Washington Times - 16 illegals sue Arizona rancher

I see it says that MALDEF is getting a significant chunk of money from the stimulus package, should it pass. Is that true?

Unbelievable..

It probably is, though I don't know for sure.

You know, if the courts would stop ACCEPTING ridiculous lawsuits, eventually people would stop filing them and the courts could deal with real issues.

Lisa

__________________
"It's not having what you want,
It's wanting what you've got"

Without knowing both sides of the story, I would not be able to make a sound judgement. There is no mention of this suit on the MALDEF site, MALDEF - The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

I believe that threatening someone with a gun and/or a dog as was mentioned in the article may well be illegal.

If the report referenced above is true, they were illegally on his property, they were illegally in this country... and they want $34 Million from him because he scared them.

If it is true that he has turned over 10,000 illegals who were attempting to cross his property through the years, I'd say the man needs some help. That in and of itself is a full time job - forget the cattle he's trying to raise!

If I tried to sneak across the border into Mexico illegally, I'd assume that I was going to be at the mercy of anyone who caught me. That they want to now use our court systems to extort money from the man upon whom they trespassed is unconscionable.

ETA: This is on the MALDEF site: http://www.maldef.org/news/press.cfm?ID=452

Read your post and this one was on cnn a little bit ago


Bad economy forcing immigrants to reconsider U.S. - CNN.com

__________________
Books just wanna be FREE! See what I mean at:
http://bookcrossing.com

My other favorites
www.paperbackswap.com
www.wheresgeorge.com
www.geocaching.com

They're saying that they were assaulted. If you were detained after sneaking across the border, it would be ok with you if you were beaten by a private citizen? How about killed?

I'm not saying that this guy doesn't have a legitimate grievance, but this country has never approved of its citizens taking the law into their own hands. If he actually assaulted these people, he needs to be punished.

Do you think those who broke the law by sneaking onto his property and using it as an illegal highway should also be punished?

What is a citizen to do if the country will not hold up it's end of the bargain made with the states in Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution?

If 10,000 people illegally traipsed across my land, broke into my home, killed my livestock, and ruined the equipment needed for me to conduct my business and the federal government not only failed to stop it, but also failed to support me when I myself did whatever I could to stop it....

I guess this is the sort of thing the founders were thinking of when they ensured the right to bear arms. The guy has a right to protect himself.

From what I read, the alledeged 'assult' involved kicking one of them as they were reluctant to move when he was trying to get them off of his land. He also threatened to call his dog on them and to shoot. From what I understand, neither the dog nor the gun were actually put to use.

Of course the people who trespassed should be punished, but, not by him. We don't really know the other side of this story, now, do we?

How much else do we NEED to know?

Why the rush to presume that the landowner is surely equally at fault here? I'll never understand that way of thinking. We know they were illegally on his property, so based on that, if I were to need to make an initial presumption about who is probably 'more wrong' here, I certainly wouldn't approach it from the position that the evil landowner is probably more at fault than the people we already know are guilty of breaking at least one law.

Evil landowners don't need to be vigilantes. He doesn't have the right to assault anyone.

The folks on his his property were breaking the law, *illegal* aliens.
He had a reasonable expectation of harm or damage befalling his family due to the actions of the throngs (not just a few!) *illegal* aliens in the past.
I feel not a whit of sympathy for the *illegal* aliens.
MZ

OMG! I'm sure you think the Border Patrol Agents who were prosecuted for shooting the drug runner should still be in jail???

WTF? If someone trespasses on your property and you have a fear of destruction of property or harm to family or self, then you damn sure have the right to protect. If a jury or judge finds for these individuals, who shouldn't even be allowed to utilize the US court system, it will be a sad, sad day indeed.

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

I actually do. One of them shot an unarmed man then he and the other covered things up.

So you'd rather the Border Patrol Agent had risked being shot and killed himself?

Perhaps just offered them lemonade to make their trip a little easier?

And THAT kind of thinking is one of the reasons our society is as screwed up as it is....

Two law enforcement agents trying to do the job they were hired to do, and to try and prevent drugs and goodness only knows what else ILLEGALLY into our country, and you think THEY should be in jail.
GAWD! I'm a liberal, but at least I'm not a non-thinking liberal.

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

I do not think that it is ever okay to shoot an unarmed person. I don't really care what your motivation is. The second agent did not witness the shooting. He did, along with the other agent. go to great lengths to cover up the crime. They also lied repeatedly, under oath. They knew that what they had done was wrong.

We need to be able to trust our law enforcement officers. When they violate the law, they need to be held accountable. Everyone does.

