But "specific" is not what you said, nor what I responded to. And how do you figure that any justification to use their guns, ceased? They are law enforcement officers, tasked with enforcing the law. They had a suspect they believed to be hauling drugs, who had just led them on a 10 mile high speed chase involving most (if not all) of the entire Fabens border patrol office, and failed to stop when ordered to do so, instead advancing on an officer armed with a shotgun.
Yet you think there was "no danger" to the officers or the community? They should have just let him go?
Uhh, because the law say so? Once the “dangerously speeding vehicle” stopped and the driver exited, THAT specific dangerous situation to the community and officers had ceased to exist.
“They are law enforcement officers, tasked with enforcing the law.”
Yes, and that task is to apprehend crime suspects for trial and not to act as judge, jury and executioner by shooting them in the back.
“They had a suspect they believed to be hauling drugs, who had just led them on a 10 mile high speed chase involving most (if not all) of the entire Fabens border patrol office, and failed to stop when ordered to do so, instead advancing on an officer armed with a shotgun.”
The suspected vehicle was a blue mini van, OAD was driving a light grey full size van. At that point they should have been suspicious of their suspicions. I don’t believe the chase was ten miles, if it was testified to I don’t remember it but my impression from the transcripts was it was more like 2-3 miles. It doesn’t really matter but does show your propensity for exaggerating specific details of this incident to your dubious advantage.
Next, it was 3 vehicles involved in the chase, not the entire Fabens BP force which I believe is composed of 30-50 personnel. Most of the officers and all the supervisors on the scene arrived AFTER the shooting.
“failed to stop”
I think we all have agreed there was a short high speed pursuit.
“instead advancing on an officer armed with a shotgun. Yet you think there was “no danger” to the officers or the community?”
So you got this skinny mexican looking guy is in a ditch with at least 2 border patrol officers looking down from either side of the top of the ditch with their service revolvers and/or shotguns trained on the perp. The perp is standing in a ditch, he moves up out of the ditch toward the officer with the shotgun, raises his hands, the officer then tries to butt him in the head with the butt of his shotgun.
Yes, at this point I see NO immediate danger to the community and little or no danger to the officers. Evidently, neither did R&C because not once during the entire incident did they tell “shots” or “gun” to the other officers to let them know the perp was armed (or possibly armed) and that THEIR lives might be in danger.
Not once. Even after it was over when questioned by the supervisors did R&C mention that OAD had or that they thought he had a gun. Not until weeks later when the cover up was blown and it looked like R&C were going to be subjected to an investigation about the incident.
“They should have just let him go?”
This is why you’re such a snarky little toad. No one, not me, not Charles not anyone taking the laws side of this issue has ever once said the officers should have let OAD go. IF in fact they had done their job and apprehended OAD as they should have we wouldn’t be here discussing it.
What I would like is for these LEO’s, any LEO’s to not think they are above the law and can unholster their weapon and start shooting away like it was Dodge City, to think they can shoot and kill any suspect that pisses them off and to then think they will get away with it by simply claiming, even weeks later, “I saw a black shiny object”.
Is that too much to ask? Does that make me a Sutton loving toady? Des that make me some kind of danger to society?
I would contend that it is people like YOU that are the threats to society. Your blind devotion in supporting what is obviously a bad shoot just because the target was a drug mule SUSPECT or a mexican or an illegal is exactly the kind of rationalization that allows the despots of the world to arise, it allows organizations like the gestapo, the SS, the brownshirts, to operate with impunity. All because the target of of the violence THIS TIME is part of a class that you hate.
The problem is that kind of authority abhors a vacuum. You may approve of it because it may start out targeting a class of people you dislike or hate, but it always moves on to others and eventually to groups you may identify with. By then, it’s too late to stop it and you wonder, like the German people did, “what have I done?”