Illegals sue, win Arizona ranch

Chat about anything and everything... (well almost anything) Whether it be the front porch or the pot belly stove or news of interest or a topic of your liking, this is the place to post it.

Moderator: S2k Moderators

Message
Author
GalvestonDuck
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 15941
Age: 57
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2002 8:11 am
Location: Galveston, oh Galveston (And yeah, it's a barrier island. Wanna make something of it?)

Illegals sue, win Arizona ranch

#1 Postby GalvestonDuck » Mon Aug 22, 2005 3:56 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u ... et_ranch_1

IMO, this just opens the door (literally) for a whole mess of border trouble. Now, they're going to rush across, in the hopes of getting injured so they can sue and gain property from the people whose property on which they're trespassing in the first place.

This makes no sense!

Ariz. Ranch Turned Over to Border Crossers By BETH DeFALCO, Associated Press Writer
Fri Aug 19, 7:19 PM ET

An Arizona ranch once owned by a member of an armed group accused of terrorizing illegal immigrants has been turned over to two of the very people the owner had tried keep out of the country.

The land transfer is being done to satisfy a judgment against Casey Nethercott, a member of a self-styled border-watch group who is serving a five-year prison term for firearms possession.

Morris Dees Jr., chief trial counsel of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which represented the immigrants, said he hoped the ruling would be a cautionary tale to anyone considering hostile measures against border crossers.

"When we got into this case, ranchers all along the border were allowing these types to come on their property," said Dees. "Now, they're very leery of it, especially when they see someone loosing their ranch because of it."

The ruling comes as the governors of Arizona and New Mexico declare states of emergency in their border counties, moves designed to free up money for enforcement while drawing more national attention to the problems of illegal immigration.

Nethercott was a member of the group Ranch Rescue, which works to protect private property along the southern U.S. border. In March 2003 he was accused of pistol-whipping Edwin Alfredo Mancia Gonzales, 26, at a Hebbronville, Texas, ranch near the Mexico border.

A jury deadlocked on the assault charge but convicted him of being a felon in possession of a firearm.

Mancia and another immigrant traveling with him from El Salvador, Fatima del Socorro Leiva Medina, filed a civil lawsuit last year saying they were harmed while being held by Ranch Rescue members.

Named in the suit were Nethercott; Jack Foote, the founder of Ranch Rescue; and the owners of the Hebbronville ranch, Joe and Betty Sutton. The Suttons settled for $100,000. Nethercott and Foote did not defend themselves, and a Texas judge issued default judgments in April of $850,000 against Nethercott and $500,000 against Foote.

Nethercott transferred ownership of his 70-acre Douglas ranch to his sister. But the sister gave up ownership to settle the judgment when challenged by the immigrants' lawyers.

The transfer of the ranch outraged border-watch groups.

"If the federal government was doing its job, ranchers would not be living in fear," said Chris Simcox, President of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corp., a group that watches for illegal immigrant crossings and reports them to the U.S. Border Patrol.

Simcox noted that the Minutemen have a policy against touching the migrants and use video to document their patrols.

A message left for Nethercott's family and his attorney were not returned Friday.

Dees said his clients plan to eventually sell the property, which Nethercott bought for $120,000, but may allow humanitarian border groups offering aid to immigrants to use it for now.

Mancia and Leiva declined through Dees to speak to the media.
0 likes   

User avatar
gtalum
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 4749
Age: 49
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 3:48 pm
Location: Bradenton, FL
Contact:

#2 Postby gtalum » Mon Aug 22, 2005 4:02 pm

The judgement was for the guy pistol-whipping the illegals. There's no legitimate cause for that.

That, and they only "lost" the ranch when his sister offered it up to get the lawyer to shut up.
0 likes   

GalvestonDuck
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 15941
Age: 57
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2002 8:11 am
Location: Galveston, oh Galveston (And yeah, it's a barrier island. Wanna make something of it?)

#3 Postby GalvestonDuck » Mon Aug 22, 2005 4:07 pm

gtalum wrote:The judgement was for the guy pistol-whipping the illegals. There's no legitimate cause for that.

That, and they only "lost" the ranch when his sister offered it up to get the lawyer to shut up.


