Monday, February 9, 2009

16 Illegals Sue Arizona Rancher

Are you shitting me?
An Arizona man who has waged a 10-year campaign to stop a flood of illegal immigrants from crossing his property is being sued by 16 Mexican nationals who accuse him of conspiring to violate their civil rights when he stopped them at gunpoint on his ranch on the U.S.-Mexico border.
I love this country, but the fact that we allow a lawsuit like this shows just how far we've fallen.
It also said Mr. Barnett acknowledged that he had turned over 12,000 illegal immigrants to the Border Patrol since 1998...

He said he carried a pistol during his searches for the immigrants and had a rifle in his truck "for protection" against immigrant and drug smugglers, who often are armed...

"This is my land. I´m the victim here," Mr. Barnett said. "When someone´s home and loved ones are in jeopardy and the government seemingly can´t do anything about it, I feel justified in taking matters into my own hands. And I always watch my back."
This man is a hero and should be awarded, not sued.

6 comments:

Miss T.C. Shore said...

The really sad thing is, they'll probably win the suit. You're right. This man is a hero.

...Which means the new liberal-controlled government will likely persecute him.

robb111 said...

This man is an absolute hero and the judge who allowed this should held responsible for his innappropriate actions!!!!

R said...

If you don't like it... let's get guns and change it!

In most civilised places people don't idolise vigilantes... and the whole detained at gunpoint routine considered a far greater crime than crossing a border in such a manner/minor crimes against property.
Do you folks really think this is how a hero behaves? Is it a common american attitude?

If this guy has run a 10 year campaign against 'illegal immigration' his methods aren't very effective if after 10 years it hasn't worked. Most people learn from their mistakes...

"the judge who allowed this should held responsible for his inappropriate actions!!!!"
does this also include the use of a gun?

Indian Chris said...

I don't know the law in Australia, but here in America the courts have interpreted the 2nd Amendment to mean that we have the right to own and use guns. I don't happen to agree, but that's neither here nor there. It's the law. These people are trespassing on and destroying his property and have broken into his home. He has the right to defend himself and his family. I don't know what kind of news coverage you get over there about the problems with our border, if any, but it's gone way beyond Jose crossing over for a better life. He said he carried a pistol during his searches for the immigrants and had a rifle in his truck "for protection" against immigrant and drug smugglers, who often are armed. That's no lie. Some of these drug runners and human smugglers are better armed the the military and will kill you without hesitation. The police, border guards and government can't, or won't, do anything about it so some of the people who live along the border have to become vigilantes to protect themselves. If that makes us uncivilized, then so be it.

R said...

I hear you, I've read the article... yes, the the law is very different here relating to the ownership and use of guns - america would have to be the only 'western' country that makes such provisions.
All that aside, I'm still thinking that any campaign of any merit over a ten year period should be aimed at fixing the problem, typically such a campaign include legal and political noise (there's mention of one newspaper interview), as if this guy spent half the effort he does on chasing the trespassers, on lobbying the appropriate parties then this would have been over long ago. Instead, the Border Patrol are happy to divert attention elsewhere, and have Mr Barnett act as a de facto law enforcement officer. An ex-sheriff whose rounded-up 12000 people as a private citizen? It's not simply the gun laws, but law enforcement looking the other way, a private citizen capturing 12000 people. I don't know of anywhere outside the third world where people would accept both Mr Barnett's actions, and a situation where a private individual feels the need to do this. What the hell are law enforcement doing? ... that the true measure of how uncivilised all this is.
In a lot of the English speaking world the word 'cowboy' is a term for 'cutting corners', for vigilantism (or trades person who who doesn't do the job properly) something not done properly - like all of this.
It sounds like 'the frontier country' hasn't changed in the last 100-200 years, and that fact that you folk are OK with this in 2009 makes the US look a dodgy part of Africa or Asia.
Over here, or most of Europe, not only would Mr Barnett be in jail the first time he captured someone, but so would any law enforcement officer who went along with it.
I'm not trying to be insulting, but seriously, can you think of another place where something like that can go on for 10+ years with full knowledge (and by implication, support and approval) of law enforcement agencies?
... and you folk are OK with all of that, private individuals taking prisoners? (12000!!!)?

R said...

The reason something like that would never happen over here (and elsewhere) is that if Mr Barnett was killed (or he killed someone) the law enforcement officers/agency that happily accepted 12,000 people would be held responsible for the death.
So there's no chance law enforcement would allow that arrangement here, or 'focus attention elsewhere' while a private individual took the law into their own hands - it just wouldn't happen, or there'd be outrage at the first instance the media heard of it (rather than simply interviewing the guy)... all involved would be in massive trouble/jailed.

So, yes, gun laws are different here/Europe, but also we have the expectation not to need them, and confidence that law enforcement will do their job.