Via the Washington Times.
to quote the article:
"My dog is hungry and he's hungry for buttocks."

That IS a classic line. Also it's a shame the district judge's first name wasn't Rick

Isn't there a law that you can defend your property from trespassers or something like that? I also don't think he said buttocks in Spanish. lol

Indeed. I fail to see how this has been allowed to proceed to trial. The "victims" were on his land illegally, they were in the country illegally and in many states, you can legally shoot someone for trespassing on your property. They should be thanking him for turning them over to the border patrol instead.
How do you say "buttocks" in Spanish?

I believe it's "culo"
Anyway, they're saying because he held them on his property, instead of chasing them off, that it's an issue (or at least that's what I believe to be correct). Typically you can't hold a trespasser on your property until the cops arrive, however I would think if someone were trespassing on your property and they visibly had an illegal substance or were doing something illegal, you can make a citizens arrest.

Driving them off would achieve nothing; they would just come back later on or pass through a neighbour's farm or whatever. The article says the trespassers are often armed, so it's also possible that they could decide to injure or kill him to get through if they are desperate enough.

The ranch owner should be arrested for threatening people with a weapon in the first place. You can't defend a law that says LOL I KEN SHOOT ANY1 WHO COMES UP MAH DRIVEWAY!! It was probably conceived during the 1830s or so and hasn't been changed sine then. Most likely since the redneck lobby threatens to shoot anyone who makes the suggestion.

If I had a ranch that was clearly delineated and had signs "NO TRESSPASSERS!!" and "TRESSPASSERS WILL BE SHOT! SURVIVORS WILL BE SHOT AGAIN!" then whoever dared to cross the line with ill intent would find themselves being used as a pencil instead. If anyone asked me, I would say I feared for my life and that would be the end of it. I would also make sure that I didn't shoot them in the back ....

The laws that I have seen aren't as simple as I stated them. Usually there has to be an imminent threat from the trespasser and/or they have to be warned off first. As long as that has happened, then shooting the trespasser is actually an act of self-defense. Some of these laws were conceived in much earlier times, but most have been updated over the years. A few are actually new and only came into being after home invasions became a "hot button" issues in some urban areas during the 1990's.

Well, it's obvious to me that the rancher could have just shot them, buried them, and forgot about them, but he typically would keep them until the police arrived.

I'm wondering how someone with no right to enter the country has legal standing to sue someone for that. I can see how a tourist or a visitor, someone who gained entry into the country legally, could sue in US courts assuming the infraction happened here, but I think it's a bit strange that someone who entered the country illegally can sue over the reprecussions of that illegal entry, especially since it only resulted in their detention. How is it taking away their civil rights if they don't technically have any rights in the country they illegally entered? estoy confused

Everyone in the US has civil rights, regardless of whether or not they are here legally.

Is this valid for some Darwin Awards?

Not unless one of them killed themselves in a particularly stupid way.

Late reply I was at the university. Anyways, buttocks is "nalgas" , "culo" is ass.
That's it for today's Spanish lesson :)