[steelyourfaith]

W disappoints ... again.

[DCPatriot]

After learning of the shooting, U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton sought out Aldrete-Davila in Mexico and offered him immunity from prosecution if he would return to the United States to testify against Ramos and Compean.

Sutton later defended the decision, arguing that the agents did not have knowledge of any criminal activity involving Aldrete-Davila at the time they shot him

As Paul Harvey would say...."NOW, you know the REST of the story".

[cbkaty]

There will be no (nada) donations to the party until this wrong is righted......

I will work to defeat Sen. Cornyn & Rep McCaul....unless they get involved NOW!

[FourtySeven]

While initially incensed when I first heard this story, I have now come to the conclusion that at least, this is not something we should hold against the President.

The most we can say about this entire affair is that the agents shot at a fleeing man who, at the time, posed no imminent threat, and probably, in the past before this incident, smuggled drugs into this country.

Let's break this down. First of all, the agents shot at an unarmed man fleeing from them. The medical evidence shows he was shot in the back, so he was fleeing from them. And court testimony from the two agents themselves said that he had initially tried to surrender. Whether or not he actually was armed, from my cursory examination of this situation, one cannot immediately determine, (at best for the agents), however it's clear he was shot in the back thus there is no way, even if armed, he could have posed a threat at the time he was shot. IOW, a man running away and NOT firing, poses very little threat, even if armed, it's just simple anatomical fact.

Secondly, by the statement in post #44, we read that the suspect "has not subsequently been arrested for drug smuggling". The meaning of this sentence is two fold: One, that since this incident, it has not been demonstrated that he has smuggled drugs, AND TWO, PROBABLY (although this is not assured, the language does not necessarily imply this) he did smuggle drugs in the past.

Now from this, one may "rationalize" the shooting by saying, "well, the border agents were just doing their jobs, getting another drug dealing punk off the streets". However, as other posters on this thread have pointed out, this is a country of laws. We CONSERVATIVES cannot and DO not simply "pick and choose" which laws to follow; that's what LIBERALS do. "If it's good enough for Sandy Burgler, it's good enough for us too" is a CHILDISH mentality. It will get us no where to be so primal.

We must respect the rule of law, and this means NO vigilante style justice. That means, that even if we say the man smuggled drugs in the past, we cannot say it's "ok" to shoot him at this time, simply because of something he did in the past. As far as the drugs found in the van, again, because of the shoddy way the agents performed their job that day, there is no LEGAL way to tie him to the contents of the van. No drugs were found on him PERSONALLY, as Tony Snow pointed out in his press briefing today.

Now, at this point, some on this thread seem to think it's perfectly rational to suppose that the "facts" presented in Post #44 are actually bureaucratic doublespeak, or "evidence of a coverup", or "evidence of how much this administration really doesn't want to do anything about the border". That is an independent assertion of conspiracy. What one MUST understand that to make such a statement of fact, one must provide INDEPENDENT evidence. The Frontpage Mag article in post #98 is not such independent evidence, because the very points in the FrontPage Mag article are addressed in post #44! One must provide evidence that refutes the refutation in #44 to further the charge of conspiracy. IOW, #44 already addresses the claims that radio talk show hosts, FrontPage Mag, and other sources are making. From THERE we must move FORWARD with MORE evidence if we are to make incredible charges like "conspiracy" and "coverup".

Since no such evidence exists, at least not on this thread that I see, then I must conclude that at the least, there is no such grand conspiracy, and take the statement in #44 at face value. Therefore, IMO, when people on the radio or on this Forum are saying things like, "Bush is failing us" or "Bush doesn't care about border agents doing their jobs" or "Bush is just covering this up to further his amnesty agenda", actually does a disservice to people like myself who DO dislike Bush's "guest worker" program, and DO think Bush doesn't do enough about immigration. It does a disservice because it makes our point look like so much conspiracy nut hysteria.

Here's something to consider: We who oppose Bush's plans for immigration can still believe these two men deserve jail time. In fact, given the facts at hand, we SHOULD believe they deserve it, if we really DO, RESPECT THE RULE OF LAW.

[aruanan]

As two U.S. Border Patrol agents surrendered to federal marshals Wednesday afternoon to begin serving more than a decade in jail for shooting an illegal drug smuggler, a federal lawmaker and conservative advocacy group expressed outrage at President Bush for not pardoning the men.

They shot a fleeing suspect after a long chase and many, many bullets fired. Then they covered up what they did by destroying evidence and filing false reports. This is what they went to jail for.

[DieHard the Hunter]

Crikey -- tough call. Seems the "Rule of Law" was broken by both the agents and the drug-smuggling scroat. Me, I'd prefer to see the scroat imprisoned rather than the border guards: the latter serve a useful purpose to Society: the former do not, by any stretch of the imagination.

That said, the law was broken by all...

Eeeny-meeny-miney-moe:
Who to Convict?
I don't know.
They'll both holler:
Let 'em Go.
Eeny-meeny-miney-moe.

Seems to me a good solution moving forward would be to invent and make available a series of good, fool-proof, long-range, non-lethal weapons: particularly to Law Enforcement. Weapons that cause no lasting damage, but at the same time certainly aren't gentle.

Issue them to cops and border guards, take away their service revolvers, and say "go to it, guys! Blaze away! We want to take the Bad Guys ALIVE."

Within this proposed solution is scope for all kinds of creativity and innovation: of the sort that would make Tasers look clumsy and tame.

Such weapons would need to be small, good range of say 100 yards accuracy, and be able to render a fleeing scroat "hors de combat" with one shot.

Ideas?

[Sloth]

Ramos and Compean were charged with assault with a dangerous weapon, assault with serious bodily injury, discharge of a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence, willfully violating Aldrete-Davila's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure and obstruction of justice for intentionally defacing the crime scene, lying about the incident, and failing to report the truth.

Have any other LEOs been criminally charged with violating 4th Amendment rights? Ever? In history?

[jerry639]

Isn't the news of the day always.. BUSH Slammed_______________. and they fill in the blank for whatever a reporter wants to slam him with on that particular day?

[television is just wrong]

as well he should be. our govt went into Mexico found this shot jerk, and gave him and other criminals immunity to testify against our own border patrol.

Bush is, well, I can't say I will get banned.

[VOA]

Dubya's question: "Who will guard the guardians (the border guards)?"

Of course he asks this because he doesn't give a fig about guarding the
borders of the USA.