2 Illegal Immigrants Win Arizona Ranch in Court
- Thread starter redhawk41
- Start date
- Status
Ptown Beretta
Moderator
So were the illegals tried for showing up on this land illegaly? Hmm????
I thought not.
I thought not.
Civil court requires a preponderance of the evidence (51%)
Criminal court requires beyond a reasonable doubt (98%)
the percentages are just given as an example.....to illustrate the difference between the amount of evidence required.
Was the civil case before a judge or was there a jury?
He can always appeal the verdict.
Criminal court requires beyond a reasonable doubt (98%)
the percentages are just given as an example.....to illustrate the difference between the amount of evidence required.
Was the civil case before a judge or was there a jury?
He can always appeal the verdict.
jeff_troop
New member
who cares, not me
i have no problem with a convicted felon waylaying illegal garbage. in fact that might just be a good form of rehab for felons. line them up on the border and pay them a bounty per body.you guys are hung up this guy having been locked up. i say it is not important. the man stood up for himself and his country. he just forgot his shovel.
shootinstudent
New member
Ptown:
Please quote the part where I say that illegal immigrationis justified.
I think what a lot of you missed from the article is that these guys earned legal status specifically because of Nethercott's committing a crime. If he had not broken the law, those two salvadorians most certainly would be deported, just like the illegals who were spotted and reported by the minutemen.
If you're really mad about the immigrants, then you should be twice as angry at Nethercott....first for ending up owing them hundreds of thousands of dollars, and second for granting the illegals a chance at legal status.
Redhawk41,
Did you see the example of the US citizens who sued the Aryan Nations in a similar case? That was a gigantic award also. So, I will maintain my claim that there is no special legal prize for illegal immigrant lawsuits. US citizens can and do sue for the same torts, and can win similar judgments.
Please quote the part where I say that illegal immigrationis justified.
I think what a lot of you missed from the article is that these guys earned legal status specifically because of Nethercott's committing a crime. If he had not broken the law, those two salvadorians most certainly would be deported, just like the illegals who were spotted and reported by the minutemen.
If you're really mad about the immigrants, then you should be twice as angry at Nethercott....first for ending up owing them hundreds of thousands of dollars, and second for granting the illegals a chance at legal status.
Redhawk41,
Did you see the example of the US citizens who sued the Aryan Nations in a similar case? That was a gigantic award also. So, I will maintain my claim that there is no special legal prize for illegal immigrant lawsuits. US citizens can and do sue for the same torts, and can win similar judgments.
What is it about being the victim of a crime that automatically gives an illegal immigrant legal status?
It seems more as though they were given legal status as though the U.S. were "kissing their boo-boos" to make them feel better about becoming the victims of a crime as they were committing a crime.
-blackmind
It seems more as though they were given legal status as though the U.S. were "kissing their boo-boos" to make them feel better about becoming the victims of a crime as they were committing a crime.
-blackmind
I heard Casey Nethercott interviewed on radio some time last year. According to him the things he was charged with were fabrications. There is quite abit more to this story than the article covers, and in order to get a better picture one can run various key words with his name on google.com.
And it should be kept in mind that a great number of people have "felony convictions" on what amount to trivial matters. We have had government officials who are "convicted felons". There is no bar in this country to a "convicted felon" holding public office or many other government positions.
On the subject of gun ownership and "felony convictions", my personal point of view is, time served = clean slate.
------------------------------------------
http://ssunitedstates.org
And it should be kept in mind that a great number of people have "felony convictions" on what amount to trivial matters. We have had government officials who are "convicted felons". There is no bar in this country to a "convicted felon" holding public office or many other government positions.
On the subject of gun ownership and "felony convictions", my personal point of view is, time served = clean slate.
