Now this is a damned shame

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » February 10, 2009, 1:53 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/10/immigr ... index.html

I feel really bad that illegals are going home because the economy here is too tough on them.

I did find this particularly telling of how much of a strain the illegals have taken on the economy.

The remittances dipped 3.6 percent, from $26 billion in 2007 to $25 billion, according to Mexico's central bank. Remittances are Mexico's second-largest source of foreign income, behind only oil. Other Latin American countries also have seen money sent from immigrants in the United States slow.

that is $25 billion taken out of our economy and sent to another country....and that is just ONE country's tally.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » February 10, 2009, 3:05 pm

Blame your good buddy George! He was the fucking president the last eight years! He could have done something about it!

valryte · Post by **valryte** » February 10, 2009, 4:17 pm

Now bitch, go out and pick my fkn tomatoes! Oh and go cut my lawn too!

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » February 10, 2009, 4:27 pm

So you have a problem with people working in the US and sending money abroad to help support their families?

Those people working in the US still have to eat/sleep etc and they most likely contribute to local economies as well.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » February 10, 2009, 5:42 pm

Yes...I do have a major problem with illegal workers coming here and sending back billions of dollars from our economy...especially while they are not paying taxes AND draining resources that come from people who do pay taxes. What would it do to our economy if you dumped $25 billion back into it?

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » February 10, 2009, 6:25 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Yes...I do have a major problem with illegal workers coming here and sending back billions of dollars from our economy...especially while they are not paying taxes AND draining resources that come from people who do pay taxes. What would it do to our economy if you dumped $25 billion back into it?

Mmhmm, not paying taxes, you have proof that every dollar of that $25 billion comes from illegals and not a lot of expatriates, you racist, redneck, fuck.

No Americans ever do cash in hand work either, or god forbid, send money to their family that doesn't live with them.

Here's a solution for you, bring their families to the US, then the $25 billion stays within your borders you fucking child.

Oh no, you want them out instead, so the $25 billion disappears. No one's any better off, but you're happy because your fucking birthright as a US American has been preserved.

If you were any more of a knee jerk drone you'd be funny.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » February 10, 2009, 6:33 pm

Why are conservatives so racist?

Nick · Post by **Nick** » February 10, 2009, 6:37 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Yes...I do have a major problem with illegal workers coming here and sending back billions of dollars from our economy...especially while they are not paying taxes AND draining resources that come from people who do pay taxes. What would it do to our economy if you dumped $25 billion back into it?

TAKING URRRR JUUUUUUBSSSSSS

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » February 10, 2009, 9:44 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Yes...I do have a major problem with illegal workers coming here and sending back billions of dollars from our economy...especially while they are not paying taxes AND draining resources that come from people who do pay taxes. What would it do to our economy if you dumped $25 billion back into it?

That's assuming that the majority of people doing this area actually illegals. I'd be really surprised if there were enough illegals in the US to actually generate 25B dollars to send over to Mexico while covering their expenses in the US.

While you're dumping on people not supporting your economy, how about you start railing on celebrities that buy houses in europe and spend most of their american-generated money there. Or companies like Haliburton, that move their Corporate HQ from Houston to Dubai...

laneela · Post by **laneela** » February 10, 2009, 10:52 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Yes...I do have a major problem with illegal workers coming here and sending back billions of dollars from our economy...especially while they are not paying taxes AND draining resources that come from people who do pay taxes. What would it do to our economy if you dumped $25 billion back into it?

What makes you think they don't pay taxes? I don't know how many illegal aliens you know or how you came up with your assumptions, but the ones I've known pay their taxes.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » February 11, 2009, 12:19 am

I remember paying taxes back when I wasn't a citizen yet. Glad those days are over...

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » February 11, 2009, 10:49 am

laneela wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Yes...I do have a major problem with illegal workers coming here and sending back billions of dollars from our economy...especially while they are not paying taxes AND draining resources that come from people who do pay taxes. What would it do to our economy if you dumped $25 billion back into it?
What makes you think they don't pay taxes? I don't know how many illegal aliens you know or how you came up with your assumptions, but the ones I've known pay their taxes.

