2 Illegal Immigrants Win Arizona Ranch in Court

Status
Not open for further replies.
I wouldn't be surprised if the wetbacks themselves have derisive terms for the sucker American system and its enablers that they are taking advantage of.

After all, they don't respect us. They don't come here out of respect for America -- they come here because they want more for themselves. And they don't care that they have to break their host country's laws to get it.


-blackmind
 
well this sure has gone down hill fast.

i expected a little more maturity ...

... maybe some discussion about the level of the civil courts judgment regardless of the circumstances and the fact that he was not convicted by the criminal court for any harm to the trespassers.

if it doesn't turn around real fast then there will be no discussion period.

maybe it is better that way ...
 
I guess you're just finding out that it's a very volatile, sensitive subject -- much more so for those who live near there. It gets me annoyed, and I don't even live in Texas or Arizona. (But we have similar issues in Florida.)

Had you allowed yourself to think that there wouldn't be tempers flaring about such a story?

-blackmind
 
It is amazing to me that people focus more on the words used than the issue at hand.

We are beging overrun from the North and South. The southern border states are now forced to teach spanish and people are afraid to speak out.

But they are all hard workers, right? Right.

Forget the fact the culture of lawlessness that is prevelent here in Oregon. Look at California. They are their own product of lax immigration.
 
What should one expect, as far as a "culture of lawlessness," when the first thing they had to do to get here was break the law? They demonstrate right off the bat an utter contempt and disregard for the law.

When one looks at Mexico, and the utter state of chaos that pervades all levels of government and law enforcement, one has to wonder:
"IS there just ... something about Mexicans that makes them this way? It is from the masses that people rise to take places of corruption in government and law enforcement. Is it just that the masses contain that much higher of a concentration of people inclined to be corrupt?"

It is something that has made me wonder about this more than once. I mean, yes, we have corruption in government and business here, too, but we don't have cities where it is outright known and understood that organized crime is utterly in control. We don't have daily, or weekly, assassinations of police officials -- particularly in direct response to their swearing to put the criminals and the corrupt in jail.

Could it be that there's something in the water besides just Montezuma's Revenge?

-blackmind
 
blackmind:

Interesting. You recognize that Mexico is a deeply troubled country, yet you find it appalling that people break the law to leave it for a better life. I think you have your own answer: People are leaving Mexico because of the crime and corruption, and lack of work. It doesn't take too much deep thought to understand the choice between breaking an immigration law or starving.

As for the idea that Mexico's problems are somehow due to the race of people that inhabit the country, that's silly. There are millions of people of hispanic descent in the United States living just like what they are, Americans. That alone should put to rest any doubts about possible "genetic" causes for Mexico's problems.

And, as a side note...I was just in Guadalajara and the surrounding areas. It's actually quite nice, like Vallarta. Not a whole lot of crime relative to the rest of the country, and on the whole clean and family friendly. And if you head into the mountains around Guadalajara...you will find whole communities of tall, white, and blonde Mexicans.

Could it be maybe that there is no such thing as a simple answer to economic and social problems?
 
Yes, it could be that there are more complications that make it a difficult problem.

I am not saying that people should starve rather than flee to another country.

But anyone who believes that all the world's people who live in countries that are crappy and corrupt and poor and whatever should just sneak into the United States of America is a fool.

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses" is a great slogan, but it by no means binds us to accept all the world's impoverished people -- and it is not something that appears in our founding documents as law, something we are obligated to do. Just as we don't expect people to donate to charity to the point that it puts them in financial ruin, no one should expect that the U.S. should allow such unbridled, runaway immigration as is happening now to lay our country low as well. There is such a thing as cramming too many people into a lifeboat, so that in the end everyone drowns.

Is it that people in other countries would rather abandon the ship, than bail water and make the necessary repairs? Why is it that they would rather uproot their families than try to repair what is wrong with their country? Do they think that their country will become better and better off, the more of the good people flee to a better life in America? All they're doing, it would seem, is increasing the concentration of bad people left behind in their respective countries.

