Under what statute would the Judge be justifying his ruling?

[85Sooner]

U.S. District Judge John Roll

An Arizona man who has waged a 10-year campaign to stop a flood of illegal immigrants from crossing his property is being sued by 16 Mexican nationals who accuse him of conspiring to violate their civil rights when he stopped them at gunpoint on his ranch on the U.S.-Mexico border.

The lawsuit is based on a March 7, 2004, incident in a dry wash on the 22,000-acre ranch, when he approached a group of illegal immigrants while carrying a gun and accompanied by a large dog.

Attorneys for the immigrants - five women and 11 men who were trying to cross illegally into the United States - have accused Mr. Barnett of holding the group captive at gunpoint, threatening to turn his dog loose on them and saying he would shoot anyone who tried to escape.

The immigrants are represented at trial by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), which also charged that Sheriff Dever did nothing to prevent Mr. Barnett from holding their clients at "gunpoint, yelling obscenities at them and kicking one of the women."

In the lawsuit, MALDEF said Mr. Barnett approached the group as the immigrants moved through his property, and that he was carrying a pistol and threatening them in English and Spanish. At one point, it said, Mr. Barnett's dog barked at several of the women and he yelled at them in Spanish, "My dog is hungry and he's hungry for buttocks."

The lawsuit said he then called his wife and two Border Patrol agents arrived at the site. It also said Mr. Barnett acknowledged that he had turned over 12,000 illegal immigrants to the Border Patrol since 1998.

In March, U.S. District Judge John Roll rejected a motion by Mr. Barnett to have the charges dropped, ruling there was sufficient evidence to allow the matter to be presented to a jury.

For the full story.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/09/16-illegals-sue-arizona-rancher/

[JohnnyMack]

My dog is hungry and he's hungry for buttocks.

[85Sooner]

My dog is hungry and he's hungry for buttocks.

In Spanish

Mi perro tiene hambre y está hambriento de nalgas

[TUSooner]

Hold your white-hot righteous indignation for a spell. It looks like the ruling was (in nonlawyerly terms) only that the court needed more information before it could say for sure that there's "no effing way" the plaintiffs could win. It's kinda hard to get a suit knocked out at that stage. I mean, it happens to prisoners' suits all the time because they raise claims that well-known losers. But it is a bit more unusual to see a case kicked out at the git-go when the theory of liability is somewhat "novel" (and there's been threats of violence & stuff).

EDIT - I did read the linked thang, but it doesn't say much. What did NOT happen was that the illegals won. If that happens, then we should all be totally p*ssed.

[OUDoc]

The ruling of Fido v. Asscheeks should cover the dog.

[olevetonahill]

LMFAO @ doc an TU Not them but there Posts thats some good stuff .

[Viking Kitten]

"Permission to treat asscheeks as a hostile witness, your honor?"

[olevetonahill]

VK I watched the Johnny Cash thing On OETA
I sent em a few bucks
that is a cool station ;)

[Viking Kitten]

Thanks OV! Momma needs a new pair of shoes.

[olevetonahill]

Thanks OV! Momma needs a new pair of shoes.

I liked the show But like the Pro Bowl I didnt see you there Nor did I see my Kid at the Pro Bowl .:(

[Dio]

Did the dude literally say "buttocks"?

[Vaevictis]

I believe the issue here is that there are certain requirements for Mr. Barnett to be able to do the things he did. If there were facts in dispute that are relevant to the outcome of the case, the judge is required to let the jury decide.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

So I can't go all Clint Eastwood and tell those zipperheads to get off my lawn with my M-1 leveled at 'em?

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I am sorry, why should this even go any further. Legal property owner was preventing a trespass. He made a citizen's arrest and waited for the proper authorities to take over. Nothing illegal here, except for the trespassing ILLEGAL ALIENS! I see at least one local and several national laws being violated. Frickin' MALDEF. I would love to sue them into oblivion!

[Vaevictis]

One thing you might want to consider is that there are probably very specific conditions under which you are permitted to (1) hold people prisoner, (2) threaten them with deadly force (dog and gun), and (3) strike them physically.

I imagine simple trespass (by itself) isn't enough.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

This is awesome. I'll take interpretation for $400, Alex!


hold people prisoner

What is notifying the appropriate authorities and detaining non-resident aliens who have broken the law until their arrival?


threaten them with deadly force (dog and gun)

What is again notifying the appropriate authorities and detaining non-resident aliens who have broken the law until their arrival?


strike them physically.

