Home Non Cigar Related

WTF, this is still going on???

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

So that rancher who held those illegals at gunpoint waiting for authorities to show up is still in court! 30 plus million is what they are trying to get. I can't believe this is even going on. I for one thought that you had to be a citizen to have protections? All of this thanks to the mexican american legal fund... I hope they F'ing lose. I mean I feel for this guy and many others who have to deal with this SH_T.

Comments

  • PuroFreakPuroFreak Posts: 4,132
    This is one thing we agree on 100% Phobes! There is no way in hell these people, who are criminals, should be able to sue this guy for upholding the law and protecting his land. When are people going to realize that illegal immigrants are criminals and not law abiding people?
  • xmacroxmacro Posts: 3,402
    ^ agree with both posters
  • HaysHays Costa del Sol, SpainPosts: 2,338 ✭✭✭
    PuroFreak:
    Illegal immigrants are criminals and not law abiding people
    Simple truth, and all-too-often forgotten..
    ¨The cure for anything is salt water: sweat, tears, or the sea¨ - Isak Dinesen

    ¨Only two people walk around in this world beardless - boys and women - and I am neither one.¨
  • stephen_hannibalstephen_hannibal Posts: 4,317
    As my father would say... "only in america"

  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,634 ✭✭✭✭
    PuroFreak:
    This is one thing we agree on 100% Phobes! There is no way in hell these people, who are criminals, should be able to sue this guy for upholding the law and protecting his land. When are people going to realize that illegal immigrants are criminals and not law abiding people?
    for real though.
  • phobicsquirrelphobicsquirrel Posts: 7,349
    I'd be more afraid for my family actually. What if his wife/daughters were assaulted? I mean that could very easily happen. I'm worried if this goes through and he loses the case you might as well forget any type of justice as it would be open season. I understand that maybe for this case these people were not causing damage or anything but they are crossing another person's land thus the rancher has a right to protect it. BTW though I consider myself someone who leans to the left, most of us agree that this type of case is BS.
  • PuroFreakPuroFreak Posts: 4,132
    phobicsquirrel:
    I'd be more afraid for my family actually. What if his wife/daughters were assaulted? I mean that could very easily happen. I'm worried if this goes through and he loses the case you might as well forget any type of justice as it would be open season. I understand that maybe for this case these people were not causing damage or anything but they are crossing another person's land thus the rancher has a right to protect it. BTW though I consider myself someone who leans to the left, most of us agree that this type of case is BS.
    You are right, this is one issue where the left and right mostly agree. Anyone who loves this country and anyone who is tired of seeing a total lack respect for our laws agree illegal immigration needs to stop. But then you have people on the left and right calling for amnesty which is ridiculous!
  • PuroFreakPuroFreak Posts: 4,132
    phobicsquirrel:
    I'd be more afraid for my family actually. What if his wife/daughters were assaulted? I mean that could very easily happen. I'm worried if this goes through and he loses the case you might as well forget any type of justice as it would be open season. I understand that maybe for this case these people were not causing damage or anything but they are crossing another person's land thus the rancher has a right to protect it. BTW though I consider myself someone who leans to the left, most of us agree that this type of case is BS.
  • KriegKrieg Posts: 5,092 ✭✭✭
    PuroFreak:
    This is one thing we agree on 100% Phobes! There is no way in hell these people, who are criminals, should be able to sue this guy for upholding the law and protecting his land. When are people going to realize that illegal immigrants are criminals and not law abiding people?
    I can't stand the term "illegal immigrant" when describing illegal aliens...the term immigrant is supposed to be used for someone who actually obeys our laws.
  • lilwing88lilwing88 ChitownPosts: 2,812 ✭✭✭
    I think it's a pretty safe assumption these days that anyone crossing the border illegally (and sometimes legally) is involved in drug trafficking of some sort. You can't deny that the largest gateway for drugs into this country is by way of the Mexican border. That's just a fact. So, for a rancher to use a gun to detain some illegals for the authorities on his own land is completely logical. In fact, I think the rancher should be commended for his restraint.

