I don’t think the Border Patrol agents should be in jail, but having said that, I do not see the relevance of whether the witness lied about being a repeat drug importer. As I understand it, the principle under which they were convicted was that law enforcement officers are not justified in using potentially deadly force against someone who is fleeing from them, but only to protect themselves and others from probable use of force by the suspect. Personally, I disagree with that principle and think that law enforcement officers should be able to use force to prevent a suspect from escaping, but that’s not the law as it currently stands. If it was established that they shot a fleeing suspect, it isn’t really relevant whether the suspect claimed to be a first time offender when he was actually a career criminal. It impeaches the suspect as a witness, but I’m assuming the DA had independent evidence that they had shot at someone who posed no danger.
Yes nevermind all of the other testimony from other Border Patrol agents who testified against these two. Maybe next weeks story will be that the judge once got a parking ticket.
Whether or not OVD had 100 mule loads under his belt is immaterial to whether the shoot that day was good. R&C had no knowledge at the time whether OVD was either a drug runner or just someone who had a couple beers at work and tried to outrun the BP because he had an outstanding traffic ticket.
All that matters is what happened between when OVD took off for the border and when Ramos shot him. Did the BPA have justified cause to shoot and kill him (and they testified they were shooting to kill)? Was OVD an immediate threat to the BPA or to the public that necessitated taking him down?
That is the question. Now, if you believe the “black shiny object” story, than you have reason to believe the shoot was good, if you don’t (like the jury and just about anybody who read the transcripts), then it was a bad shoot and they BPA need to be disciplined.
Whether or not that means going to jail or just losing their BP jobs, I don’t know. But you just can’t allow LEO’s to excuse any shooting, no matter how questionable, by allowing them to claim “He had a black shiny object in his hand”.
Next time it could be you or son or daughter coming home from a party a little tipsy, who speeds away from a cop because you are not thinking clearly.
This is about allowing police state tactics against citizens, guilty or innocent.
And those of you who publicly/privately justify it because he was an illegal or a Mexican (as has been stated on these threads many times), you need to take a good look at your yourself.
OVD at the time had not been convicted of any crimes. We still live in a society that believes in innocent until proved guilty. One you allow any LEO to become judge and jury dispensing justice and the end of their gun, we are half way to being a totalitarian state.
You might think this time it is okay because it was only a drug mule, an illegal, a Mexican. Who will it be next time? Either we protect our civil liberties for everyone, even the most despised in society, or they can’t be protected for anyone.
I don’t think the Border Patrol agents should be in jail, but having said that, I do not see the relevance of whether the witness lied about being a repeat drug importer.
The BP said he thought he saw a gun in the perp’s hand.
The prosecution said there was no gun, and offered as proof the testimony of the perp that he didn’t have a gun.
But ... if there was evidence introduced that the perp lied about not being a repeat drug importer.... there is no reason to believe that he would lie about not having a gun ... and so the jury could discount his testimony entirely.
Now .. could the jury convict the BP beyond a reasonable doubt of shooting the perp without reason when there was uncontested testimony that he saw a gun and fired his weapon to defend himself???
I think not.