What are we to make of the people who can so easily shed their nationality? I am talking about people who, when the tough got going, left. Are we to expect that people who leave a country behind with an attitude of, "Well, sink or swim on your own," are going to come here and care very much about this country? Because it seems to me that their attitude is "every man for himself," instead.

Either that, or they come to this country insisting that they can treat it like their own country, but with more money to be made and more freedom to be had -- but they don't consider themselves obligated to BE American, or to THINK American, or even to TALK "American."

Is it any surprise that there are those who were born American who resent them trying to "set up shop" here, remaining distinct and unassimilated as though they never left their country, and beyond that they insist on being catered to in their native language?

I'm not saying it's necessarily genetic, though I still wonder about what I was saying before. Maybe it's just cultural.

-blackmind
 
What nation in the history of the world would allow their borders to be over run by a people speaking a different language who had the ability to stop the migration?(other than Europe of the last few decades and look at them!) Who in the history of the world has awarded said invaders (with out a knife at their throat [Rome]) at the expense of their own citizens? None I say, well none that were around for too long anyway.

As far as the firearms violation of the felon, would you have suggested he should be prosecuted for shooting a bear to save his children, or an attacker to prevent his wife from being raped? Just curious, because it seems to me an easy way to dismiss this troubling verdict with out having to really look at what happened.

Shawn
 
+1 Good points. You're right about the firearms charges being a red herring. Let's look at the bigger problem of, "Why the hell are American citizens who are not law enforcement or border officers being forced into a position where they feel they have to defend the borders?!"

It's like if you lived in a residential neighborhood with kids playing, and speeders were making the place hazardous, and the cops left it to the neighborhood families to put up speed bumps or something because they couldn't be bothered to do what was necessary; and then beat down on the families for doing something when the authorities would not help treat the problem.

-blackmind
 
blackmind: Lots of good questions, but the basic point remains: it's not exactly unfathomable or impossible to imagine why people are choosing to break the law to immigrate. The fact that they choose to do this does not mean that they are all hardened felons who will break laws against rape, murder, and theft as well, since, as you just admitted, it's easy to understand how a normal person would choose to break an immigration law rather than starve.

I agree, the borders need to be defended. But the start to having a defensible border is first a rational immigration policy, followed by addressing the cause: employers who look the other way, and poverty in Mexico. Trying to build an impenetrable wall across a 2000 mile border is a strategy that is bound to cost billions of dollars only to result in failure. If the flow of immigrants is reducted, it will be easier to target specific areas and police the interior.

Mooreshawn: The Romans in their heyday didn't speak one language, they spoke two: Greek and Latin.

As for this felon losing his property, this is an easy case: Here you have someone with a history of felonious violence, who is sued by people accusing him of having assaulted them. Why is that such an unjust situation? Felons can't have guns, and they can't go around arresting people for other crimes with illegal guns. If a felon with a gun goes and hits or menaces someone with his gun, that's fair game for a lawsuit.

The moral of the story is: If you are a violent felon who can't legally possess a firearm, don't go around armed trying to arrest other criminals. If you do, you will be prosecuted and may be sued for large sums of money.

I'm sure happy with that message.
 
Apparently you don't understand what happened. Yes, the man went to jail for illegally possessing a firearm. But how did the illegals get his ranch again? His ranch that he paid something like 100 grand for? That ain't right!

Who cares if illegal immigration is "right", which is what you seem to be saying. The world doesn't stop revolving around the sun when something immoral or wrong happens, thats not the way of the universe. Just like this war, who cares if its "right" or not, it was inevitable. We should stop this illegal migration of south and central Americans.
 
Cobray: Where did I imply that I thought illegal immigration was "right"?


I understand perfectly what happened to this armed felon. He illegally used the gun to arrest two people, who later accused him of abusing them. Those two immigrants sued him in US courts, which is perfectly legal, and alleged that said felon did them harm. Since the guy has a history of violence, it's going to be easy to convince a jury that he did in fact assault and batter the two immigrants.

