The Dean Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 and yet you've never been married! I have been for going on 25 years. I consider myself lucky that she's only threatened to blow my head off 3 times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Tomcat Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 They should be considered a threat and shot. Sorry. Stay off his land. He has a right to defend himself. How he's managed not to kill any of them is amazing. I think the land owner should sue the government for allowing this to continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Solution: Electrify the fence and leave the zapped bodies there. In other areas, a moat next to the fence filled with alligators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Solution: Electrify the fence and leave the zapped bodies there. In other areas, a moat next to the fence filled with alligators. How do you fill a fence with alligators? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBill Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 I was pretty wired-in, in the Falls, so I never had that much trouble there. Yeah , having been one of them, the biggest problem in the downtown Falls area is the drunks running around (often NU students or crazy Canucks ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffaloboyinATL Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 They should be considered a threat and shot. Sorry. Stay off his land. He has a right to defend himself. There's your answer. They will stop using his land pretty damn quick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 So 16 illegals are seeking $2M each because after crossing miles of desert and cramming their bodies into the back of a van with 40 other illegals, they suffered emotional distress when a landowner !@#$ks with them? This seems ill-advised. If I'm one of the illegals, I say screw the rancher and sue the US Government. I mean, these people must be pissed when they risk life and limb to get here only to find out our government has !@#$ed the economy up so badly that Americans are suddenly ready to start picking strawberries and mowing lawns. If the illegals were smart, they'd bypass the law suit and just ask for some bailout money. I mean, the Congress and Senate both seem to think another billion here or there is no big deal, right? Plus, if they do it right, they can end up with 16 more votes if they just let the illegals in and have ACORN take their bailout money to help illegals get a mortgage. See I say the rancher should just sue the US Gov't. The Gov't has endangered him, his family, and his property for years by refusing to protect him as an American citizen by securing the border. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 I defend the right for American's to arm themselves, but think it is folly for most people to think they need to. I believe I said I have had guns pointed on me on several occasions, which is the case. I suppose we could quibble about the demarcation between "a few" and "several". It was four times (of any consequence), to be precise. Irrespective of the nationality or legal status of these people, they were trespassing. "Doubly wrong" is fairly nonsensical, IMO. I think it is clear they committed illegal acts (which is all that really matters, here). But, if they were mistreated, I also don't care what their status was. I am with the Dean on this......the fact that that they are not legal citizens isn't so much an issue to me is the fact that they are trespassing on his property and his livelyhood This is wrong even if it was the legal neighbors down the street doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Solution: Electrify the fence and leave the zapped bodies there. In other areas, a moat next to the fence filled with alligators. I'm pretty sure you can not do that, believe it or not. If somebody breaks into an abandoned house on your property and is injured falling through a floor, for example, you are liable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 How in the hell can a bunch of ILLEGAL ALIENS sue? As soon as they tried to file, send their asses back. How is saying what they are (illegal aliens) racist?? Remember that our courts likes to extend our rights to everybody else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 How do you fill a fence with alligators? The mob can probably find a way. After all they used Jimmy Hoffa to lay the foundation of The Meadowlands Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Remember that our courts likes to extend our rights to everybody else. Civilized countries, including the USA, guarantee a long list of rights to ALL people, not just citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Civilized countries, including the USA, guarantee a long list of rights to ALL people, not just citizens. What rights are guaranteed? The Constitution makes no distinction between who gets what rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 I'm not sure that the legal status of the people involved should be a big issue. Some of the comments here are pretty racist, IMO. But, this does seem like trespassing and vandalism and destruction of property, etc. Does it really matter whether the perpetrators are Mexican, or illegal? Seems to me the guy should have a right to protect his property against trespassers irrespective of their nationality or legal status. If the landowner did anything illegal while defending his property, then that should be addressed, again without regard to the status of the individuals. I'm guessing MALDEF is involved as these individuals happen to be Mexican and have nowhere else to go, to get a legitimate defense. The system works best when the least among us still gets a vigorous defense. The guy has a ranch in Arizona. Do you expect him to have trouble with illegal Scandinavians on his property? Of course you, with your laser like intellect,would talk them back to Mexico and they would go, being damm glad to get away from your endless line of self righteous boring,predicable I see every thing from a higher prospective view of the world Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 What rights are guaranteed? The Constitution makes no distinction between who gets what rights. Well, to some degree, it does. For example, the first section of the 14th Amendment reads as such: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. There are rights for citizens, and for "any person" in this one paragraph. But, let's not restrict ourselves to the Constitution, and ignore case law and international agreements. The is case law precedent for upholding the rights of non-citizens on an array of issues. Also, there is this United Nations Declaration for all nations: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/w4dhri.htm Excerpt: Article 5 1. Aliens shall enjoy, in accordance with domestic law and subject to the relevant international obligation of the State in which they are present, in particular the following rights: (a) The right to life and security of person; no alien shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention; no alien shall be deprived of his or her liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedures as are established by law; (b) The right to protection against arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy, family, home or correspondence; © The right to be equal before the courts, tribunals and all other organs and authorities administering justice and, when necessary, to free assistance of an interpreter in criminal proceedings and , when prescribed by law, other proceedings; (d) The right to choose a spouse, to marry, to found a family; (e) The right to freedom of thought, opinion, conscience and religion; the right to manifest their religion or beliefs, subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others; (f) The right to retain their own language, culture and tradition; (g) The right to transfer abroad earnings, savings or other personal monetary assets, subject to domestic currency regulations. 2. Subject to such restrictions as are prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society to protect national security, public safety, public order, public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and which are consistent with the other rights recognized in the relevant international instruments and those set forth in this Declaration, aliens shall enjoy the following rights: (a) The right to leave the country; (b) The right to freedom of expression; © The right to peaceful assembly; (d) The right to own property alone as well as in association with others, subject to domestic law. 3. Subject to the provisions referred to in paragraph 2, aliens lawfully in the territory of a State shall enjoy the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose their residence within the borders of the State. 4. Subject to national legislation and due authorization, the spouse and minor or dependent children of an alien lawfully residing in the territory of a State shall be admitted to accompany, join and stay with the alien. Again, I am speaking of the way "civilized countries" treat people. I think some here, would prefer the state to treat people as they do in some 3rd world countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 The guy has a ranch in Arizona. Do you expect him to have trouble with illegal Scandinavians on his property? Since when did illegal aliens corner the market on trespassing? Sometimes citizens of the USA trespass...is that OK? My point, which was very clear, I think, is that their legal status isn't really the issue here, for the rancher. The problem is, people are trespassing on his property. But, I wouldn't expect a knee-jerk xenophobe like you to understand that, or care, quite frankly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 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. WTF? How did this ever go to court? If the jury convicts they should award them one tenth of a penny. I don't think illegals shouldn't have any rights but they should be limited to human rights. Even if this guy had shot them I'd say he was within his rights to deal with trespassers on his property as long as he had posted warning signs along his property. He should sue the U.S. government for not handling this problem adequately. JMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Since when did illegal aliens corner the market on trespassing? Sometimes citizens of the USA trespass...is that OK? My point, which was very clear, I think, is that their legal status isn't really the issue here, for the rancher. The problem is, people are trespassing on his property. But, I wouldn't expect a knee-jerk xenophobe like you to understand that, or care, quite frankly. I am a knee jerk? Who brought up racism the second the word Mexican was used? They are not mere trespassers on one mans land,but part of a flood of undesirables who will drag this nation down to the level of the same country they were so anxious to flee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 They are not mere trespassers on one mans land,but part of a flood of undesirables who will drag this nation down to the level of the same country they were so anxious to flee. Which is not relevant to the trespassing. But, it is clear from the tone of your post, that you aren't xenophobic, in the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 I am a knee jerk? Who brought up racism the second the word Mexican was used? They are not mere trespassers on one mans land,but part of a flood of undesirables who will drag this nation down to the level of the same country they were so anxious to flee. What's your problem with the Irish? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts