BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens

Subject: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 12:25 PM

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/09/16-illegals-sue-arizona-rancher/

"An Arizona man who has waged a 10-year campaign to stop a flood of illegal immigrants from crossing his property is being sued by 16 Mexican nationals who accuse him of conspiring to violate their civil rights when he stopped them at gunpoint on his ranch on the U.S.-Mexico border."

The rest of the article can be found at the address above.

I know that by posting this I am xenophobic, racist ethnocentric and whatever other adjectives one might choose. But if you thought that, you'd be wrong. I have no beef with those coming through border checks, obeying our laws...including property rights..,and leaving when their visas or other legal documentation expires.

I hope there is some lawyer who will defend the rancher 'pro bono'.
The world is topsy-turvy.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Wesley S
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 12:31 PM

I can't see how they have a case if they were on private property. My guess is that the landowner has his property posted as such.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Wesley S
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 12:37 PM

Sorry John. I almost forgot to add that you're a xenophobic, racist ethnocentric for being upset about the situation........

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 12:38 PM

This is correct, but when Maldef gets after you to the tune of $32M you better respond. Apparently the courts take anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 12:39 PM

Who did he conspire with?

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: pdq
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 12:42 PM

The same thing happened a few years ago in Texas.

Lawyers from the Southern Poverty Law Center were dipatched for free. They coached the aliens to make statements that were focus-group-tested to make the jurors as angry as possible.

I believe that two ranch owners lost all the worldly posessions including the ranches, of course. One ranch was given to an illegal alien who had been coached to lie. Almost sure another of the US ranchers went to jail.

Standing in front of illegal aliens on your ranch and preventing their "freedom of movement" seems to be a form of assault. Go figure.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Big Mick
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 12:50 PM

OK, let's get the emotion out of this that is so necessary for you to adopt your outraged position. If you really wanted discussion, you would not have used the charged terms you are using, because in your mind you are convinced that you are in the right. I am not so sure.

Does this man have a right to not have his property vandalized, and used for illegal purposes? I don't think there is any doubt that he has this right. But the essential question, in a land that holds respect for the rule of law as a top priority, is what response is an appropriate and lawful one. That, as far as I can tell from the link you provided is what the courts will decide. I certainly empathize with protecting ones family and property, but there are limits to what my response can be under the law. For instance, the fact that someone took a shit on my property is hardly grounds for shooting them.

Your use of, "I know that by posting this I am xenophobic, racist ethnocentric and whatever other adjectives one might choose. But if you thought that, you'd be wrong. I have no beef with those coming through border checks, obeying our laws...including property rights..,and leaving when their visas or other legal documentation expires..." to somehow justify vigilanteism seems to detract from the credibility of your arguments, and is certainly in conflict with any claim of patriotic, red blooded American love of law.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 12:52 PM

"I know that by posting this I am xenophobic, racist ethnocentric "

Well, as they say, if the cap fits, wear it.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: pdq
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 01:02 PM

Note the usual suspects who start by name-calling before the discussion can really begin. Perhaps they can start a separate thread on the art of sceaming "racist!", "bigot! or "xenophobe" at the first hint of a subject they want squelched.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Megan L
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 01:09 PM

Those damned Martians think they can leave thier spaceship wherever they want but I mean is it any wonder enviromental control is suing him the idiot aimed straight for thier fusion reactor drive.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: artbrooks
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 01:15 PM

It's onlyillegal if you are under 21.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 01:41 PM

The Martians aren't so bad- its those goddamn Tralfamadorians takin' them good, high-paying jobs- like pool boy, lavatory cleaner, chicken-gutter & migrant farm worker, away from honest, red-blooded Americans that'r the real problem.

Good thing Emma Lazarus is long dead.

Guess the BuShite NeoCons don't have anything substantive to concern themselves with.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Big Mick
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 01:43 PM

pdq ..... perhaps you would be so kind as to point out name calling? As opposed to just responding to the initial post?

