Racist Arizona Rancher, Border Vigilante Roger Barnett faces $32 million dollar Civil Rights lawsuit
Some of the rabid right portray Arizona Rancher Roger Barnett as a “Patriot”, an “American Hero”, but the trial ongoing in Cochise County Arizona shows Barnett for what he truly is. Simply another racist vigilante coward with no respect for other human beings.
The lawsuit is based on a March 7, 2004, incident in a dry wash on the 22,000-acre ranch Barret owns, 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 ass.”
The lawsuit said he then called his wife and two Border Patrol agents arrived at the site
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. The Judge by this ruling indicated that illegal immigrants do not leave all legal protections at the border. Mr. Barnett’s attorney, David Hardy, had argued that illegal immigrants did not have the same rights as U.S. citizens.
This is noteworthy because Arizona law allows the use of physical and even deadly force to prevent the commission of certain serious crimes, and also allows for a person to use physical force against another when and to the extent that a “reasonable person” would believe it necessary to prevent criminal trespass on their premises, or to prevent theft or criminal damage to certain property.
Nevertheless, a violation of individuals’ federal constitutional rights would trump any justifications afforded by state law, and might explain why this matter is now being tried.
This is not the first time Barret has been before a Judge for terrorizing Immigrants, both legal and illegal.
From left, Ana English, Ed English, Vanese Morales, Ron Morales, Emma English, Renee Morales and Angelique Morales stand behind attorney Jesus Romo Vejar.
In that case, Ronald Morales and his father, Arturo, were deer hunting with Ronald’s two daughters, who were 11 and 9 at the time, and another 11-year-old girl. All members of the family are Mexican-Americans born in the United States.
Barnett spotted the family’s pickup truck through binoculars and radioed his brother, Donald, asking him to investigate. Ronald Morales and one of his daughters were still out hunting when Donald Barnett made contact with others in the party at their truck, informed them they were on Barnett property and asked them to leave.
By the time Ronald Morales and his daughter returned to the truck, Roger Barnett had arrived and was, by all accounts, livid.
Roger Barnett erupted in flurry of profanities and racial epithets, calling the two men and three young girls dirty, ignorant Mexicans. When Ronald Morales asked, “What is your name, sir?” Roger Barnett marched over to his truck, and pulled out an AR-15 assault rifle.
“He said, ‘My fucking name is Roger Barnett. If you don’t get off my property, I’m gonna shoot you and shoot you and shoot you,’ ” Morales testified.
Although a deputy sheriff who investigated the incident at the time found evidence to charge Roger Barnett with eight felony counts of aggravated assault and 10 misdemeanor counts of disorderly conduct and intimidation, the Cochise County prosecutor refused to file criminal charges against the Barnett brothers. Morales says the county attorney simply told him “no jury in Cochise County will ever convict Roger Barnett.”
Remember we’re in Arizona where it appears the citizenry give their stamp of approval to Border Patrol agents who summarily execute illegal entrants without fear of conviction such as was the case of Nicholas Corbett.
Let’s hope the jury hearing this case has the cojones to return a just and fair verdict in favor of the plaintiff’s.
SOURCES: Washington Times
SPLC
Loading ...
Our government, has the attitude that every single citizen of Mexico wants to come to the US and if allowed to come, will stay permanently.
Every person entering the US must have a Passport or equivalent to include American Citizens returning from abroad, our Government has the attitude that every single person on earth wants to become a Citizen of the US. It is required by every country now, to have a passport to enter, there are even countries that if you are an American Citizen, you are denied entry or at the very least heavily scrutinized. Canadians entering the US fall under the same rules as all others, max stay under 180 days, must present documents at crossing can be denied. Canadians can not come and go as they wish, they are also not part of the VWP. You said previously my side takes theories and urban myths and tries to push them as the truth seems to be exactly what you are doing here.
As for your girlfriend, there are a million and one reasons she could have been denied. She could have had something as simple as a misdemeanor or equivalent in Mexico on her record which she was denied for. I think the Consular should have given her the reason, but then it is not a mandate.
As for “Help Wanted” signs, I see them too, except after them being up for a few days they are taken down due to having hired someone, or within a week the company is out of business and the sign was there simply because the owner placed his employees on part time to save on expenses and is attempting to only hire part time workers. There are again, many reasons why these signs are up and why they come back down rather quickly, or as a last chance effort for a failing company to try to stay in business. I see a lot of presumptions in your arguments, as well mine may have a few too.
