Lawmakers Want Investigation, Pardon for Border Agents

NS News ^ | 8 Sept. 2006 | Monisha Bansal

[PRND21]

I wouldn't be surprised if Johnny personally threw in a complementary BJ for the lucky drug runner!

That was your most coherent post, congrats.

[CottonBall]

I'm about to shock you. Better sit down.

Luckily, I am usually sitting when at my computer ;-)

Unless the officer has a specific and reasonable belief that the suspect poses an imminent danger to someone's life and limb, deadly force is not allowed.

Now that I didn't know. It's not like TV at all then. Must make it exceedingly hard to catch anyone.

The problem here is that (a) these guys got stupid, and (b) they lied about it, and destroyed evidence. The former is not necessarily criminal. The latter is, and demonstrates consciousness of guilt.

I agree that they did something wrong, although exactly what I'm not sure. They shouldn't get off scott free (spelling?), but 5-20 years in prison seems excessive (unless there's much more to the story than is being reported). What really irks me is that a known criminal does get off scott-free, was given amnesty for testifying, and will now probably get millions of dollars for having his civil rights violated.

I think that's why this story has been enraging people, especially after all the talk of amnesty and the 'rights' of illegals. Illegals seem to have advantages the citizens don't get. We have to pay taxes, have insurance to drive, pay premiums and copays for medical insurance, are expected to obey every law or get fined/jailed. After all that, we have to pay taxes so the illegals can get all sorts of free-handouts we don't get. This story and it's implications came at an interesting time, so the lack of reporting of firing a weapon by the BP agents seems a small thing.

[CottonBall]

You willing to shoot someone solely because they have a dime bag of pot?

Is that what 743 pounds is now?

[CottonBall]

"hypocrite"

This is about the 20th time you've used this or a variation of it on this thread.

New word on your spelling list?

Reader's Digest does say to use a new word several times throughout the day when you're first learning it. Maybe we can help him/her out with by finding another word. He/she seems to have that one down.

[PRND21]

Maybe we can help him/her out with by finding another word.

How about ad hominem, newbie?

[CottonBall]

This thread is all about hypocracy and illegal activity. If you don't like the word, quit excusing illegal behavior.

How about the illegal behavior of the illegal alien? He gets amnesty for testifying, gets to go free to continue illegally crossing the border and selling illegal drugs, and most likely gets a lot of taxpayer's money from suing the BP.

I am not trying to excuse the BP agents' actions. They obviously did something wrong and should suffer the consequences. But this illegal alien will have no consequences for his actions. That's what the bottom line is, I believe, for most people. It is for me, anyway.

[CottonBall]

It is relevants because it explains why you're willing to have our BP agents just watching the illegals saunter back and forth over the border.

Complete falsehood. I stated no such thing.

No, you didn't. I was interpolating since you didn't answer my question. Sorry if I misunderstood.

[PRND21]

How about the illegal behavior of the illegal alien?

He should be charged and punished. Duh.
This thread is about the illegal actions of the Agents and the hypocrites that excuse their felonious acts.

[PRND21]

No, you didn't. I was interpolating since you didn't answer my question. Sorry if I misunderstood.

No problem. Truce.

[go-dubya-04]

You're obviously one who sees evil intent when it comes to law enforcement, whether you were actually in the field or not. (I tend to doubt it) If you were, you are now bitter and suspect only the worst from them and willingly take the side of the scumbags polluting our children with drugs and illegally entering the country. Quite the little conservative you are!

[microgood]

I said the Border Agents broke the law and should be punished.

And there is no hypocrisy in using an illegal drug runner to do it? I guess the ends justify the means.

The one characteristics that all prosecutors seem to share is absolutely no sense of right or wrong or fairness, just what they want, whatever it takes. In this case, there is more of a political agenda than punishing the crime, and is meant to send a message to the border patrol that the borders will remain wide open.

