# Arizona rancher sued by illegal aliens ordered to pay $77,804 in damages



## xsited1 (Feb 18, 2009)

TUCSON, Ariz.  A federal jury found Tuesday that a southern Arizona rancher didn't violate the civil rights of a group of illegal immigrants who said he detained them at gunpoint in 2004.

The eight-member civil jury also found Roger Barnett wasn't liable on claims of battery and false imprisonment.

*But the jury did find him liable on four claims of assault and four claims of infliction of emotional distress and ordered Barnett to pay $77,804 in damages  $60,000 of which were punitive.*

Jury backs rancher accused of detaining Mexicans | National | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle


----------



## Agnapostate (Feb 18, 2009)

Roger Barnett, in my opinion, went beyond whatever he thought his call of duty was in attempting to harass and intimidate the immigrants that he detained. To be honest, I don't place much stock in "emotional distress" claims...though that might just be a consequence of being told to "suck it up" when I was growing up. 

That being said, he went too far.


----------



## catzmeow (Feb 18, 2009)

I agree. He could have held them and waited for the authorities without acting like a scary lunatic.

Or, he could have just shot them and told the responding deputies that he was outnumbered and felt threatened.


----------



## Agnapostate (Feb 18, 2009)

If he had the ability to shoot all of them, then there wouldn't have been much credence to his claim that he was outnumbered and felt threatened.


----------



## xsited1 (Feb 18, 2009)

I'll try to remember not to assault a criminal when they're on my property.  Otherwise, they might end up being an illegal alien and I'll have to pay them $77,804 in damages.


----------



## Agnapostate (Feb 18, 2009)

Again with the droning about private property. As I said before, that issue is so ridiculously irrelevant, especially considering the unjust and probably illegal acquisition of border property. The entire "property" issue is quite irrelevant to the matter.


----------



## catzmeow (Feb 18, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> Again with the droning about private property. As I said before, that issue is so ridiculously irrelevant, especially considering the *unjust and probably illegal acquisition of border property*. The entire "property" issue is quite irrelevant to the matter.



That's right.  I forgot.  Texas really belongs to Mexico, so those Mexicans had every right to be there.

(the "myth" of reconquista rears its ugly head, again)

Now, talk some about the violated treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo to seal the deal.


----------



## Agnapostate (Feb 18, 2009)

catzmeow said:


> That's right.  I forgot.  Texas really belongs to Mexico, so those Mexicans had every right to be there.
> 
> (the "myth" of reconquista rears its ugly head, again)
> 
> Now, talk some about the violated treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo to seal the deal.



How does Texas belong to Mexico in any sense? Texas wasn't aggressively gained by the United States during the war; they voluntarily seceded. I knew you'd be here with this little blathering, which is why I attempted to specify that the violated terms of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo could be brought up _if anti-immigration posters wished to speak of "private property" rights_, in which case we could simply refer to free market theorist Robert Nozick's commentary on the illegitimacy of private property that has been unjustly acquired.

The property issue means nothing to be one way or the other. The majority of the land in the world was unjustly occupied and stolen at one point or another.


----------



## xsited1 (Feb 18, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> Again with the droning about private property. As I said before, that issue is so ridiculously irrelevant, especially considering the unjust and probably illegal acquisition of border property. The entire "property" issue is quite irrelevant to the matter.



In the United States, private property represents freedom itself and should protected at all costs.  Since you're obviously not an American citizen, I can understand your confusion.


----------



## catzmeow (Feb 18, 2009)

> considering the unjust and probably illegal acquisition of border property



This is your claim.  

America (and Mexico) operate off of a system that recognizes the rights of property owners.  In both countries, property owners have a reasonable right to defend their property, and THEIR PERSON.

I understand that as an anarchist, you reject this concept, but that puts you in the   category for most of us.


----------



## Agnapostate (Feb 18, 2009)

xsited1 said:


> In the United States, private property represents freedom itself and should protected at all costs.  Since you're obviously not an American citizen, I can understand your confusion.





An amusing remark, but one without basis nonetheless. Private property represents the establishment of a monopoly of control over resources or goods not personally used by the "owner," and often functions to the detriment of others, including the fact that large-scale private property rights function as a critical component of the subordination of labor under capital. 



catzmeow said:


> This is your claim.
> 
> America (and Mexico) operate off of a system that recognizes the rights of property owners.  In both countries, property owners have a reasonable right to defend their property, and THEIR PERSON.



