>>No, I believe they should have shot him in the back of the head.<<
The prosecution was certainly a crock - they misled the jury about the smuggler’s past and his truthfullness.
But, in general, law enforcement should not shoot somebody in the back when all they know is that he is strongly suspected of entering the country illegally and doesn’t want to be questioned.
Now the Prosecution knew the whole story and never should have gone for such a lengthy harsh sentence. The prosecution is also covering up and should be punished.
But I don’t want cops shooting unarmed people down from behind over suspicion of a non-violent crime. So I am not sorry they were convicted of something, even if this particular person they shot turned out to be a scumbag.
I have become very disillusioned by our system of law and order in this country. My point was that had they finished the criminal bastard off then and there, they wouldn’t be sitting in prison now.
Didn’t they skuffle with crook before he fled? and didn’t he try to escape back across the border? I find no fault in shooting a fleeing criminal. Maybe that’s why I like the Dirty Harry movies so much.
But I don’t want cops shooting unarmed people down from behind over suspicion of a non-violent crime. So I am not sorry they were convicted of something, even if this particular person they shot turned out to be a scumbag.
Exactly right - The sentence was too harsh - This is just another example of our system having out of control prosecutors ....
At the same time we do not live in a police state where officers can fire their weapons and then not be upfront and totally honest about such. By either omitting the number of shots they fired, not saying they fired their weapons altogether, or being coy in some manner or another. These officers fired their weapons multiple times and were not up-front about doing such. There has to be a penalty for such (removing them from their job...with no prison time would have been appropriate regarding this case...IMPO).