Posted on 08/22/2006 10:48:57 PM PDT by STARWISE
Yes, I think they had the van and the drugs. The whole thing sucks, IMO and that jury was likely comprised of people who were not huge supporters of the BP.
Hopefully this will be overturned.
Yeah, this one has to be taking a huge toll on morale.
Department of Homeland [IN]Security.
That says it all.
F'n, PC, idiot, Chertoff, should have been fired a long time ago and he is yet another of W's very poor appointments.
Must NOT offend any illegal aliens (even scumbag drug dealers) and better to hang a couple of heroic BP agents for doing their jobs, to make a point that "we" are a compassionate and fair Republic, than send a message that we won't tolerate any such nonsense.
Of course, anyone here knows (or most of us who aren't existing in a delusional world of "My President--Right or Wrong") that W has no intention of securing our borders and is/has been extremely hypocritical in this matter, therefore, no one should expect any help from the White House of DHLS.
What I don't understand, is that any time an LEA mistakenly shoots someone he/she believes was pointing a weapon at them (even children) they are usually given the benefit of the doubt as it is considered that they acted in self-defense and believed their life was in danger.
How is it in this case, the BP Agent was not believed? Something smells here and it looks like a case of an over zealous Feeb prosecutor who perhaps swayed the jury?
Last but not least, while I have read about this ridiculous "regulation" which prohibits BP Agents from firing at fleeing criminals, I have yet to hear any detailed info about it. Has anyone else?
Of course, there's no way the good Senator would make the statement if she replaced "Border Patrol" with "Marines serving in Iraq".
"tie the hands of the Border Patrol and prevent the agency from securing America against a flood of illegal immigrants, drugs, counterfeit goods and, quite possibly, terrorists."
I wouldn't expect the Admin to be much help. They are more the cause rather than the solution.
ping
To my understanding the only officers that can shoot fleeing criminals are prison guards and US Marshals. This is because their cases have already been adjudicated by a court.
All other LEOs operate under strict use of force guidelines.
1 To protect themselves against death or grievous bodily harm.
2 To protect their partner against the same.
3 Or to protect an innocent 3rd party.
This case appears to come down to whether the agent (using the reasonable person standard) believed the suspect was pointing a gun at him. I find it difficult to believe that a jury (who was not there) substituted their own judgment as to what the agent saw and believed.
Had they reported the shooting through proper channels none of this would have happened. I hope this get overturned on appeal.
A jury full of the "Blame-America-First" crowd I presume?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.