Border Patrol Agents Sentenced

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Click to expand...

Once again, show me where I said these guys should not be charged with anything. You guys keep expounding on arguments that I'm not making. My personal feelings have nothing to do with the sentence carried out.

If these guys shot a drug dealer I'd buy them a beer. That statement says nothing about the possible legal ramifications involved. Its my own personal statement from my own moral viewpoint. Thats it.
 
If these guys shot a drug dealer I'd buy them a beer. That statement says nothing about the possible legal ramifications involved. Its my own personal statement from my own moral viewpoint. Thats it.
Click to expand...
Including your local bartender or liquor store owner?

You'd buy a beer for a man that shoots someone without provocation? Yeah, very moral there, buddy. Glad to know you own a gun.
 
Rich,
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.
Click to expand...
I have mixed feelings on mandatory minimums. I have personally seen what an activist judge is capable of doing, when a person is undeniably guilty (even pleads guilty) of a crime. The fact of the matter is that mandatory minimum sentences do force judges to actually punish people that are guilty of a crime. Of course the down side is that an innocent man is probably sentenced to more time than he should be. Of course, my take on that would be that the miscarriage of justice isn’t the length of sentence, but the guilty verdict (open to debate, I admit).
 
The fact of the matter is that mandatory minimum sentences do force judges to actually punish people that are guilty of a crime. Of course the down side is that an innocent man is probably sentenced to more time than he should be.
Click to expand...
Persactly my point!

Mandatory Mins have given us the highest rate of incarceration of any nation on earth. Do you believe they've made you quantifiably more safe? Do you believe they threaten your freedoms, given the very possible occurrence that you might someday make a "judgment error" just like these cops?

We just don't get to have it both ways, unless we wish to return to the Jim Crow days as Markeo so aptly pointed out.

Rich
 
If these guys shot a drug dealer I'd buy them a beer.
Click to expand...
Is it moral for me to provide a reward for shooting someone who provides a reward (like beer) for shooting drug dealers?
 
Is it moral for me to provide a reward for shooting someone who provides a reward (like beer) for shooting drug dealers?
Click to expand...

There's an old saying and it says smile when you call me a son of a bitch.

I didn't see you smiling.
 
He NEVER smiles.
But his point was starkly well taken, if not taken personally.
Take it as existential. That's tyme.
If it helps, I'll smile for him. :D
Rich
 
Fair enough, though none of my comments were directed personally at anyone. I think its really poor form for someone, especially a moderator, to make such comments.
 
I personally have a lot more problems with this than I ever did over the Terri what's her name thing in Fla.
Where's the public outcry? Where are the demands that our legislatures do something about this travesty of justice. She was already pretty much done. This is the end of these 2 gentlemen's lives as they know it.
I suggest somebuddy that writes well start an email campaign. Write a letter including letters to the Pres and our legislators. Send it to evrybody you know & have them send the letters & froward it on to all of their addresses. Not that I'm big on chain letters but I think something should be done to heighten awareness.
 
I don't. It's called ramming an argument, ummmm, home
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I'll throw my lot in with the guys that wear the badge and he can stick with his friends and their crack pipes, the productive members of society that they are.
 
This is the end of these 2 gentlemen's lives as they know it.
Click to expand...
Maybe they shouldn't have broken their oath and tried to cover up an unlawful shooting? Had they actually been "gentlemen" and owned up to what they did instead of hiding it like cowards then maybe they'd deserve some sympathy.

The sentence I may not agree with but from the information we have the verdict seems just.
 
Fair enough. I'll throw my lot in with the guys that wear the badge and he can stick with his friends and their crack pipes, the productive members of society that they are.
Click to expand...
Not everyone that wears a badge is a good person; some of them are far scummier than the crack dealers you hate so much.

And if you think this is a cop vs druggie argument then you have obviously missed the point.

119101EKMJ_w.jpg
 
Maybe they shouldn't have broken their oath and tried to cover up an unlawful shooting? Had they actually been "gentlemen" and owned up to what they did instead of hiding it like cowards then maybe they'd deserve some sympathy.

I don't view their actions quite as harshly. I'm guessing that they obviously didn't think anything was going to come of the shooting & wanted to avoid a bunch of paperwork. maybe if they were paid a little better and had the support needed to do the job as it should be done this could have all been avoided. By support I'm talking the fence & using troops to gaurd our border.

The sentence I may not agree with but from the information we have the verdict seems just.




Today, 11:10 PM #55
Redworm
Senior Member

Not everyone that wears a badge is a good person; some of them are far scummier than the crack dealers you hate so much.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. While most our officers are stand up guys. There are still undesireables out there in many levels.

And if you think this is a cop vs druggie argument then you have obviously missed the point.
 
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20061022-9999-1m22corrupt.html

More than forty percent of all Department of Homeland Security workers now under suspicion of corruption around the country – 72 out of 172 – are in San Diego and Imperial counties, a top investigator said.
Click to expand...

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=222971

Humm... did not realize it then, but maybe he just wanted me to move along or supplement his pay.
:barf:

“The person could just be inept or lazy,” Wong said.
Click to expand...

Then again never attribute to malice what can be easily explained by stupidity.:rolleyes:
 
Heheh, I just think it's funny that the Mods are arguing and I'm thinking this thread should be locked.....What is it, opposite day?:p

The fact that he was a "suspected druggie" is not the point at all, he WAS a guy that just attacked and injured a federal LEO. I would have fired as well, although I would have told the truth and articulated my reasons(I.E. I needed to render aid to my partner who had been injured by the suspect and I did not feel it was safe for me or my partner to turn my back on the possibly armed suspect while I did so. I used all other means available to me to subdue the subject without using deadly force, but I could not take any other action without endangering the life of my partner and myself.)

At that point, well, it's better to be tried by 12 then carried by 6. And yes, if I knew him and he got through without a conviction I would still buy him a beer and give him a slap on the back for making it through a close call. Since he wound up in prison I would try to help his family if I could, because although it was his own damn fault, he got a bum rap.

And BTW, narcotics are not nearly as protected in the constitution as firearms.
 
The whole problem (and the reason they're looking at jail time) is not that they fired on the guy, but that they tried to cover it up.
 
redworm said:
Not everyone that wears a badge is a good person; some of them are far scummier than the crack dealers you hate so much.

And if you think this is a cop vs druggie argument then you have obviously missed the point.
Click to expand...


stage 2 said:
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...

:rolleyes: Possibly, but I'm clearly not the only one missing things.



The whole problem (and the reason they're looking at jail time) is not that they fired on the guy, but that they tried to cover it up.
Click to expand...


Which is verboten, and not a single person here, at least not that I can see, is condoning this. Even if it was to just avoid paperwork, its bad juju. What I don't have a problem with is the fact that he shot the guy. Suspected dealer or otherwise, we have an illegal alien assaulting a federal officer. That in of itself raises a presumption of good shoot in my mind. Maybe if we started to be a little more proactive, we wouldn't have illegals throwing rocks or taking pot shots at our officers so indiscriminately.

People tend to temper their behavior slightly when their thought process is "if I screw with this guy I might get shot".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top