Posted on 09/08/2006 10:27:53 AM PDT by radar101
That’s the just of it. However from everything I have read there was no underlining crime. The agent stated he thought the perp had a gun and the only witness who claims he did not was the perp. The perp jumped into the Rio Grande so the weapon could not be recovered.
The agents claimed that they did not believe they hit the perp so rather than spend the rest of the day writing memos, they made the mistake of not reporting the weapons discharge. (a policy violation not a crime).
If the perp had a gun, then no “crime” was committed, only a policy violation (failure to report a weapons discharge) to which I believe they should be fired not imprisoned.
There are only 3 entities that “know” if the perp had a gun, the agent, the perp and God. Since God has not weighted in on the issue, it comes down to the credibility of the other two. Two highly regarded Agents who have never had a disciplinary action or a career drug smuggler.
Why not give Lon Horiuchi immunity to testify against Vicki Weaver?
Your answer to that ought to be quite enlightening.
Bottom line: the agents' conduct during and after the event demonstrates wrongful intent. It always has. It always will.
Well, there's a problem. The agent said that the perp turned toward him and made the infamous "furtive gesture." Problem: the perp was shot in the a$$. Physical evidence does not match agent's testimony. Coupled with destruction of evidence, that's enough to establish mens rea.
The agents claimed that they did not believe they hit the perp so rather than spend the rest of the day writing memos, they made the mistake of not reporting the weapons discharge. (a policy violation not a crime).
You are forgetting that they also destroyed evidence that indicated the agent had fired his gun.
If the perp had a gun, then no “crime” was committed, only a policy violation (failure to report a weapons discharge) to which I believe they should be fired not imprisoned.
Key word in bold.
One may not engage in hypotheticals without end; they must, ultimately, be anchored in the facts of the case. If you report that the perp has a gun, there'd better be a gun--or something that can reasonably be construed to be a gun--at hand.
Police shoot fleeing suspects all of the time. I don't necessarily agree with it but it happens.
I agree. If these cops did what you say they did, they should do some time.
B.S. And if they'd have used deadly force, he'd be dead. He was shot in the @ss.
Now that's just a wee bit over the top, don't you think? You sound like a FOBLer.
Which is preventing the commission of a capital crime such as murder or rape.
It's easy to point fingers from the air conditioned comfort of your home. Unless you were there, you don't really know what happened.
I'm a medically-retired cop (medically retired after losing most of one of my favorite lungs in a shooting). What I do know has happened is the following:
1. Border agent claimed after the shooting came to light that the smuggler turned and made the infamous "furtive gesture."
2. Smuggler was shot in the a$$--i.e., from behind.
3. Next problem: the border patrol agents destroyed evidence and ensured that this was not reported.
4. When this finally came to light, they proceeded to tell a tale of the guy turning toward them and having something like a gun. However, no gun is found.
5. Border agents' statement compared to wounds on smuggler. Smuggler shot from behind, so he was NOT turned toward the agents as described. Further, the agents went out of their way to collect spent brass from the shooting. Taken together, the agents' concealment, alteration, and destruction of evidence, and their statements that are at odds with the physical evidence available, and you have consciousness of guilt.
The "you don't know" silliness is just that--silliness. What is known is damning in the extreme.
No B.S. That's the law.
And if they'd have used deadly force, he'd be dead. He was shot in the @ss.
Deadly force is that force which, when applied to a human being, is likely to cause death or serious bodily injury. Shooting someone is likely to cause death or serious bodily injury--even if the bullet hits them in the @ss.
Shooting at someone on the other side of an international border is, technically speaking, an act of war against the country on the other side of the border. FReepers accuse Mexico of an act of war if someone shoots at a Border Patrol agent--and they are right to do so.
The problem here is that, because they are agents of the United States government (hence the term "border patrol agents), this act, unless it is repudiated, is casus belli--admittedly, a very small level of casus belli, but that's like being "a little pregnant." It's still pretty damn serious.
Not as often as on TV cop shows, and only when the severity of the suspected crime justifies it, or if the police officer reasonably fears for his life or the life of others.
So their so-called crime is so much worse than the illegal trying to bring hundreds of pounds of marijuana into this country to help destroy who knows how many lives that they deseve years in prison and the illegal who broke multiple laws gets a free pass?.......what are you smoking?
I'd generally rate illegally shooting someone and concealing that fact to be far more serious than smuggling marijuana.
Not if one knows how to handle a gun.
"If he'd turned toward them, why did he only get shot in the a$$?"
you say you were a cop, then you write the above. Are you kidding me?
Shooting at someone--even if you miss them completely--is applying deadly force. That has been the law of the land since its founding. Pretending that it isn't merely shows that one is ignorant of the law and common sense.
Unlike many people on this thread, I know enough about human anatomy and firearms to understand that one does not get hit in the a$$ if one is shot from a frontal aspect.
I suggest you read the border patrol agent's detailed account.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.