That’s the just of it. However from everything I have read there was no underlining crime. The agent stated he thought the perp had a gun and the only witness who claims he did not was the perp. The perp jumped into the Rio Grande so the weapon could not be recovered.
The agents claimed that they did not believe they hit the perp so rather than spend the rest of the day writing memos, they made the mistake of not reporting the weapons discharge. (a policy violation not a crime).
If the perp had a gun, then no “crime” was committed, only a policy violation (failure to report a weapons discharge) to which I believe they should be fired not imprisoned.
There are only 3 entities that “know” if the perp had a gun, the agent, the perp and God. Since God has not weighted in on the issue, it comes down to the credibility of the other two. Two highly regarded Agents who have never had a disciplinary action or a career drug smuggler.
Well, there's a problem. The agent said that the perp turned toward him and made the infamous "furtive gesture." Problem: the perp was shot in the a$$. Physical evidence does not match agent's testimony. Coupled with destruction of evidence, that's enough to establish mens rea.
The agents claimed that they did not believe they hit the perp so rather than spend the rest of the day writing memos, they made the mistake of not reporting the weapons discharge. (a policy violation not a crime).
You are forgetting that they also destroyed evidence that indicated the agent had fired his gun.
If the perp had a gun, then no “crime” was committed, only a policy violation (failure to report a weapons discharge) to which I believe they should be fired not imprisoned.
Key word in bold.
One may not engage in hypotheticals without end; they must, ultimately, be anchored in the facts of the case. If you report that the perp has a gun, there'd better be a gun--or something that can reasonably be construed to be a gun--at hand.