Border Patrol Agents Sentenced

Status
Not open for further replies.
The intent of the law and the letter of the law seem to be at odds.
Click to expand...

This case is a shining example of that statement. It is obvious that the judge did all she could do in sentencing the officers to reduce their punishments. However, this case does hit a little close to home with me. One of the first officers I worked with (as a reserve) got himself involved in a similar situation. He faked evidence, falsified reports and blatently lied to the Chief. The situation was not as dire as the one here, but the underlying facts are the same. The laws and standards of conduct were broken, and the punishments handed down were within the law. I feel for the officers who were sentenced to a decade in prison, but they were the ones who ultimately made the decision to be dishonest, and honest may well be the most important quality for a LEO. Is 10+ years excessive? Yes. Did they know the consequences before they lied? Yes.
Justice was not served here.
Click to expand...
However, it is cases like this that keep the Criminal Justice system in a constant state of evolution.
 
I think sometimes we like to retry cases based on sound bytes from the Media, forgetting completely that a jury of people just like you and I heard LOTS more information before coming to their verdict.
Click to expand...
Probably not just like you or I, as we would, in all likelihood, be challenged. Still, an excellent point.
I note your subsequent post of Congressman Rohrabacher's comments is not too different from my position.
 
VUPDblue-
Where on earth have you been? We need more LEO's like you in L&P.

This sentence is a travesty, in light of the "crime". But the Judge made it clear that her hands were tied. It would not be so, if the Law hadn't directed the travesty. So, we have choices, here:
- Twist the Law to change the Instant Travesty
- Change the Law to avoid future travesties, knowing that would allow some hardened criminals to get off easy with the right Judge.

To me, the operative question is this:
"What's the prime purpose of the Law: to guarantee protection of Good Men or guarantee punishment of Bad Ones"?

We don't get to have it both ways.
Rich
 
It is true, Rich, that we don't indeed get to have it both ways. But laws can be ammended to address just such situations. Sometimes by simply defining which crimes, or classes of crimes, carry such a mandatory sentence. I don't have the right answer here, as I only know as much as I learned OTJ and in Criminal Law I, II, II and IV at ISU. But I do know that high profile cases, or several lower-profile cases can manage to have laws changed. Miranda comes to mind here. We can argue ad nauseum about the unjustness of the sentencing of these officers, but two important facts will always speak for themselves; Federal LEO's knew they broke policy (or the law itself). Then they tried to cover it up, knowing (or should have known) full well the repercussions of their actions. I am sorry that the law is what it is here, and I would change it if I could. They deserve some punishment, but perhaps the law that applies to them was not aimed at them. There are no mind-readers, and sometimes it takes a case like this to keep the CJS evolving...
 
I am sorry that the law is what it is here, and I would change it if I could. They deserve some punishment, but perhaps the law that applies to them was not aimed at them.
Click to expand...
Amen. Not aimed at many of Us who bear its weight. We call that a Rally Point. ;)
Rich
 
I’m not gonna pretend I know exactly what happened that night. I will say that there are red flags that go up on both sides of the story. First the drug smugglers story is suspect; he is after all an admitted felon, albeit not a convicted one. On the other hand, the BPA’s did try to cover up what happened (to an extent, note that others were possibly aware of the situation). I’ve read all the press releases and news stories about this that I have been able to, on both side, and I’ll flat out tell you that I can’t decide for sure.

Rich,

http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_4141562


Take a look at the above linked article and come back and tell me this is as clear cut as you think.
Now, I will freely admit that this article is clearly biased towards the agent. And the agent is stating his side without the encumbrance of sworn testimony or cross examination, but the details he claims of that night certainly paint a different explanation of what happened. Lets face it, we have two basic versions, that of an admitted drug smuggler and that of a LEO that tried to cover it up (kinda-sorta). Who you gonna believe?
 
they were the ones who ultimately made the decision to be dishonest, and honest may well be the most important quality for a LEO. Is 10+ years excessive? Yes. Did they know the consequences before they lied? Yes.
Click to expand...

I agree, dishonesty in a law enforcement officer is absolutely unacceptable and dishonesty should be punished. And punished severely when the situation calls for it.

