Oh I know dippin, I guess I'm speaking more in general terms about how the legal system seems to have mixed message about what rights the property owner really has. These quotes stand out to me:
"Attorneys for the immigrants - five women and 11 men who were trying to cross illegally into the United States - have accused Mr. Barnett of holding the group captive at gunpoint, threatening to turn his dog loose on them and saying he would shoot anyone who tried to escape."
"The immigrants are represented at trial by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), which also 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."
Accused of holding the group captive? On his own land in which they were trespassing...the initial appeal for dismissal was rejected and as best I can tell the whole thing went to trial. I'm simply saying it shouldn't have been allowed to go that far (at least from what I've read in the articles here there could be more the story I haven't read). It sends a message that defending your property could land you in a heap of trouble (or at the very least hamper you with expensive legal bills) and in my opinion that's not the right way to handle something like this. It seems like there is a bit of a gray area when it comes to self defense in the legal system. It might be interesting to see some stats to show if any lawsuits similar to this were successfu (the old burgler injures himself breaking into your home and sues kind of case).
haha hope that made sense...very over tired tonight.
