I was confused as to why you would ask this question as the answer is so obvious to me. But then I took a look at the "News" coverage of this case and was amazed at the rather incredible wall of outright propaganda that has served as coverage. I had previously only been aware of the actual facts of the case - which couldn't possibly contrast more than they do with the coverage. For that I have learned a lesson.
To give an answer to your question: the shooting was completely illegal and therefore the related convictions would surely qualify (though I admit I can't list the actual convictions off the top of my head and didn't find them listed anywhere in my "News Media" review). And while I know that the entire case is on-line (including the trial testimony) I'm apparently not savvy enough to easily find such stuff.
I guess I can only say that I do indeed have personal familiarity with similar cases, and that while I realize that I'm not going to influence your opinion, my very different opinion is even less likely to be influenced by this discussion.
So, for my part, I'll just have agree to disagree with my added admission that I was rather naive of the "public" history of this case.
I like the "to give an answer to your question" part, since you never do get around to answering my question to you. But nice try at finessing. You might slip that non-response by someone not paying attention. Take a week or so, maybe you can figure out the underlying crime they were involved in when they fired on the smuggler.
Your boy Sutton was counting on that and never expected to have to defend his own actions. After all, he's Bush's boy, so he figured he could get away with anything that furthered Bush's no-border agenda. Too bad for him that Feinstein and Cornyn noticed he's at least guilty of bad judgment and prosecutorial overreach. The House gets a turn soon, and I hope Delahunt gives his committee wide latitude in the questions they ask Sutton.