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: pdq
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 01:52 PM

So far, four post are "on subject" and nine post appear to be attempts to squech discussion of this extremely serious topic.

People in Maine have about 2% of their population illegal aliens or people whose parents are illegal aliens. In California, such people are now the "majority" population.

Those who have not been impacted by this mass migration north should be trying to learn something, not impede learning.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 01:55 PM

No, Mick and McGrath, I'm just preempting those on the left who always demonize those of us who object to illegal immigration. Please note the operative word is ILLEGAL.

Emma Lazerus spoke about the poor...I don't recall her mentioning the illegal.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Big Mick
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 02:12 PM

pdq ... perhaps you could tell me which posts are "attempts to squech discussion of this extremely serious topic" ?

John, do you support the use of illegal tactics to stop illegal immigration?

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 02:20 PM

What has that to do with this man protecting his ranch?

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Big Mick
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 02:24 PM

John, I laid it out very clearly in my first post. This man is not being sued solely because he protected his ranch. A judge listened to the motion to dismiss on that basis and found that there is merit to the suit. What that means is that he may have exceeded the legal limits he is allowed to protect his property. In other words, he may have acted illegally, which will be determined at trial. Given the nature and tone of your opening post, and your subsequent post, which seem to imply support, I ask again. Do you support using illegal means to stop illegal immigration?

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Big Mick
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 02:27 PM

... and btw, John. I don't recall anywhere in Emma Lazarus' work where she restricts her invitation to only legal immigrants either. Once again you attempt to use unrelated items to incite emotion charged support. It doesn't wash.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 02:30 PM

"My dog is hungry and he's hungry for buttocks."

What a delightful man.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: pdq
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 02:31 PM

By the time the illegal aliens are on private property in the United States it is too late.

A reasonable question to anyone who wants to think about the problem is "do you support legal methods by the Federal government to stop the illegal immigration".

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 02:31 PM

The immigrants exceeded their legal limits when they snuck into the country. From that point forward, the only civil rights they should have is the right to be deported. They're the ones who should be on trial here, not the rancher.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 02:32 PM

People who are here illegally (not those here legally), should have no legal rights in the United States. That goes for anyone...a Brit, a Ghanan, a Chinese, a Mexican...who is not in the country legally; they should be summarily deported on determining that status.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 02:41 PM

"I'm all right Jack, pull up the ladder..."

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Big Mick
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 02:42 PM

Whoa there folks. I asked very simple and direct questions which you all are avoiding. You are attempting to shift the premise. You posted about a man on trial. You then seem to imply there is something wrong with him being on trial for protecting his home and property from illegal aliens. I pointed out that he seems to be being tried for exceeding his legal rights in the protection of that property, and that a judge agreed that the case should go forward on the merits. You then attempt to make this about the illegal immigrants when it is not. It is about lawful exercise of rights. So I ask again, and no dodging this time, do you think it is OK to act illegally to stop illegal aliens?

Riggy and John, in your assertion that they have no consitutional rights, are you saying this man could use any means necessary to protect his property? Would it have been alright to shoot them? How about sicking the dog on them and maiming them?

Answer the questions.

I would address this to pdq as well, but I am not sure he has the ability to get the distinctions I am making, based on his responses.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: artbrooks
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 02:46 PM

People, whether in the US legally or not, have the basic human right to not have dogs set on them and threatened with death. He has the Border Patrol on speed-dial. This is, BTW, the same guy who paid a settlement of, I think, $100,000, several years ago for similar threatening behavior against several deer hunters on land he leases from the State of Texas (they were there legally).   Coincidentally, they were American citizens, descended from Spanish colonialists.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Megan L
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 02:48 PM

In York until a couple of years ago it was still legaly permissable to fire and arrow at a Scotsman.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 03:10 PM

Don't give vague hypotheticals...shooting and siccing cover a wide range of activity. From the article (Have you read it? I posted the address) the worst thing he has done is turn them over to the border patrol after holding them at gunpoint on HIS property. For me his actions are perfectly legitimate.