Cute deflection...though blatantly obvious nonetheless. The claim that Mr. Barnett had to defend against a threat against his person is weak, since he actively _pursues_ individuals that he sees crossing through his property, proactively seeking them out. 

Since individuals here seem so insistent on whining about the absolute superiority of private property rights, I merely pointed out that much border property directly violated Robert Nozick's criterion of just acquisition. *That* is my claim, regardless of how egregiously you've managed to distort it.



catzmeow said:


> I understand that as an anarchist, you reject this concept, but that puts you in the   category for most of us.



And of course, that idiotic remark does absolutely nothing to adequately address any component of anarchist theory, just as the monarchical declaration that representative democracy was  did nothing to adequately address its components.


----------



## catzmeow (Feb 18, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> An amusing remark, but one without basis nonetheless. Private property represents the establishment of a monopoly of control over resources or goods not personally used by the "owner," and often functions to the detriment of others, including the fact that large-scale private property rights function as a critical component of the subordination of labor under capital.



You say this like you have a point.  And yet, most of us feel you are crocked. Not half crocked, but FULLY crocked.  Please.  Past the dutchie to the left hand sid, get up, get unstoned, then post.


----------



## Modbert (Feb 18, 2009)

This is bullshit of the highest order that he has to pay a dime.


----------



## Agnapostate (Feb 18, 2009)

catzmeow said:


> You say this like you have a point.  And yet, most of us feel you are crocked. Not half crocked, but FULLY crocked.  Please.  Past the dutchie to the left hand sid, get up, get unstoned, then post.



You're simply ignorant of political economy. Why don't you try answering this if you're so much more informed than I am?

_"Do you hold the analysis of Barone having overextended the usefulness of shadow pricing in his (Pareto efficient, a strike at L. Von Mises's claims of "impossibility") economic model to be accurate, and if so, what can be salvaged from the model, in your view?"_


----------



## catzmeow (Feb 18, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> You're simply ignorant of political economy.



No.  I reject that these authors you quote have authority on the subject that overrules 200 years of American law and thought on the subject, and several hundred years of similar European law & thought on the subject.

And, if you want to live in a communist paradise without private property rights, I invite you to move to Cuba.

What you don't understand is this:  I'm not ignorant of the debates over the idea of private property.  I just fall squarely on the side of supporting private property rights, and I think your take on this subject is ludicrous.

I further think that your personal policy platform on these subjects is likely to be implemented in this country when pigs fly, which is to say, *never*, because the vast majority of Americans are in agreement with me on this issue.  And, like the vast majority of Americans, I don't care what some marxist nitwit has to say on the evils of private property.

You will feel differently when you are actually in a position to own something.  Until then, you're talking out of your overly educated improperly experienced arse.

That's not ignorance.  It's me expressing my opinion.  An opinion, for the record, that is every bit as authoritative and well-informed as your own, if not moreso.


----------



## Agnapostate (Feb 18, 2009)

catzmeow said:


> No.  I reject that these authors you quote have authority on the subject that overrules 200 years of American law and thought on the subject.



How long before 1776 was the British monarchy in place? And the "author" that I quoted was *me*. If you had actually clicked the link, you'd have seen that the issue regarding Barone and shadow pricing was a question that I asked Reiver, another socialist with a greater knowledge of political economy than you.



catzmeow said:


> And, if you want to live in a communist paradise without private property rights, I invite you to move to Cuba.



I thought you were mocking my anarchism a few minutes ago. Now you're suggesting that I support a Marxist-Leninist state? Are you *completely * ignorant of political economy.



catzmeow said:


> What you don't understand is this:  I'm not ignorant of the debates over private property.  I just fall squarely on the side of supporting private property rights, and I think your take on this is ludicrous.
> 
> That's not ignorance.  It's an opinion.  An opinion that is every bit as authoritative and well-informed as your own, if not moreso.



Please; this laughter hurts my ribs. You've demonstrated your ignorance of political economy on numerous occasions, which is likely the reason that you almost never post in the economic forum. But if your opinion is so "authoritative and well-informed," why don't you answer the question?