------------------------------------------
http://ssunitedstates.org
Last edited:
shootinstudent
New member
My bringing up the felony conviction is not to say "all felons should be treated like garbage for the rest of time." Rather, I am pointing out that a history of precisely the same kind of violence one is being accused of in any particular case lends credibility to the accusations. I don't think that is controversial. If someone has been convicted of a rape in the past, and a woman now accuses that man of rape, it would be illogical to ignore the fact that he's already been convicted of just that offense. It's not proof positive, and of course more has to come out in Court, but it isn't exactly nothing that Nethercott already had convictions for assault.
The only question in a civil trial is: "is it more likely than not that this event occurred?". You do not have the same protections as in criminal court there. Any facts relevant to the question will generally be admitted.
blackmind,
The Aryan nations suit was not over a killing. Some lady was pulled over and had a pistol pointed at her, and was screamed at, IIRC.
http://www.rickross.com/reference/aryan/aryan8.html
There's an article about it.
The absurd size of some awards is another topic for me. This is clearly a decision that's consistent with suits in similar situations....ridiculous in size, sure, but a special present just for illegals? No.
I think the proper response to this is to change the rules for damages, not to say that an, I'll repeat, convicted felon should not have to answer for a history of violent assault in a case where he is accused of another violent assault. Nethercott made his own bed in that regard, and it shouldn't be ignored when he's in a situation to be accused of it once more.
The only question in a civil trial is: "is it more likely than not that this event occurred?". You do not have the same protections as in criminal court there. Any facts relevant to the question will generally be admitted.
blackmind,
The Aryan nations suit was not over a killing. Some lady was pulled over and had a pistol pointed at her, and was screamed at, IIRC.
http://www.rickross.com/reference/aryan/aryan8.html
There's an article about it.
The absurd size of some awards is another topic for me. This is clearly a decision that's consistent with suits in similar situations....ridiculous in size, sure, but a special present just for illegals? No.
I think the proper response to this is to change the rules for damages, not to say that an, I'll repeat, convicted felon should not have to answer for a history of violent assault in a case where he is accused of another violent assault. Nethercott made his own bed in that regard, and it shouldn't be ignored when he's in a situation to be accused of it once more.
And this is precisely one of the reasons why no one should be subjected to a civil court proceeding specifically for an alleged crime or crimes that have failed in a criminal court. This is what criminal courts are for; if the evidence does not meet the standards of a DA, grand jury, and criminal court proceeding, then applying lesser standards to get around it is an injustice against the accused.
These people are about destroying the underlying legal foundation and principles established in this country. The very principles these supposed "better life seekers" claim to be breaking our laws to cross the border for.
It's a scam, run by scum like Morris Dees. The judges allowing these cases to proceed need to be impeached.
---------------------------------------
http://ssunitedstates.org
shootinstudent
New member
The civil courts have never been about punishing criminal wrongdoing. That is not their purpose, and for the whole of American history that's been (until the use of "punitive damage awards") the case.
A civil court assess damages, and compensates for them. It is a business institution, which is why it doesn't use the extremely high standards that criminal courts employ. It's not "if you can't convict, go to civil court...". They are entirely separate. The theory in civil court is: "someone caused damage, so he should have to provide compensation."
Nethercott did go to jail, for five years. The civil suit was going to happen in this case whether he was convicted or not, because, again, it is not at all related to the criminal case. And, if what the illegals alleged were true, (which is what the judge is going to look at when deciding whether to try the case), why shouldn't they be allowed to sue? Pistol whipping someone causes damage, and it's fair to ask someone to pay out on the value of the damage caused. Different courts, different purposes.
Just like the framers intended. Which gets us back to...the size of damages. Ridiculously large in many cases, but that's not about illegals or Nethercott...that's a problem that applies to potentially every civil case.
A civil court assess damages, and compensates for them. It is a business institution, which is why it doesn't use the extremely high standards that criminal courts employ. It's not "if you can't convict, go to civil court...". They are entirely separate. The theory in civil court is: "someone caused damage, so he should have to provide compensation."
