in this country,” stated MALDEF President and General Counsel John Trasviña.

“The Supreme Court’s decision means that Barnett will finally have to pay for his attack on the Morales family and Emma English,” added Marisol Perez, MALDEF Staff Attorney. “Barnett’s actions were outrageous and offensive to notions of common decency.”

MALDEF also represents 16 individuals who complained they were assaulted in a similar fashion by Barnett in March 2004 near a state highway in Douglas, Arizona. The case is currently pending in federal court and expected to go to trial in the Spring of 2009.

Read Supreme Court’s Ruling


Founded in 1968, MALDEF, the nation’s leading Latino legal civil rights organization, promotes and protects the rights of Latinos through litigation, advocacy, community education and outreach, leadership development, and higher education scholarships. For more information on MALDEF, please visit: www.maldef.org.




Not that this makes him guilty of previous offense, but it makes you wonder a little bit.


ACK!

[Tuberski]

Three other case, guy is sounding more and more like a vigilante.

ACK!

[RGBVideo]

Armed with a semi-automatic military-style assault rifle

credible, agenda-free news reporting

I get your point, "vigilante" is a descriptive word. But you have to laugh to that kind of reporting.