Assaulting people isn't just a crime, it's also a tort. And that means that under the laws of this great nation, you can seek monetary or other compensation. He lost his ranch because he didn't have the cash on hand to pay the judgment against him.

So I ask again: where's the injustice? Should it be illegal to sue convicted felons for assault? I just can't see how it's unjust to force a convicted felon to suffer financially for the bad things he does.
 
ShootinStudent,

You are right among the hundreds of languages in the Roman Empire two were dominant. Greek and Latin. Funny thing is when things got tough the empire BROKE IN TWO. Along Language lines primarily, and oh by the way while the the west, Latin speaking and original language of the empire was overrun by barbarian tribes who spoke neither Greek nor Latin but German, guess what the Eastern half did? Left the west to the Germans and founded the Byzantine empire out of the ashes as a GREEK SPEAKING empire.

With the courts and their numerous horrible and un-American decisions of late I can not believe that anyone, let alone on this forum, would support them. I want to hear about just who was on the Jury. If the land owner was not represented does that mean the filing lawyer got to hand select the jury, or was there even a jury? Not being sarcastic, not a lawyer so I just don't know.

Shawn
 
More on illegal migrants being awarded the status of immigrants again.

I am looking forward to the day when the likes of Morris Dees and his ideological cronies at the Suthun Pharisee Law Center are encouraged to find a homeland of their own more attractive than trying to destroy ours.
 
Mooreshawmn: I'd like to hear your explanation sometime as to how the fact that Romans spoke both Greek and Latin led to the split. Considering that the divide happened when brothers were warring for control, I'd find it curious if linguistic differences were a causal factor.

As for this decision, could you answer my question above? Do you think it should not be legal to sue convicted felons for assaults? What would be the appropriate remedy for this situation?

I don't see why it's so hard to believe the illegals' stories. The guy has a history of violence, and he was running around with a gun to catch a group of people he's got a beef with. Why is it so tough to believe that this felon would get violent with them?
 
Apparently you don't understand what happened. Yes, the man went to jail for illegally possessing a firearm. But how did the illegals get his ranch again? His ranch that he paid something like 100 grand for? That ain't right!
Click to expand...

Exactly.

All you people who are cheering his incarceration because you don't like his behavior or background are skipping over one MAJOR thing here, and that is, if any one of us were trespassing on a neighbor's yard, and he mistreated us in the exact same way, possibly hitting us with the butt of a pistol, etc. there is no way in hell we would end up OWNING HIS PROPERTY!!

That is just freakin' BIZARRE. At most, we'd get some sort of compensation for our medical bills, lost wages due to the injury (if there was injury), and he would pay some nominal fine after his charge was reduced down from a misdemeanor to an offense. And even if the guy who did it to us was in illegal possession of a firearm, that would be dealt with separately and would not involve giving us anything of his whatsoever. That would simply be a criminal issue that he would have to face.

Why these people were entitled to this absurdly huge judgment is beyond me, but it seems more related to the fact that they are poor widdle iwwegal immigwants than anything else. That, and the powers-that-be want to send a message to anyone with the audacity to attempt to control the borders when they simply won't.


-blackmind
 
So I ask again: where's the injustice? Should it be illegal to sue convicted felons for assault? I just can't see how it's unjust to force a convicted felon to suffer financially for the bad things he does.
Click to expand...

You seem fixated on the fact that the guy did not legally own the gun he used during their "arrest." That's just a digression. It really doesn't matter that he was not legally allowed to own the gun. Let's focus on what he DID.

You say that it should remain legal to sue people for assault. What does "convicted felons" have to do with it? Shouldn't matter if the person is "convicted felon," "famous actor," "millionaire industrialist" or "U.S. Senator" -- if they assaulted you, you can sue them.

