2 Illegal Immigrants Win Arizona Ranch in Court

Status
Not open for further replies.
I would never touch anyone unless I was defending myself.......
if he actually pistol whipped one then he was wrong.
Click to expand...


I'm not disputing that he was wrong. Yes, he was wrong.

But it is a WORSE INJUSTICE that the court gave a judgment to these people for what, like a million dollars?! It doesn't matter that the guy is not worth the full amount and they can't collect that much from him. It's the principle and theory of the whole thing that is a problem. The "harm" that he did them does not come NEAR to justifying what the court gave them. This is another "lawsuit lottery," plain and simple.

If a kid on a playground shoves another kid for no reason, that's wrong. He should have to stand in a corner. What this court did is tantamount to expelling the kid from school, in second grade, because he shoved someone.

-blackmind
 
If a kid on a playground shoves another kid for no reason, that's wrong. He should have to stand in a corner. What this court did is tantamount to expelling the kid from school, in second grade, because he shoved someone.
Click to expand...
Nope. It's tantamount to expelling him and garnering all of his wages until age 32.
Rich
 
the guy was doing something that the gov has failed to do.

i dont care if he kicked their butts halfway around the state. they shouldn't have been here anyway. they are illegals! his main mistake was he didn't shoot and shovel. he tried to do the right thing, in his mind, and was punished for it.

the bottom line is the gov's failure to do it's job created this whole set of circumstances.
 
Jeff and Rich,
People are digressing from this subject by talking about how the guy was a felon, and making the bigger issue the fact that he should not have been in possession of a firearm.

If ever there was a red herring.

Let's proceed from here as though the guy was a LEGAL owner of firearms, and a non-felon. NOW what do we think of what the courts did to him?

-blackmind
 
Looks like we're all in agreement that the suit should've been allowed, and that the felon was in the wrong (except for Jeff, who thinks it would've been better to shoot the two illegals). The only issue left is the size of the damages. To see how they were computed, we'd all have to go down and digout the transcripts and see what was argued for and why. Though it seems big, in a similar situation if any of us were sued (felon or not) and offered no defense, we could easily end up with some serious damages to pay. I personally do not agree with giving damages for beating up on people in the hundreds of thousands, but that doesn't mean that this particular decision is a special "illegal immigrants only" deal.

blackmind, the only thing that would change if he weren't a felon would be that the illegals' story of abuse would be less credible. Since that's the whole basis for the taking of the ranch, looks like it's pretty much the same outcome. The felon bit isn't a red herring for me....for me, it's the most likely reason the guy was bound to lose a civil suit as well as go to jail.
 
Well, with that in mind, take it to a smaller level. Lets say you hire a professional security agency to protect your property. Time and time again, they fail to do so--someone breaks in with little action ever taken to prevent it. So you take it upon yourself to protect your own property, someone breaks in, you catch them in the act, and the court awards them your property because of the undue stress you caused them while catching them in their illegal activity.
That's about how it seems to me. We entrust the BP with the duty of protecting our borders from illegal crossing, but too often they are less than effective in doing so. But when someone takes it upon themselves to do so, the real criminal gets rewarded and the victim becomes the criminal. Doesn't make much sense...
 
um, did I read it wrong, or

was the guy convicted of assault in California? After having lived there almost 20 years and finally getting out, I can tell you that the laws of the land do not apply in CA.

I'm pretty certain that farting in public in CA can result in a felony conviction. Smoking in public certainly can.
 
Rangefinder, that is a great analogy. now add that you are a felon in possesion of a firearm.

regardless, Mr. Nethercott was convicted of a felony and in possesion of a firearm. and he has been punished with a 5yr prison sentence.

in addition, he was NOT convicted of assault against the two tresspassers. something about cookies and blankets makes me question criminal intent.

but he was 'fined' $850,000?

so what is the difference between the civil court and the criminal court? either standards are high in the criminal or low in the civil, or both i don't know.

Sutton's insurance covered the settlement
Click to expand...
people buy insurance against being sued? now that is strange.
 
people buy insurance against being sued? now that is strange.

I'm sure your local doctor will tell you all about it. ;)

I am quite dismayed by the amount of legal cases which end with ridiculously unjust settlements. This is just another example of many. Granted, people here will get fired up because the victor was an illegal alien, but frankly it doesn't surprise me at all. It is just something that we are going to have to live with in our messed up legal world. In fact the ammount of money won is quite small for a lawsuit lottery, as I have heard of much greater ammounts being won for even lesser things. If a criminal can sue a homeowner for breaking into a house, getting trapped in the garage, and surviving off only dogfood for days; It makes sence that liberal lawyers would feel an illegal could do the same..... lets not forget about WHY these people are in these situations! sickening... :(

Anyways.... it is something I am going to learn to live with:

*Goes to Disneyland in hopes of being bitten by a spider or being tripped on a loose rock*

Free Ferrari's on me as soon as the lawsuit goes through!
 
Redhawk41,

It was probably his homeowner's insurance. I agree, the fine sure seems large...I'm just making the point that it's not a special prize for illegals; anyone can end up owing tons of money given similar circumstances. Look at the couple that sued the Aryan Nations leader out of his property...similar situation, and those plaintiffs weren't illegals.

As for what actually happened, do you all really find it hard to see how having a felony assault conviction would make it more easy for people to believe that, as a member of an anti-illegal group, he assaulted an illegal immigrant?

Edited to add:

Yes, there are many high profile cases that result in wacky settlement numbers....but the majority of cases cover damages and not much more at all. It's really not easy to win lots of money in a lawsuit, and in those cases where it happens, I'd wager that 99 percent of the time a look through the papers will yield some eye-openers that make the numbers seem a little less far fetched. Look at the gun lawsuits, for example...they keep getting filed, but how many big time verdicts have been handed down? (If I had my way, those wouldn't even make it to trial...but that's another can of worms)
 
do you all really find it hard to see how having a felony assault conviction would make it more easy for people to believe that, as a member of an anti-illegal group, he assaulted an illegal immigrant?
Click to expand...
Well.....yeah, I do find it hard to see. Last time I looked at American Jurisprudence, each charge was supposed to stand on their own; and you COULD NOT bring up prior convictions to make the current case.

Of course, things may have changed since then. Perhaps today, Judicial Courts are run more like Internet Courts.
Rich
 
The perfect solution! A large angry mob invade this ranch (leave the guns at home for this one) Start strutting around said property like you own it. Anyone who tells you to leave, be polite and tell them "no way, I'm here now!" When and if law enforcement arrives, be passively resistant. Scream, and act like you are injured when they try to remove you forcibly. Sue the new owners over this, and your apparent "soft tissue injuries" (the kind that make California ambulance chasing lawyers wealthy following accidents). After all is said and done, the land is reverted back to United States citizens.
 
shootinstudent said:
Look at the couple that sued the Aryan Nations leader out of his property...similar situation, and those plaintiffs weren't illegals.
Click to expand...

Uh, didn't their son get KILLED?

How does this compare with a million bucks awarded to people who didn't have a scratch on 'em??! :rolleyes:

Methinks you're glossing over a HUUUUUUUGE difference between the cases you're citing.

Did you think we'd miss it, and just give you a by?

You'll have to actually be on the mark if you're going to get concessions in this discussion, kid.


-blackmind
 
shootinstudent said:
As for what actually happened, do you all really find it hard to see how having a felony assault conviction would make it more easy for people to believe that, as a member of an anti-illegal group, he assaulted an illegal immigrant?
Click to expand...


Boy, you're leaning heavily on this notion that anyone who has a felony conviction just is incapable of ever telling the truth again. (Remember, no one here has brought to light the circumstances that make him such a second-class-citizen in your eyes, student. Does anyone here know just what he is supposed to have done in CA to get himself a felony record?)

I mean, shootinstudent, why bother having him swear an oath in court, anyway? It's all just gonna be lies, right? Because he's got a felony record. Right? :rolleyes:

I don't mean to sound like I'm the champion of felons. I say screw 'em. It's not hard to live a life managing to never commit, be charged with, and convicted of a felony. Be nice; don't harm others; don't try to take what clearly does not belong to you. So I'm no felon-sympathizer. But YOU are making it seem like no felon can possibly be telling a straight story. Remember, it's either believe the felon, or believe the guy sneaking across the border. Gee, it's so clear who should be believed.