How exactly are they paying income taxes without a SS#? A typical setup for illegals is having one legal being the front and using their credentials to buy a car, rent an apartment, etc etc. Then they will have 5-15 people crammed into said apartment and share the vehicle. I know from personal experience (and we do not live in a spot that would have the issues like Texas or Arizona) how it works as we had them living in my complex and we saw it daily. They rotated who slept in the aprtment and who slept in the van they had. There were at least 15 living in one apartment. I also know from personal experience that they steal license plates instead of registering their vehicles.....this i know from a hit and run they performed while I got the plate and then talked to the police afterward.

Yea...I guess I am a racist for expecting people to follow laws.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » February 11, 2009, 11:48 am

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:
laneela wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Yes...I do have a major problem with illegal workers coming here and sending back billions of dollars from our economy...especially while they are not paying taxes AND draining resources that come from people who do pay taxes. What would it do to our economy if you dumped $25 billion back into it?
What makes you think they don't pay taxes? I don't know how many illegal aliens you know or how you came up with your assumptions, but the ones I've known pay their taxes.
How exactly are they paying income taxes without a SS#? A typical setup for illegals is having one legal being the front and using their credentials to buy a car, rent an apartment, etc etc. Then they will have 5-15 people crammed into said apartment and share the vehicle. I know from personal experience (and we do not live in a spot that would have the issues like Texas or Arizona) how it works as we had them living in my complex and we saw it daily. They rotated who slept in the aprtment and who slept in the van they had. There were at least 15 living in one apartment. I also know from personal experience that they steal license plates instead of registering their vehicles.....this i know from a hit and run they performed while I got the plate and then talked to the police afterward.

Yea...I guess I am a racist for expecting people to follow laws.

There are tons of illegals in MN, and I can tell you for the most part that isn't how it is here.

They get a fake SS#/Identity, and that's what they use to get employment, etc. They work whatever job and pay taxes just like anyone else, however the tax money they would get as a return doesn't ever get to them since it isn't their real identity, so the government just gets to pocket that money (and I'm sure it adds up to be a lot.) This is part of the reason politicians aren't so quick to get strict on illegals..

Syenye · Post by **Syenye** » February 11, 2009, 1:10 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:How exactly are they paying income taxes without a SS#?

The IRS has Individual Tax Identification Numbers that they give out, originally designed for foreign investors. They use these, or as Funk said, they use other SSNs. It is my understanding that for the purposes of taxation, the IRS and the INS don't really communicate, so illegal immigrants aren't really in danger of being deported because they pay taxes. They also pay the same sales taxes that everyone else does.

laneela · Post by **laneela** » February 11, 2009, 1:17 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:
laneela wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Yes...I do have a major problem with illegal workers coming here and sending back billions of dollars from our economy...especially while they are not paying taxes AND draining resources that come from people who do pay taxes. What would it do to our economy if you dumped $25 billion back into it?
What makes you think they don't pay taxes? I don't know how many illegal aliens you know or how you came up with your assumptions, but the ones I've known pay their taxes.
How exactly are they paying income taxes without a SS#? A typical setup for illegals is having one legal being the front and using their credentials to buy a car, rent an apartment, etc etc. Then they will have 5-15 people crammed into said apartment and share the vehicle. I know from personal experience (and we do not live in a spot that would have the issues like Texas or Arizona) how it works as we had them living in my complex and we saw it daily. They rotated who slept in the aprtment and who slept in the van they had. There were at least 15 living in one apartment. I also know from personal experience that they steal license plates instead of registering their vehicles.....this i know from a hit and run they performed while I got the plate and then talked to the police afterward.

Yea...I guess I am a racist for expecting people to follow laws.
There are tons of illegals in MN, and I can tell you for the most part that isn't how it is here.

They get a fake SS#/Identity, and that's what they use to get employment, etc. They work whatever job and pay taxes just like anyone else, however the tax money they would get as a return doesn't ever get to them since it isn't their real identity, so the government just gets to pocket that money (and I'm sure it adds up to be a lot.) This is part of the reason politicians aren't so quick to get strict on illegals..