_"Do you hold the analysis of Barone having overextended the usefulness of shadow pricing in his (Pareto efficient, a strike at L. Von Mises's claims of "impossibility") economic model to be accurate, and if so, what can be salvaged from the model, in your view?"_


----------



## MalibuMan (Feb 18, 2009)

Modbert said:


> This is bullshit of the highest order that he has to pay a dime.



Counldn't agree more.  What  is this world coming to?


----------



## Agnapostate (Feb 18, 2009)

catzmeow said:


> I further think that your personal policy platform on these subjects is likely to be implemented in this country when pigs fly, which is to say, *never*, because the vast majority of Americans are in agreement with me on this issue.  And, like the vast majority of Americans, I don't care what some marxist nitwit has to say on the evils of private property.



I am not a Marxist, and your claim that I am reveals your profound ignorance of political economy, especially considering that you just identified me as an anarchist.



catzmeow said:


> You will feel differently when you are actually in a position to own something.  Until then, you're talking out of your overly educated improperly experienced arse.



I own plenty of personal possessions. It's true that I don't own a home, for instance. I rent a room. But that does absolutely nothing to invalidate my remarks about private property, especially considering that I was affluent enough when I lived with my parents. Do you have any valid criticism to offer?


----------



## Modbert (Feb 18, 2009)

MalibuMan said:


> Counldn't agree more.  What  is this world coming to?



Really don't want to know. This is why we need Tort reform and alot of other reform in our court system.

This case should of never even been wasted inside a court room, never mind the verdict.

And another insane part? The taxpayer just paid for this shit to happen unwillingly.


----------



## Agnapostate (Feb 18, 2009)

Modbert said:


> And another insane part? The taxpayer just paid for this shit to happen unwillingly.



The taxpayer pays far more for the incredibly wasteful and inefficient criminalization of immigration.


----------



## Modbert (Feb 18, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> The taxpayer pays far more for the incredibly wasteful and inefficient criminalization of immigration.



Actually, if we had a reformed student visa system; most of the 9/11 hijackers would of been sent back to their original countries.


----------



## catzmeow (Feb 18, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> _"Do you hold the analysis of Barone having overextended the usefulness of shadow pricing in his (Pareto efficient, a strike at L. Von Mises's claims of "impossibility") economic model to be accurate, and if so, what can be salvaged from the model, in your view?"_



What, exactly, does this have to do with holding illegal immigrants at gunpoint because they are trespassing on your property?  Please draw a connection here for me, and I'll be happy to respond.

You like to throw shit like this into a discussion to make yourself look smart, and don't realize that it makes you look like an idiot because you are incapable of actually discussing the topic of a thread.

That's my opinion.


----------



## Agnapostate (Feb 18, 2009)

Modbert said:


> Actually, if we had a reformed student visa system; most of the 9/11 hijackers would of been sent back to their original countries.



Non-utopianists recognize that theory does not translate into practice.


----------



## Charles_Main (Feb 18, 2009)

Modbert said:


> This is bullshit of the highest order that he has to pay a dime.



Yes, but not surprising at all in America today now is it. 

Illegals have more rights than we do.


----------



## Agnapostate (Feb 18, 2009)

catzmeow said:


> What, exactly, does this have to do with holding illegal immigrants at gunpoint because they are trespassing on your property?  Please draw a connection here for me, and I'll be happy to respond.
> 
> You like to throw shit like this into a discussion to make yourself look smart, and don't realize that it makes you look like an idiot because you are incapable of actually discussing the topic of a thread.
> 
> That's my opinion.



What does Cuba's economic system, which you brought up, have to do with a discussion about illegal immigration? You chose to challenge my perspective on private property rights, and claimed that your opinion was "authoritative," and falsely claimed that I was a Marxist. Your claim that I was a Marxist several minutes after your claim that I was an anarchist raised warning flags as to your ignorance of political economy, so I conducted a basic test of your knowledge.

You're obviously incapable of answering.


----------



## catzmeow (Feb 18, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> Non-utopianists recognize that theory does not translate into practice.



What does this have to do with the cost of burritos in Juarez?


----------



## Agnapostate (Feb 18, 2009)

catzmeow said:


> What does this have to do with the cost of burritos in Juarez?



What has your comment to do with valid remark on immigration policy?


