Help the Border Patrol agents imprisoned
- Thread starter BlindFaith
- Start date
Osborn F. Enready
Moderator
Hey, I fully support law that protects and upholds rights.
I don't support the littany of laws that are existing on the books today, that don't, and actually allow all flavors of government and law enforcement to disregard rights of the people they are employed to protect.
Its clear that both partisan majorities have put rights as enemies to the state.
I don't support the littany of laws that are existing on the books today, that don't, and actually allow all flavors of government and law enforcement to disregard rights of the people they are employed to protect.
Its clear that both partisan majorities have put rights as enemies to the state.
The "facts" response to the Federal Prosecutor's myth/reality list is incorrect in several areas of law. For example, the description of an illegal's rights is incorrect:
Any time that an officer makes an arrest, he must have Probable Cause. While Reasonable Suspicion allows for investigative detentions, the US Constitution Bill Of Rights, which has little things in it like the Second Amendment, requires that P.C. be present to arrest anyone:
You see two guys on a street corner in gangster attire exchange somthing small, and walk away from each other. Most would reasonably be led to believe that this was a drug transaction. While an officer would thus have reasonable suspicion to detain them for an inivestigative stop, he would NOT have enough to arrest them, based on that suspicion.
I don't see an exception to the Constitution being applied to aliens, legal or otherwise.
Any time that an officer makes an arrest, he must have Probable Cause. While Reasonable Suspicion allows for investigative detentions, the US Constitution Bill Of Rights, which has little things in it like the Second Amendment, requires that P.C. be present to arrest anyone:
On view arrests (seizure of a person) are allowed so long as there is probable cause, and the defendant is brought to a magistrate as soon as is reasonably possible.
You see two guys on a street corner in gangster attire exchange somthing small, and walk away from each other. Most would reasonably be led to believe that this was a drug transaction. While an officer would thus have reasonable suspicion to detain them for an inivestigative stop, he would NOT have enough to arrest them, based on that suspicion.
I don't see an exception to the Constitution being applied to aliens, legal or otherwise.
Attachments
"Before that, the entire affair was considered within the bounds of an acceptable shooting, and forgotten about"
It was not reported and there was no investigation...how can it be deemed acceptable
There was a decision by some to not follow procedure...that is all
My problem with the whole thing...once I looked into it and got passed the propaganda...was that they shot someone before they had any proof he was an illegal or a criminal
And then they covered it up...Compean himself tesitified that he knew it was wrong not to report it. He admits that other agents that fired their weapons on other occaisons were all cleared
What all of this makes me wonder is how many other cases might not have been reported
And how many of them might have been even less "acceptable"
It was not reported and there was no investigation...how can it be deemed acceptable
There was a decision by some to not follow procedure...that is all
My problem with the whole thing...once I looked into it and got passed the propaganda...was that they shot someone before they had any proof he was an illegal or a criminal
And then they covered it up...Compean himself tesitified that he knew it was wrong not to report it. He admits that other agents that fired their weapons on other occaisons were all cleared
What all of this makes me wonder is how many other cases might not have been reported
And how many of them might have been even less "acceptable"
Where do you get this from? BP regs clearly state that an ORAL report to a supervisor is what is required after a shooting. The agents testified that they did this. The agents that contradicted this have been shown to have lied about it. The friggin supervisors were there on the scene. How in the world can you say it wasn't reported? These two agents did their job. Once the supervisors were notified it was out of their hands.
Someone doesn't need to be a criminal or illegal to make a shoot justifiable. All you need is a credible threat of deadly force. That what this whole case is about.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
That's why it was tried in a Court of Law, not on the internet.
That's why it should be decided by Appeal (already in process), not by Pardon.
I know of nobody on this site that has access to all the facts. But I can point to 12 who did, complete with counterbalancing attorneys' ability to challenge procedure, facts and stories. That jury unanimously found these two agents guilty. Now we have Jury Remorse. Fine. Let's push for Appeal. I'm on board with that. (Oops, no need; the Feds granted that without our help.)
As far as I'm concerned, these guys are getting a very square deal, assuming they got a raw deal at Trial. After all, if they were a couple of Ranchers, we'd be pumpin' sunshine into 'em (in General Population) and there isn't anyone on this site who would raise a finger in protest.
Rich
Not really, since we now know that several of the agents lied in their testimony.
I know its crass or inhumane or whatever, but I would have zero problems with a rancher shooting a drug dealer on his property, and I would hope that others would voice equal concerns. Its beyond the scope of this conversation, but regular illegal immigrants bring disease, crime, and TONS of waste (both humans and actual trash) to areas where they cross. They steal property and kill livestock for food. The number of home invasions has increased exponentionally over the past several years. The fact that it is a drug dealer makes the situation far worse. So no, I wouldn't blame him one bit.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
And there you have it, Stage. The Dirty Little Secret.
You're not outraged because COPS were prosecuted for shooting someone. You're outraged that ANYONE could possibly be prosecuted for shooting someone who LATER turned out to be an [accused] drug dealer. I'm glad that's out in the open.
Well guess what? Today's Enemy of the State is drug dealers. Tomorrow's may well be those filthy, insecure gun nuts, spreading violence and hatred, spewing lead into the environment, increasing our medical costs and endangering our children. They don't even deserve a trial. May the State (or anyone else) just kill 'em on sight and we can get America back on track. Yesiree.
You reap what you sow, Stage.
Rich
You're not outraged because COPS were prosecuted for shooting someone. You're outraged that ANYONE could possibly be prosecuted for shooting someone who LATER turned out to be an [accused] drug dealer. I'm glad that's out in the open.
