TAM Report post Posted February 19, 2009 Hey Diamondback so if I was a S**T Bag and breaking into your truck to steal a gun are you saying that you would not shoot me? In Arizona it is against the law to shoot someone for breaking into my truck to steal a gun. No matter how big of a S**T Bag that person is. If you feel your life is in danger or you are likely to sustain grievious bodily harm, you CAN kill the SOB. BUT you will have to articulate that fact in your court case hearing. This boils back down to the old saying.."Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6".. Scottyboy, thats my point. If the SOB breaking into my truck is not putting my life in danger then I can't use deadly force. Now if my truck is "occupied" then the Castle Doctrine kicks in and could justify deadly force. Also the second he steals my gun from the truck and threatens me I am now justified to use deadly force. There are a lot of "what if" factors, but I think we're on the same page. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AZMEATHUNTER Report post Posted February 20, 2009 db az, thanks to you i almost spit put my coffee all over my computor with this one: "You are a real moron to think that you can shoot someone because "you feel you have the right". You can go ahead and do it if it makes you feel good, but don't whine when you become Bubba's little girl when your in prison" that is funny. i agree with mr jonathan we are getting a little sidetracked here the bottom line is we should all take offense to the fact that someone not even legally from this country could sue anyone for anything. as far as all this shooting someone stuff man..i never ever ever want to be in that boat and have to make that decision. and my prayers go out to guys like "scottyboy' who do their best to keep our borders safe that they are never faced with that one as they are in harms way everytime they go to a call.the way i look at my worldly possesions is if a person wants them and needs them bad enough to steal them they are theirs am i going to hand them over more than likely not kill someone over my truck not a chance that is what insurance is for. plus pepper spray is much funner anyway ever seen a growm man rolling around on the ground pissing his pants??? don't know for sure but i think the guy lost the case today? anyone confirm that? more of my 2 cents Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Diamondbackaz Report post Posted February 20, 2009 This thread got off track when I disagreed how this guy does things back at post #17 and people tore into me. I feel he does things that opens himself up. Here is the article out of Tuesday's citizen: A federal jury in Tucson found Tuesday that a southern Arizona rancher didn't violate the civil rights of a group of illegal immigrants who claimed he detained them at gunpoint in 2004. The eight-member civil jury also found Roger Barnett wasn't liable on claims of battery and false imprisonment. But the jury did find him liable on four claims of assault and four claims of infliction of emotional distress and ordered Barnett to pay $77,804 in damages, $60,000 of which were punitive. Barnett declined to comment afterward, but one of his attorneys, David Hardy, said those who sued lost on the bulk of their claims and that Barnett has a good basis for appeal on the two counts on which he lost. "They won a fraction of the damages they were seeking," Hardy said. All six plaintiffs are citizens of Mexico, five of whom live in the United States with visa applications pending, and the sixth resides in Mexico but was allowed into the U.S. for the trial, said Nina Perales, an attorney with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. She declined to say where in the U.S. they reside. Perales called the outcome "a resounding victory that sends a message that vigilante violence against immigrants will not be tolerated." David Urias, attorney for those suing, said, "Obviously we are disappointed with some aspects of the verdict. But I think that overall this was a victory for the plaintiffs." For years, Arizona has been the busiest stretch along the Mexican border for illegal immigrants entering the United States. For more than a decade, Barnett has been a controversial figure in southern Arizona. He's known for aggressively patrolling his ranch property and along highways and roads in the area, often with his wife and brothers, on the lookout for illegal immigrants. The plaintiffs claimed that Barnett threatened them with his dog and told them he would shoot anyone who tried to escape. Barnett's lawyers argued that his land was inundated with illegal immigrants who left trash on his property, damaged his water supply and harmed his cattle. Barnett's wife and a brother were dismissed as defendants; in addition, another 10 people initially named as plaintiffs were dropped from the proceedings. Barnett has been known to wear a holstered 9 mm pistol on his hip and upon coming across groups of migrants, to flash a blue and gold badge resembling that of the highway patrol, with the wording "Barnett Ranch Patrol. Cochise County. State of Arizona." The Barnetts detain and turn over those whom they encounter to the U.S. Border Patrol. In 2006, Barnett estimated that he had detained more than 10,000 illegal immigrants in 10 years. His actions have resulted in formal complaints from the Mexican government against what it considers vigilante actions, and in several other lawsuits, including one stemming from an October 2004 incident. In that case, a jury awarded a family of Mexican-Americans on a hunting trip $100,000 in damages, later upheld by the Arizona Supreme Court. Barnett's 22,000-acre ranch, about five miles north of the Mexico border, includes private and federal lease holdings in addition to nearly 14,000 acres of state-leased land. I love the play badge Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hunterdude Report post Posted February 20, 2009 One of my ex students was standing next to his friend while he was breaking into this guys jeep. The jeep owner came running out and shot and killed my ex student. Most people on here feel that the Jeep owner was in the right. But, he was on the wrong side of the law. The Jeep owner lost his Jeep because he is doing 20 to life. Hard price to a "feeling" of what is right. This is where it all started to get out of hand! Barrnett never shot anyone! I don't agree with that incident, Jeep owner was wrong! The ex student should have know better than to hang with a S**T bag! Wrong place wrong time! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AZMEATHUNTER Report post Posted February 20, 2009 Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an 'unlicensed pharmacist' Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
