Much like shooting an unarmed, fleeing suspect in the back is against the law.
Exactly. If it were legal to shoot fleeing suspects (now WHAT reason would a suspect have for fleeing, other than some sort of guilt??) that would make the jobs of law enforcement much easier. Armed or not. I am not saying shoot to kill, but at least shoot with the intent to capacitate after a verbal warning, like multiple rounds in the legs.
That is NOT a fact in the case....it is hearsay....and you SEEM to have swallowed it like a scoop of rocky road Hagen Das...
Yes, the perp was running, but he did turn and point an object at the Border Patrol agents.... Bear in mind that he is a KNOWN drug smuggler and they are normally considered armed.
Also, none of the supposed evidence has been released by the feds....even though my Conressman McCaul has repeatedly requested the interview transcripts.
The entie scenario has a stench to it....
Please link me to evidence that the smuggler was unarmed.
"Much like shooting an unarmed, fleeing suspect in the back is against the law."
You know for a fact they did this? You were there?
I've heard different.(no I wasn't there so I don't know one way or the other).
But I am willing to give the defenders of our borders the benefit of the doubt when it comes to keeping invaders off our doorsteps.
The bottom line is, until the transcripts of the court proceedings are released, nobody will know what was said in that court room except those who were there.
Why?
Isn't running from easily identifiable law enforcement prima facia evidence of an intent to cause harm? How can they guarantee that he's not armed? Did they check him for explosives?
I've never understood this bit of the law.
Now, if one is shot in the back because one did not recognize law enforcement, that's another matter.
You know the suspect was unarmed?