Illegals to sue Arizona man !
 

Illegals to sue an Arizona man after he stopped them from trespassing on his ranch.

Good thing this dident happen in texas.

Anyhow can anyone explain to me why this would even make it into court?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,490084,00.html

Perhaps because our legal system is so totally screwed up that the criminals have become the victims?:hmmm: (absolutely no sarcasm intended)

Yes, liberal Democrats have turned common sense on it's head.

Are you being that way for a reason? Go back to worshiping Reagan.

Even us "Liberals" agree that this is an open and shut case for the farmer. He has a right to defend his property and the illegals are obviously trying to make it easier for others to get in.

So the next time you get the urge to use that line. Go pray at the Reagan church and ask for guidance first because Reagan sure as hell was better at dealing with the "liberals" than that.

He IS right ... Democrats have liberalized the courts to the point where cases like these get heard (just research who's appointing these judges or what party they belong to).

That's not to say that all liberals agree with this kind of crap, but it IS a problem that overwhelmingly comes from liberal democrats, sadly.

How do you know that. How do you know this Judge did not take it to set a legal precedent. It happens all the time.

Instead of blaming "liberals" how about researching how this rancher can defend in court.

This is being brought on behalf of the illegals by MALDEF and the ACLU. I'm sure you're a card carrying member by at least one of them, or at least believe they both do good "civil liberties" works. This is not the only time either of these groups have gone against Americans and their real civil rights. Liberal Democrats like you have no clue.

Aww did the ACLU break a bush era policy you were in love with?

Its going to be a hard 4 years for you watching this junk come tumbling down.

BTW you can back off on the slander. Calling a progressive a liberal is slander period. I don't know how much of your brain is functional but commit that to what remains.

The only group I am a card carrying member of is Kroger Grocery BTW. My union still has not gotten back to me about my Union card :damn:

Actually I believe the Reagan adminstration offered the existing illegals amnesty in 1986 so he isn't the best example of a defender of our national Sovereignty.

Ah. This explains alot. You have "the union is going to take care of me" mentality. There's no hope for you son. Cheers to a lower cost Wal-mart grocer coming to a city near you. :yeah:

That was supposed to be a 1 time amnesty. The consequences were that others decided to come to the country to hopefully be granted amnesty at a later date. This was unforeseen. And those that followed Reagan used it as a precedent for more amnesty unfortunately. Clearly Reagan would have taken another approach if he could have foreseen the consequences. Despite this, Reagan was a true defender of American National sovereignty.

I forgot what page the of Church of Regan bible that was on.

Well they haven't been "taking care of me" So far so I dont see where you get that dumbass idea from. Another page from the Regan Bible?

And actually those at Wal-Mart work a HELL of alot less than we do. TRUST me.

Because the State laws covering threats of lethal violence in a situation like this only really cover you if its your land , this land isn't the ranchers he just leases grazing rights from the State .
Now if he did more than just own a temporary right for his cattle to consume foliage on the States property he would be allowed to go round threatening to kill people on that land , but as he doesn't he cannot .
Simple isn't it .
He may however be able to apply the defence that he was acting as an agent of the lands owner which would get around the fact that it wasn't his land , but then the State would have to explain how someone "representing" them was threatening to kill unarmed people .

Actually, I've dealt many times with your ilk. The unionist ilk that is. Not everybody part of a union is like this, but many of you are. And I can tell you are one of them. This mentality is that only the union will protect your job, your salary, and your bennies. The union is your savior against "exploitation". Even as they suck down your dues, and even if they price your job out of the market. I recently watched another Food For Less (non-union) outlet open up in our county, and they were picketed by union grocers from another chain. Like it's any of their business how Food For Less conducts their business. And Food For Less's employees at this location are happy working there. Well these picketers know what this means. A competitor who can offer better quality at a more competitive price. It's no secret why this is one of the major reasons unions are so adamantly against the Wal-Mart chain.

Ultimately, I'm not against unions or collective bargaining.....just leave me and my tax dollars out of it. And I never want to be in one myself. Also leave other businesses alone who don't wish to be unionized and can offer me the consumer what I want. Anyway, This has nothing to do with the Arizona rancher who is being targeted by MALDEF, and ACLU "progressives".

Cant you people discuss a topic without personal sniping and idelog?

How this turned into a political posturing session Ill never know.

Welcome to the internets. Best thing to do is settle down with popcorn and a drink and enjoy the show. Please be sure all cellphones are silenced, of course. ;)

You might agree but your representatives generally don't. Case-in-point; New York and California, two of the most liberal states in the union in terms of percentage of population of registered Democrats, have the most complex legal systems of any state, in terms of number of regulations and pages of text.

It all comes from Liberals thinking that they are smart enough to tell other people what to do.

I agree that its possible that the judge is simply attempting to set a precedent. In fact, I believe that this may be the case.

However, I was referring to the overall problem of the leftist judiciary which has allowed tort and the ACLU to run amok over the last decade.

Wow, did not take long for this thread to go down the crapper. :nope:

Before we get all spun up on this, why don't we wait to see what the jury actually decides based on the evidence?...evidence that we don't have access to.


It is possible, just possible that Fox News and the Wash Times may not be reporting the full story or reporting the story with a bias.

According to http://www.borderaction.org/images/3%20lawsuits.pdf This is not the first time Mr Barnett has run into trouble due to his vigilante activities.

It is possible that there is more to this story...

An Internet article search on Barnett comes up with some interesting tidbits.