Why do you think that they shouldn't be punished for an unjustified shooting? Is it also okay when police beat a handcuffed prisoner while he lies prostrate on the ground?

It was a justified shooting but as far as I'm concerned, illegal aliens should have no rights at all. My sympathies are completely with the homeowner and I wish he'd taken out the whole lot of them. I find it amazing that these criminals think they should have civil rights while commiting crimes in a country that they entered illegally.

You do realize that a person doesn't have to be armed to kill you right? There have been many an occassion where dh (police officer) has been physically attacked by a person without a weapon. I can tell you it's no less dangerous than if that person had a knife or gun. Dh has had his hand broken, his ankle messed up, and has had his back messed up during altercations with unarmed men or women. And if the guy was on pcp... they're even more dangerous because they don't feel pain and usually go wild.

Good points, fletchersmom.

And who is to say someone isn't armed? It's already been determined that the criminal the law enforcement agent is facing is an individual who is willing to break US law. I would assume that given the fact that the illegals KNOW that they are committing a crime and are sneaking through dangerous territory that many of them are armed, and most probably don't walk along with their weapons in their hands. They probably conceal them for use when needed.

I would think that border patrol agents would be supposed to presume EVERYBODY is armed until they can determine with certainty that they are not.

I believe that a shooting would be justified if an individual is in unequivocal danger. In other words, there is no doubt that the individual is being threatened by an armed person or one of superior might.

You do know that this person was shot in the back as he was running away. As far as it being a justified shooting, the jury certainly didn't agree.

I can't believe that anyone would potentially take a life as casually as you.

Sorry, I disagree. I could easily see myself shooting an unarmed person if they were molesting a child or doing some other heinous crime. I've never fired a gun and I would never want to kill another person but I would shoot to harm so that the person could be stopped.

__________________
Cecilia

"We must love them both--those whose opinions we share and those whose opinions we reject. For both have labored in the search for truth, and both have helped us in the finding of it."
Saint Thomas Aquinas

Um, if you're referring to me 'casually taking a life', that is far from accurate. I'm not remotely 'casual' about killing or death.

What I do know is this: There are people out there who are trying to do the right thing, and people out there trying to do the wrong thing, and other people caught in the middle.

It's illegal to enter our country without proper documentation. It's illegal to exit our country without proper documentation. Often, people trying to enter our country illegally arm themselves because they know they could be caught and wish to protect themselves from law enforcement agents.

Protecting our borders is the RIGHT thing to do. And yet we've set the agents entrusted with protecting them up for a lot of unnecessary personal danger when we tell them the only recourse they have is to say "Please? Pretty please?" when they ask a criminal to stop and that criminal resists arrest.

The life of the border patrol agent is as important to me as that of the criminal, and if the agent senses he or she is in danger, I will be understanding of their actions.

If all a criminal entrant into this country has to do is come in unarmed and turn and run when confronted by a BPA because the BPA has no means of stopping them without fear of litigation, what's the point of having border patrol in the first place?

In Oregon if someone is threatening you in a way to make you feel like your life or your property are in danger you have the legal right to shoot them. However you better make damn sure you were "threatened". A local man is doing time in prison because when someone came to do a home invasion on him he shot them as they were driving AWAY so he broke the law. In another case a father of a girl who ripped a pot dealer off for about $400 had the guy meet him at Carls, Jr and shot him dead right there and he got away with it! So I guess it's up to the DA or the jury or whomever to decide.

__________________
The political system is broke and it's a joke.

The border patrol shot this man in the back. He was unarmed. If the goal is to keep illegals from entering the country, they had already accomplished their mission. He was running back to Mexico and they shot him. The jury found the shooting to be unjustified.

For those of you who believe that shooting an unarmed man in the back and possibly killing him is a good idea, maybe you should move to another country.

Who's to say that the criminal did not shoot first, or was shooting as he ran?

He was shot in the buttocks--not in the back.
I don't take life as casually as you seem to think. However, I do know that law enforcement officers face a danger that most of us don't. EVERY day that they go to work, they could be killed. Law Enforcement officers are forced to make decisions that a normal person is not subject to on a daily basis. The officers make a decision based on the events that are happening at the time. And since you nor I were on the border that night, we have no way of knowing what went on. Or if the agents felt that their life was in peril, or if they believed the man was armed.
Furthermore, from all accounts--the two agents that were prosecuted? There were at least 5 more (including at least one supervisor) who responded after the fact and didn't file a report, helped pick up the expended shells. Do you think it's all just a conspiracy to kill all off all illegals??