Exactly. About $250 gets them a fake ssn. And I've never witnessed 15 of them living in an apartment. Most of the ones I know live just like you and I. You wouldn't know they were illegal (and I didn't in many cases) until they told you. Also, the majority of illegal aliens in Miami live in Miami Beach where public transportation is stellar and things can be gotten to easily on foot or bike specifically because they don't *want to* drive. The ones here, unlike the ones you are talking about are mostly extremely careful about not doing anything illegal (staying in the country notwithstanding) so as not to get caught and sent back. The other misconception that you have is that they're all Hispanic. Trust me, that's not the case in the slightest.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » February 11, 2009, 1:46 pm

laneela wrote:
Exactly. About $250 gets them a fake ssn. And I've never witnessed 15 of them living in an apartment. Most of the ones I know live just like you and I. You wouldn't know they were illegal (and I didn't in many cases) until they told you. Also, the majority of illegal aliens in Miami live in Miami Beach where public transportation is stellar and things can be gotten to easily on foot or bike specifically because they don't *want to* drive. The ones here, unlike the ones you are talking about are mostly extremely careful about not doing anything illegal (staying in the country notwithstanding) so as not to get caught and sent back. The other misconception that you have is that they're all Hispanic. Trust me, that's not the case in the slightest.

I specifically stated in a post earlier that it is not hispanics only. We do not have much public transportation here...especially in the area where I am at and have had problems. One of the hardest hit areas here is in an area that is a little more affluent, yet has introduced section 8 housing. If Homer was still around, he could verify the apartment stacking as we were roomates in the building where we witnessed this. The INS came in and took them all away one day. Sadly you all fail to recognize that I have absolutely NOTHING against people that go through the process to come here legally. It is ones who are breaking federal laws to be here that I (and all the people who are in an uproar about it) want gone.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » February 11, 2009, 2:05 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:
laneela wrote:
Exactly. About $250 gets them a fake ssn. And I've never witnessed 15 of them living in an apartment. Most of the ones I know live just like you and I. You wouldn't know they were illegal (and I didn't in many cases) until they told you. Also, the majority of illegal aliens in Miami live in Miami Beach where public transportation is stellar and things can be gotten to easily on foot or bike specifically because they don't *want to* drive. The ones here, unlike the ones you are talking about are mostly extremely careful about not doing anything illegal (staying in the country notwithstanding) so as not to get caught and sent back. The other misconception that you have is that they're all Hispanic. Trust me, that's not the case in the slightest.
I specifically stated in a post earlier that it is not hispanics only. We do not have much public transportation here...especially in the area where I am at and have had problems. One of the hardest hit areas here is in an area that is a little more affluent, yet has introduced section 8 housing. If Homer was still around, he could verify the apartment stacking as we were roomates in the building where we witnessed this. The INS came in and took them all away one day. Sadly you all fail to recognize that I have absolutely NOTHING against people that go through the process to come here legally. It is ones who are breaking federal laws to be here that I (and all the people who are in an uproar about it) want gone.

Fact still stands that the government is making a shit ton of money off them in unclaimed taxes, amongst other things. I don't know if it totally counter-balances the effect they have on the economy by sending most of their income out of the country, but I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for politicians to give up a cash cow like this.. I don't see it happening anytime soon.

laneela · Post by **laneela** » February 11, 2009, 2:16 pm

Yeah, I missed where you said it wasn't hispanics only. Sorry about that. What it boils down to for me is that a lot of people have it hard as hell in their countries. They come here for an opportunity to have a better quality of life. Unfortunately, legal immigration is all but impossible for the majority of them. As long as they work hard, pay their taxes and are responsible and conscientious people, I'm not going to begrudge them that opportunity.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » February 11, 2009, 2:20 pm

That is the thing....by skirting the process, they are BREAKING THE LAW. Do you realize that Mexico has a much tougher illegal immigration stance than we do? They highly frown upon people illegally entering their country. I cannot call someone upstanding when they broke federal laws to even be here.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » February 11, 2009, 5:19 pm

More fun with illegals....

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... a-rancher/

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.

Roger Barnett, 64, began rounding up illegal immigrants in 1998 and turning them over to the U.S. Border Patrol, he said, after they destroyed his property, killed his calves and broke into his home.

His Cross Rail Ranch near Douglas, Ariz., is known by federal and county law enforcement authorities as "the avenue of choice" for immigrants seeking to enter the United States illegally.

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.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 11, 2009, 5:39 pm

Um.

While I empathize with this guys situation, you are aware that kidnapping and assault are every bit as illegal as crossing the border without permission, right? Where's your outrage for the fact that this guy evidently violated the law?

