<p>Is this nuts or what? They trespass on the guys property, and now they get the right to sue the guy for his threatening behavior(holding them at gun point until border patrol comes) No proof he ever injured one illegal, but the garbage they leave behind has hurt him financially.</p>
<p>I am so disgusted by the attorney who is defending them…another good waste of tax dollars
in the court system</p>
<p>I break the law by trespassing and entering illegally, but let me sue him because he caught me on his property</p>
<p>It is likely that it will be thown out of court before anything ever comes of it. There are a lot of renegade attorneys that do this sort of thing, just to see if the courts will accept it! These immigrants likely do not realize that they may never see a dime even if it does go thru the court system–the lawyer will get the first cut of money, if any is awarded!</p>
<p>Reminds me of the case a few years ago when a man jumped off the roof of a parking garage in a suicide attempt. When he wasn’t successful, he sued the owners of the garage for allowing him the opportunity to get out on the roof. People launch lawsuits for all kinds of crazy nonsense.</p>
<p>This guy already lost a case brought against him by hunters he found on his property. He held them at gunpoint and threatened them. He thought they were illegals but they were Mexican Americans. </p>
<p>I don’t know Arizona law but I doubt if it is legal to detain trespassers at gunpoint and threaten to shoot them if they try to leave.</p>
<p>The fact that someone sues someone else is not newsworthy. Anyone can sue anyone for anything, and frivolous suits are then tossed.</p>
<p>Vigilantes need to be punished as much as other lawbreakers. False imprisonment is a bigger crime than trespassing. The guy might deserve to go to jail. Not nuts at all.</p>
<p>The article is confusing, because it refers to “crimes” when it means “torts.” It’s a civil case. I would be very surprised if a jury would side with the plaintiffs in this case.</p>
<p>Some strange things are happening re: property rights. Anyone follow the Kelo vs. New London decision recently upheld by the Supreme Court? The city of New London transferred the public right of eminent domain to a private agency, which used that right to condemn an entire middle class neighborhood (at non-negotiable prices) and transfer the cleared property to one of its clients – a Fortune 500 company. This one looked like a slam-dunk overturn to me, but nope …</p>
<p>The event in question occurred in 2004. The article does not make reference to any criminal charges being brought against the landowner, which you would expect if he had unlawfully held them at gunpoint.</p>
<p>The local authorities have some “discretion” in bringing charges. I’d be shocked if what he did is legal but I would not be shocked that many jurisdictions choose not to enforce the law.</p>
<p>Well, I guess it will be intersting to see what this “jury” will have to say. I still think that if these immigrants think that they will make out like bandits, they have another thing coming. Lawyers pay will come out of any settlement, first, that is, unless the lawyer has taken it on as pro bono and hoping for some media publicity!</p>
<p>And also if these ranchers think they can behave like vigilantes, they have another thing coming, too. There can be consequences for picking which laws we choose to obey. It’s fine if they’re prepared to pay the penalties for their civil disobedience, if they see it that way; it’s often an effective way to change the laws. Some ranchers get themselves deputized for just such reasons (as a kid I was caught hunting on a rancher-deputy’s private land–boy, did I learn my lesson!).</p>
<p>To understand the game sometimes we first have to understand the players. [MALDEF</a> - The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund](<a href=“http://www.maldef.org/]MALDEF”>http://www.maldef.org/)</p>
<p>Lesson learned. If he had shot them, there’d be no one to sue him. Then he could make sure he had his story straight. After all, there wouldn’t have been anyone to dispute his side of the story. And no, there’s no reason to start a debate, I am 100% against criminals having the same rights as law abiding citizens. Especially when those criminals aren’t citizens of our country. Fortunately, there are still some states that allow you to shoot trespassers.</p>
<p>Exactly. Texas juries allow shooting people running away too, as long as they’re carrying away stolen goods. Nice to see that not the entire country has been overrun by the criminals-rights lobby.</p>