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

And we know a jury NEVER, EVER, makes mistakes....there was that one w/ OJ, but hey, it was only that one time!

Oh wait a minute! There was just a case within the last few days where a convicted rapist (convicted by a jury) was put to death, and oh my gosh! It was determined that he was not guilty, and that he died in vain! But, no, a jury typically gets it right....

A jury is made up of falliable human beings--and as such, they sometimes make mistakes in their decisions!

Good God! Now I understand the term bleeding heart liberal.

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

He was unarmed. No one disagrees on that point. He had his back to them; he was shot on the back side of his body clearly indicating that he was not facing these agents. Coulda, mighta, but, most importantly, didn't.

Law enforcement do put their lives on the lines and sometimes they kick and punch a person who has their hands cuffed behind their back and lying face down on the pavement. When they do that, they're wrong. When they taze a 6 year old, they're wrong. These border agents were wrong. They knew they were wrong; that's why they went to great lengths to cover things up. They lied repeatedly. And, you think that they should not have been punished?

OK...whatever you say. I'm not going to argue further. Every situation that a LEO is involved is different. Every set of circumstances is handled accordingly--you nor I know what specifically went down that night on the border....
Thus, I respectfully disagree.

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

I don't think I'll ever get to the point where I cease to be amazed when people are more defensive of the criminal than they are of anyone else.

Had they frisked the unarmed man at the point of the shooting to KNOW he was unarmed?

You say he was running away. He was also, from my understanding, NOT obeying the orders of the law enforcement officers who had their guns drawn. When you are a Mexican illegal in the midst of committing a crime and a law enforcement agent with a gun yells, "ALTO!" and your response is to ignore them and try to get away, I do believe you've set yourself up for trouble.

And I don't know that the only thing that happens to illegals is deportation. Are they also charged for the crime of illegally entering the country? If he runs back to Mexico, it stands to reason that the law enforcment agents allowed a criminal to go free when they should have arrested them so he could be charged with the crime he was so obviously committing.

As far as I know, all they ever do is deport illegal aliens. So, failure to obey an order is worthy of death in your eyes.

failure to obey can be met with deadly force (discharging a weapon). A LEO has no way of knowing if they are failing to obey because they are wanted felons, or if they are running to get to their gun.

So, yeah, in some cases failure to obey can result in death and in some cases is worthy of death.

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

Perhaps, once in awhile, a guilty person dies in this manner. More often than not. an innocent person will die. Police, however, are not meant to be judge, jury and executioner. The law is set up differently in this country and these two border agents broke the law.

We had an incident where a schizophrenic, known to the police, stole some lunch meat. He didn't stop when they told him to so they shot him. In your eyes, it was justified. In mine, it is not.

*SIGH*
No, I didn't say the shooting you described was justified. Please read what I have written. Please comprehend what you read.

Failure to obey CAN be met with deadly force, and yes, sometimes deadly force is warranted.

Based on the two sentences you posted about your local incident--no, it wasn't justified. However, there are other things that you, nor I nor the general populus was aware of in that incident.

There was a similar incident in NW Arkansas: A 19 or 20 y/o DD boy was shot by police because he didn't comply and was reaching for his pocket. Doesn't sound justified does it?
Well, here's some fact surrounding the incident: The boy was walking alongside a busy highway. He met the physical description of an escaped convict (I believe the convict was in for murder...not sure). Video tape evidence (from the State Troopers own car) showed that the "suspect" did not comply w/ officer's orders, he was indeed reaching for the front pocket of his pants, thus he was shot. A little more understandable now?
HOWEVER! The trooper did not follow protocol (had his radio up too loud, couldn't hear dispatch, didn't wait for further back-up amongst other things) and he was punished. He has to live knowing that because he screwed up somebody lost their child....
My point is: by and large, LEOs do the best they can with what they got. They are honorable men and women who do the job they do not for money or fame but for love of the job. God knows they aren't paid enough. Sometimes those LEOs make decisions that you or I or the general population like to second guess. And our criticism is based on the information we have been fed by the media. We weren't there, thus we don't know what really happened. We can all shout shoulda, coulda, woulda and cover-up, but we don't know do we?

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

You're right. We weren't there. We do know that these two border agents shot an unarmed man in the back and went to great lengths to remove all traces from the scene. We do know that a jury of their peers weighed all the evidence and found them guilty. And we know that you think they should not have been punished.