Nethercott did go to jail, for five years. The civil suit was going to happen in this case whether he was convicted or not, because, again, it is not at all related to the criminal case. And, if what the illegals alleged were true, (which is what the judge is going to look at when deciding whether to try the case), why shouldn't they be allowed to sue? Pistol whipping someone causes damage, and it's fair to ask someone to pay out on the value of the damage caused. Different courts, different purposes.
Just like the framers intended. Which gets us back to...the size of damages. Ridiculously large in many cases, but that's not about illegals or Nethercott...that's a problem that applies to potentially every civil case.
shootinstudent, i see some differences between this case and the Keenan case that you are citing that makes them apples to oranges comparisons:
- the El Salvadorans were trespassing, ie engaged in criminal activity. the Keenans were NOT engaged in illegal activity when they were attacked, they were just driving down the road.
- the aryan security guards were convicted in criminal court for the attack. Mr Nethercott was not convicted in criminal court.
- the aryan guards showed obvious criminal intent when they persued the Keenans for two miles while firing upon them. Mr Nethercott displayed lack of criminal intent when the El Salvadorans were given cookies and blankets and sent on their way.
By comparing Ranch Rescue to the aryan nation you are making the assumption that Americans who find it in their best interest to protect their private property from uncontrolled migration are violent racists. kinda like assuming that all gun owners are potential criminals.
Mr Dees purpose in the Keenan case was to bankrupt the Aryan nation. What is his purpose in the Nethercott case?
- the El Salvadorans were trespassing, ie engaged in criminal activity. the Keenans were NOT engaged in illegal activity when they were attacked, they were just driving down the road.
- the aryan security guards were convicted in criminal court for the attack. Mr Nethercott was not convicted in criminal court.
- the aryan guards showed obvious criminal intent when they persued the Keenans for two miles while firing upon them. Mr Nethercott displayed lack of criminal intent when the El Salvadorans were given cookies and blankets and sent on their way.
By comparing Ranch Rescue to the aryan nation you are making the assumption that Americans who find it in their best interest to protect their private property from uncontrolled migration are violent racists. kinda like assuming that all gun owners are potential criminals.
Mr Dees purpose in the Keenan case was to bankrupt the Aryan nation. What is his purpose in the Nethercott case?
Last edited:
CobrayCommando
Moderator
Damn jeff tell us how you really feel! 
I guess your a hardliner then, compared to us softies who just want the National Guard patrolling the border! 
I guess your a hardliner then, compared to us softies who just want the National Guard patrolling the border! shootinstudent
New member
Redhawk41,
I am making no such assumption about Nethercott's racism, nor am I saying "Nethercott should've been sued because he couldn't be convicted in criminal court!". It is not a substitute for criminal conviction, and the reason is that the purpose of a civil suit is entirely different. Criminal courts punish, civil suits award compensation for measured damages. Losing a civil judgment doesn't go into an LE database so that the whole world can check at an instant that you've been sued. Civil and criminal are apples and oranges. And that's the way it should be. There are lots of civil cases that aren't even crimes...an auto-accident, for example. Conviction of a crime never has been required for this kind of lawsuit.
My point is very simply this: Nethercott had a history of violent assault. That's settled. He was also running around with a gun when he wasn't allowed to, because of said convictions. Now, when he (if he had tried to defend himself, anyway) gets up in court and says "Hey, those damn illegals are lying!!! I didn't hit them at all and I would never think of it!", what do you think a jury/judge is going to say? "Hey, Nethercott must be telling the truth, because having felony convictions for violence doesn't mean anything now..."
The guy has a history that makes the allegations against him more credible. Just like the history and reputation of the Aryan nations' made it a lot more credible that they had chased down this poor woman for no reason.
I repeat, I am not saying Nethercott should have lost the suit only because of his past conviction, or as a substitute for failed criminal prosecution on the pistol whipping charge. What I am saying is that his past makes the allegations against him more credible, and that is most likely why he lost what he did. The basic idea that you can sue for people having done damage to you is a good one, IMO. So the only issue here is, "Is there evidence that Nethercott actually caused harm that entitles the illegals to compensation?"