I’m wiling to bet nothing happens to Arpaio. DOJ will come out and do nothing as Arpaio has done nothing to violate his 287(g) status.
As for E-verify, it will never be 100%, simply due to the fact that people, mostly women, and some men, who get married and never change there name on their SS card, which are the majority of the .04%
As for my 14th argument, your right, it doesn’t specifically include nor exclude illegal immigrants. It is presumed that by being born here they are granted birth right citizenship, its a case of having been accepted yet never explicitly ruled on.
Civility – We can argue points and remain civil, in the end we can agree to disagree and continue advocating what we each believe. Neither of us will concede, and in the end it will be left up to SCOTUS to determine the ruling.
As for “your side will accept what they win gracefully and with class”, is that with or without the demands? with or without the organizations attempting to change Federal Law? is that with or without the race baiting/race card? I mean your side pulls no punches and if you consider that class and graceful, then I’m speechless.
Both sides of the argument are guilty of the things you mention.
Federal law needs to be changed. Federal Immigration law needs to be changed. It is antiquated and not meant to be functional in the 21st century.
My problem are with those who look upon the Mexicans as animals, sub-humans, either directly venting their feelings or insinuating as such. As humans, we should be above that.
I also have a problem with those who have made the issue of illegal immigration only about Mexicans, the group least likely to do this country any harm in a terrorist fashion.
I have problems with those who wouldn’t know an illegal from a legal, but in their minds, because they’re brown, they must be Mexican and illegal. And with that attitude, they ignore the groups who are in this country with a reason to do us harm. That is who ICE should be after. Political Correctness be damned.
You’re correct. This issue will be decided eventually by SCOTUS, as it should be. And by the Congress who needs to pass common sense, logical immigration reform.
We have the technology available now to track who crosses the border and when they leave. You have no idea what people in Mexico, the normal Juans and Juanas, have to go through to get a LASER visa, to simply cross the border to shop. We have the technology to solve that problem.
We have the technology also to track and deport the criminal illegals once they’ve served their sentences. Chip their asses! RFID chip injected deep in the buttocks. Sensors along the border and rapid response teams when the alarm is tripped. The good decent folks of Mexico, given the chance, will play by the rules, when the rules are fair and equitable.
But people like Roger Barnett, Nicholas Corbett and others, who think because they’re Mexican’s they can treat them as they wish, have to be stopped.
The good decent folks of Mexico, given the chance, will play by the rules, when the rules are fair and equitable.
I have to ask… How are the rules now, not fair and equitable? Mexico has the highest rate of ‘legal’ immigration into the US of any nation on earth. They even have the TN visa for which only Mexico and Canada can use. How is that fair to other countries? They can easily obtain an H-2A visa by visiting the embassy in Mexico, an unlimited amount of visas allowed per year, however, if our farmers aren’t applying for it, then it becomes limited to only how many farmers have applied. Our farmers are part of the problem in all of this as well, sub-sidies have also screwed many things up. The new rules for H-2A that Bush passed prior to leaving, I think are unfair to Immigrants, it removes to many protections of the immigrant.
As for Mexicans and Mexico, I have family in Mexico, I know the system and how it works. The good people of Mexico have decided rather to take it upon themselves to cross our border, instead of waiting and playing by the rules simply because our farmers claim it to be to much of a burden to apply for H-2A. I would like to hear how our laws are antiquated and how they are unfair in other ways since I gave the most obvious one.
The rules now are anything but fair and equitable where Mexicans are concerned.
Our government, has the attitude that every single citizen of Mexico wants to come to the US and if allowed to come, will stay permanently.
Sure, there are rules in place to apply for the Laser Visa, to cross the border and stay within the border zone. There are rules in place to obtain the I-94 travel visa to allow them to visit and vacation in the interior of the US. I see the good folks standing in line for hours at the border kiosk in Laredo, in good weather and bad, to do the right thing. Obtain the I-94, even if they are only going to San Antonio for the day.
You say the “good people of Mexico have taken it upon themselves……”: You’re partially correct. They’re good, salt of the earth hard working people for the most part. The majority of them are. They’re also from some of the poorest regions of southern Mexico. Largely uneducated farmers and tradesmen who work with their hands and most have never paid into the IMSS system in Mexico. The reason I mention the IMSS is simple.
