Replies

They did not know that they had hit the man. He continued across the river into Mexico. Given what happened, I believe they were justified in the use of their firearms.

Should have reported discharging of firearms immediately and filed a subsequent written report.

People on the jury, who were kept from knowing what manner of man the agents were dealing with, upon hearing the entire truth afterwards, indicated they would not have voted to find them guilty.

A slimy tactic, but in truth has no bearing whatsoever on the the Officers' conduct. Officers don't get to pick and choose what to report no matter how slimy the criminal.

If the shooting was justified in the least, and I believe it was, then what they did was a procedural and administrative mistake that should have been handled as such...and perhapos harshly in those terms...but these men should not have been sent to prison or been found guilty of felony charges.

Agreed, it COULD have been handled administratively IF they had been truthful and forthcoming upon interview. However, they weren't, they misled the initial investigation, that's criminal in any book.

The trial, in that regard, was a witch hunt by a politically charged prosecutor, IMHO

If they wanted to be dealt with fairly, they shouldn't have tried to hide their crime. You can't choose your prosecutor and who doesn't know that some of them (most?) are zealous? I disagree with prison for them, because they could easily be murdered in prison. But they should NEVER be cops of any sort ever again, hence my support of criminal conviction.

Your argument might make sense if there had been no supervisor on the scene. Since there was, what was it they were hiding?

This entire case has been based on "after the fact" reconstruction of "could'a beens".

Toss in a few misapplications of law, and there you have it.

As I have said time and time again Sutton's life as a Republican politician, if not as a lawyer, is ruined.

If they wanted to be dealt with fairly, they shouldn't have tried to hide their crime.

And this is where we disagree. If the use of their firearms in the line of duty was justified...and I believe it was...then what occured with the shooting was not a crime, so there was no crime to cover up.

What they did in not filing the reoport properly and then not coming clean with it on first blush was administratively wrong, and certainly could have led to disciplinary action.

But if they were justified in shooting...and, again, I believe they were...then they did not cover up a "crime", they covered up a justifiable shooting because of the politically charged environment they were in and that is what should have been recognized and addressed.

But, the powers in place up the line did not want that little truth to come out, so, in my mind, the whole ardent prosecution of two men riking their lives in the line of duty, in the process of which they drove off a criminal alien from these shores, was itself a cover-up for the real truth driving the whole thing.

And so, I hope their conviction is overturned and that the real truth of the matter some day comes out. Until it does...we will not be able to protect our borders the way they should be...our own agents will fear for their careers...and their own very lives...too much and it will impact how they respond to threats.