Well guess what? Today's Enemy of the State is drug dealers. Tomorrow's may well be those filthy, insecure gun nuts, spreading violence and hatred, spewing lead into the environment, increasing our medical costs and endangering our children. They don't even deserve a trial. May the State (or anyone else) just kill 'em on sight and we can get America back on track. Yesiree.
You reap what you sow, Stage.
Rich
Actually, according to the AP article when the a BP agent discharges their weapon there is supposed to be an investigation by the FBI
But since those agents on the scene decided that this little altercation was"no big deal" there was no formal report and no investigation
So unlike all the other incidents that were reported, investigated, and the agents cleared, these guys bet their jobs (and their freedom) on nobody finding out.
And they lost
"Not really, since we now know that several of the agents lied in their testimony"
The AP article also pointed out discrepencies between what was in Compeans written statement and his testimony....so evidently there was plenty of lying going on.
Like I have said from the start...other peoples guilt does not equal innocence for these agents. That is a convenient smoke screen.
There is no fairness requirement that states the Gov needs to prosecute everybody or nobody
oops....some new posts......
And now that Stage2 has (finally) admitted his real position we can change the entire discussion
It is no longer about whether these two guys broke the law and are paying for it...it is about whether the border should be a free fire zone
Shoot anyone you want...no paperwork
Hopefully no innocent civillians from either country will get caught in the crossfire..if they do...well...better bury them deeper than the bad guys
If it works, we should use the same plan here in the US....after all it is only bad guys that will get shot....you can always tell the bad guys ...they wear the black hats
Don't like the law...then work to change the law...but don't selectively enforce it.
But since those agents on the scene decided that this little altercation was"no big deal" there was no formal report and no investigation
So unlike all the other incidents that were reported, investigated, and the agents cleared, these guys bet their jobs (and their freedom) on nobody finding out.
And they lost
"Not really, since we now know that several of the agents lied in their testimony"
The AP article also pointed out discrepencies between what was in Compeans written statement and his testimony....so evidently there was plenty of lying going on.
Like I have said from the start...other peoples guilt does not equal innocence for these agents. That is a convenient smoke screen.
There is no fairness requirement that states the Gov needs to prosecute everybody or nobody
oops....some new posts......
And now that Stage2 has (finally) admitted his real position we can change the entire discussion
It is no longer about whether these two guys broke the law and are paying for it...it is about whether the border should be a free fire zone
Shoot anyone you want...no paperwork
Hopefully no innocent civillians from either country will get caught in the crossfire..if they do...well...better bury them deeper than the bad guys
If it works, we should use the same plan here in the US....after all it is only bad guys that will get shot....you can always tell the bad guys ...they wear the black hats
Don't like the law...then work to change the law...but don't selectively enforce it.
Far from it Rich. I don't advocate that everyone start shooting at anyone who looks hispanic. I don't even advocate that people start shooting people that they think are drug dealers.
What I am suggesting is that we get a little perspective. Things aren't as gray as some would like us to believe. There are good buys and bad guys. People running drugs from mexico are always the bad guys. Even in todays uptight latte society, people should still have the right to protect their property. Officers should still be given the benefit of the doubt over the words of known criminals.
You can't on one hand hold people to the strictest letter of the law, but then fail to uphold the same law on your end. Thats not the way the system works.
Wildalaska
Moderator
How do WE know that?
WildfalsusinunofalsusinomnibusAlaska
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Persactly the point, Stage. The Founders knew this well. But their greatest fear was that YOU would have to live under MY Gray Rules. Thus they made Black and Rhite rules and damned few of them; simple Rules that were intended to err on the side of the guilty, that the innocent not be tomorrow's victims of MY Gray World. It's YOU who are arguing for shades of gray here.
You don't like drug dealers? I've no use for 'em either, but I wouldn't condone summary execution. Ahhh, but crooked politicians, judges who make law as they go, slovenly people, lazy people, stupid people, bed wetters...these are the objects of my mortal distrust and disdain.
Here's how it works in a Gray World:
A couple hundred thousand of us support your cause and you and a couple hundred thousand support mine. .gov will be only to happy to accommodate us; all we need to do is get enough media attention to prove there's a problem. In the end I won't end up living in your Gray World nor you in mine. In the end, we both live in a bureaucracy's Gray World. All because we asked for it.
That's why the law is Black and White up until the sentencing phase (oops, Mandatory Mins changed that, didn't they?). That's why we live by the oft overlooked tenet of the Rule of Law. The Law either applies to all of us or none of us because, quite frankly, nobody gives a rat's butt who you or I think should get a pass, or why. You are either guilty or you're innocent; you can't be "kinda" guilty but "not really guilty". All of which is, of course, as it should be.
Rich
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Who is the law NOT getting applied to?
There was no case against the "smuggler". The Agents actions destroyed any possibility of a conviction there.
This is silly.
Rich
There was no case against the "smuggler". The Agents actions destroyed any possibility of a conviction there.
This is silly.
Rich
Yes, and when or if we were to know the whole truth that would be different. I don't think we are getting that completely from either side. Which is not a new thing fur durn sure.
Like so many high profile cases we the public will never know the truth.
It's like a divorce, there is her side, his side, and the truth. If each side wanted to be completely truthful it would still be two stories as everyone sees things thru different eyes, and we know for a fact lies were told in this one from day one.
On a large scale, ilegal aliens. With this immediate case, the perp. Ignoring everything that went on here, this specific guy was indicted in 2005 for bringing in 1000lbs of pot. Was he convicted. Nope. Has he come in and out of the country several times since then. Yup. If the law was equally applied to everyone, this guy would have never had the ability to be in this situation since he should have been in jail.