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » February 11, 2009, 5:52 pm

Kidnapping? You did read that this happened on HIS ranch and he was not out roaming the border right? They crossed on a posted "No Tresspassing" area. If they were in Texas, he could have shot them if he even felt threatened (I do not know Arizona laws and do not feel like looking it up). Holding tresspassers while waiting for the agents to arrive...and of course having called them....is not kidnapping. It is not even in the same ballpark.

There are some facts here.

1) These were people illegally crossing the border.
2) They were caught tresspassing on someone's land
3) They were caught and held at gun point while federal agents were called an en route.
4) After the fact, they claimed they felt threatened and their civil rights were violated. One also claimed he assaulted her.

Being detained while you are breaking several laws is not a violation of your civil rights. Sorry about that. This guy does not know who is armed and who is not. Holding them at gunpoint is not going to be considered as an issue in court when facing a group of 16 people. I HIGHLY doubt this guy got close enough to kick someone as that would have placed him in grave danger of being jumped and makign that gun useless. So you are down to a claim by someone that they were assaulted verbally and physically and they want $32 million for something that cannot be proven and occurred while said "victim" was breaking a myriad of federal and local laws.

Yeaaaaaaaa.....ok.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 11, 2009, 6:13 pm

Yes, I did. The fact that someone is trespassing on your property typically does not give you the right to hold them at gunpoint, and it absolutely does not give you the right to threaten them with violence or commit violence against them, both of which are alleged.

Here is the definition of kidnapping in Texas.

Tex. Penal Code S 20.03 wrote:(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly abducts another person.

(b) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that:

(1) the abduction was not coupled with intent to use or to threaten to use deadly force;

(2) the actor was a relative of the person abducted; and

(3) the actor's sole intent was to assume lawful control of the victim.

(c) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree.

Here is the definition of "abduct"

Tex. Penal Code S 20.01 wrote:(2) "Abduct" means to restrain a person with intent to prevent his liberation by:

(A) secreting or holding him in a place where he is not likely to be found; or

(B) using or threatening to use deadly force.

What this man did is straightforwardly kidnapping under the statute. It's not totally out of the question that some other statute allows one to kidnap people if they're trespassing on your property, but I'm not going to search for it.

So yes, if the facts alleged are true, he did violate the law, by committing assault and battery and by committing kidnapping, unless you want to point out a law that makes felony kidnapping legal so long as the kidnapped persons were trespassing or crossing the border illegally.

I don't necessarily want this guy to pay $32 million, I just want you to understand that what he did is every bit as illegal as what the people he abducted did. I also don't know where you're getting "it can't be proven" from-- you have no idea what evidence exists, who the witnesses are, what their testimony is, or anything of the sort. If it can't be proven, of course I don't want him to be held liable, but I'm dealing with the allegations here. I don't know what the evidence is any better than you do.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » February 11, 2009, 8:13 pm

you are incorrect. the statue you listed specifically makes it so.

(b) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that:

(1) the abduction was not coupled with intent to use or to threaten to use deadly force;

(2) the actor was a relative of the person abducted; and

(3) the actor's sole intent was to assume lawful control of the victim.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » February 11, 2009, 8:24 pm

And all 3 of those must be true. Holding someone at gun point is threatening them with deadly force and they were obviously not family members.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » February 11, 2009, 8:35 pm

I think he mistook "and" for "or"

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 11, 2009, 9:01 pm

Lala and Vet got it.

(b) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that:

(1) the abduction was not coupled with intent to use or to threaten to use deadly force;

(2) the actor was a relative of the person abducted; and

(3) the actor's sole intent was to assume lawful control of the victim.

Post by **pyrella** » February 11, 2009, 9:17 pm

So the proper course of action is to....shoo them off your property with your gun then? (yes shoo, not shoot)

Serious question - as I'm curious as to what the appropriate course of action is when illegal immigrants start showing up on your property and breaking in to your house?

Also technically wouldn't these be foreign invaders infringing upon sovereign land? Again dead serious - Mexican nationals cross the borders on to this mans lands. How can they be afforded the rights and regulations of a US citzen when.....they aren't. They are an invading force - guerilla or not, hostile or not - are you ok with strangers on your property? Do you feel you should take responsibility for the actions of those using your property to break the law? If you do nothing, can you be held complicit in 'harboring an illegal alien'? Inquiring minds want to know what you *should* do, as there's lots of great information out there as to what you *shouldn't* do.