You "can't see how it's unjust" to punish a convicted felon blah blah blah. Why don't you realize that his PAST felonies are not the issue here? You are making it sound like you just like to hammer on and on at convicted felons regardless of what it is that they are CURRENTLY charged with. You want convicted felons to suffer financially for the bad things they do. Fine. But each time you make someone suffer financially, it should be about the thing he did THIS time -- NOT about the fact that you don't like him for what he did BEFORE.

You seem to be wishing to give this guy enhanced punishment for this minor assault allegation just because he was also a felon in the past. We don't know what his past charge was all about, or whether it was bull crap or not. Maybe he was railroaded by some crooked, incompetent lawyer into pleading guilty in his own best interest on a trumped-up charge that never should have stuck or even been brought. I don't know that history, do you?

The punishment should fit the crime. Anywhere else, with any two other principals, the defendant would not LOSE HIS HOUSE over a minor charge that didn't even arise from serious injury.

And let's not forget, please, that IT WAS THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS' ACTIONS OF ILLEGALLY COMING INTO THIS COUNTRY THAT GOT THEM INTO THE SITUATION IN THE FIRST PLACE.

If you broke into my house, and tripped on my kid's skateboard and ended up paralyzed from the neck down, do you think you should be able to sue me for injuries that YOUR CRIMINAL ACTIONS precipitated?! :barf:

-blackmind
 
Blackmind:

How is it that there is "no way in hell" we could sue for an amount similar to that the illegal immigrants received? It looks from the article to be the case that the judge awarded a dollar amount, and that the man's property was taken to pay that amount. It's not "we're taking your land because it's important and we want to punish"...it's "you owe x amount of dollars, and if you can't pay, we'll take your things to pay for it."

I see no reason why any of us couldn't sue in similar circumstances. I'm aware of no law that grants illegal immigrants increased damages in tort claims.

As for comparisons, I do not agree at all. What if this had been a rape of an illegal immigrant woman? Would you say "well, if she hadn't broken the law, she wouldn't have been in that situation!"? The proper comparison isn't tripping on your kids' skateboards....a more appropriate version would be:

I break into your yard, and you decide to beat me over the head with your kid's skateboard, even though I'm not threatening you and I'm allowing myself to be detained on your orders.
 
Well I think the award in the suit was harsh ......

Why didnt he call law enforcment and let them handle it.......then when law enforcment didnt come call out the news cameras for some press....

I would never touch anyone unless I was defending myself.......
if he actually pistol whipped one then he was wrong.
 
I see no reason why any of us couldn't sue in similar circumstances. I'm aware of no law that grants illegal immigrants increased damages in tort claims.

As for comparisons, I do not agree at all. What if this had been a rape of an illegal immigrant woman? Would you say "well, if she hadn't broken the law, she wouldn't have been in that situation!"? The proper comparison isn't tripping on your kids' skateboards....a more appropriate version would be:

I break into your yard, and you decide to beat me over the head with your kid's skateboard, even though I'm not threatening you and I'm allowing myself to be detained on your orders.
Click to expand...

I have read of cases where someone sued and was awarded damages from the person who supposedly harmed them, and then BECAUSE THEY BROUGHT IT ON THEMSELVES through either their own stupidity or their own criminal actions, the damages were reduced DRASTICALLY. In some cases, the court says, "Okay, Mr. Smith owes you, Mr. Brown, $100,000, but you were 95% at fault in causing this to happen in the first place, so he will have to pay you, Mr. Brown, $5,000, not $100,000. You 'owe yourself' the other $95,000."

I still think that anyone else anywhere else suing for such a non-injury would NOT have been ordered to pay nearly as much as this guy was. And it's not even about the fact that he didn't show up in court to defend the case. The other guy who DID respond to the case still had to (have his insurance company, meaning "all of US") pay $100,000. So this was about the court allowing a much larger judgment than should have been allowed. These people were perhaps wronged (forgetting about the fact that they were illegally immigrating -- knowingly breaking the law) but they were not really HARMED.

-blackmind
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top