Border Patrol Agents in Jail

Sorry, I didn't realize that Puerto Rican citizens enjoyed free access to the country, thanks for informing me.

Now, let's say I said 'Venezuelans.' What then?

Cycloptichorn

Kill them all, God will recognize his own. -Arnald-Amalric

au1929
I thought the underfunding and undermining of our borders were for the benefit of our Mexican visitors.

Illegal is illegal. No matter the point of origin. IMO whatever it takes to stop the invasion. Yes I said invasion.

So, you think that it should be perfectly legal to murder illegal aliens, with prejudice?

just want to be clear here

Cycloptichorn

I guess if they don't suffer much, any killing is acceptable. There are just too many people on this small planet.

I think you would probably change your tune on that if, say, the illegal immigrants were from some other country, say, Israel.

Right?

Cycloptichorn

Ah, a bigot's retort!


The right is looking for the new Willy Horton.


^8/24/07: Seeking Willie Horton

By PAUL KRUGMAN

So now Mitt Romney is trying to Willie Hortonize Rudy Giuliani. And
thereby hangs a tale -- the tale, in fact, of American politics past and
future, and the ultimate reason Karl Rove's vision of a permanent
Republican majority was a foolish fantasy.

Willie Horton, for those who don't remember the 1988 election, was a
convict from Massachusetts who committed armed robbery and rape after
being released from prison on a weekend furlough program. He was made
famous by an attack ad, featuring a menacing mugshot, that played into
racial fears. Many believe that the ad played an important role in
George H.W. Bush's victory over Michael Dukakis.

Now some Republicans are trying to make similar use of the recent murder
of three college students in Newark, a crime in which two of the
suspects are Hispanic illegal immigrants. Tom Tancredo flew into Newark
to accuse the city's leaders of inviting the crime by failing to enforce
immigration laws, while Newt Gingrich declared that the "war here at
home" against illegal immigrants is "even more deadly than the war in
Iraq and Afghanistan."

And Mr. Romney, who pretends to be whatever he thinks the G.O.P. base
wants him to be, is running a radio ad denouncing New York as a
"sanctuary city" for illegal immigrants, an implicit attack on Mr.
Giuliani.

Strangely, nobody seems to be trying to make a national political issue
out of other horrifying crimes, like the Connecticut home invasion in
which two paroled convicts, both white, are accused of killing a mother
and her two daughters. Oh, and by the way: over all, Hispanic immigrants
appear to commit relatively few crimes -- in fact, their incarceration
rate is actually lower than that of native-born non-Hispanic whites.

To appreciate what's going on here you need to understand the difference
between the goals of the modern Republican Party and the strategy it
uses to win elections.

The people who run the G.O.P. are concerned, above all, with making
America safe for the rich. Their ultimate goal, as Grover Norquist once
put it, is to get America back to the way it was "up until Teddy
Roosevelt, when the socialists took over," getting rid of "the income
tax, the death tax, regulation, all that."

But right-wing economic ideology has never been a vote-winner. Instead,
the party's electoral strategy has depended largely on exploiting racial
fear and animosity.

Ronald Reagan didn't become governor of California by preaching the
wonders of free enterprise; he did it by attacking the state's fair
housing law, denouncing welfare cheats and associating liberals with
urban riots. Reagan didn't begin his 1980 campaign with a speech on
supply-side economics, he began it -- at the urging of a young Trent Lott
-- with a speech supporting states' rights delivered just outside
Philadelphia, Miss., where three civil rights workers were murdered in
1964.

And if you look at the political successes of the G.O.P. since it was
taken over by movement conservatives, they had very little to do with
public opposition to taxes, moral values, perceived strength on national
security, or any of the other explanations usually offered. To an almost
embarrassing extent, they all come down to just five words: southern
whites starting voting Republican.

In fact, I suspect that the underlying importance of race to the
Republican base is the reason Rudy Giuliani remains the front-runner for
the G.O.P. nomination, despite his serial adultery and his past record
as a social liberal. Never mind moral values: what really matters to the
base is that Mr. Giuliani comes across as an authoritarian, willing in
particular to crack down on you-know-who.

But Republicans have a problem: demographic changes are making their
race-based electoral strategy decreasingly effective. Quite simply,
America is becoming less white, mainly because of immigration. Hispanic
and Asian voters were only 4 percent of the electorate in 1980, but they
were 11 percent of voters in 2004 -- and that number will keep rising for
the foreseeable future.

Those numbers are the reason Karl Rove was so eager to reach out to
Hispanic voters. But the whites the G.O.P. has counted on to vote their
color, not their economic interests, are having none of it. From their
point of view, it's us versus them -- and everyone who looks different is
one of them.

So now we have the spectacle of Republicans competing over who can be
most convincingly anti-Hispanic. I know, officially they're not hostile
to Hispanics in general, only to illegal immigrants, but that's a
distinction neither the G.O.P. base nor Hispanic voters takes seriously.

Today's G.O.P., in short, is trapped by its history of cynicism. For
decades it has exploited racial animosity to win over white voters -- and
now, when Republican politicians need to reach out to an increasingly
diverse country, the base won't let them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, let me get this straight. I'm a bigot, for asking if you would act the same way towards illegal aliens who happen to come from your preferred group?