Also factual answers would be great, instead of just opinions from non property owners who have more ideals than common sense. (Disclaimer, I own no property, nor common sense, but hope to attain both one day)

Post by **pyrella** » February 11, 2009, 10:14 pm

Aaaand you're kind of fucked.

Not kidnapping - detention: Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_arrest (not that wikipedia is the end all be all of anything, but hey, good enough)

United States

Each state with the exception of North Carolina permits citizen arrests if the commission of felony is witnessed by the arresting citizen, or when a citizen is asked to assist in the apprehension of a suspect by police. The application of state laws varies widely with respect to misdemeanors, breaches of the peace, and felonies not witnessed by the arresting party. American citizens do not carry the authority or enjoy the legal protections of police, and are held to the principle of strict liability before the courts of civil- and criminal law including but not limited to any infringement of another's rights.[23]

Though North Carolina General Statutes have no provision for citizen's arrests, detention by private persons is permitted and apply to both civilians and police officers outside their jurisdiction.[24]

Detention, being different from an arrest in the fact that a detainee may not be transported without consent, is permitted where probable cause exists that one has committed a felony, breach of peace, physical injury to another person, or theft or destruction of property.[25]

oh snap

Post by **pyrella** » February 11, 2009, 10:18 pm

And to be fair to the other side from same article:

Legal and political aspects

A person who makes a citizen's arrest could risk exposing themself to possible lawsuits or criminal charges (such as charges of impersonating police, false imprisonment, kidnapping, or wrongful arrest) if the wrong person is apprehended or a suspect's civil rights are violated.

Sueven wrote:So yes, if the facts alleged are true, he did violate the law, by committing assault and battery and by committing kidnapping, unless you want to point out a law that makes felony kidnapping legal so long as the kidnapped persons were trespassing or crossing the border illegally.

However, it's unfair to assume that Kilmoll should express outrage at this mans violations of the law, where until proven otherwise in a court of law - he was innocent, if not doing the right thing. How dare you sully and defame this good mans name (pending litigation).

Post by **pyrella** » February 11, 2009, 10:30 pm

woot 4-peat. In this post we learn that facts are only fun when selectively chosen to back up your argument. In Arizona, where this took place...well lets look here

Arizona Statue 13-1304 wrote: 13-1304. Kidnapping; classification; consecutive sentence

A. A person commits kidnapping by knowingly restraining another person with the intent to:

1. Hold the victim for ransom, as a shield or hostage; or

2. Hold the victim for involuntary servitude; or

3. Inflict death, physical injury or a sexual offense on the victim, or to otherwise aid in the commission of a felony; or

4. Place the victim or a third person in reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury to the victim or the third person; or

5. Interfere with the performance of a governmental or political function; or

6. Seize or exercise control over any airplane, train, bus, ship or other vehicle.

B. Kidnapping is a class 2 felony unless the victim is released voluntarily by the defendant without physical injury in a safe place before arrest and before accomplishing any of the further enumerated offenses in subsection A of this section in which case it is a class 4 felony. If the victim is released pursuant to an agreement with the state and without any physical injury, it is a class 3 felony. If the victim is under fifteen years of age kidnapping is a class 2 felony punishable pursuant to section 13-705. The sentence for kidnapping of a victim under fifteen years of age shall run consecutively to any other sentence imposed on the defendant and to any undischarged term of imprisonment of the defendant.

1-no
2-no
3-no, or no
4-no
5-no, if anything, he's assisting
6-no

It's one thing to feel bad about a people or a person being treated in a way that pulls at your heart strings and what you feel should be done, and how people should be treated, and how people who do bad things should be treated. And then there is reality

Reality sucks. But don't confuse the two, and try to push what 'feels right' through as fact.

The sad thing is - as Kilmoll pointed out, in Texas, they probably just would have been shot. Making the whole Texas penal code on kidnapping moot.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » February 11, 2009, 10:55 pm

Py, put down the coffee. STEP AWAY FROM THE COFFEE.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 11, 2009, 10:59 pm

Whoops, wrong state. My bad.

