Originally posted by no1marauderI think we've had this conversation several times...I still hold that if an officer of the law says 'stop', you are obliged to stop; or he may, at his discretion, shoot you to stop you from fleeing. He should aim not to kill you -- which it sounds like they did.
Their sentences were commuted; they weren't pardoned. Nor should they have been:
They were convicted of shooting admitted drug smuggler Osvaldo Aldrete Davila in the buttocks as he fled across the Rio Grande, away from an abandoned van load of marijuana. The border agents argued during their trials that they believed the smuggler was ...[text shortened]... n on anyone near the border has not been declared contrary to what some right wingers believe.
Otherwise, we would have to staff the police force entirely with ex-track-and-field athletes.
I'm not drawing a distinction between border guard and police.
I suppose the alleged drug smuggler might not have understood English or heard properly or had a handicap like partial deafness or maybe the wind was blowing or ... well, you know what? There are certain hazards that ought to be accepted as part of the smuggling lifestyle!
Originally posted by spruce112358My understanding is that the issue here is perjury, tampering with evidence and perverting the course of justice. Without those crimes, this case would never have come to our attention and the two guys would have ahd no more than a couple of days paid leave before resuming. Have I misunderstood this case?
I still hold that if an officer of the law says 'stop', you are obliged to stop; or he may, at his discretion, shoot you to stop you from fleeing.
Originally posted by FMFI was responding more to no1m's sentiment than the facts of the case. Yes, you could be right.
My understanding is that the issue here is perjury, tampering with evidence and perverting the course of justice. Without those crimes, this case would never have come to our attention and the two guys would have ahd no more than a couple of days paid leave before resuming. Have I misunderstood this case?
1 edit
Originally posted by spruce112358We have and you remain ignorant of basic legal principles no matter how many times I instruct you.
I think we've had this conversation several times...I still hold that if an officer of the law says 'stop', you are obliged to stop; or he may, at his discretion, shoot you to stop you from fleeing. He should aim not to kill you -- which it sounds like they did.
Otherwise, we would have to staff the police force entirely with ex-track-and-field athle hat? There are certain hazards that ought to be accepted as part of the smuggling lifestyle!
Police may not use deadly force against an unarmed, fleeing suspect unless that suspect has committed a serious violent crime. Google Tennessee v. Garner for further details.
Originally posted by taipei5200You suck.
I just read that President Bush has pardoned the two border agents who shot the drug smugler in the ass. Good for them & thank you President Bush. I still believe it should have been a full pardon instead of just commuting their sentence. They should be heroes instead of ex-cons.
Originally posted by zeeblebotI'm glad you've become a supporter of unions and now believe anything they assert.
here is the Border Patrol union's rebuttal to the U.S. Attorney's office's release on 16 "myths" about the case.
Too bad they didn't hire no1m! he'd have got them off!
http://rohrabacher.house.gov/UploadedFiles/NBPC%20rebuttal_to_sutton.pdf
The jury found differently.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFYes, you have. The two agents were convicted of the violent felony of Assault with a Dangerous Weapon as the jury did not accept their claim of self-defense. They were also convicted of Discharging a Firearm during the Commission of a Violent Crime. The latter conviction carries a MANDATORY 10 year sentence.
My understanding is that the issue here is perjury, tampering with evidence and perverting the course of justice. Without those crimes, this case would never have come to our attention and the two guys would have ahd no more than a couple of days paid leave before resuming. Have I misunderstood this case?
Originally posted by no1marauder....to some extent of the law......????
I would say that anyone who commits a violent felony, as these agents did, should be prosecuted to some extent of the law.
thats pretty meaningless isnt it.
-like charge em, then let em off?
one law for the police another one for the rest?
you must be joking.
shooting someone who is running away is pretty sick, and shooting someones so-called "ass" is damn dangerous as the spine terminates there and it could paralyse him.
Originally posted by eamon oI was responding to whodey's comment regarding "prosecution to the full extent of the law".
....to some extent of the law......????
thats pretty meaningless isnt it.
-like charge em, then let em off?
one law for the police another one for the rest?
you must be joking.
shooting someone who is running away is pretty sick, and shooting someones so-called "ass" is damn dangerous as the spine terminates there and it could paralyse him.
They did serve two years in prison after their convictions. Presidents do have the pardoning power and there is really nothing that can be done about it.
Originally posted by no1marauderWith that said, they served two years for shooting a man, sounds fair. He was a drug smuggler after all. Commuting the rest of their sentence is the best way to say thank you.
I was responding to whodey's comment regarding "prosecution to the full extent of the law".
They did serve two years in prison after their convictions. Presidents do have the pardoning power and there is really nothing that can be done about it.