This is a serious question. Do you believe that illegal aliens, no matter where they originate from, have no rights whatsoever and should be considered open game?

Cycloptichorn

Cyclo, my comment was semi-serious, and totally nonreligious and nonracial. Notwithstanding this, you Jew-baited me.

What do you mean by 'jew-baiting?'

I've never heard this term before.

Cycloptichorn

I am going to ignore the name calling, and try to identify what the arguments are for commuting the sentences.

1) There is my argument that the border agents, having been convicted by the jury who voted unanimously to convict, are guilty of unlawful use of deadly force and of then lying to cover up their actions.

However, I believe the sentences are too long and the "use of firearm" portion should be dropped.

2) There is woiyo's argument that the actions of the border guards were justified because of the perceived danger they were in. Woiyo doesn't say whether he accepts the jury's opinion that they commited a crime-- but he is arguing it was justified none-the-less.

I think that mysteryman also is making this same argument.

I would like to know if woiyo and mysterman think that the border agents didn't break any law. In this case the question would be why the jury who heard the case unanimously agreed they were guilty of breaking the law.

If Woiyo and Mysteryman accept that these border agents broke the law, then the question is why the law shouldn't be enforce. Is Woiyo's argument that the extenuating circumstances the agents were under excuses the fact they went against their training, the policy of the Border Patrol, and the law?

3) There is Au's argument that there should be "open season" on "illegal immigrants". I assume this means that you can shoot a person... and if they are an "illegal" immigrant you won't be prosecuted.

I would like Au to say what he would do if someone was mistaken.

If someone had reason to believe the person he shot was an "illegal immigrant", but was mistaken and the person he killed was actually a US citizen...

Should this killer be charged with murder, or with accidental death?

Browne.
The question remains, why do the border agents carry weapons the use of which is illegal. Even in the apprehension of a dope smuggler. It is time that they be allowed to perform their function. . That to protect our borders against illegal entry and in this instance invasion. By any means necessary.

Au,

There are laws that say under what circumstances a law enforcement officer can use deadly force. The jury unanimously found that these officers broke these laws.

Are you disagreeing with the legal system about what the laws say? Or, are you saying you disagree with the law and don't think it should be enforced?

I am saying if you want protect the soveranty of this nation and protect it from an invasion every weapon at your command should be used. IMO people entering this nation illegally do not deserve the protection of it's laws.

So, you are saying that since you believe that we are being invaded, that the laws that regulate when law enforcement can use deadly force should be ignored.

It seems that lately the "we are being attacked by foreigners" meme is being used to ignore all kinds of laws.

Browne
Fight fire with fire.

Your right,there are guidelines for officers using their weapons.

Lets look at a few of them,from various jurisductions.

http://www.utexas.edu/police/manual/a12.html

Note this part...
.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/lawenforcement/policeintegrity/chapter1.htm



http://www.sandiego.gov/police/pdf/forattach.pdf

Scroll down to definitions, then down to "m".

http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/readingroom/resolution14b.htm



There are other examples,but they all say pretty much the same thing, that deadly force is allowed if the officer has a "reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to another person."

Now this is from the trial itself (thanks woiyo)



So,under those circumstances,deadly force was permitted.

FYI,any time an officer uses his weapon, be it a pistol or a rifle,its considered deadly force.

Freeduck said...



Because the man they shot was a drug smuggler, possibly a dealer.
And IMHO,smugglers and dealers deserve death,nothing less.

Mysteryman,

It seems the points you are making contradict each other.

You did some admirable work to find quotes that explain the law-- which clearly says that agents can't use deadly force except in very specific circumstances, i.e. there is good reason to believe there is "imminent danger of death".

Then you seem to say that since this guy was a drug dealer, it shouldn't matter. The law, as shown clearly by the passages you quoted, says that you can't shoot someone just because he is a drug smuggler.

Obviously there can be some disagreement about whether there is "imminent danger of death"...

The way we decide whether this standard was met in this case is to have a trial.

In this case, a jury of 12 US citizens, after hearing arguments from both sides, decided unanimously that these agents were guilty of breaking the law. Interestingly enough, you offer a quote that was given by one side of this trial (a witness for the defense). The jury heard this quote too, and still after hearing both sides of the argument reached a unanimous guilty verdict.

You have decided to disagree with the unanimous decision of 12 US citizens who sat through the trial and were given the responsibility of deciding this case.

Of course you have the right to do this... but you have to accept the possibility that your political bias is causing you to jump to an emotional conclusion that goes against your belief in the rule of law.

... you have at least read the transcript (i.e. both sides of the argument), right?

Dont misunderstand me.
My feelings toward drug dealers and drug smugglers are irrelevant in this case.

The 2 USBP officers were,in my opinion,justified in using deadly force because they thought their lives were in danger.
Even if the bad guy is running away,he can still shoot you..

And yes,I have read the transcript of the trial.
I am not saying the 2 agents are blameless,nor am I saying they are perfect officers, but I am saying that based on their testimony I dont think they should have been convicted.

Since neither you or I were there,we must take their word that they felt their lives were threatened and that is why they used deadly force..

I also freely admit that my own political bias might be causing me to reach the conclusion I have,just as you must admit that your political bias has done the same thing.