The relevant statute in Arizona is:

A.R.S. S 13-1303 wrote: A. A person commits unlawful imprisonment by knowingly restraining another person.

B. In any prosecution for unlawful imprisonment, it is a defense that:

1. The restraint was accomplished by a peace officer acting in good faith in the lawful performance of his duty; or

2. The defendant is a relative of the person restrained and the defendant's sole intent is to assume lawful custody of that person and the restraint was accomplished without physical injury.

C. Unlawful imprisonment is a class 6 felony unless the victim is released voluntarily by the defendant without physical injury in a safe place prior to arrest in which case it is a class 1 misdemeanor.

So it's still a crime in Arizona, it's just "unlawful imprisonment" instead of "kidnapping." Perhaps with respect to "facts selectively chosen to back up your argument," people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

You raise some other good points.

On the citizens arrest issue: I honestly have no idea how citizens arrests work. The extent to which we talked about them in law school was "don't do it, as you are very likely to fuck it up and thereafter lose a lawsuit," and that's all I know. It is possible that what this guy did was a valid citizens arrest, and, if so, he'd have a valid defense in court. However, if the facts alleged are true-- if he threatened to shoot them, threatened to have his dog attack them, let along striking one of them-- it's almost certainly not a legitimate citizens arrest, but I don't know enough about the issue to say for sure. Maybe one of the other lawyers on the boards knows better than I.

As to the proper course of action... I don't know, it's tough. But I'd like to stress that there's no allegation that THESE particular illegal immigrants broke into his house, stole his cars, left trash in his yard, etc. I know that many illegal immigrants have done these things on his property, but illegal immigrants are individuals, not a collective, and you can't legitimately punish one group of them for the sins of the others.

Are they foreign invaders? No. They're foreign aliens. I would assume that invading requires some kind of hostile or aggressive or violent or warlike intent or behavior. Anyone who'd like would be welcome to try this defense in court, but I'm pretty skeptical that it'd work.

What would I have done if I were this guy? Probably consulted with local police and a good lawyer to figure out what my legal options are. It's possible that he has some good legal options; it's possible that he doesn't. If he doesn't, then I would be pretty pissed if I were in his situation. I empathize with what he did, and it's possible that I might have done something similar in the same situation. My point is simply that his behavior being UNDERSTANDABLE does not make it LEGAL. In the exact same way that what illegal immigrants are doing is UNDERSTANDABLE-- most are trying to escape poverty, provide for their families, build a better life-- but that doesn't make it LEGAL. And Kilmoll has been hanging his hat on the importance of legality.

Post by **pyrella** » February 11, 2009, 11:00 pm

I still have to kill like 30 more mins =(

Post by **pyrella** » February 11, 2009, 11:01 pm

Roger Barnett, 64, began rounding up illegal immigrants in 1998 and turning them over to the U.S. Border Patrol, he said, after they destroyed his property, killed his calves and broke into his home.

They are alleged - also his crimes are alleged. Standard IANAL disclaimer

Post by **pyrella** » February 11, 2009, 11:18 pm

Apparently this discussion is taking place elsewhere!

http://readerrant.capitolhillblue.com/u ... 03&fpart=1

similar conclusions there - The cases where there were actual felonies taking place beyond trespassing warranted citizens arrest/detention/etc. Blanket assumptions for those just trespassing and still doing the same actions do not warrant it. Likelihood of jury find against the defendant - slim to none.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 11, 2009, 11:22 pm

Update: After speaking to a few fellow law students, it seems more likely that the citizens arrest is valid. We're pegging it at 50/50, although none of us know a damn thing about it.

And what happened in the case?

Post by **pyrella** » February 11, 2009, 11:26 pm

yeah I was totally wrong, i looked at the first posters joined date (in 05, not the actual article post date 2/9/9) whoops

edit: edited accordingly

Truant · Post by **Truant** » February 12, 2009, 2:05 am

pyrella wrote:The sad thing is - as Kilmoll pointed out, in Texas, they probably just would have been shot. Making the whole Texas penal code on kidnapping moot.

This is most definately the case in Brownsville. The ranchers/farmers shoot first, investigate later.
it's pretty crazy.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » February 12, 2009, 2:54 am

Slight derail...