-blackmind
-blackmind
 
I'm just making the point that it's not a special prize for illegals
Click to expand...
i must disagree with this.

the cases chosen by the SPLC are not randomly drawn out of a hat but chosen for some particular reason, maybe a political reason. is your local 'ambulance chaser' going to get an $850,000 judgment out of something that couldn't even pass muster in a criminal court? i find that hard to believe.

no, IMO this case and particularly this individual were chosen based on the individuals past and the circumstances under which the defendant and the plantiffs interacted. i am sure that stuff like this happens much more often than is reported in the media, but not in the right proportions to make a good story.

it seems this precedent may both embolden the border crossers and passify the border crossees. it offers both one more incentive for the migrants and one more displeasure for the land owners.

a hundred acres in America sounds like the ultimate prize to me.
 
1) The Illegals should have zero rights? Why? Because if they don't have any, they don't want to come here.

2) Wait until the government classifies you as a felon. Then you might look on the whole gun ownership issue differently. I assume all people have guns. Makes life easier.

3) Shootin Student, your ideas are scary. Excusing illegal alien behavior because their country is a rat hole? Well on that basis, there are many other countries that should be allowed in.

This is war and we are being invaded. I have no problem letting people in. Starting with the smartest, healthiest and strongest. In that order.

By the way, do you know where most of our tuberculosis comes from? Take a wild guess. It ain't switzerland.
 
Boy, you're leaning heavily on this notion that anyone who has a felony conviction just is incapable of ever telling the truth again. (Remember, no one here has brought to light the circumstances that make him such a second-class-citizen in your eyes, student. Does anyone here know just what he is supposed to have done in CA to get himself a felony record?)
Click to expand...
To me...if you're a felon with assault in the past, and don't choose to defend yourself in a case involving assault, it isn't going to help me doubt your accuser's claim. If he had made an attempt to defend himself it would have meant something at least.

he tried to do the right thing, in his mind, and was punished for it.
Click to expand...
Thankfully we don't let people redress their wrongs in whatever way they see fit and actually insist they follow the law.

Did you know that nethercott had convictions in 1996 and 1997 for assault and false imprisonment? For a good guy just helping out he sure has alot of run ins with the law.
 
There still seems to be some parallel being drawn between the fact this guy was a felon in possession of a gun and his land being awarded to the immigrants. That just isn't the case (not legally anyway). Unless he openly admitted to having personally threatened them with a gun, I don't see how any court could make such a claim as possession of a firearm stick when its A) an event that happened over two years ago on private land, and B) the only two witnesses were not only the tresspassers but also illegally crossing the US border with intent to commit continued illegal activity (that covers just about anything they'd be doing here since they themselves were illegal). If the firearm charge that led to his 5-year sentence is infact a recient charge, it has no business even being admitted into court alongside a two-year old seperate claim. Can anyone else see a bright flashing light that says "go along with this and we'll not only give you legal papers, but you might even get money out of it too"... Yup, that seems easy to believe as entirely possible. So it's sending a message to those going to the border to do violence? IMHO I think the message that's going to be interpreted by those at the border is going to sound very quietly like "shoot and shovel-- anything else and you'll loose everything you have". Not that I'm condoning that behavior in any way, but I could see it going that way very easily. Then who's to blame? The judicial system? The BP? When does the law itself set by such precidence become illegal in its own right? (not intended to seem like trolling, just questions I myself am pondering) The whole thing just wreaks of bad judgement on the part of our own legal system when it gives so much to those who were never supposed to be allowed here in the first place.
 
shootinstudent said:
To me...if you're a felon with assault in the past, and don't choose to defend yourself in a case involving assault, it isn't going to help me doubt your accuser's claim. If he had made an attempt to defend himself it would have meant something at least.
Click to expand...


Not once in the prior posts did you cite his failure to defend himself in court as the reason you don't believe him. Over and over, it was "he's a convicted felon."

You're making an obvious backpedal here, student. I could tell with my eyes closed, without reading it, because it stinks.

-blackmind
 
shootinstudent said:
blackmind, the only thing that would change if he weren't a felon would be that the illegals' story of abuse would be less credible. Since that's the whole basis for the taking of the ranch, looks like it's pretty much the same outcome. The felon bit isn't a red herring for me....for me, it's the most likely reason the guy was bound to lose a civil suit as well as go to jail.
Click to expand...

Here we see the real reason you apparently feel that the illegals' case should have succeeded against the rancher.

You apparently feel that felons are not to be believed, ever. There is no mention from you that his lack of credibility derives from his failure to show up in court.

-blackmind
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top