I like the "to give an answer to your question" part, since you never do get around to answering my question to you. But nice try at finessing. You might slip that non-response by someone not paying attention. Take a week or so, maybe you can figure out the underlying crime they were involved in when they fired on the smuggler.
Your boy Sutton was counting on that and never expected to have to defend his own actions. After all, he's Bush's boy, so he figured he could get away with anything that furthered Bush's no-border agenda. Too bad for him that Feinstein and Cornyn noticed he's at least guilty of bad judgment and prosecutorial overreach. The House gets a turn soon, and I hope Delahunt gives his committee wide latitude in the questions they ask Sutton.
As far as: "maybe you can figure out the underlying crime they were involved in when they fired on the smuggler."
Do you really believe that they would be convicted of the crime if it didn't apply? You've never been in a court room have you?
I'll see if I can find it for you if you really care.