If you want to allow illegal activity from people who do not belong on whatever property you have wherever you are, go for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 03:20 PM

People who are here illegally (not those here legally), should have no legal rights in the United States.

But you did say this, John. Taking this comment at face value would indicate that if the illegals were shot or mauled by dogs there should be no consequences to the person who did the shooting or commanded the dogs.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 03:30 PM

I did say that. But shooting without provocation or attack people people with out provocation is against the laws of the state. If the state prosecutes, that's one thing, but illegal folks should have no standing to sue.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Amos
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 03:32 PM

THe legality of an individual's arrival or existence on US soil is not, and never has been, grounds for denial of certain basic legal and civil rights extended by American law and beliefs to all humans. There have been some politicians of a more anti-social bent than others who have tried to eradicate this principle, but unfortunately they couldn't figure out a way to have the Declaration of Independence declared a terrorist screed. There have been extremists who violated this principle, especially since the Reign of Terror began, but the principle will outlive them handily.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 03:41 PM

I guess I take broader view of the term "No Legal Rights" than you do. If you mean no right to sue in the US court system then say so. "No legal rights" says much, much more to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: pdq
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 03:43 PM

Rights delineated in the Constuitution of the United States, apply, in full, only US citizens.

This is the premire reason that immigrants should play "by the rules" and become citizens through the naturalization process. We allow more legal immigration into the US than all other countries combined.

Anyone, legal or ilegal, is due normal courtesy and human rights. The border agents are required to give then a baloney sandwich and speak to them politely. It they turn violent, that will be met with as much force as needed to get the person to behave.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 03:56 PM

BTW, I am not defending illegal immigration. I am concerned about basic human rights for all, whoever and where ever they are.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: robomatic
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 04:17 PM

I think there are two main arguments that come under the thread heading:

It's the elephant in the room that isn't being discussed that bothers me. That there are so many illegal aliens in the country is due to economic pressures that are not openly acknowledged on the US side of the border by those with money and those in power. Those with money and property have for generations hired cheap illegal labor for cheap agricultural and landscaping and processing purposes. The labor goes where the money is. This has typically got scant political/ governmental response because those in power have wanted it that way. I am not solely blaming those 'in power' because the consumers who vote with their dollars have been all too willing to pay less for lettuce, for apples, for anything that needs to be picked, processed, killed or cleaned by those paid below a normal American living wage yet working in America.

Historical precedence shows that American went where the land was cheap and staked their claims. Americans are now being picky that others are going where their labor is rewarded. We are living in a capitalist environment and unwilling to accept the quite predictable results of it.

This has gone on for generations and now we are witnessing secondary effects, hostility of citizens to the apparent ineffectiveness of their own government, and political/ social/ civil rights activities on the part of those citizens who are descended or related to the illegals.

In my opinion, we're pretty much all guilty of participating in a system which encourages this behavior while hypocritically attempting to denounce the weakest among this whole shoddy facade.

As for the rancher, he COULD get his own lawyer and review with counsel his legitimate rights to seek redress from his own government for exacerbating the misuse of his land by unequal enforcement of its anti-immigration policy at his expense. He could come up with an organized yet humanitarian plan to discourage the misuse of his own land. I wonder if all his ranch-hands have been vetted for green cards/ citizenship. That would be just too perfect.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 04:26 PM

MALDEF "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."

1. It appears from my quick reading of the article that the Sheriff was not there when the landowner held them at gunpoint, etc., so unless MALDEF can prove that there was prior agreement between the Sheriff and the landowner to do some of those things, with intent to violate their civil rights, it would appear that the conspiracy charge would fail as to the Sheriff, regardless of the intent of the actions.   Conceivably, a jury might find the Sheriff did not conspire, but that the landowner's relatives did, so the loss of the Sheriff as a defendant/coconspirator would not scotch the case. Depending on the way the case was brought, failure to show that the Sheriff and each of the family defendants were not in a "conspiracy" with the landowner might cause the entire suit to fail.   The landowner could not conspire with himself; there has to be at least one other person, or there's no conspiracy.   