You're kidding, right?
0 likes   

User avatar
gtalum
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 4749
Age: 49
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 3:48 pm
Location: Bradenton, FL
Contact:

#4 Postby gtalum » Mon Aug 22, 2005 7:47 pm

GalvestonDuck wrote:You're kidding, right?


No, I'm quite serious.
0 likes   

User avatar
BEER980
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1727
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2003 9:55 am
Location: Ocala, Fl
Contact:

#5 Postby BEER980 » Mon Aug 22, 2005 7:52 pm

Yep I posted the story on Saturday with not much interest. He should have dropped them where he found them and drug them back to the border fence as a warning to others. It's not my country anymore, we are turning into one bad movie. Just wait until the CFR plan hits us in 5 years.
0 likes   

kevin

#6 Postby kevin » Mon Aug 22, 2005 8:19 pm

This is your country by birth, if you wish to sever your ties by all means do so just don't hollar about your newfound lack of liberty. In fact, if you are for murder instead of courts, violence instead of petition for grievances, I would very much like you to sever your ties with my country.
0 likes   

rainstorm

#7 Postby rainstorm » Mon Aug 22, 2005 8:30 pm

the border has to be closed. what the govs did in declaring emergencies was a joke. what was the guy supposed to do?
0 likes   

User avatar
BEER980
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1727
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2003 9:55 am
Location: Ocala, Fl
Contact:

#8 Postby BEER980 » Mon Aug 22, 2005 8:46 pm

You just don't get it. It is no longer your country but you don't see it. Our courts are a joke. The court just gave a 70 acre ranch to two people that entered the country illegaly (as in non-citizens) and got ruffed up so they say. How would the Mexican Government treat a couple of Americans that went into Mexico and got the same treatment. You are going to see more and more violence from the border. Your elected people don't care about petitions. All you get from them are canned responses. I don't plan to sever my ties with this country. I will probably die protecting my little slice of land unlike a good deal of this country who will continue waiting for the government to come to the rescue.

rainstorm unless there is a terrorist attack linked to a border crossing it will remain open. In fact check into the CFR and see what is on the way. Building a North American Community.
0 likes   

User avatar
gtalum
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 4749
Age: 49
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 3:48 pm
Location: Bradenton, FL
Contact:

#9 Postby gtalum » Mon Aug 22, 2005 9:44 pm

BEER980 wrote:Building a North American Community.


It's about time. Absolutely necessary to continue to compete with the EU in the long term.
0 likes   

GalvestonDuck
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 15941
Age: 57
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2002 8:11 am
Location: Galveston, oh Galveston (And yeah, it's a barrier island. Wanna make something of it?)

#10 Postby GalvestonDuck » Mon Aug 22, 2005 9:52 pm

Sorry, Beer...must have missed it in the weekend catch-up.

Kevin -- murder? No one died. He was defending his property. What part of "illegal" in "illegal immigrant" isn't clear? Does the name Angel Maturino Resendez ring a bell?
0 likes   

kevin

#11 Postby kevin » Mon Aug 22, 2005 9:53 pm

BEER980 wrote:Yep I posted the story on Saturday with not much interest. He should have dropped them where he found them and drug them back to the border fence as a warning to others. It's not my country anymore, we are turning into one bad movie. Just wait until the CFR plan hits us in 5 years.


Maybe Galvestonduck the obvious eluded you. I can plainly read the illegals weren't killed, but was referring to beer's advice.

And if you think justice can be done by citizens outside of the legal system, then I don't know how you can even THINK you're supporting the American people. We are a nation of laws and the legal process. Those who act against the law are criminals. I'm sorry, but I will never support violence against a human being who has not threatened my physical safety. Especially when it is ideologically motivated. We have a process for redress of grievances short of revolutionary vigilantes.
0 likes   

User avatar
gtalum
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 4749
Age: 49
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 3:48 pm
Location: Bradenton, FL
Contact:

#12 Postby gtalum » Mon Aug 22, 2005 9:58 pm

GalvestonDuck wrote:What part of "illegal" in "illegal immigrant" isn't clear? Does the name Angel Maturino Resendez ring a bell?


No offense, but I don't want some trigger-happy redneck deciding whether people are illegal immigrants or not.

We give the same basic human rights to everyone in this country, including the right to a trial and the right to be safe from bodily harm. To do less would be truly unAmerican.
0 likes   

GalvestonDuck
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 15941
Age: 57
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2002 8:11 am
Location: Galveston, oh Galveston (And yeah, it's a barrier island. Wanna make something of it?)

#13 Postby GalvestonDuck » Tue Aug 23, 2005 6:16 am

gtalum wrote:
GalvestonDuck wrote:What part of "illegal" in "illegal immigrant" isn't clear? Does the name Angel Maturino Resendez ring a bell?


No offense, but I don't want some trigger-happy redneck deciding whether people are illegal immigrants or not.

We give the same basic human rights to everyone in this country, including the right to a trial and the right to be safe from bodily harm. To do less would be truly unAmerican.


I'm pretty sure ICE is made up of more than trigger-happy rednecks. Same for the TSA.

My point again is that they were illegal. Therefore, they have no Constitutional rights as Americans.

As far as this fellow goes, it doesn't matter if they were illegal or not...they were a threat and, as you said, he has the right to be safe from bodily harm.
0 likes   

GalvestonDuck
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 15941
Age: 57
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2002 8:11 am
Location: Galveston, oh Galveston (And yeah, it's a barrier island. Wanna make something of it?)

#14 Postby GalvestonDuck » Tue Aug 23, 2005 6:20 am

kevin wrote:
BEER980 wrote:Yep I posted the story on Saturday with not much interest. He should have dropped them where he found them and drug them back to the border fence as a warning to others. It's not my country anymore, we are turning into one bad movie. Just wait until the CFR plan hits us in 5 years.


Maybe Galvestonduck the obvious eluded you. I can plainly read the illegals weren't killed, but was referring to beer's advice.

And if you think justice can be done by citizens outside of the legal system, then I don't know how you can even THINK you're supporting the American people. We are a nation of laws and the legal process. Those who act against the law are criminals. I'm sorry, but I will never support violence against a human being who has not threatened my physical safety. Especially when it is ideologically motivated. We have a process for redress of grievances short of revolutionary vigilantes.


Exactly...illegal = against the law.

What "justice" are you talking about? He was protecting himself. Last time I heard, we have a right to defend our safety, property, family, and life. I'm quite a pacifist myself and refuse to carry a firearm. But if I had to, I'd use my blade or stick against someone I perceive as a threat.
0 likes   

User avatar
gtalum
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 4749
Age: 49
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 3:48 pm
Location: Bradenton, FL
Contact:

#15 Postby gtalum » Tue Aug 23, 2005 7:50 am

GalvestonDuck wrote:I'm pretty sure ICE is made up of more than trigger-happy rednecks. Same for the TSA.

My point again is that they were illegal. Therefore, they have no Constitutional rights as Americans.

As far as this fellow goes, it doesn't matter if they were illegal or not...they were a threat and, as you said, he has the right to be safe from bodily harm.


What do TSA and ICE have to do with this redneck who pistol-whipped this guy?

Nowhere does it say he was threatened. It wasn't even on his ranch that this occurred. To make things worse, there was no way for Nethercott to know for sure whether this guy was illegal or not. As I said, I don't want some trigger-heppy redneck making those decisions in the field.

If you want to get mad at someone, get mad at the President who fails us all by not doing everything he can to secure the border, simply because of politics. There is a reason we have law enforcement and courts. We can't just take the law into our own hands.

As for constitutional protections, everyone within our borders has teh same constitutional right to due process under th elaw. Until it is proven that this guy broke the law by entering the country illegally, in a court of law, he is not "illegal".
0 likes   

GalvestonDuck
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 15941
Age: 57
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2002 8:11 am
Location: Galveston, oh Galveston (And yeah, it's a barrier island. Wanna make something of it?)

#16 Postby GalvestonDuck » Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:26 am

gtalum wrote:
GalvestonDuck wrote:I'm pretty sure ICE is made up of more than trigger-happy rednecks. Same for the TSA.

My point again is that they were illegal. Therefore, they have no Constitutional rights as Americans.

As far as this fellow goes, it doesn't matter if they were illegal or not...they were a threat and, as you said, he has the right to be safe from bodily harm.


What do TSA and ICE have to do with this redneck who pistol-whipped this guy?

Nowhere does it say he was threatened. It wasn't even on his ranch that this occurred. To make things worse, there was no way for Nethercott to know for sure whether this guy was illegal or not. As I said, I don't want some trigger-heppy redneck making those decisions in the field.