    If you cross over the border legally, you're met with guns and dogs. Why should illegals get treated better?
    Guns don't kill people, Daddies with pretty daughters do…..
  • rwheelwrightrwheelwright Posts: 3,296
    I thought that one of the illiegals that was caught was already deported once for commiting some previous crime in the US. I hope this gets thrown out or else our country is deeper *** than it already is!
  • rwheelwrightrwheelwright Posts: 3,296
    What we need to do is get some attention brought to this and rally on this guys side. The illegals have some group that is rallying on their side and this rancher needs someone on his side to see that American's (at least most of us) are against illegals!
  • lilwing88lilwing88 ChitownPosts: 2,812 ✭✭✭
    rwheelwright:
    What we need to do is get some attention brought to this and rally on this guys side. The illegals have some group that is rallying on their side and this rancher needs someone on his side to see that American's (at least most of us) are against illegals!
    Do you think the ACLU would come to the rancher's side? The way I see it, our government let this man down by not securing our border properly. His civil liberties have been violated.
    Guns don't kill people, Daddies with pretty daughters do…..
  • phobicsquirrelphobicsquirrel Posts: 7,349
    maybe but it would cost a lot to secure the border. The thing is employment in this country needs fixed. if there is no one hiring people for pennies then they would more than likely not come. However the judge should have thrown this crap out.
  • 24footjet24footjet Posts: 132
    Lilwing, exactly the opposite. The ACLU is bad news, anti-all right. Here is a quote from them about the issue.

    They've (ACLU) wasted no time filing a federal lawsuit challenging the law's constitutionality. They allege that the law ''encourages racial profiling, endangers public safety and betrays American values.''

  • rwheelwrightrwheelwright Posts: 3,296
    phobicsquirrel:
    maybe but it would cost a lot to secure the border. The thing is employment in this country needs fixed. if there is no one hiring people for pennies then they would more than likely not come. However the judge should have thrown this crap out.
    We, as American's (not some group with an agenda of their own) should come to his aide and show the country that we will not tolerate this crap!
  • phobicsquirrelphobicsquirrel Posts: 7,349
    very true, though most of us who want too are unable to due to work/money. I'd love to rally but I can't take time from work or have any money to donate... sad but true. But one could argue I could spend what money I do spend on cigars....
  • xmacroxmacro Posts: 3,402
    You guys wanna hear something really funny? The AZ law is actually more protective of individual rights than Federal law or the US Constitution

    Turns out that in 2005, the US Supreme Court ruled that Federal agents can stop a person and ask for their papers for absolutely no reason at all - zero, zilch, nada. They can ask just for the hell of it. The AZ bill, by contrast, requires police to have "reasonable suspicion" (a well-defined legal concept) before asking for a persons papers, and even then, they can only ask if they've already stopped the person for another reason (like a traffic stop)
  • lilwing88lilwing88 ChitownPosts: 2,812 ✭✭✭
    24footjet:
    Lilwing, exactly the opposite. The ACLU is bad news, anti-all right. Here is a quote from them about the issue.

    They've (ACLU) wasted no time filing a federal lawsuit challenging the law's constitutionality. They allege that the law ''encourages racial profiling, endangers public safety and betrays American values.''

    I was being sarcastic about the ACLU. I knew which side they would come down on this issue. It really blows that anybody who is against this bill either hasn't read it, or doesn't even know that a version of it already exists wherever they live. The Supreme Court has sided, on numerous occasions, with bills and cases almost exactly similar to this one. To challenge this bill, would open up the floodgates to challenge almost every law on the books involving reasonable suspicion and officer's safety.

    This article is pretty awesome:

    http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/05/16/gov-brewer-obama-is-a-comic-in-chief/
    Guns don't kill people, Daddies with pretty daughters do…..
  • cabinetmakercabinetmaker Posts: 2,561
    “It’s fair to ask whether he intends to be the Commander-in-Chief or the Comic-in-Chief,”

    Brewer shot back yesterday when announcing the launch of a website aimed at educating the United

    States about her state’s new law. “Since the president’s joke was so inappropriate, I suppose, if I

    wanted to join in the comedian game, I could suggest that he should not give up his day job.”


    Although the above made perfectly clear what she thinks of Obama, Brewer wasn’t quite done

    yet. “Unfortunately, though, he isn’t doing very well at that one, either,” she added as a punchline.
    That was worth it, that's funny right there.
  • clearlysuspectclearlysuspect Jacksonville, FloridaPosts: 2,124 ✭✭✭✭
    lilwing88:
    24footjet:
    Lilwing, exactly the opposite. The ACLU is bad news, anti-all right. Here is a quote from them about the issue.

    They've (ACLU) wasted no time filing a federal lawsuit challenging the law's constitutionality. They allege that the law ''encourages racial profiling, endangers public safety and betrays American values.''