----------



## catzmeow (Feb 18, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> What does Cuba's economic system, which you brought up, have to do with a discussion about illegal immigration? You chose to challenge my perspective on private property rights, and claimed that your opinion was "authoritative," and falsely claimed that I was a Marxist. Your claim that I was a Marxist several minutes after your claim that I was an anarchist raised warning flags as to your ignorance of political economy, so I conducted a basic test of your knowledge.
> 
> You're obviously incapable of answering.



I claimed that you do not support the concept of private property.  And, you don't, do you?  Hence, your entire argument that this man acted inappropriately rests on the idea that the property was illegally obtained and hence, not his to defend.

And, I suggested that a country WITHOUT a strong foundation of private property rights might be more to your liking.


----------



## catzmeow (Feb 18, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> What has your comment to do with valid remark on immigration policy?



Your comment was valid and related to immigration policy?  I contest that claim.


----------



## Ravi (Feb 18, 2009)

Was it his property, though?


> Barnett's 22,000-acre ranch, about five miles north of the Mexican border, includes private and federal lease holdings in addition to nearly 14,000 acres of state-leased land.


----------



## Agnapostate (Feb 18, 2009)

catzmeow said:


> I claimed that you do not support the concept of private property.  And, you don't, do you?  Hence, your entire argument that this man acted inappropriately rests on the idea that the property was illegally obtained and hence, not his to defend.



That is false. The property issue was secondary, as I have stated numerous times. The reason that you're flailing so desperately to hold on to this little myth is because you want to claim that I support a "reconquista" of border territory. That's not the case, which should be obvious inasmuch as I don't support the existence of nation-states.



catzmeow said:


> And, I suggested that a country WITHOUT a strong foundation of private property rights might be more to your liking.



You suggested that a Marxist-Leninist country would be to my liking after inaccurately calling me both a Marxist and an anarchist, which itself indicates your profound ignorance of political economy. Let me help you, honey: Anarchism and Marxism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



catzmeow said:


> Your comment was valid and related to immigration policy?  I contest that claim.



Your burrito comment strikes me as odd merely by virtue of its inanity. I don't know if you think mocking Mexico or Mexicans or calling me a beaner is supposed to provoke me into some pathological, insane rage, but it's not working for you, dear. 

I'm not the little Muslim you teased on Beliefnet or wherever you were. I don't give a shit about your little words on a screen, and to be honest, I'd probably care even less IRL.


----------



## WillowTree (Feb 18, 2009)

I'm betting the rancher thinks 77 thous is a small price to pay,, he rounded them by the thousands didn't he,, it's worth a fine to kick someones ass if you catch the shitting on your property and breaking into yer house..


----------



## Agnapostate (Feb 18, 2009)

Yeah. Too bad they weren't breaking into his house.


----------



## Ravi (Feb 18, 2009)

I'd still like to know if was actually his property as the link states that the majority of his "property" is leased from the government.

I don't like vigilantes, and unless these people were breaking into his house I'm happy to see him pay for his actions. It also states that 5 of them are awaiting decisions on their Visas, so technically they are not illegal.

People throw trash on my "property"...the swale in front of my house. But that doesn't grant me the right to hold them at gunpoint.


----------



## WillowTree (Feb 18, 2009)

I'm sure the rancher thought it was a small price to pay for the damage these illegals caused..


----------



## Ravi (Feb 18, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> I'm sure the rancher thought it was a small price to pay for the damage these illegals caused..


You're probably right. That doesn't make him right, though.


----------



## Agnapostate (Feb 18, 2009)

Of course, the fact that the majority of costs are imposed by the criminalization of immigration continues to go ignored...


----------



## Harry Dresden (Feb 18, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> Again with the droning about private property. As I said before, that issue is so ridiculously irrelevant, especially considering the unjust and probably illegal acquisition of border property. The entire "property" issue is quite irrelevant to the matter.



if the land was on this side of the imaginary line Agna,and the guy bought and paid for it and has the papers.....ITS HIS LAND.....same with whoever owns the other side.....


----------



## WillowTree (Feb 18, 2009)

Ravi said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure the rancher thought it was a small price to pay for the damage these illegals caused..
> ...





he's right as rain,, why should he suffer the aggravation of thousands of illegals trapsiang across his ranch shitting on the ground, killing his livestock and breaking into his home, and dropping tons of trash.. Not one good reason that I can think of.. course being a Democrat I bet you can come up with some gooduns...


----------



## Agnapostate (Feb 18, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> if the land was on this side of the imaginary line Agna,and the guy bought and paid for it and has the papers.....ITS HIS LAND.....same with whoever owns the other side.....



Even if there was a legal basis for that, you've said nothing whatsoever as to the ethical nature of private property. Moreover, it's dubious that there is a legal basis for the American ownership of portions of border property, considering that they were acquired in violation of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Feb 18, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> Yeah. Too bad they weren't breaking into his house.



im sure if they were they would be going back to Mexico in body bags....and the guy would not be out that money....to bad for Barnett....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Feb 18, 2009)

Ravi said:


> I'd still like to know if was actually his property as the link states that the majority of his "property" is leased from the government.
> 
> I don't like vigilantes, and unless these people were breaking into his house I'm happy to see him pay for his actions. It also states that 5 of them are awaiting decisions on their Visas, so technically they are not illegal.
> 
> People throw trash on my "property"...the swale in front of my house. But that doesn't grant me the right to hold them at gunpoint.



if he was leasing it,he is paying for it and as such was defending what he had out there.....and as far as the 5 you mention,if they "technically" are not illegal,why were they crossing way out there...ILLEGALLY?


----------



## Agnapostate (Feb 18, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> im sure if they were they would be going back to Mexico in body bags....and the guy would not be out that money....to bad for Barnett....



Yeah, I'm sure everyone would be terrified and would never cross the border ever again.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Feb 18, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > if the land was on this side of the imaginary line Agna,and the guy bought and paid for it and has the papers.....ITS HIS LAND.....same with whoever owns the other side.....
> ...



Agna .....your beating a dam dead horse......there is a line out there,south of it is a country called MEXICO....north of it is the USA.....whatever happened in 1848,happened,now is now,if the 2 countries haven't worked out that treaty in the ensuing 161 years,i dont think it is going to change.....think about today and tommorow,the past is the past....it happened, its over,live with it.....just be glad you were born here and not there.....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Feb 18, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > im sure if they were they would be going back to Mexico in body bags....and the guy would not be out that money....to bad for Barnett....
> ...



well those fuckers sure as hell would not be crossing that border ever again....


----------



## Agnapostate (Feb 18, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> well those fuckers sure as hell would not be crossing that border ever again....



Yeah. Or they'd be crossing with enough coyotes to turn Barnett's walls into sawdust.


----------



## manu1959 (Feb 18, 2009)

at least they lived which is more than i can say for how mexicans deal with folks coming across the southern border....

mexico's southern border - Google Search


----------



## Agnapostate (Feb 18, 2009)

Indeed. We can only hope that the EZLN can gain a greater hold over Chiapas.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Feb 18, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > well those fuckers sure as hell would not be crossing that border ever again....
> ...



a coyote is not going to get into a gunfight with someone for these people,once he drops them off his job is done.....his job is transporting,which costs these people an arm and a leg....you think they have enough to pay him extra for him to get shot at and possibly killed?...i dont think so....


----------



## Agnapostate (Feb 18, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> a coyote is not going to get into a gunfight with someone for these people,once he drops them off his job is done.....his job is transporting,which costs these people an arm and a leg....you think they have enough to pay him extra for him to get shot at and possibly killed?...i dont think so....



A _single_ coyote with a peashooter? I take it you've never headed down to the border before.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Feb 19, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > a coyote is not going to get into a gunfight with someone for these people,once he drops them off his job is done.....his job is transporting,which costs these people an arm and a leg....you think they have enough to pay him extra for him to get shot at and possibly killed?...i dont think so....
> ...



Agna...the coyote gets them across the border,his job is done,if some rancher starts shooting at the people he let off on his land...HE IS OUT OF THERE.....he can give a rats ass about them from that point on,he did what he was paid to do....get them across the border.....shit he doesnt even care about them while he is transporting them.....and NO WHERE did i say they are lightly armed.....just that they will not PROTECT these people once he gets them to point B.....if his life is threatned and the only way out for him is to dump these people....THEIR DUMPED wherever he is at.....


----------