The court sure seemed to believe so, and even though the size of the award is incredibly large, it is not a special award for illegals (the Keenan award was even more large, and they didn't even allege a pistol whipping!), and it's also not a criminal condemnation of Nethercott. Losing the civil case means he has to pay money owed, no more, and no less.
I am making no such assumption about Nethercott's racism, nor am I saying "Nethercott should've been sued because he couldn't be convicted in criminal court!". It is not a substitute for criminal conviction, and the reason is that the purpose of a civil suit is entirely different. Criminal courts punish, civil suits award compensation for measured damages. Losing a civil judgment doesn't go into an LE database so that the whole world can check at an instant that you've been sued. Civil and criminal are apples and oranges. And that's the way it should be. There are lots of civil cases that aren't even crimes...an auto-accident, for example. Conviction of a crime never has been required for this kind of lawsuit.
My point is very simply this: Nethercott had a history of violent assault. That's settled. He was also running around with a gun when he wasn't allowed to, because of said convictions. Now, when he (if he had tried to defend himself, anyway) gets up in court and says "Hey, those damn illegals are lying!!! I didn't hit them at all and I would never think of it!", what do you think a jury/judge is going to say? "Hey, Nethercott must be telling the truth, because having felony convictions for violence doesn't mean anything now..."
The guy has a history that makes the allegations against him more credible. Just like the history and reputation of the Aryan nations' made it a lot more credible that they had chased down this poor woman for no reason.
I repeat, I am not saying Nethercott should have lost the suit only because of his past conviction, or as a substitute for failed criminal prosecution on the pistol whipping charge. What I am saying is that his past makes the allegations against him more credible, and that is most likely why he lost what he did. The basic idea that you can sue for people having done damage to you is a good one, IMO. So the only issue here is, "Is there evidence that Nethercott actually caused harm that entitles the illegals to compensation?"
The court sure seemed to believe so, and even though the size of the award is incredibly large, it is not a special award for illegals (the Keenan award was even more large, and they didn't even allege a pistol whipping!), and it's also not a criminal condemnation of Nethercott. Losing the civil case means he has to pay money owed, no more, and no less.
i agree that this is the core issue ...
please outline the measured damages caused by Mr Nethercott totaling $850,000
no, but they did have bullet holes in their car. what did the El Salvadorans have? blankets and cookies?
it seems like our discussion may stall unless we can actually site court documentation that 'justifies' the civil judgement against Mr Nethercott. i will be searching, any help would be appreciated ...
shootinstudent
New member
Redhawk41,
I agree, the damages are disproportionately large. But then again, that's true of many cases. Are bullet holes in a car worth millions? How about a risk of injury that doesn't result in injury? That happens with lots of cases, not just for illegal immigrants.
As for the facts...sure, we don't have all of them, but all you need to make a trial are the proper allegations, and at least something to support them (ie, a witness saying "yes, he hit me with a pistol."). Literally all you need to do to get a trial (which is supposed to find the facts...that's the point of a trial) is allege something that entitles you to legal remedies, and then provide any shred of evidence that, if believed, would prove the claim. From the article alone, I'd say there's enough for a suit....but as for whether or not the illegals' story pans out, I'm with you. I don't really know, because I can't find what was said at the trial.
Whatever it was though, I'm sure Nethercott's history of violence didn't help to make his side more credible.
I agree, the damages are disproportionately large. But then again, that's true of many cases. Are bullet holes in a car worth millions? How about a risk of injury that doesn't result in injury? That happens with lots of cases, not just for illegal immigrants.
As for the facts...sure, we don't have all of them, but all you need to make a trial are the proper allegations, and at least something to support them (ie, a witness saying "yes, he hit me with a pistol."). Literally all you need to do to get a trial (which is supposed to find the facts...that's the point of a trial) is allege something that entitles you to legal remedies, and then provide any shred of evidence that, if believed, would prove the claim. From the article alone, I'd say there's enough for a suit....but as for whether or not the illegals' story pans out, I'm with you. I don't really know, because I can't find what was said at the trial.