    I was being sarcastic about the ACLU. I knew which side they would come down on this issue. It really blows that anybody who is against this bill either hasn't read it, or doesn't even know that a version of it already exists wherever they live. The Supreme Court has sided, on numerous occasions, with bills and cases almost exactly similar to this one. To challenge this bill, would open up the floodgates to challenge almost every law on the books involving reasonable suspicion and officer's safety.

    This article is pretty awesome:

    http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/05/16/gov-brewer-obama-is-a-comic-in-chief/
    I whole heartedly agree that this lawsuit is an absolute outrage to our "lawful" civil liberties as American citizens and I'm personally going to start taking some form of action to raise awareness on this mans behalf.

    On the flip side of this, I do not agree at all with the article mentioned in the post I have just quoted. Gov. Jan Brewer is the Commander and Chief of her state and has every ability to put National Guardsmen on the boarder in Arizona to protect her state the same way that the former Governor of Arizona, Napolitano, did before her. Should she have to? No! Should the federal government be more involved in protecting out boarders? Yes! But to take the blame and put it squarely on the shoulders of the President is ridiculous.
  • Amos_UmwhatAmos_Umwhat West TNPosts: 5,595 ✭✭✭✭✭
    you know, it occurs to me, that since our government is so concerned with being culturally sensitive, perhaps we should apply whatever laws exist in the country the person comes from. If they're Mexican, apply the Mexican laws, etc. It would prove our tolerance of their ways, and demonstrate our sensitivity in a way that even Jose Calderon couldn't object to, wouldn't it? Meanwhile, in the case that started this conversation, it seems an open and shut case of citizens arrest. Why doesn't the court just fine the folks that are jamming our court system with this crap for, oh, about 10 times what it's cost us?
    WARNING:  The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme.  Proceed at your own risk.  

    "There is nothing so in need of reforming as someone else's bad habits."   Mark Twain
  • clearlysuspectclearlysuspect Jacksonville, FloridaPosts: 2,124 ✭✭✭✭
    Amos Umwhat:
    you know, it occurs to me, that since our government is so concerned with being culturally sensitive, perhaps we should apply whatever laws exist in the country the person comes from. If they're Mexican, apply the Mexican laws, etc. It would prove our tolerance of their ways, and demonstrate our sensitivity in a way that even Jose Calderon couldn't object to, wouldn't it? Meanwhile, in the case that started this conversation, it seems an open and shut case of citizens arrest. Why doesn't the court just fine the folks that are jamming our court system with this crap for, oh, about 10 times what it's cost us?
    Because Mexico would quickly turn it's immigration law into automatic citizenship for anyone caught entering the country illegally plus 2 free tacos.
  • betasynnbetasynn Posts: 1,249
    Eh. I don't know if I agree with the most illegals are smuggling drugs thing. America could almost eliminate the cartels by just legalizing weed anyways. I DO agree with Krieg that the US failed this rancher by not adequately protecting his land. I think that all people should have a basic set of rights; yes, these people were on his land, which I agree, is trespassing. But if they don't get our basic protections, why should they be subject to our laws?
  • Amos_UmwhatAmos_Umwhat West TNPosts: 5,595 ✭✭✭✭✭
    clearlysuspect:
    Amos Umwhat:
    you know, it occurs to me, that since our government is so concerned with being culturally sensitive, perhaps we should apply whatever laws exist in the country the person comes from. If they're Mexican, apply the Mexican laws, etc. It would prove our tolerance of their ways, and demonstrate our sensitivity in a way that even Jose Calderon couldn't object to, wouldn't it? Meanwhile, in the case that started this conversation, it seems an open and shut case of citizens arrest. Why doesn't the court just fine the folks that are jamming our court system with this crap for, oh, about 10 times what it's cost us?
    Because Mexico would quickly turn it's immigration law into automatic citizenship for anyone caught entering the country illegally plus 2 free tacos.
    Hilarious! Still, I say we just give the landowner a Freedom Medal or some such. It seems too many are expecting around the clock protection from an omnipotent government. I'm saying, we can't afford anything like that, either in terms of $, or the resulting police state. The man had/has a right to defend his property, and that's the right that WE need to be defending, and quit expecting some Nanny-State oversight to fix every problem under the sun.
    WARNING:  The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme.  Proceed at your own risk.  

    "There is nothing so in need of reforming as someone else's bad habits."   Mark Twain
Sign In or Register to comment.