Border Patrol Agents Sentenced

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

Letter writing campaign to end mandatory minima? Sure thing, I'm in.

Letter writing campaign to make these two guys an exception? Forget it.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Avoiding paperwork is not a valid excuse, in my opinion. They're given authority and tasked with protecting the people and thus I sure as hell believe they should be held to a higher standard. Covering up evidence should at the very least grounds for immediate dismissal.

As for having the support of a fence and our military being used to guard the border, I'm all for it. I would have some other ideas that have to go along with that first that some here would not agree with but I'd have no problem having our border actively guarded from criminals (though I still laugh at the idea that people think terrorists are coming in from mexico).
Possibly, but I'm clearly not the only one missing things.
Click to expand...
Then why oh why did you callously state that you'd buy a beer for a man who randomly shoots a suspected druggie in the back? Why did you turn it into "I'll side with the cops and tyme can side with his crack smoking buddies"?

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".
Click to expand...
If their lives were in immediate danger, sure. If not then they were not justified.
 
Then why oh why did you callously state that you'd buy a beer for a man who randomly shoots a suspected druggie in the back? Why did you turn it into "I'll side with the cops and tyme can side with his crack smoking buddies"?
Click to expand...

Because I've see first hand what narcotics do to people, families, neighborhoods and communities. Whether or not it is legal, everytime a dealer is put in the ground its a win for the good guys. I'm not advocating that people do this because I believe in the rule of law and due process. That said everytime I hear of one of these guys getting shot/killed, I dance a little jig in my mind, and my day gets a little better.
 
Because I've see first hand what narcotics do to people, families, neighborhoods and communities. Whether or not it is legal, everytime a dealer is put in the ground its a win for the good guys. I'm not advocating that people do this because I believe in the rule of law and due process. That said everytime I hear of one of these guys getting shot/killed, I dance a little jig in my mind, and my day gets a little better.
Click to expand...
Then I assume you'd dance the same jig if your local bartender or liquor store owner got shot, right? Oh wait, you'd buy the guy a beer....making you just like the narcotic dealers.


Hypocrisy.png
 
If you can't see the difference between crack and Killians then you have much larger problems than just your inability to present a coherent argument.
 
If you can't see the difference between crack and Killians then you have much larger problems than just your inability to present a coherent argument.
Click to expand...
Oh I can see the difference but can you see the similarity and inherent hypocrisy?
 
Alcoholism is an illness and alcohol is a drug. That said, alcohol is LEGAL crack is not. During prohibition you would have an arguement, as it stands, you don't.
 
If you can't see the difference between crack and Killians then you have much larger problems than just your inability to present a coherent argument.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't mind hearing exactly what the difference is, so long as it's not put in terms of which is legal but is put in terms of the difference between how lives are destroyed by the two.

Be prepared to treat them equally. Both manufactured under quality control. Both used by people who know how much they're getting.
 
The legal difference is what is important in this way off track argument, you cannot be arrested for possesion of Killians, its not a felony or something you would be likely to kill a cop over. And that's the main point, the guy seriously injured a law enforement officer legally doing his job, not what the criminal did for a living.
 
Maybe they shouldn't have broken their oath and tried to cover up an unlawful shooting?
Click to expand...
From the different links posted, it is not at all clear that the shooting was unlawful.
His story was the guy had something that looked like a gun. The smuggler's story was that he didn't have a gun. Since the smuggler escaped, if he had a gun, it could be anywhere in Mexico by now. If the smuggler had a gun, then the shooting was lawful, there was no civil rights violation, there was no discharging of a firearm in the commission of a crime, and there is no mandatory minimum sentencing. The whole case hinges on the smuggler being unarmed, and we are just taking his word for that. Why aren't we taking the word of the officer who says he did have a gun?
 
I can't fathom how shooting a man in the back can be lawful. :confused: Did I misread something or was this guy not shot while fleeing the scene?
 
I can't fathom how shooting a man in the back can be lawful.  Did I misread something or was this guy not shot while fleeing the scene?
Click to expand...
The smuggler was shot in the buttocks (back side), but according to the agents he was turning around with something in his hand that they believed was a gun. Try it yourself. Have somebody stand in front of you then have them turn at the waist and point their hand at you as if they had a gun. Their butt will still be towards you and perfectly capable of receiving a bullet, while their hand is capable of delivering a bullet.
 
I can't fathom how shooting a man in the back can be lawful. Did I misread something or was this guy not shot while fleeing the scene?
Click to expand...

Sammy Weaver(age 14) was shot in the back by US Marshall William Degan at Ruby Ridge. Degan was awarded a medal for "valor."
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0696d.asp


Send to a friend

Kill a Boy, Get a Medal
by James Bovard, June 1996
On March 1, 1996, the U.S. Marshals Service gave its highest award for valor to five U.S. marshals involved in the 1992 Ruby Ridge, Idaho, shoot-out, including the marshal who shot a 14-year-old boy in the back and killed him, and another marshal who started a firefight by shooting the boy's dog without provocation. The valor award announcement symbolizes federal law enforcement's contempt for court verdicts, the Congress, and the American people.

The marshals received the award, according to U.S. Marshals Service Director Eduardo Gonzalez, for "their exceptional courage, their sound judgment in the face of attack, and their high degree of professional competence during this incident." Gonzalez declared: "When gunfire broke out on Ruby Ridge on that summer day, every member of the team came under fire at some point." Gonzalez labeled the men "heroes."
 
The smuggler was shot in the buttocks (back side), but according to the agents he was turning around with something in his hand that they believed was a gun. Try it yourself. Have somebody stand in front of you then have them turn at the waist and point their hand at you as if they had a gun. Their butt will still be towards you and perfectly capable of receiving a bullet, while their hand is capable of delivering a bullet.
Click to expand...
ah, gotcha
 
If the smuggler had a gun, then the shooting was lawful, there was no civil rights violation, there was no discharging of a firearm in the commission of a crime, and there is no mandatory minimum sentencing. The whole case hinges on the smuggler being unarmed, and we are just taking his word for that. Why aren't we taking the word of the officer who says he did have a gun?
Click to expand...

Because he lost his integrity when he lied and tried to cover up what really happened, even if what really happened was legit. A judge cannot take the word of a liar, cop or not.
 
I think the shooting was justified.
That leaves their inappropriate behavior after the shooting to be dealt with.
Would that in and of itself invite a 10 year sentance?
 
A judge cannot take the word of a liar, cop or not.
Click to expand...
This would be a better retort if the judge wasn't taking the word of a smuggler. Even if the officer was lying about the cover-up, that isn't enough to convict him of all the other crimes, and it doesn't warrant 10 years in jail.
Are you going to tell me that if you have a liar giving a self serving story, and a smuggler giving a contradictory self serving story you can determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, which one is true?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top