To receive a visa, a Mexican has to PROVE, to the satisfaction of the Consular officer, sufficient ties, family, financial etc., to Mexico, that they will return. One of the instruments of proof is the pink slip from IMSS, similar to our earning statement we can request. And even if they have that, if the Consular officer has had a bad night, fight with the wife or girlfriend, hungover or just doesn’t like the looks of the person, he can deny their request. No reason, no appeal, come back in 6 months if they want to. And bye bye $1400 peso application fee.
It happened to a girlfriend of mine. Self employed business owner in Celaya GTO, kids well established in private colegios, decent bank account. Family all around Celaya and Mexico Cities. Cousins and Uncles who were doctors, lawyers, one Uncle a member of the lower chamber of deputies. She had absolutely no desire to come to the US except for short vacations. She makes the appointment which is for 4 months in the future. On the date of the appointment, we drive to Mexico City. Here appointment is for 0700, along with approximately 300 other people, herded through a cattle chute of barriers, outside. Her turn comes before the Consular officer. He asks her for the receipt for her application fee and hands her a rejection letter. No reason given!
On the other hand, Canadians come and go as they please! Fair and equitable? Not hardly!
Applications for visas are filed online in Mexico into the Consular where you have your appointment. With an average 4 month wait, they have plenty of time to do background checks on the people. As I said previously, they have the technology to track entry and exit. It’s been installed at all the border crossing to read the RFID chips in our passports and passport cards.
But the government has to change it’s attitude about the Mexicans. Most I know and associate with have no desire to come to the US. They are happy with their lives and most with their lot in life.
Yeah, Obama needs to backtrack on the H-2 visa and Congress needs to pass a workable guest worker program. I travel all over the US in the course of my work each week and even with unemployment at 7.6% or above, you would be astounded at the “Help Wanted” signs hung on buildings and gates of industries. Tech jobs, warehouse jobs, assembly jobs and yeah, flipping burgers. Jobs American’s obviously don’t want!
Before the hysteria and opportunism that 9/11 brought, Mexicans in this country came and went, both legal and illegal. The illegals would work 8 or 9 months and go back where they came from. Some to return, some not. The evidence was the unending line of cars on I-35 in the weeks before Christmas and Semana Santa (Easter). Even before the economy tanked and after 9/11, you saw a reduction in this.
During the 40’s and on into the 70’s and 80’s, workers came and left when they were supposed to.
Mexico and it’s people are not the enemy. We need to dump that mindset. Anyone that has spent time in this country would know that.
I can only be responsible for my own actions. The pro-migrant side is as diverse as your side of the argument is.
As such, I don’t agree with a lot of what my side puts out there. At the same time, many on the anti side of the argument, take theory’s and urban myths and try to push them as the truth.
I can debate with a person like you, in a civil manner. Others, such as the armchair “activists” at ALIPAC and people like Jeff S. of the San Diego Minutemen hate mongers, I can get in their face. It is the only thing they understand.
But in the end, I am hoping calmer minds with more intelligence than is exhibited on some of the anti sites will prevail and something good will come of the debate.
I can’t believe this whole event actually went to court and a Judge actually heard this case. A judge that is paid by my taxes. I do not agree with the way Roger Barnett acted towards the immigrants if, in fact it was racist. However, I do firmly believe he has the right to protect his property and the right to do, say and act any way he chooses while on his own property. If they feel their CIVIL Rights are being violated there is a simple solution, DON’T BE ON HIS PROPERTY. The United States has a process in which they can come to the U.S. and become a citizen LEGALY. Every one thinks that because Farmers and Ranchers own vast acres of land the laws are different than if anyone stepped into your own house illegally and uninvited. Property is property regardless of how small or how vast it may be, every American Citizen has the right to protect it and do, say, and act any way they would like while on it. If I was an illegal immigrant in your house, uninvited and using it as a passageway, would you invite me to sit down for coffee?
By the way, the editor of this article needs to learn how to spell RACIST. It is not spelled RASCIST.
Thanks Alan. I must have “fat fingered” the keys on that one. “A” next to “S” you know.
I agree with your comment in principle, but Roger Barnett’s past history also come into play in helping me form my opinion of him.
The question I have always had, and this holds true along the entire border, is that in places a lot of these people cross, property lines are not marked. In many places, the border is defined by a small marker, if at all.
This is not as much about a man protecting his property as he is legally entitled to do, as much as it is the attitude and hatred he shows towards those he comes into contact with.
What you are doing is ‘advocating’ granting Rights to Illegal Immigrants, you only believe that illegal immigrants have Rights because they can not be determined to be Illegal if they don’t say so, “plausible distinction”. That’s also why you clammer about E-Verify, because it identifies them. At least be honest about your argument. As for the 14th and Anchor Babies, the old Wong Kim Ark argument. His mommy and Daddy were here legally under the Burlingame Treaty of 1868, Wong Kim was born between 1868 and 1873. The 14th has never had a case brought to SCOTUS in regards to Illegals dropping babies here and them then becoming natural born citizens. Use the Wiki links I know you are going to and read the entire link.
Held: In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child’s birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.
Now show in this opinion where it states “Illegal Immigrants” and that there children are ‘natural born citizens’
I am not advocating granting rights above and beyond what they already have, which are basic Human and Civil Rights. (I think we’ll all realize that when DOJ get’s through with Arpaio and co.)
I will have no problem with E-Verify when it is 100% accurate. 99.6% isn’t good enough, especially if the .04% that are screwed happen to be US Citizens.
Your 14th Amendment argument doesn’t specifically include nor exclude illegal immigrants. Again, the operative words are “parents”, “persons”, etc. So a child born on US soil is entitled to citizenship and all it bestows.
The old 14th Amendment argument.
In Plyler v. Doe the court stated in dicta that illegal immigrants are “within the jurisdiction” of the states in which they reside and added in a footnote that “no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.”
You do understand what that means right? It does not grant any ‘rights’ it makes the presumption that unless they identify themselves as illegal’s then the individual State can not make that assumption, ‘plausible distinction’. However, once they are identified as Illegal’s, that distinction is then made. Did yo also know that in Plyler v. Doe, that if a State can prove that illegal children are costing it money that they can prohibit the child from attending.
As for the 4th Amendment, again, if an officer knocks at your door, you open it, the officer has immediate sight to what he can see and during that time can ask for ID of anybody he then sees, to include the one who opened the door. If the officer has a warrant, he can legally step inside the structure and go and confiscate anything within the warrant to include asking for ID of persons. I say again, look to the UN Charter and understand how it grants the rights you seem to think that, as you stated, my constitution grants.
Deportation refers to the official removal of an alien from the United States. The U.S. government can initiate deportation proceedings against aliens admitted under the INA that commit an aggravated felony within the United States after being admitted. An alien’s failure to register a change of address renders the alien deportable, unless the failure resulted from an excusable circumstance or mistake. If the government determines that a particular alien gained entry into the country through the use of a falsified document or otherwise fraudulent means, the government has the grounds to deport.
Other common grounds for deportation include the following: aiding or encouraging another alien to enter the country illegally; engaging in marriage fraud to gain U.S. admission; participating in an activity that threatens the U.S.’s national security; voting unlawfully; and failing to update the government with a residential address every three months, regardless of whether the address has changed. The last of these policies served as the grounds for the government to deport 2,000 Pakistanis following the September 11th attacks.
If the government brings a proceeding for deportation because of fraud or falsification, the government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that alleged falsification or fraud occurred and that the falsification or fraud proved material to the granting of admission to the alien. Upon such a proof, the government has established a rebuttable presumption that the alien gained admission through material falsification or fraud. To rebut the presumption, the alien must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that admission would have been granted even without the falsification or fraud.
This is directly from Cornell University Law School, have a look at the Menu of Sources also on the link.
Federal immigration law determines whether a person is an alien, the rights, duties, and obligations associated with being an alien in the United States, and how aliens gain residence or citizenship within the United States. It also provides the means by which certain aliens can become legally naturalized citizens with full rights of citizenship. Immigration law serves as a gatekeeper for the nation’s border, determining who may enter, how long they may stay, and when they must leave.
Congress has complete authority over immigration. Presidential power does not extend beyond refugee policy. Except for questions regarding aliens’ constitutional rights, the courts have generally found the immigration issue as nonjusticiable.
States have limited legislative authority regarding immigration, and 28 U.S.C. § 1251 details the full extent of state jurisdiction. Generally, 28 U.S.C. § 994 details the federal sentencing guidelines for illegal entry into the country.