However, were these agents dishonest? According to them, they made more than one supervisor aware of what happened. Border Patrol policy states that the only “reporting” an agent does after a shooting is to notify a supervisor. All the paperwork and the like is done by others. Sure they picked up the brass and that is certainly not acting in accordance with BP policy, but then if the appropriate agencies decline to investigate it isn’t really a potential crime scene anymore is it? If that were the case (not saying it is), cleaning up their brass wouldn't have been dishonest.

Let me give you an example of a Border Patrol shooting, one in which I personally know the involved parties. An agent was out in the brush, and long story short came face to face (or rather face to leg) with a rattlesnake and had no place to move out of its way. He shot the snake, notified his supervisor. His supe told him to mark the brass locations as it was getting dark, and wait for him to get there. The supe contacted the appropriate agencies, who all declined to investigate. He headed out to the agent, saw that the scene went along with what was reported and that was essentially the end of it. I don’t know for sure if the brass was then picked up, but would it have mattered if they had? I’m not saying that the same thing happened in this situation, I’m just saying that I can easily construct a scenario that fits the verified facts of this situation that is 100% legitimate.
 
A man in your position owes us greater intellectual honesty than that, Stage2. I think you're ultimately capable of nothing less.
Click to expand...

If intellectual honesty is what you desire, then a drug smuggler who peddles death shares nothing in common to someone who owns a machine gun.

Like I said, these guys shouldn't have covered it up. Aside from that, I'm not bothered with anything else that went down.

There are certian classes of people/criminal that I have no remorse for. I don't advocate people breaking the law or assaulting others. That said, if some dealer gets beat/shot or otherwise, I'm not going to feel the least bit sorry.
 
ahenry said:
Take a look at the above linked article and come back and tell me this is as clear cut as you think.
Click to expand...
Ahenry-
Great links, thanks. Read my post carefully, though. You'll find that I describe the case as "clear cut" only in relation to the absurd laws on the books. These Agents have just been caught in the injustice of Mandatory Minimums, just like ten of thousands of other citizens. I do not believe that appeals to Prosecutors to give them special treatment is a solution to the problem. Fixing the laws IS.

Stage2-
I'm sorry, your response does not meet the criteria for intellectual honesty. Marko and I compared, suspected drug dealers, to suspected machine gun owners. You've changed that to compare known drug dealers, to suspected machine gun owners to make your point.

So, let's try this a different way:
Would you have any problem with the cops gunning a CA resident who was found in possession of a "banned" firearm. If so, then we'll agree to disagree; if not, you make an argument, not for parity in Law, but for selective enforcement by Prosecutors.
Rich
 
Would you have any problem with the cops gunning a CA resident who was found in possession of a "banned" firearm. If so, then we'll agree to disagree; if not, you make an argument, not for parity in Law, but for selective enforcement by Prosecutors.
Click to expand...


Rich, here's my problem. What we have here is a guy who was an illegal alien, resisting arrest, assaulted an officer, was presumed to be armed and dangerous. Your machine gun owner example is quite different in that you just have a guy violating a statute.

As for selective prosecution, DA's do it all the time, and I don't blame them. Sometimes is because they cant win a case, or they are swamped, or political reasons. Thats part of the reason why the love to state that they have never lost a case. Very easy to do when you only take the ones you can win.

The argument I'm making isn't a legal one its a moral one. I have a personal hatred for people involved in the drug trade. On a more general level, it bothers me that we have so many arbitrary constraints on our officers and expect them to do their job to perfection when criminals have no barriers at all. Were I the judge in this case, my little speech would sound something like, "Even though the end result of your actions was a good thing, they violated the law..."

Its just me.
 
If your argument is a moral one, then it's flawed. What you're arguing is actually relative morality: sometimes it's OK to shoot unarmed suspects in the back and cover it up, and sometimes it isn't, depending on the general public sentiment towards the suspected felony involved.

The personal hatred you feel towards drug dealers? Guess what, there are plenty of people in this country who feel exactly the same way about "merchants of death", gun runners, assault weapon owners, and people who carry guns in public.

Emotion never makes for a good yardstick when it comes to impartial and consistent enforcement of laws. And in order for a law to be just and moral, it *has* to be enforced impartially regardless of the suspect's ethnicity, immigration status, skin color, or what-have-you. Otherwise we're not a nation of laws, but a nation of institutionalized majority enforcement of whims under color of law.

The litmus test here is whether you could support the actions of the officers even if your grandma was the suspect in question. If your answer changes when you substitute "grandma" for "illegal alien" in the police report, then you are not in favor of impartial laws.

I am aware that laws are selectively enforced all the time, but that doesn't make the practice just. The point of many laws has always been selective enforcement for the purpose of social control. For example, in the South, proscriptions against concealed carry were very rarely ever enforced against whites in the civil rights days, because they were put on the books with the intention of disarming only a specific segment of society.
 
In my view it is a "absolute travesty of justice" it is increasingly difficult for average Joe to receive justice in this country but a Border Patrol agent has less change on the border. Mexican agents families will not speak with them in some cases and unless you live and work on the border it is very hard to understand, corruption is rampant, the drug cartels have a long reach, more like Mexico then America.

A second point is there is no way to compare a border agents job to that of a street cop basically the agents work in a war zone mostly due to our Governments appeasement sop with Mexico.

A few days off or loss of job would have been correct in this case but sending these agents to jail is an absolute waste.
 
but that she could not reduce the 10-year mandatory, consecutive sentence mandated by federal law when a gun is discharged in the commission of a crime.
Click to expand...

See!? The MAIN malfunction here is the inflexibility of the mandatory-sentencing laws, which are anti-gun! She would liked to have used her *discretion* as a judge and reduced the sentences further, but could not - her hands were tied. Another bad law brought to you by the Republican Party.

Marko, excellent post - bravo!
 
First of all lighten up.

If your argument is a moral one, then it's flawed. What you're arguing is actually relative morality: sometimes it's OK to shoot unarmed suspects in the back and cover it up, and sometimes it isn't, depending on the general public sentiment towards the suspected felony involved.
Click to expand...

You're mischaracterizing what I said. Nowhere did I condone covering up anything. In fact, I didn't condone the shooting either. What I did say was that these guys should be given the benefit of the doubt, and that even if what they did was wrong, I still feel no remorse for an alien drug dealer, suspected or otherwise. In my not so humble opinion, I feel that American lives hold a higher value that others.



The personal hatred you feel towards drug dealers? Guess what, there are plenty of people in this country who feel exactly the same way about "merchants of death", gun runners, assault weapon owners, and people who carry guns in public.
Click to expand...

Both you and I know that there the two are not comparable. Carrying a firearm is not illegal. Owning a firearm is not illegal. Not only are narcotics illegal, you aren't going to be able to point to a single person on this planet who can say, " I started smoking crack and it changed my life for the better". This, however isn't a discussion on the wisdom of drug laws, its about shooting some guy who has been beating up on your partner and who might have a gun.


The litmus test here is whether you could support the actions of the officers even if your grandma was the suspect in question. If your answer changes when you substitute "grandma" for "illegal alien" in the police report, then you are not in favor of impartial laws.
Click to expand...

I don't need a litmus test for anything. If something is illegal then punishment is deserved. What the punishment might be is another matter. For example, some cops beat a confession out of a known criminal. Should they have done it, no. Should they be punished, yes. Am I going to feel sorry for the crook, no.
 
Both you and I know that there the two are not comparable. Carrying a firearm is not illegal.
Click to expand...
It is in my state. Is carrying a gun only immoral in Illinois?

Owning a firearm is not illegal.
Click to expand...
It is for certain firearms. Are some guns moral while other guns immoral? The law does not define morality.

Not only are narcotics illegal, you aren't going to be able to point to a single person on this planet who can say, " I started smoking crack and it changed my life for the better".
Click to expand...
You might not but I'm sure the music industry would be a shadow of what it is today without drugs. I guarantee you that most of your favorite musicians did their best work while intoxicated on some illegal drug. Even Beethoven and Mozart were known drug users.



This, however isn't a discussion on the wisdom of drug laws, its about shooting some guy who has been beating up on your partner and who might have a gun.
Click to expand...
You choose not to see the parallels.
 
This, however isn't a discussion on the wisdom of drug laws, its about shooting some guy who has been beating up on your partner and who might have a gun.
Click to expand...
No it's not. Nor should it be a discussion of the "wisdom" of having a double standard for applying the law. It should be about having fair laws.

Mandatory Minimums brought you this case. Your solution is to leave them in place, except for cops who violate the law against people you dislike. Hardly moral, sensible or fair. Attack the problem; don't bend the solution on a whimsical case by case basis.
Rich
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top