2. There is no law, as far as I know, civil rights or otherwise, against his yelling obscenities at them (assuming that he did that).

3. Now, the action of "kicking one of the women" would be assault and battery, without doubt, and prosecutable as such in State court, if it actually occurred. I don't remember seeing anything in the article that the woman was injured to any significant degree by the alleged kick. By itself, hardly worth the kind of damages sought in the suit, I think, even if that facts of that charge are proved. If there is no conspiracy proved, and/or no intent to violate plaintiffs' civil rights, it would be a matter for State, not federal law.

4. The dogs were said to be present, but there is nothing said about the dogs being sicced on the intruders or their being "mauled" by the dogs. The threat to sic the dogs on them, if actually made, would constitute assault, a State offense.

5. The fact that the judge allowed the case to go forward to trial doesn't establish anything about the facts of the matter or the judge's having any opinion of the merits of the case. That kind of ruling merely means that the claims made in the complaint, if proved as alleged and not rebutted, would be enough to establish a prima facie case under the relevant federal law, so the defendant(s) would then put on their case in defense. The claims could conceivably be pure fiction, groundless bushwah, and still pass that test. In essence the judge said that "There is a controversy here, and the jury will have to resolve it."

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 04:31 PM

If someone breaks into my house, I'm within my rights to hold him at gunpoint until authorities arrive. He's already proven himself to be a potential threat to me by committing the felonious act of breaking and entering. But if someone is merely trespassing on my property I have no right to detain him. He's only committing a minor property crime that in no way poses a threat to me or anyone else. I'm probably within my rights to have a gun in my possession when I confront him (since I don't know at that point whether or not he may pose a threat), but after it's been determined that there is no threat, all I can do is call the cops.

In the rancher's case, it seems pretty cut and dried to me. The trespassers were not posing a threat to the rancher and, therefore, he used a level of force that exceeded what is allowable under the circumstances. The fact that the trespassers were also illegal aliens is irrelevent unless the rancher was legally empowered to enforce US immigration law, which he apparently was not.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 05:07 PM

"If you mean no right to sue in the US court system then say so."

I think I did, "...illegal folks should have no standing to sue." Duh!
We are talking about folks inside the US trespassing on private property! I don't think I could be clearer than that!

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Big Mick
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 05:34 PM

Rights delineated in the Constuitution of the United States, apply, in full, only US citizens. - pdq.

Perhaps you could provide a cite for that finding, please?

John, you continue to evade the point. This case isn't about his property rights in any but a peripheral way. It is about the illegal detention of individuals, about the use of excessive force in the protection of his property rights, about assault and battery on a woman. He is guilty in a more proactive way of the same thing you are. And that is the mixing of peripheral facts into the stew of your anger over the issue of illegal immigration. Would you be as angry at this rancher if a bunch of white folks were hiking and littering his property, and he detained them with a gun, had his dog attack them, and threaten them with great bodily harm? And the fact that he has a history and has been fined before tells you that this isn't about his property rights, it is about him using his property rights to carry out a campaign against illegal immigrants.

So I ask you again. In your opinion, is it justifiable to act illegally with illegal immigrants?

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 05:44 PM

I can not conceive of an adequate punishment for someone crapping on my lawn.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: GUEST,Slag
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 05:47 PM

As human beings those trespassers ought to be afforded human rights. They ought not to be afforded the rights and privileges that are inherent to legal citizens beyond those basic human rights. That means you can't kick 'em, beat 'em up, or shoot them in the butt as they run away (except under some very special circumstances).

In California an initial trespass needs to be reported and the official (peace officer) should respond and inform the trespasser of their illegal act. A case number is generated. the typical scenario is that a mistake was made and it won't happen again. If second act occurs by the same person(s) then it is a criminal trespass and the law has various remedies for such actions.

The initial trespass may fall under the term criminal if criminal intent was involve or if subsequent felony (s) ensued. A person ALWAYS has the right to defend his life or the lives of other innocents in harm's way; with APPROPRIATE force.

Perhaps some legal beagle out there could educate me (us) on this point. I have always understood that a compound criminal act falls under the category of felony, that is, a misdemeanor committed to further the commission of a another crime or a higher crime elevates that act to a felony. The first illegal act was violating the borders of this country for reasons other than to escape political persecution or the accidents of an emergency such as an emergency landing of an international flight bound for some other country. Does anyone know if this is so?

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Joe Offer
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 06:02 PM

You know, I really feel sorry for that guy with his 22,000-acre ranch. guess he didn't realize that if he owns 35 square miles of property on the Mexican border, somebody from Mexico might want to cross his property instead of going around. You don't think he bought the property because he likes hunting illegal aliens, do you?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 06:05 PM

Mick-
I said, "...shooting without provocation or attack people people with out provocation is against the laws of the state." Think that says I don't agree with illegal action. Holding trespassers while waiting for law enforcement, to my knowledge, not illegal.

BTW, if you read the story, his dog did not maul or bite any person. He did not shoot any person, so your argument spurious.

Also, while it has been alleged, here, that he has had other run ins with illegals outside of his ranch, and/or has been fined,,but I haven't seen back-up on those assertions; there is nothing in the story about other run-ins with illegals, except on his own land over the years.

And, yes, if anybody or group is constantly trespassing on his land and vandalizing it, and killing livestock, etc. he should be able to hold them for the authorities.

Anyway, Mick I have answered your questions even the ones not geermain to this case...perhaps not to your satisfaction, but I stand by them.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 06:11 PM

"...guess he didn't realize that if he owns 35 square miles of property on the Mexican border, somebody from Mexico might want to cross his property instead of going around."


               Guess he figured as long as it was his property, folks would ask permission to go through...

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 06:13 PM

As to the question of whether or not Mexicans should have a right to sue in US courts, I'm sure that matter was decided by treaty or other binding agreement many years ago. I'm also sure the judge who decided that the case has enough merit to go forward would be sufficiently aware of the provisions of that agreement to know whether or not the plaintiffs' immigration status is relevant.

If Mexicans were denied the right to sue in US courts, then Mexico would have the right to deny the right of US citizens to sue in Mexican courts. Would any US citizen in his right mind even think about setting foot in Mexico if it meant he had to surrender his rights to redress at the border?

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Big Mick
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 06:15 PM

Yep, I agree that he has rights to protect his property. And that is what this case is really about. Did he exceed his legal rights in the exercise of that. It has nothing to do with illegal immigration, except as a peripheral issue. It absolutely does demonstrate that folks, including some on this thread, will use the illegal immigration issue to justify about anything. And that is why I find your initial post, Riggy and pdq's supporting posts, to be demagogic. You are using a phoney premise that really isn't related to justify your anger towards these people. They aren't connected.

And this man's history, and the lawful findings against him, show what his real agenda is, as well.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: artbrooks
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 06:17 PM

Prior case

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: GUEST,PeterC
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 06:21 PM

I notice that this was in "Cochise County". Presumably this guy "owns" his ranch as a result of ethnic cleansing of native Americans in the 19th century.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 06:32 PM

Bee-I didn't say anything about treaties or agreements. I didn't say folks here legally, with documentation that is current, through proper ports of entry, vacationing or going to school or work legally should surrender rights to sue or can't sue. I did say that folks ILLEGALLY in this country SHOULD NOT be able to sue. If an American is in another country ILLEGALLY, Mexico or France etc, he should not have the right to sue there, either. You guys (or gals) gotta read ALL the words, but not add words, or pick and choose the ones that you think bolster your argument.

I'm very consistent on this. I don't care where from or where to...people in a country illegally are there at their legal peril, or should be.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 06:42 PM

Mick says: "This case isn't about his property rights . . . "

But Mick says: "he has rights to protect his property. And that is what this case is really about."

So, um.


Well he's turned over 12,000 apparently unharmed. Not such a bad record, considering all the armed coyotes included in the game.