As for Texas, and me being in Rocklin, CA, I was born in San Antonio, I hold a concealed fire arms license from the state of Texas, I grew up there, I have lived there a good part of my life, and have only moved to Rocklin, CA in 1998. My father still lives in Texas, therefore I still have a permanent address there. Some more info for you, Rocklin is where my servers are, it does not necessarily mean that I live in Rocklin, but with your IT knowledge you should already know that.
These amendments have stood the test of time, as has our Constitution and it will continue to do so, despite attempts at various groups and entities to twist it for their own purposes.
I appreciate your comments and as how it is fast approaching the dinner hour here in Monterrey, I’ll take me leave for the time being as I have a trio of young ladies awaiting my attention.
You’re more than welcome to continue posting/commenting here, as you seem to know what civility is, which is what we appreciate on this site.
You know, in the end, neither side will get what we want. The difference is, that my side will accept what we win gracefully and with class.
And by the way, this site is in no way associated with MALDEF, La Raza ACLU, SPLC, or any other non profit, and I would appreciate you recognizing that fact.
Please don’t tell me you got your information from this link. Affirmative Action/Quotas/Civil Rights – Illegal Aliens rights
I mean, come on, you took it word for word from what Mike posted!!?? Mike is an Idiot, you even more so for not verifying his information.
Here’s one for you, if an Illegal Immigrant, or for that matter an LPR, is caught with a firearm, it is immediate grounds for deportation as it is a felony and a Right not granted either of them.
So let’s see. Everyone is an idiot if they don’t agree with your point of view.
The 14th Amendment (you know the amendment that ranks your ass because it bestows citizenship on anyone born in this country?) also states:
Not any US Citizen, not any legal immigrant, but ANY PERSON Seems pretty cut and dried to me.
SCOTUS has ruled that these provisions apply to all persons in the U.S., without regard to race, or nationality. Therefore, U.S. residents — legal and illegal — have constitutional rights such as equal protection of the law and the right to due process.
Undocumented immigrants are also entitled Fourth Amendment protections against illegal searches of homes.
A landmark ruling by SCOTUS 25 years ago, ruled that all children, regardless of their immigration status, are entitled to free public education, as mandated by the Fourteenth Amendment. (Plyler vs. Doe)
“ANY PERSON” is a guarantee of universal inclusion!
Here’s one for you. There is nothing preventing anyone, regardless of immigration status of legal status, citizen or otherwise, from possessing a firearm. Depending on the jurisdiction, (guaranteed under the Second Amendment) you could be permitted to openly carry a weapon, as in Arizona or Texas, or you could be tried and imprisoned, as in the case of New York.
An illegal cannot legally buy a weapon due to reporting requirements, but on the Federal level, they are covered by the same laws as the rest of us.
I don’t know how it is in Rocklin California, but that’s the way it is here in Texas!
Advocate,
I think you need to take a law course or 2. How about constitutional law, it might get your thinking straight. As for the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution, I suggest you read the preamble, in it, it clarifies what and to whom these rights are conferred. You attempt to be dishonest when you obfuscate the difference between legal and illegal immigrants.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, Something about We the People of the US and something to the fact that they say to ourselves and our Posterity limits to whom the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is granted to. Comprehension really isn’t your problem, intellectual dishonesty is.
Your ignorant statement of: They have the right to free speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, the right to due process, etc, at best is hysterical, especially the fact that you think LPR’s or Illegal Immigrants have the Right to bear arms. Your an idiot, look at the laws, ask a lawyer, they will laugh at you. Again the only Rights that Illegal Immigrants have in the USA are those granted to them by the UN Charter of Human Rights. You and your advocate groups La Menza, I mean Raza, MODEF, I mane MALDEF, MoCHA, I mean MeCHA, etc are attempting to create law suits in our courts to challenge the laws, they are attempting to get a court to somehow bestow Civil Rights on to Illegal Immigrants.
You confuse Statutes/Laws with Rights, two totally different things. I suggest you learn the difference between them.
“Our Constitution guarantees basic Civil Rights to people without regard to their legal status. Yes, they have less rights, such as the right to vote, but basic civil rights we all enjoy remain intact.”
Those in violation of entry without inspection (illegally crossing the border), have absolutely no Rights given to them by our Constitution. The have Human Rights granted to them by the UN Charter on Human Rights, which is why Barnett was found guilty of assault and distress. Only those who have entered legally on a visa are granted basic minimum rights from our Constitution.