These two are mere pawns of an out of control Federal Government, hell bent on evading their own laws against illegal immigration. You talk about breaking laws but ignore the Federal Government looking the other way when it comes to Mexican's breaking the law. So much for the equal protection clause.

[CottonBall]

How about ad hominem, newbie?

newbie? Did you say newbie? Oh, I'm so ashamed!!! How could you find out about my lowly status here on an anonymous forum and use it against me so quickly? How will I ever have the courage to drag myself to my keyboard again, after all the humiliation I have suffered? I'll have to go back to my sad, empty life interacting with people in person again, getting to really know them and having real, meaningful relationships. I don't think I can bear it!

[go-dubya-04]

It sounds like you wouldn't know a conservative if you tripped over one. Interesting how hard-core you are when going after guys trying to protect our country and borders but seem to not care about illegal immigrant drug dealers. So, what part of San Fran do you live in anyway?

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

Now that I didn't know. It's not like TV at all then.

You got your idea of how police work is done from watching TV shows?

That is just plain stupid. TV shows are fiction, and they change the stuff that gets in the way of solving the case by the end of the hour while selling deodorant. They do not show what real police work is, or how it is done.

Must make it exceedingly hard to catch anyone.

1. Nobody said the job would be easy.

2. You can't catch dead people.

3. Criminals get caught.

They shouldn't get off scott free (spelling?), but 5-20 years in prison seems excessive (unless there's much more to the story than is being reported).

It's been reported. The problem is that people don't want to see this as the serious crime it is.

They were convicted of assault with a deadly weapon, using a firearm in commission of a crime, and obstruction of justice. Those are very serious crimes all by themselves. It's even more serious when you realize that these are law enforcement officers, who are sworn to uphold the law. A cop breaking the law is inherently more serious than a non-cop breaking the law.

There's only one reason I can think of for these guys trying to hush up the whole incident to begin with--and it is not a good one.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

Is possession 743 pounds of Oaxacan ditchweed in and of itself worthy of a death sentence?

[CottonBall]

He should be charged and punished. Duh. This thread is about the illegal actions of the Agents and the hypocrites that excuse their felonious acts.

Ok, good. I'm glad you do think the illegal should after have consequences for his actions. But it is very difficult to separate the two and see the BP agents (on our side) jailed, while an known criminal (not on our side) goes free. More than free - is rewarded. The two are connected and I think that's where the problem is - people just forget/don't realize their reasoning behind wanting equal treatment for both sides.

[PRND21]

These two are mere pawns of an out of control Federal Government,

They committed felonies. Knock off the hysterics.

[CottonBall]

You got your idea of how police work is done from watching TV shows? That is just plain stupid

I was actually being sarcastic, but come to think of it, I don't have any other source. Committing crimes doesn't seem to good way to find out first hand and I have an injury which would prevent me from working in law enforcement.

There's only one reason I can think of for these guys trying to hush up the whole incident to begin with--and it is not a good one.

Don't keep us hanging! What is it? (Could there be more to the trial than has been reported in the press?)

[usurper]

One may not engage in hypotheticals without end; they must, ultimately, be anchored in the facts of the case. If you report that the perp has a gun, there'd better be a gun--or something that can reasonably be construed to be a gun--at hand.

Well I can play that game as well.

Since the perp continued to run after the weapons discharge the agents had no reason to believe they had hit the subject and thus no reason to believe that picking up their brass would be destroying a “potential” crime seen.

No gun was recovered because the subject escaped back to Mexico and that’s a fact not in dispute.

As for the shot in the ass, armed encounters are never as simple as they appear on TV. The guy could have been spinning while reaching or pointing.

These agents have collectively apprehended thousands of illegal aliens and unknown numbers of drug smugglers over their careers, most of who ran. They never were involved in any other shooting to effect arrests.

Since there is no reports that the agents have a record of civil rights abuse the rouge cop thing won’t fly and somehow I don’t think the race card will play either given their last names.

So why on this one day would they decide risk everything and shoot a fleeing alien in the back? For fun? I don’t think so.

[go-dubya-04]

rotflol