If you want to get mad at someone, get mad at the President who fails us all by not doing everything he can to secure the border, simply because of politics. There is a reason we have law enforcement and courts. We can't just take the law into our own hands.

As for constitutional protections, everyone within our borders has teh same constitutional right to due process under th elaw. Until it is proven that this guy broke the law by entering the country illegally, in a court of law, he is not "illegal".


Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't those entering the country legally do so by crossing at the proper checkpoints, where they are cleared by either ICE at the borders or TSA in airports, not by sneaking across AZ ranches and through private property? Heck, the way I understand it, even if I crossed that way (even if I had my ID in my pocket along with every other bit of proof of citizenship), it would be considered illegal entry. Even if they weren't sneaking in illegally, they could very well have been coyotes waiting to sneak others on into AZ and further north.

So, according to you, all these millions of "undocumented visitors" can not be called "illegal" until we catch their sorry butts and try them in a court of law. Until then, they're free to do as they please?

And finally, since when are Arizonans considered "rednecks?"
0 likes   

kevin

#17 Postby kevin » Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:28 am

Yes you cannot convict anyone in the United States outside of a courtroom. Why is this hard to understand?

I think gtalum is using redneck in the sense of armed rebel trying to act outside of the government. Kind of like down here where black people used to be cut up and or lynched for looking the wrong way at white women or just being black. That kind of enforcement by the people principle.
0 likes   

User avatar
gtalum
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 4749
Age: 49
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 3:48 pm
Location: Bradenton, FL
Contact:

#18 Postby gtalum » Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:43 am

GalvestonDuck wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't those entering the country legally do so by crossing at the proper checkpoints, where they are cleared by either ICE at the borders or TSA in airports, not by sneaking across AZ ranches and through private property? Heck, the way I understand it, even if I crossed that way (even if I had my ID in my pocket along with every other bit of proof of citizenship), it would be considered illegal entry.


You're correct, as far as I know.

Even if they weren't sneaking in illegally, they could very well have been coyotes waiting to sneak others on into AZ and further north.


"He might have been an illegal immigrant, or he might have been a 'coyote'..." I'm sorry, but again I don't want some civilian (or even official law enforcement) making that determination in the field. That's what courts are for.

So, according to you, all these millions of "undocumented visitors" can not be called "illegal" until we catch their sorry butts and try them in a court of law. Until then, they're free to do as they please?


There are procedures in place to handle suspected criminals. We arrest them, and then try them. If they';re flight risks, we refuse them bail. It's not that complicated. We don't just let them run free and do as they please in the meantime.

And finally, since when are Arizonans considered "rednecks?"


I know a lot of rednecks in AZ, NM, and even CA for that matter.

I agree with you 100% that illegal immigration is a problem. I disagree that vigilanteism is the way to handle it. One of the very few legitimate constitutional duties of the federal government is to protect the borders. You might ask yourself why President Bush (and to be fair, probably all of his predecessors) has shirked that duty.

My solution is to make immigration completely free and legal for all Mexican citizens who have clean criminal histories. That will cause the vast majority of the currently illegal immigrants to go through the border checkpoints instead of crossing illegally on these ranches. That in turn gives us two benefits: 1) the ability to have much better knowledge of who is going in and out of ou rnation and 2) it will drive down the flow of illegal crossings to a trickle, making it easier to catch the truly dangerous people.
0 likes   

GalvestonDuck
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 15941
Age: 57
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2002 8:11 am
Location: Galveston, oh Galveston (And yeah, it's a barrier island. Wanna make something of it?)

#19 Postby GalvestonDuck » Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:54 am

"If they're flight risks..." *snicker* Sorry...couldn't help but laugh, imagining an illegal alien (forget the court saying it...HE would know that he's illegal) making a run for the border.

How is it vigilantism to protect one's home and property?
0 likes   

kevin

#20 Postby kevin » Tue Aug 23, 2005 9:03 am

If someone is robbing you is different from if someone is crossing your yard. Someone must present a clear and present danger to your property or life in order to use force. What if instead of a pistol whipping he gave them a pistol shot? And what if it was a federal agent in an operation instead of an illegal immigrant?
0 likes   


Return to “Off Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 46 guests