I knew a friend of a friend who worked at a metal scrap yard. He's a giant, teddy bear of a man. Anyway, someone was jumping the fences at night and stealing shit. The owner had a couple guys stay after work and see if they could catch the theif. They did, and they held him and used him to capture the other 4 people that were in his little gang of metal steelers (ha!). To make a long story longer, my acqaintence, his coworkers, and his boss were all arrested for kidnapping. Last I heard he was preparing to go on trial and was shitting his pants at the long term punishments for grabbing a theif and not turning him over to police ASAP.

I have no idea how it turned out. I just thought it was kind of relevant!

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » February 12, 2009, 11:20 am

I think the lesson here (in both cases) is:

A. Do no harm
B. When you act like a lawful authority, but you aren't, you better get them involved ASAP to limit your legal exposure.

I'm very sorry for your friend, I'm glad they caught the thief, but not calling the cops immediately was dumb. I'm not sure how they "used him to capture the other 4 people", but it sounds like unlawful detention is a minimum charge, and I don't see it getting tossed out of court. Did someone threaten to beat him up/kill him if he didn't give up the names of the others (even if they didn't plan to follow through)?

Just because someone is a dirtbag doesn't deny them due process or make them someone who is immune to the protection of law, and as much as that thought gives me stomach pains when I see parents facing scumbags who abducted/killed their children, it's the law.

That said, when you plan to commit a crime, you need to understand the penalties and decide if you're willing to accept those penalties, as well as the fact that the risks that things may not go as planned and you may be in a more dire situation (like mister asshole metal thief above, who figured he could be nailed for trespassing at best and theft/burglary at worst and ended up surrounded by people)

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » February 12, 2009, 12:04 pm

I'm a little sketchy on the details, but I know they made the guy call the others on his cell phone. I think they said they were going to let him go if he turned in the guy who was in charge or something like that. Once they all showed up, they grabbed them all and called the cops.

Of course it wasn't a very smart thing to do, but our nation's finest are not working in metal scrap junkyards either

I think his boss took advantage of the guy myself. I'll see if I can find out more details and post them because I'm kind of curious myself now that I've thought about it again. This happened about a year ago.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » February 12, 2009, 12:31 pm

If I were Barnett, I think I would countersue the illegals for mental stress. Then I would hire private security for my ranch and bill the federal government every time they make a stop of illegals...since the federal government is ignoring the problem entirely. Do a google search on this guy and check out some of the pictures. He has taken pics of the lines of illegals trekking across it....along with truckloads of them on his property. In one interview done with him, he tells how he has rounded up 12,000 of them and he only actually does that on the weekends.

If you want a stimulus bill....how about taking all that pork barrel bullshit that they just ran through and spend it fixing this problem. Pump a few billion into hiring border agents....pump another couple hundred billion into laborers building a fence and another few billion into electronic surveillance and people to monitor it.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » February 12, 2009, 12:51 pm

Sueven wrote: On the citizens arrest issue: I honestly have no idea how citizens arrests work. The extent to which we talked about them in law school was "don't do it, as you are very likely to fuck it up and thereafter lose a lawsuit," and that's all I know. It is possible that what this guy did was a valid citizens arrest, and, if so, he'd have a valid defense in court. However, if the facts alleged are true-- if he threatened to shoot them, threatened to have his dog attack them, let along striking one of them-- it's almost certainly not a legitimate citizens arrest, but I don't know enough about the issue to say for sure. Maybe one of the other lawyers on the boards knows better than I.

As to the proper course of action... I don't know, it's tough. But I'd like to stress that there's no allegation that THESE particular illegal immigrants broke into his house, stole his cars, left trash in his yard, etc. I know that many illegal immigrants have done these things on his property, but illegal immigrants are individuals, not a collective, and you can't legitimately punish one group of them for the sins of the others.

Are they foreign invaders? No. They're foreign aliens. I would assume that invading requires some kind of hostile or aggressive or violent or warlike intent or behavior. Anyone who'd like would be welcome to try this defense in court, but I'm pretty skeptical that it'd work.

What would I have done if I were this guy? Probably consulted with local police and a good lawyer to figure out what my legal options are. It's possible that he has some good legal options; it's possible that he doesn't. If he doesn't, then I would be pretty pissed if I were in his situation. I empathize with what he did, and it's possible that I might have done something similar in the same situation. My point is simply that his behavior being UNDERSTANDABLE does not make it LEGAL. In the exact same way that what illegal immigrants are doing is UNDERSTANDABLE-- most are trying to escape poverty, provide for their families, build a better life-- but that doesn't make it LEGAL. And Kilmoll has been hanging his hat on the importance of legality.