>>>As far as I know, all they ever do is deport illegal aliens.<<<

Not true, I can state this from personal experience. If the illegal alien has something about them that garners public sympathy, there are many U.S. and state agencies that will go to bat for them, despite what evidence may be presented attesting to an illegal alien's danger to society.
Deportation? Bah! And how often have illegal aliens from south and central American countries, as well as other countries, *illegally* crossed our borders again and again and again? I used to know those stats, but will now leave it up to someone else to check em out.
I obviously have too much time on my hands lately if I'm posting so much here, but not enough time to go back and check those stats ;-)

MZ

>>>We do know that these two border agents shot an unarmed man in the back <<<

Most folks refer to the area surrounding the spine as *the back*, not the buttocks.

No serious damage is usually done when shot in the butt, whereas someone who has had a bullet in *the back* could very well suffer life altering consequences.

Remember, he was told to halt, in his own language, and decided to ignore that warning.

Most LEOs are taught if they need to discharge a firearm (and regular citizens w/proper firearm training) to slow down or stop the perpetrator from continuing w/the alleged crime.

I think shooting an illegal alien in the butt would fit that bill.
MZ

I think that it's a good thing that the agent was a bad shot; he fired several times before hitting him. It woiuld not be ok with me if this man had died. It disturbs me that so many of you applaud the agent for shooting.

>>>I think that it's a good thing that the agent was a bad shot; he fired several times before hitting him. It woiuld not be ok with me if this man had died. It disturbs me that so many of you applaud the agent for shooting.<<<

Do we know if he was aiming for his butt or his knee, or any other place that may have kept him from avoiding the consequences of committing an illegal act? I don't.
While I don't agree with covering up anything that doesn't have to do with life or limb threats, I still can not find any sympathy for someone perpetrating a crime, such as illegally entering our country during a time of threat, and then having to pay uncomfortable consequences as a result of that action/decision.
If anything, I feel the border patrol agents involved might have been held accountable for the cover up (only because of legal wording) , not the shooting.They are charged w/keeping out illegal entrants.
And seeing as they were dealing with a *known* criminalI to begin with, I still would have a hard time shedding a tear.
Do any of us also know if this individual had a criminal record in his home country?
Remember the Cuban boat people?
MZ

and your attitude disturbs me.
In fact your attitude frightens and sickens me.
yeah, yeah, yeah--I know it's a blog, but I found it interesting. And what I read on the blog was supported by numerous searches of news agencies:
Ramos-Compean

The illegal had bullet and/or bullet fragments removed from his GROIN! And unless basic anatomy has changed at all in the last gazillion years--groin is FRONT.
Plain and simple, you have bought into the whole political correct "let's take care of everyone, but our own". Also, some of the jurors spoke on the record that they were bullied into saying "guilty".
How stupid do you have to be to believe that this poor, ignorant illegal immigrant was just trying to get back to Mexico?

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

I am of the opinion that too many law enforcement officers are too quick to use force. During the past couple of years, we have had quite a number of deaths from use of the taser.

You may think that your opinion and judgement are superior to that of the jury that convicted them, but they had access to the information. And, by whom were these jurors allegedly bullied by? Was the jury tampered with? Did they let the judge know? Were there grounds for a mistrial? Why were they incapable of making up their own minds?

FYI-The use of a taser by it's self does not constitute use of deadly force. All of the cases I have read of "death by taser" the victim has always had some underlying condition. I would request that if you would like to support your statement of "quite a number of deaths from use of the taser" you provide further information or links to the information.
The taser was brought into use as a non-lethal use of force.

I suggest that you read the link I provided in answer to your questions. I've done my research.
And like I said earlier: we know that juries NEVER, EVER, EVER make a mistake.
I notice you don't argue where the bullet was removed from: The Groin vs The back.

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

>>>During the past couple of years, we have had quite a number of deaths from use of the taser.<<<


How many and under what circumstances?

>>>You may think that your opinion and judgement are superior to that of the jury that convicted them, but they had access to the information Was the jury tampered with? Did they let the judge know? Were there grounds for a mistrial? Why were they incapable of making up their own minds?<<<

All of us as human beings come to serve on juries either on one side or the other with our own personal prejudices/opinions, no matter what anyone would have you think otherwise, or else we never would be picked to serve on a jury by the lawyers, not judges (who have their own prejudices).

Juries are comprised of John Q citizens. Have you ever served on the jury for a serious case, or even a ridiculous and not so *serious* case ? Have you ever been unfortunate enough to have to go through this process either as a plaintiff or defendant?

So many cases are decided either by the lawyers for insurance companies or through plea bargaining.

How many folks charged w/the duties juries are charged with truly understand the law or come to the jury w/out prejudice?

