We aren't the ones who are accusing BP agents of being in league with Drug smugglers, and giving false testimony in exchange for favors, in order to defend two convicted felons.
Whichever side you are on in this case, you can't label yourself "Pro BP Agents", because there were BP agents who testified against the two convicted agents.
And I am fine with being against BP agents who are found by a jury to have committed multiple felonies and judged based on evidence presented to have shot an unarmed man while he fled.
I don't think you do BP agents any favors supporting agents who have broken the law. It's fine to argue that there was a travesty of justice, that they didn't get a fair trial, or that the evidence against them is false.
But if those things were so, nobody here would be arguing to put them in jail. The suggestion that those who oppose you do so because we want BP agents in jail simply because they are BP agents is silly.
There are two ways for your side to "win". One is to show that the evidence supports your position. The other is to call people names and run a phone-bank campaign to try to sway the political process to force the result you desire, regardless of how people feel about the evidence itself.
The first is a noble endeavor, which I support wholeheartedly even though I believe it will fail, because my OPINION is the two agents were guilty.
The second is a subversion of our political and judicial process, and suggests that our criminal justice system should be governed NOT by evidence and procedure, but rather by political popularity and pressure.
My opinion is that the second is NOT a conservative approach to righting wrongs. It is a lazy way out, one that is often used by those who do not have facts on their side, but can sway public opinion.
I am dismayed by the increasing acceptance of the tactic among my conservative allies. It's a shortcut that only works when you've got a political majority, but which does not advance the cause of understanding.
You can usually identify such an argument by the terms used to describe the opponents. IN fact, the use of terms to define opponents is often a good indication of straying from a discussion of the merits.
Get off your fake high horse, Charles "Fake John Wayne," cut to the chase and admit you have a personal vested interest in an open border... or, you're a political operative for the opposition.
If these agents, or any LE, betrayed the public trust, that would be another matter. But, THEY DID NOT, and in fact they did exactly what I would want them to. They protected our border and, frankly, protected themselves. They supposedly got caught on a procedural error, which is a DEPARTMENTAL MATTER, AND NOT A LEGAL ONE. It should and could have ended with internal discipline within the department.
What I find sleazy is the conduct of the prosecutor's office, which sought a "victim" in another country, retrieved that person --- a known career criminal ---, offered him immunity, gave him medical care at OUR expense and used him in order to pillory and punish our UNITED STATES border guards. It all stinks of underhand international politics.
So, yes, let's be clear. I am on the side of these two Border Patrol agents and of everything that they did. Live with it. I'm an American, they defended MY COUNTRY and that's good enough for me. I do not accept that MY COUNTRY is imprisoning them for doing their job.
You, on the other hand, have gone way out of your way to continue the crucifixition of these two men. You've said repeatedly you believe in sticking to the facts, yet now you admit that ALL YOU HAVE is an OPINION.
You can look at the terminology used by the posters on YOUR (anti-Border Patrol) SIDE of the issue for slander and the "straying from the merits" that you describe.