Kind of, sort of, according to a jury.

A while back I posted about the story of an Arizona man who was being sued by 16 illegal immigrants for violating their rights when he held them at gunpoint.  The verdict’s in:  Jury: Rancher didn’t violate illegal immigrants’ rights

A federal jury found Tuesday that a southern Arizona rancher didn’t violate the civil rights of a group of illegal immigrants who said 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 the plaintiffs 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

The article doesn’t specify the actions that were the basis for the awards, although there’s this:

The plaintiffs alleged that Barnett threatened them with his dog and told them he would shoot anyone who tried to escape.

I wonder if he can countersue for the emotional stress these people caused him and his family during their invasion of his property.

H/T Hot Air