Why else do you think those attempting the lawsuit where denied Civil Rights?
“illegal entry into the US is a Civil Misdemeanor, nothing more!” This is one of those misconceived arguments of the pro movement. It is a Federal Misdemeanor, class 4, which prompts deportation and a possible jail term of up to 6 months. A second violation of Entry Without Inspection is a Federal Felony, class 6, which prompts deportation and up to 2 years in Prison. A Visa Overstay is a Federal Civil Violation, which prompts deportation only.
You really need to understand the law before you presume a civil violation for Entry Without Inspection, otherwise known as an Illegal Border Crossing. Its a Criminal Offense for a reason.
I think you should study up on the subject before you make such a blatant statement which is totally wrong.
Read your Constitution, your Bill of Rights. Nowhere does it say a person must be a legal US citizen to enjoy the rights conferred upon all men by our founding fathers. I realize, on your side of the fence, depending how radical your point of view is, this will go right over your head.
By and large, illegal aliens have the same rights as any other US resident. They have the right to free speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, the right to due process, etc. Children have a right to attend public school. Workers have a right to minimum wage and other worker rights. They have rights to police protection.
The main rights they do NOT have are the right to vote and to remain in this country. They are also limited from receving public assistance and a few other benefits.
The big issue is that illegal aliens cannot do anything to enforce most of these rights. If they are being mistreated by an employer, they cannot go to court to enforce their rights because if authorities become aware of their illegal status, they can be deported. So while they technically have these rights, their illegal status keeps them from being able to enforce those rights against those who violate them.
Illegal is a FEDERAL CIVIL MISDEMEANOR. punishable by a fine of up to $250 dollars last time I looked and possible deportation. Apples and Oranges.
You state; “Why else do you think those attempting the lawsuit where denied Civil Rights?”
They weren’t denied their Civil Rights concerning the trial. That is one of the rights guaranteed to all persons in this country without to regard to race, color, creed, religion, sex or national origin, or legal status.
The sued Barnett as was their right and won a partial victory.
Their Civil Rights were violated when they were held, under arms, and under threat of bodily harm by someone representing himself to be some type of law enforcement officer. The plaintiffs had no idea Barnett had gotten his badge made from Acme Novelties.
Yes, Barnett had the right to protect his property. He did not have the right to assault, humiliate and berate these human beings.
So he get’s another pass. I wonder if the next time, if he’ll be on trial for murdering an innocent human being. And if so, I wonder if any jury in Arizona will have the balls to follow their oath and the law and convict the bastard.
I seriously doubt it.
What a joke! While Barnett is certainly not a “Patriot”, he is on the front lines of the illegal immigration war and he is doing what it takes to protect his land. All this “poor immigrants” crap is a joke. They were trying to enter the US ILLEGALLY. Why does everyone forget that? And YES, you have LESS rights in this country if you are BREAKING the law and not a citizen. It’s shocking that this is a surprise to people!
Did Barnett go too far. In my opinion, yes he did. But as with many “crimes”, the details of the situation is a large part of the scenario. We can look at things logically because we were not physically or emotionally involved in that situation. How would you feel if you had a constant flow of trespassers on YOUR land that were damaging your property, littering and stealing? What justification would I need, as a legal US citizen, to make that OK??
This is certainly not a joke.
If you look at the history of this buffoon and his family, you would see why this is justified.
I happen to agree that he has every right to protect his property. We all have that same right.
He does not have the right though to intimidate, assault those he detains, especially kicking women while they are submissive on the ground, threaten people with his dogs and the other vile things he has been accused of.
All people have human rights, the right to be treated with dignity and respect, whatever their station in life. Our Constitution guarantees basic Civil Rights to people without regard to their legal status. Yes, they have less rights, such as the right to vote, but basic civil rights we all enjoy remain intact.
Barrett is well known for his racist views and actions in Arizona. This isn’t the first time nor will it be the last time he is hauled into a Court of Law. The next time, perhaps, it will be on a murder charge.
But then we know how Arizona is. As long as it involves those “fucking Mexikuns”, juries in Arizona seem to have a problem convicting people for Civil Rights violation, cold blooded murder under color of authority (Nicholas Corbett) and other crimes normal Americans would not tolerate.
Keep in mind, illegal entry into the US is a Civil Misdemeanor, nothing more!!!