Whatever it was though, I'm sure Nethercott's history of violence didn't help to make his side more credible.
Long but a good read:
Soldiers of Misfortune
Ranch Rescue’s paramilitary posse may have guns and camo gear to keep the border safe, but what they need is a good lawyer
http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues/2003-09-11/news/feature.html
this is interesting:
"...the [Sutton]couple enumerated their many complaints with immigrant trespassers.
Their list includes serial littering; the building of flimsy, temporary shelters in the brush; lightly damaged fences; water pipes left running; and the theft of some chickens and foodstuffs from their workers' cabins."
"Robert Fulbright, who owns several ranches in the area, is more blunt: "If you ask me, that man is paranoid."...He keeps the main house in his ranch camp unlocked, he says, so his canned goods usually disappear. "Spoons, you can't keep those suckers. You buy them by the gross.""
so the Suttons are paranoid because they are actually concerned about the theft, trespassing, litter, and property damage?
Soldiers of Misfortune
Ranch Rescue’s paramilitary posse may have guns and camo gear to keep the border safe, but what they need is a good lawyer
http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues/2003-09-11/news/feature.html
this is interesting:
"...the [Sutton]couple enumerated their many complaints with immigrant trespassers.
Their list includes serial littering; the building of flimsy, temporary shelters in the brush; lightly damaged fences; water pipes left running; and the theft of some chickens and foodstuffs from their workers' cabins."
"Robert Fulbright, who owns several ranches in the area, is more blunt: "If you ask me, that man is paranoid."...He keeps the main house in his ranch camp unlocked, he says, so his canned goods usually disappear. "Spoons, you can't keep those suckers. You buy them by the gross.""
so the Suttons are paranoid because they are actually concerned about the theft, trespassing, litter, and property damage?
shootinstudent
New member
Redhawk41:
Neat article. In my mind it's more confirmation that the illegals were actually telling the truth. A texas ranger picked them up on the road, with a knot in one's head "the size of a fist"...?
Nethercott seems to be exactly the kind of guy I'd be distancing myself from in a hurry if I were a member of one of the border protection groups. It's possible to work for tighter borders without sicking rottweilers on people and pistol whipping non-english speakers for failing to obey your commands.
IMO, even though the dollar amount of damages in these cases are out of proportion to the actual damages, Nethercott was asking for it, given his history and the facts we have from the Texas ranger to corroborate the immigrants' story.
Neat article. In my mind it's more confirmation that the illegals were actually telling the truth. A texas ranger picked them up on the road, with a knot in one's head "the size of a fist"...?
Nethercott seems to be exactly the kind of guy I'd be distancing myself from in a hurry if I were a member of one of the border protection groups. It's possible to work for tighter borders without sicking rottweilers on people and pistol whipping non-english speakers for failing to obey your commands.
IMO, even though the dollar amount of damages in these cases are out of proportion to the actual damages, Nethercott was asking for it, given his history and the facts we have from the Texas ranger to corroborate the immigrants' story.
shootinstudent said:
Your position is getting more and more ridiculous as the posts go on.
Are you saying that the alleged pistol-whipping that the illegal immigrant suffered was worth near a million dollars?!
Jesus christ, for that much money, the guy better have lost an eye or an arm or something. Didn't I read that he didn't suffer any significant injury?
And unless they were both pistol-whipped, why did they both get so much in the judgment?
Go ahead and keep arguing as though a minor beat-up is worth the amount this asinine court awarded them.
-blackmind
shootinstudent
New member
Blackmind,
I've posted numerous times that the damages are the issue, not the fact that he was sued by itself.
Please go through and count how many times I've said the damages are out of proportion.
I've posted numerous times that the damages are the issue, not the fact that he was sued by itself.
Please go through and count how many times I've said the damages are out of proportion.
- Status