The ONLY thing this guy could get stuck on would be if he actually physically assaulted one. His biggest saving grace is that he contacted authorities immediately and had them coming. The whole "threatening" thing is a complete joke and waste of court time. Of COURSE he "threatened" them. Just holding them at gunpoint is an implied threat....telling them to not move or they get shot is not going to be considered by any jury (especially one that gets the influx of illegals like Arizona) to be outside of a normal citizens arrest. If he did assault someone, then he could get hit with some type of compensation suit for medical/suffering. I seriously doubt that has any legs to stand on....especially seeing as there was no hospitalization involved.

Basically this guy is being fucked by going through a court process and having to pay for lawyers because people continually break federal laws tresspassing and no one will do anything about it. After this is all said and done, he should begin shooting and killing every single one he sees as Arizona does have a castle doctrine law. No one to file suits against you when no one is left alive. Sadly, anything else leaves you open to lawsuits.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 12, 2009, 1:07 pm

I think the lawsuit is probably bullshit. I'd be surprised if he lost.

My point is that he committed the crime of unlawful imprisonment, unless he was making a valid citizens arrest, which nobody here is competent to determine. The fact that he wasn't arrested for the crime doesn't mean that he didn't commit it.

And, IF he did commit that crime, whether or not he was charged, then he's every bit as much of a 'criminal' as the illegals that you rail against.

So basically, if the facts alleged in the lawsuit are true (a real 'if'), then I don't see why you're not equally outraged by his behavior as you are by the behavior of illegals.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » February 12, 2009, 1:14 pm

Because we support his behavior.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » February 12, 2009, 1:17 pm

My outrage starts with the fact that the federal government allows this to happen in the first place. Before this incident, he had detained and turned over 11,894 illegals in a 7 year period. That seems awfulyl fucking high to not be considered a problem.

Then my outrage turns to the fact that he has to spend a metric shit ton of his own cash to defend himself against a frivolous lawsuit that was instigated by a group of illegals that were breaking federal law by even being on his property.

Next, I am outraged that the judge involved did not throw this frivolous suit out and now taxpayers are funding this bullshit.

If the guy DID physically assault one of them for no reason while he was holding them at gunpoint, then a criminal complaint should be filed and then through the proceedings for that charge. There have been no charges filed.....they just want money.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 12, 2009, 1:46 pm

Fash wrote:Because we support his behavior.

That's fine, then admit it and stop hanging your hat on the "legality" bullshit.

Kilmoll wrote:If the guy DID physically assault one of them for no reason while he was holding them at gunpoint, then a criminal complaint should be filed and then through the proceedings for that charge. There have been no charges filed.....they just want money.

You're aware that civilians don't have the right to file criminal charges?

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » February 12, 2009, 2:02 pm

You are really surprising me with a lack of knowledge on this

http://www.flagstaff.az.gov/FAQ.asp?QID=52

Are police officers the only ones who can sign a criminal complaint?
No, as a citizen, you may file a citizen’s complaint. First you must file a police report, then come into the City Attorney’s Office with the police report number and fill out a form requesting the police report be reviewed for charging. If the prosecutor decides to issue a complaint, either you or the prosecutor will need to sign it. If the prosecutor does not issue a complaint, you will receive a letter indicating why one will not be issued.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 12, 2009, 2:15 pm

Are police officers the only ones who can sign a criminal complaint?
No, as a citizen, you may file a citizen’s complaint. First you must file a police report, then come into the City Attorney’s Office with the police report number and fill out a form requesting the police report be reviewed for charging. If the prosecutor decides to issue a complaint, either you or the prosecutor will need to sign it. If the prosecutor does not issue a complaint, you will receive a letter indicating why one will not be issued.

You are really surprising me with your lack of reading comprehension.

And precisely how available/effective do you think this procedure is for an illegal alien who entered the country about ten minutes prior the incident in question, especially given that they were almost certainly sent back to Mexico by the border patrol agents who arrived? Do you want them to sneak back into the country again to file a police report, then head on down to the city attorney's office to press for charges?