Illegal aliens awarded Arizona ranch?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nobody said they were shot at. By all accounts they weren't even assaulted at all.

Did you ever hear of citizen police officer? In some states you can shoot a person who's commiting a felony in progress. Not that I say we shoot illegal immigrants or beat them up, I'm saying the judgement at the court of law was illegal.
Click to expand...

They pistol whipped them. Even the border patrol agent confirmed that by noting the size of the knot on the illegal's head. This is also, mind you, a group of convicted felons running around with guns in the woods at night...and the ringleader wasn't convicted of a petty felony. He was a violent felon.

On what grounds do you say the judgment of that court was illegal? The law is well settled on this topic...intentional harm to trespassers has always been illegal. I don't understand where everyone is getting the idea that this is special for illegals. It's not. This is and always has been the law, and there's nothing out of line for what happened...if you hire a bunch of convicted violent felons to guard your land with guns, regardless of who crosses them, you are opening yourself up to major liability, and that's always been the case.

Where's the injustice???

As far as I'm concerned, the only message this case sends is, if you're going to have people defend your land against illegal immigrant trespass...use a reputable group like the minutemen, who haven't as far as I know been in even a tiny spot of trouble with the law. This is what happens when you dole out "security" jobs to felons.
 
They pistol whipped them. Even the border patrol agent confirmed that by noting the size of the knot on the illegal's head. This is also, mind you, a group of convicted felons running around with guns in the woods at night...and the ringleader wasn't convicted of a petty felony. He was a violent felon.
Click to expand...

I posted 2 conflicting articles does anyone have a cite from a reputable source for these allegations?

One article says they gave them cookies and blankies and sent them on their way as which was supposedly confirmed by a FRENCH journalist.

One article says they were a bunch of camo wearing bubba yahoos that preyed upon poor helpless folks looking for a better life.

I suspect the truth lies somewheree in between.

I'm looking for a semi-honest report that is not backed by some agenda
 
As shootinstudent already mentioned this is a fairly standard outcome. The landowner failed to represent his interests at trial and thus a default judgement is entered against him. His property is seized to satisfy that judgement. Is it right? Depends on your view. It seems shady to take the ranch...but the law in this country doesn't exactly favor private citizens assuming law enforcement responsibility...we gave that up a long time ago. ;)

It didn't help that the folks in question found themselves up against Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center...that guy is one of the baddest hired guns available. (for those inclined to hire a Civil Rights attorney)

SPLC Release about story
 
Thanks, shootinstudent.

I got my articles from usenet

At first it seemed to ridiculous to be true. I had to find details.

It still seems really fishy.
 
Yeah - people are getting frothy, but they aren't paying attention - the landowned DIDN'T BOTHER TO DEFEND HIMSELF! The court naturally decided for the plaintiff. The outcome is pretty much the fault of the landowner from the getgo.
 
The issue isn't just the lack of a defense, it's the extent of the judgment. There is no incontrovertible evidence, apparently, that the defendant pistolwhipped anyone. A knot on the head could come from many things. I find the size of the judgment grossly excessive and punitive, given the circumstances. The PTSD claim strikes me as questionable if not outright bogus.
 
There is no incontrovertible evidence, apparently, that the defendant pistolwhipped anyone. A knot on the head could come from many things. I find the size of the judgment grossly excessive and punitive, given the circumstances. The PTSD claim strikes me as questionable if not outright bogus.
Click to expand...

Maybe so, but that's not the way the courtroom works...if you don't show up to defend yourself, the judges don't have anything to go on except what the plaintiffs provide.

There is no need for incontrovertible evidence, anyway..."more likely than not" is all you need for most civil suits. I'd say having an armed felon who was in trouble for aggravated assault in the past running around at night to catch people lends pretty strong credence to the "likely" side of this story...the fact that he didn't bother to defend himself adds a little more.
 
shootinstudent said:
Maybe so, but that's not the way the courtroom works...if you don't show up to defend yourself, the judges don't have anything to go on except what the plaintiffs provide.

There is no need for incontrovertible evidence, anyway..."more likely than not" is all you need for most civil suits. I'd say having an armed felon who was in trouble for aggravated assault in the past running around at night to catch people lends pretty strong credence to the "likely" side of this story...the fact that he didn't bother to defend himself adds a little more.
Click to expand...

Do you honestly believe this is justice?
 
Do you honestly believe this is justice?
Click to expand...

In the sense that the law was applied in a way it would've been under any other circumstances, yes.

See my remarks above: This decision was designed to send a political mesage.

It did. The wrong one. And it will prove to be counter-productive.
Click to expand...

Well, there's certainly no evidence for this position. It's a straightforward application of the law in a case where no defense was offered. What is surprising about the big loss?

On the other hand, no such action has been taken against people who have the minutemen on their land....how do you know the message isn't simply: don't let armed felons do your security?
 
how do you know the message isn't simply: don't let armed felons do your security?
Click to expand...

If you believe that you haven't been paying enough attention to what's going on in your country.

The people in power in this country are creatng a monster; no doubt they'll be surprised when that monster rears up and strikes them where it hurts. Hubris.
 
shootinstudent said:
In the sense that the law was applied in a way it would've been under any other circumstances, yes.
Click to expand...

I don't care if you think shopping heads off for stealing is justice if it's written into law.

I'm saying do you honestly think the legislative stance as presented to us here stands for "justice for all"?
 
I'm saying do you honestly think the legislative stance as presented to us here stands for "justice for all"?
Click to expand...

Yes. Assuming the facts are true, which is what happens when you do not defend yourself against the allegations, having a bunch of felons running around your property with guns and hitting people over the head with said guns is totally irresponsible.

I have zero sympathy for people who behave in such a grossly irresponsible manner, especially when there are alternative solutions that don't require hiring convicted thugs and beating on illegals with pistols. Just look at the minutemen...no one's sued and won against a property owner that's allowed them onto his property. There's a right way and a wrong way to do things here, and these folks pretty clearly chose the wrong way...didn't even bother to say otherwise.

There is no message here as far as I'm concerned other than "don't hire convicted violent felons to guard your property, because they'll behave like felons and get you sued."
 
The Minutemen were testing the waters, that's all. They were trying to draw attention to the problem, enlisting the aid of public media to cover this issue in ways they haven't previously. It worked. And we all owe them an enormous debt of gratitude. Pols, including the President, are making noises now they weren't before. All well and good. Noise is better than silence. But if the Feds won't back up what the Minutemen began it's obvious that the rules of the game will have to change. The Minutemen only highlighted the problem, they haven't stopped it or even, to be honest, slowed it except temporarily.

You, Shootinstudent, speak of "grossly irresponsible" behavior. I can think of a few people higher up than foodchain than that rancher who are grossly irresponsible and should be called to account.
 
It is so obvious the finding of the court was politically motivated. It is a statement by leftist alien-sympathetic dimwits what is to happen to "gun-toting rednecks" who refuse to get on with the program of "fixing" the world by importing Latin America into the US.

It is eye-gougingly obvious.

The law is yet another problem we have. Too many lawyers, justice having become a big fat business. Common sense replaced with quoting a maze of self-contradictory accretions of decades of myopic and idiotic politically-motivated legislation.

Our country is exhibiting worsening symptoms of systemic failure. It is like a diseased aging body that has so many ailments conspiring to combine into a completely incapacitating chronic deteriorating condition. A complete overhaul is necessary to clean house. It cannot be done cosmetically and piecemeal. We need sweeping reforms across the board, or we and our future are screwed. Period.
 
It is so obvious the finding of the court was politically motivated. It is a statement by leftist alien-sympathetic dimwits what is to happen to "gun-toting rednecks" who refuse to get on with the program of "fixing" the world by importing Latin America into the US.

It is eye-gougingly obvious.
Click to expand...

Uh, just what makes this obvious? Are you claiming that undefended suits for intentional assaults on trespassers could never lead to this outcome if it weren't an illegal immigrant involved?

Why is it so obvious that this is politically motivated? I don't get it. On what grounds are you folks deciding that this judgment is out of the norm for the fact scenario?

Let's try this: Imagine that walmart hires a felon, convicted of assault, allows him to carry a gun on walmart property....then, said felon finds some shoplifter and pistol whips him over the back of the head.

Do you all honestly believe the outcome would be too far off from what happened in this case? Or that it should be all that different?
 
Let's try this: Imagine that walmart hires a felon, convicted of assault, allows him to carry a gun on walmart property....then, said felon finds some shoplifter and pistol whips him over the back of the head.

Do you all honestly believe the outcome would be too far off from what happened in this case? Or that it should be all that different?
Click to expand...

I don't think the shoplifter would get to own that walmart
 
jsalcedo,

Do you think the dollar damages, especially if walmart didn't contest, would be all that different?

The guy lost his ranch because he didn't have the cash to pay the judgment. That's pretty much all on him...if he didn't want to have a big bill to pay, he should've thought twice before committing a crime and then beating some guy in the course of doing it. And even after that, he should've been smart enough to contest the case...you know, argue against the other guy's damage claims, etc. When you don't do that, the court isn't going to do it for you...judges don't invent defenses where none is presented in the good ole' US of A, and they never have.

Again, I see nothing unusual here. This was pretty clearly bad behavior on the part of the landowners/criminals patrolling the land, and they had to pay for it...just like wal mart would have to pay big bucks if they hired convicted violent felons, let them carry guns, and then faced injury claims as a result of violent behavior.
 
shootinstudent said:
Why is it so obvious that this is politically motivated? I don't get it. On what grounds are you folks deciding that this judgment is out of the norm for the fact scenario?
Click to expand...

When punishment grossly outstrips the offense, one must take the hint. What they did in this case is like giving you jail time for jaywalking, or castrating you for peeing in the park. It only comes to show how twisted our legal system has become.
 
CAnnoneer,

My point is that this punishment is standard for this kind of behavior. It would be no different if it were walmart and all americans involved in the behavior.

So where's the political message? It's an award and outcome that is perfectly in line with other such cases that have nothing to do with illegal immigration...how exactly does assessing damages just as you would in any other case send a special message about illegal immigration?

And, we're not talking jaywalking...we're talking armed violent felons running around at night, pistol whipping someone. That's a potentially deadly assault. I don't think hitting someone over the head with a gun is any small thing at all.


Edit: I think I see where our disagreement is here....maybe because this guy lost his ranch to pay for damages, that seems like a much more egregious punishment than walmart losing the same hundred thousand would be in a similar suit.

My answer: tough. We don't change the law, in most cases, to suit the fact that some defendants are poorer than others when it comes to assessing damages. If you violate your legal duties, you will have to pay the damages irrespective of what you are worth. I think that's fair, myself. A convicted felon shouldn't have to pay a smaller damage award than a big business landowner would pay just because it means he'll lose his ranch in the process.
 
Lets say I being an American citizen wandered onto that ranch and got roughed up by ranch rescue.

Do you seriously think I would own that ranch today?

I might get my hospital bills payed for and be awarded some money for pain and suffering.

The reason these illegals got the ranch was purely political.

Convicted felons assault people every day I don't think that has much to do
with the judgement. The fact that the ranch owners did not defend themselves is odd but that should not mean instant forfeiture of property.

Here is an excerpt from the article posted.

The property seizure is similar to those in previous Center cases. In 1987 the headquarters of the United Klans of America were awarded to Beulah Mae Donald, the mother of Michael Donald who was lynched by members of the group in 1981. The Center has also managed to seize property from the Aryan Nations and the White Aryan Resistance.
Click to expand...

It seems the seizures are punishments for unpopular causes triggered by scumbags doing bad things.
 
CAnnoneer said:
When punishment grossly outstrips the offense, one must take the hint. What they did in this case is like giving you jail time for jaywalking, or castrating you for peeing in the park. It only comes to show how twisted our legal system has become.
Click to expand...

+1 on this

I'm an immigrant myself and I was like "what the..." when I kept hearing about absolutely insane judgements such as millinos being won for minor things.

Theshootingstudent doesn't understand one simple thing - he doesn't understand the fundamental principle of justice for all, not just justice for the victim.
 
Convicted felons assault people every day I don't think that has much to do
with the judgement. The fact that the ranch owners did not defend themselves is odd but that should not mean instant forfeiture of property.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's what I'm saying. There is absolutely no basis for concluding that if you were the person assaulted, the damages would be any smaller. Especially considering the fact that no one defended against the claim.

I hope that if you're ever unfortunate enough to be assaulted by an armed felon, you'll at the same time be lucky enough to have it be a guy who a) doesn't seriously injure you and b)has some property and c)is not smart enough to defend against the suit you should bring. If you combine all three of those, I see no reason why you wouldn't end up doing just as well as these two illegals did in court.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
Thunder ranch given to two illegals
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
jondar
J
O
  • Locked
The Next Waco?
2 3 4 5
Replies
122
Views
7K
lostone1413
L
C
  • Locked
Mexican Troops Fire on U.S. Border Watchers
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
longeyes
L
D
  • Locked
Arizona Guard militia plans more aggressive border action. (Not Good)
Replies
11
Views
990
itgoesboom
I
2
  • Locked
Illegal Aliens-Ranch Rescue TX
Replies
13
Views
896
22-rimfire
2
Back
Top