Wanna go?

[SPEC]

Kill em all and let god                              sort them out

[T8erhead]

You guys are funny!   Thanks for the update yummi. 

[fabr]

Sad thing is that it is looked upon as a victory for the illegals. A VICTORY for those that broke OUR laws! BS!!!!!!

[Whiplash]

I would like to see the JURY for this trial brought out in the open for the world to see......betcha a few get what's coming to them!! THEY are the real problem!!

[T8erhead]

Sad thing is that it is looked upon as a victory for the illegals. A VICTORY for those that broke OUR laws! BS!!!!!!

Yeah but he broke our laws too.  Assault is against the law.  Is the jury supposed to turn a blind eye to justice, because these weren't real people he assaulted?  Even if one wants to make the absurd argument that the immigrants don't have human/civil rights, then we still have laws against cruelty to animals.  Hell, you can be charged with a felony in Utah for beating your dog (in public).

[Engineer]

I saw something on TV last night that just makes me want to scream.  They have a predator drone patroling the southern border......  I saw this shit before a year or two ago.  Them dumbfxxks spend millions to patrol the border with a freaking predator drone, but will do nothing about the ones they know just came across.  I bet in 1 day I could locate 100 illegal aliens that they have no interest in sending back.  So why spend the money keeping a drone out there?  Mabey they are just counting. 

[Yummi]

Actually - NO.  He was found negligent not guilty.  Negligence is a civil issue not a criminal one - think OJ's two trials.  When it comes time for negligence arguments the burden of proof is lowered to a "Preponderance."  That is 51%.  Even on a bad day, most plaintiff attorney's can get a negligence verdict if someone has been even slightly "wronged."  Held at gun point can be viewed as such. 

The kicker here in my mind is the way in which the verdict and damages are structured.  "Punitive damages" are non insurable.  That is, the 60k is what he is on the hook for.  His general liability carrier likely picked up the tab for the defense as some of the allegations would have been covered - ie: the assault, but the 60K?  He is on the hook for that personally.  Likely means he has to liquidate assets and possibly sell his ranch - my guess is he is ready to leave it anyway. 

Sad that he has been made a victim of the government's inability to protect it's own boarders.   

[Boostinjdm]

I saw something on TV last night that just makes me want to scream.  They have a predator drone patroling the southern border......  I saw this shit before a year or two ago.  Them dumbfxxks spend millions to patrol the border with a freaking predator drone, but will do nothing about the ones they know just came across.  I bet in 1 day I could locate 100 illegal aliens that they have no interest in sending back.  So why spend the money keeping a drone out there?  Mabey they are just counting. 

Those drones need to be armed and somebody watching the monitor with their finger over the trigger...

[fabr]

Yeah but he broke our laws too.  Assault is against the law.  Is the jury supposed to turn a blind eye to justice, because these weren't real people he assaulted?  Even if one wants to make the absurd argument that the immigrants don't have human/civil rights, then we still have laws against cruelty to animals.  Hell, you can be charged with a felony in Utah for beating your dog (in public).

Just what did he do that qualifies as assault?

[Yummi]

At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal or civil liability. Generally, the common law definition is the same in criminal and Tort Law. There is, however, an additional Criminal Law category of assault consisting of an attempted but unsuccessful Battery.

Statutory definitions of assault in the various jurisdictions throughout the United States are not substantially different from the common-law definition.

[Engineer]

Those drones need to be armed and somebody watching the monitor with their finger over the trigger...

That might violate there civil rights.   :P

[Dunebound69]

They were breaking the law, caught while in the act. Then presumably tired to leave. Then the US citizen did his civic duty and detained them until the authorities arrived. The should have no rights in that situation. So we see some one beating the crap out of someone, we should do nothing. Shot the f*#K#@& it's cheaper.

[Engineer]

Somebody was talking about first cause in another thread.  That needs to be applied here.  If they weren't crossing his land ilegally then there would be no crime of him assulting them.

[fabr]

Somebody was talking about first cause in another thread.  That needs to be applied here.  If they weren't crossing his land ilegally then there would be no crime of him assulting them.

Damn straight!!!!!!!

[SPEC]

Dude should hire me as security...
Everybody understands ''that little red dot on their chest'' along with the thhwwwoooomp of that 12GA. round slinding into the chamber...All nationalities understand HALT HALT HALT...according to th UN that has been 3 warnings...next you open fire...Dead fookers tell no tales...Nobody claims the trash floating in the Rio Grande...Would I shoot them??? I posted earlier in another thread the spot your in when when faced with this delemma...we should give it thought.....LEMME THINK ABOUT IT...BOOOM YOUR GONE FOOKER....SHORT CHUCK,NEXTSHORTCHUCK,NEXT...till the weapon is empty...I don't give a shit MOTHERFOOKERS are tresspassing...I don't know if armed or terrorists...Like I said before killem all let your god sort them out