It's amazing the twisted rationalizations people will stoop to when motivated by an agenda.
Recovering the gun that was aimed at them would have caused an international crisis, since the serial drug smuggler, Davila, took it with him across the border.
Oh, of course. A very convenient explanation.
What does the term "beyond a reasonable doubt" mean to you?
To me it means that when people deliberately hide evidence of what they did and file false reports about it, they are concealing criminal activity - not innocent activity.
Was it "reasonable" for a drug smuggler carrying a half million dollars worth of drugs in a van coming across the border to do so without carrying a loaded firearm?
Would you believe a serial drug dealer who got on the stand (after being granted immunity for drug smuggling in exchange for his testimony and who was likely to get millions of dollars from a civil lawsuit if the border patrol agents were convicted) and testified that he was not carrying a weapon when he was smuggling 1/2 million dollars worth of marijuana across the border?
I know I wouldn't.
If a border patrol agent (who had a spotless record after more than a dozen years) testified that he "thought" he saw a gun, and a serial drug smuggler (who it was stated always carried a gun when smuggling) claimed that he didn't have a gun, I think that the only reasonable conclusion is that there is reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the officer. While I might not believe the officer, nevertheless, I could not convict him since, by virtue of pecuniary interest the victim had in the outcome of the case, and his prior and subsequent arrests for smuggling drugs, there was no question but that there was a reasonable doubt as to the officer's guilt.
The fact is that it is simply UNREASONABLE to believe that Davila did not have a weapon. He lied. There is no doubt about that.