It is each side's job to handpick juries as carefully as they can to help their side.Someone mentioned it before, and I will reiterate it, look at the OJ trial.
MZ

Not true on the taser. Almost none of them had underlying medical causes unless you want to count the man who was tazed 6 or 7 times after he was dead, I can compile a list but it won't be tonight and it won't be in this thread (it's almost full and would be off topic).

What you gave me as proof of their innocence is a blog. I see no evidence that the author is a journalist or a lawyer. He quotes Tancredo a lot. Sorry, but I kind of think that Tancredo is crazy. This Border Control agency that he claims to be the head of is another blog. Or maybe it's another vigilante group. Everthing that I have seen, with this one exception, says that he was shot in the back.

There are other sources that I do not place much credence in; The Washington Times (The debate over global warming is over because it was so cold today!) And we all know about the Murdoch empire. I also don't put any credence in Lou Dobbs or CNN.

Any time you're dealing with a human being you're going to get errors. That's why we have 12 different people that make up a jury. Let's hope that, for the most part, they have gotten things right.

DH sat on a jury where they let a guy off that they knew in their guts was guilty. It killed them, because the prosecution had not done an adequate job preparing his case and they had to judge it on the merits of the evidence and not what they knew in their hearts to be true.

DH was appalled at most of his fellow jurors. There was a 19 yo kid who simply didn't show up one day! They sent a law enforcement officer to his home an hour away to collect him. His reason? His car wouldn't start! That did not sit well with the judge. Then that kid wanted to serve as the foreman and the other jurors were fine with it! He had slept through half the trial! DH spoke up and said that he should not be the foreman and fortunately, the others listened to him. It was a federal trial, and the alleged crime had to do with embezzlement and the selling of cattle that didn't exist. They let him off but didn't feel right about it. DH sleeps a little easier now, though, because we saw in the paper a couple of years later where he was tried for the same thing again (not the same incident, but rather another case of embezzlement from yet another rancher, as well as cattle theft).

Really made me have a lot of faith in juries.....

ETA: This is a government document and it indicates that he was, in fact, shot in the buttocks and not the back. http://www.docstoc.com/docs/726130/R...--READ-THE-PRE

Yes, please. Provide me with a list of taser induced deaths.
And you know--you don't place much credence any anything apparently. Just for my own information: Who or what are you placing credence in that the agents were indeed guilty? What information do you have that I apparently don't have?
I'm open to re-evaluate my position and opinion. But, unfortunately, I won't just accept your opinion as fact.

Did the agents fail to follow protocol (as far as not filing the necessary report for discharging their weapons)? Yep, I don't dispute that and neither do they. However, there were, by all accounts two supervisors there who were aware that shots had been fired, and failed to file the paperwork as well.
What objective evidence supports that the illegal was actually shot by one of the agents? There was no blood trail, it didn't come out that he had been shot until a few days, maybe even a week or so later. What objective evidence supports that the illegal did not have a gun? The illegals testimony from all I can see. Granted there is no objective evidence to support there was a gun either. So, it's really a case of he said/he said. And frankly that's what this whole case is he said/he said. I tend to believe two decorated patrol agents over an illegal alien attempting to smuggle over 700 lbs of marijuana into our country. And until you provide the objective evidence supporting that the illegal alien is 100% telling the truth...well, let's just say that given the choice, I'm going to support two decorated Border Patrol agents who were wrongfully prosecuted and imprisoned.

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

You tell me that there is no evidence that either of the agents shot the suspect but admit that they discharged their weapons? Since bullets can be matched to the gun they came from, perhaps the agent loaned his gun to someone who then shot the suspect. You tell me they're innocent of any wrongdoing because of "evidence" that you found on a right wing site.

When I first heard this story, I said there has to be more to it. There was. I do not believe that the jury made a mistake. There probably is some bullying that goes on among juries when, in spite of clear cut evidence, one or two members just have a feeling.

The two agents were Ramos and Compean. The story is that they pulled this illegal over and found 800 pounds of marijuana in his vehicle.

2 Border Patrol agents face 20 years in prison

If you read this story.. how can you possible fault the agents??? I'm sorry Bush didn't pardon them, but at least their sentences were commuted.

World net daily is not a reliable source. If the story written here was true. I would not fault the agents. The story is a complete fabrication.

Ramos was alone when he shot this unarmed man. Campos helped him cover up the scene. They then lied repeatedly about the incident.

What possible motivation would a US Attorney have for wanting to have an innocent man convicted. The evidence is overwhelming.