What is bitchslapping a foreign national that is illegally gaining access to our nation, private property, and is part of previously mentioned detainment measures with no supporting evidence of any "kicking" taking place other than accusation from said detained group's attorney?


Retarded

What is this whole circumstance?

[Viking Kitten]

Well see, here in America, we follow what's called the "Rule of Law," not the "Rule of a Bunch of Anonymous Cranky Guys on the Internet." This is why America is awesome.

[Vaevictis]

What is notifying the appropriate authorities and detaining non-resident aliens who have broken the law until their arrival?
(...)
What is again notifying the appropriate authorities and detaining non-resident aliens who have broken the law until their arrival?

Under Arizona law, in order to make a citizen's arrest, one must have witnessed or have reasonable belief that the arrested individual has committed a felony.

Is illegal immigration a felony? According to my understanding, it is only a felony if the perp has done it multiple times. Did Mr. Barnett have specific information indicating that all of the people in the party he detained were repeat offenders, and hence committing a felony on account of their immigration status?

Trespass is only a felony under Arizona law in specific instances:

Entering or remaining unlawfully in or on a residential structure.
Entering unlawfully on real property that is subject to a valid mineral claim or lease with the intent to hold, work, take or explore for minerals on the claim or lease.
Entering or remaining unlawfully in or on a critical public service facility.


None of these apply.



What is bitchslapping a foreign national that is illegally gaining access to our nation, private property, and is part of previously mentioned detainment measures with no supporting evidence of any "kicking" taking place other than accusation from said detained group's attorney?

What it is is a fact in dispute. Something that, if present, prevents the judge from issuing summary judgment.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

One thing you might want to consider is that there are probably very specific conditions under which you are permitted to (1) hold people prisoner, (2) threaten them with deadly force (dog and gun), and (3) strike them physically.

I imagine simple trespass (by itself) isn't enough.

Well, if you were on my property without permission and breaking a law, I would do #1 and possibly #3 on you. I can do #2, I don't have a dog, but I do have my tactical shotgun would be at the ready while I round you up for legal processing. Mrs. THA may change the no dog thing as she would love a dog and she likes the Rhodesian Ridgeback breed.

At least in Houston, you would likely be no billed for that holding the rascals until the law comes...In Pasadena, you can do more and be no billed. Moral, don't commit crimes in Pasadena.

[Vaevictis]

This happened in Arizona. Texas law doesn't apply.

EDIT: also, this isn't a criminal case, so it's quite possible you get no-billed in Arizona too. But you don't have to get a Grand Jury's approval to bring a civil case.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Oh, I realize that... Appears AZ law may be more "liberal" and not as property owner friendly as TX law.

Kicker...Did the sheriff deputize said landowner? If so, moot point? I see no facts presented that to be the case, but could have happened. Or since he was prior law enforcement, is he automatically deputized?

[Vaevictis]

My understanding is that pretty much every state's law is more "liberal" than TX's.

I expect that if the Sheriff had deputized the guy, it would be the county/municipality/whatever that would be getting sued for what Barnett did (deeper pockets), not Barnett directly.

As far as I can tell, the municipality is only getting sued for failing to prevent it, not for what Barnett actually did.

[bluedogok]

I would think that if Mr Barnett has a 22,000 acre ranch, his pockets are probably pretty deep as well.

[Vaevictis]

Depends; if you do a Google search, you'll find that he leases a lot of that land from the state for grazing.

I don't know how much exactly, but he could very well have very little in terms of assets he actually owns.

[AlbqSooner]

My first appearance in Federal Court as a pup attorney was on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The federal judge, recognizing my pup status, said:

"Counselor, while I may think this is a case that a jury would be very hard pressed to find for the Plaintiff, that is not the test on a motion such as yours. In plain terms, a Complaint is sufficient to survive this test if it names the Plaintiff, names the Defendant, states facts sufficient to show jurisdiction in this court, and continues on to say the Defendant done the Plaintiff wrong. The motion will be denied."

[TUSooner]

I am sorry, why should this even go any further. Legal property owner was preventing a trespass. He made a citizen's arrest and waited for the proper authorities to take over. Nothing illegal here, except for the trespassing ILLEGAL ALIENS! I see at least one local and several national laws being violated. Frickin' MALDEF. I would love to sue them into oblivion!

Pay attention: Those are exactly the sort of facts that must be established by "evidence." Or I guess the judge could just read a few blogs and then decide. :rolleyes: