Author Topic: Border patrol agents sued and prosecuted (Read 1816 times)

Horn · « **Reply #30 on:** August 11, 2006, 09:05:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by ASTAC
Sure..they made some mistakes...but minimum 10 years for shooting a criminal? You've got to be kidding if you think they deserved to be prosecuted..At most they should have lost their jobs if their bosses thought it was a big deal.

"Mandatory" minimum sentencing sucks, doesn't it? I would prefer these guys go down for it so hopefully legislatures will take notice and rid us of the mandatory minimum structure--a structure which allows no flexibility for crimes such as these.

Of course, the mandatories are there from the first because people thought "criminals were getting off too easy."

Edbert1 · « **Reply #31 on:** August 12, 2006, 10:36:51 AM »

It was a mistake to not report the shooting, there's no doubt about that. It is always up to the DA to decide which cases he/she chooses to prosecute though.

These men do NOT deserve to do hard time, arguably they deserve to loose their job, but in my opinion they should merely be reprimanded for missing the head shot. Maybe we could have a new hunting season on the illegal alein drug runners, deer season is pretty short around south Texas anyway.

DieAz · « **Reply #32 on:** August 12, 2006, 11:40:46 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by LePaul
Have you noticed that, thanks to lawyers and all, police departments and law enforcement types will soon resemble the dunces in the movie "Demolition Man" ?

Then, of course, we'll have to figure out the 3 seashell thing

Curses be on you for bringing up the 3 seashell thing, it drove me nuts trying to figure it out when the movie came out.

may you burn and freeze in a hot and cold place for bringing it up. < now try to figure that one out.

Horn · « **Reply #33 on:** August 12, 2006, 12:53:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Edbert1
It was a mistake to not report the shooting, there's no doubt about that. It is always up to the DA to decide which cases he/she chooses to prosecute though.

These men do NOT deserve to do hard time, arguably they deserve to loose their job, but in my opinion they should merely be reprimanded for missing the head shot. Maybe we could have a new hunting season on the illegal alein drug runners, deer season is pretty short around south Texas anyway.

Did you even read the article you posted?

"According to the U.S. attorney who successfully prosecuted the agents, the man they were chasing didn't actually have a gun, shooting him in the back violated his civil rights, the agents didn't know for a fact that he was a drug smuggler, and they broke Border Patrol rules about discharging their weapons and preserving a crime scene."

They shot a guy that:

1) Had no gun
2) Shot him in the back
3) Didn't know for sure he had broken any laws

In addition, they:

4) Futzed up a crime scene
5) Tried to hide that they'd shot their weapons
6) Violated agency policies

You might want to get off that high horse. They should go down. As I said before the mandatory minimums that govern their crimes are harsh--maybe someone will notice.

If you or I did half of that stuff we'd be in deep fecal matter.

rabbidrabbit · « **Reply #34 on:** August 12, 2006, 02:06:29 PM »

According to the trial evidence he was shot through the buttocks sideways which collaborates their story of him turning. Kinda tough to second guess a split second decision especially since he just assaulted the other officer.

Horn · « **Reply #35 on:** August 12, 2006, 02:57:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
According to the trial evidence he was shot through the buttocks sideways which collaborates their story of him turning. Kinda tough to second guess a split second decision especially since he just assaulted the other officer.

True. He however wasn't the one who assaulted the officer. There were two of them (unless I'm reading this wrong). Still, they shot an unarmed man.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for nailing these illegals coming across; however, these LEOs screwed the pooch and should pay--also, mandatories. Additionally, there needs to be some scrutiny of the Border Patrol policies as they seem too restrictive.

john9001 · « **Reply #36 on:** August 12, 2006, 08:30:39 PM »

horn , you understand he was/is a drug smuggler who was in this country illegally?

i do agree however that the agent was a bad shot, he only wounded the perp.

Edbert1 · « **Reply #37 on:** August 13, 2006, 09:23:35 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Horn
Did you even read the article you posted?

"According to the U.S. attorney who successfully prosecuted the agents, the man they were chasing didn't actually have a gun, shooting him in the back violated his civil rights, the agents didn't know for a fact that he was a drug smuggler, and they broke Border Patrol rules about discharging their weapons and preserving a crime scene."

They shot a guy that:

1) Had no gun
2) Shot him in the back
3) Didn't know for sure he had broken any laws

Dude, you are taking the word of the illegal alien drug smiggler (a term that is not open for debate here) over that of two uniformed peace officers on every one of your suppositions.

1.) The criminal said he did not have a gun (his testimony means less than nothing, were I on a jury I'd take every word he utters as a total lie).
2.) So what, he had just asssaulted the guy's partner and he DID have a gun (according to testimony he was about to fire).
3.) His even being here was a violation of federal law making him a felon.

I did not say they committed no errors, I cannot figure out why they picked up their casings, and there should be reprimands for doing so but not hard time. I beleive the DA should have laughed when the case came accross their desk. A drug smiggler from a foreign company wants charges filed against US Border patrol.....ummmm....no. Drop the file into the trash and move on to prosecuting BAD GUYS.

Toad · « **Reply #38 on:** August 13, 2006, 09:27:52 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Edbert1
Dude, you are taking the word of the illegal alien drug smiggler (a term that is not open for debate here)

Debate it? I can't even find a definition of "smiggler"!

(sorry, "drug smiggler" just sounded funny)

Edbert1 · « **Reply #39 on:** August 13, 2006, 09:38:16 AM »

Dang, I did it twice too. Who put that I next to the U on my keyboard?

Nilsen · « **Reply #40 on:** August 13, 2006, 09:42:03 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Edbert1
Dang, I did it twice too. Who put that I next to the U on my keyboard?

its all that Dirk Diggler googeling you have been doing Ed

-Concho- · « **Reply #41 on:** August 13, 2006, 10:08:27 AM »

FYI BP Agent are not given peace officer status in Texas.

Quote

Art. 2.122. SPECIAL INVESTIGATORS. (a) The following named
criminal investigators of the United States shall not be deemed
peace officers, but shall have the powers of arrest, search and
seizure as to felony offenses only under the laws of the State of
Texas:
   (1) Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation;
   (2) Special Agents of the Secret Service;
   (3) Special Agents of the United States Customs Service;
   (4) Special Agents of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms;
   (5) Special Agents of Federal Drug Enforcement Agency;
   (6) Inspectors of the United States Postal Service;
   (7) Special Agents of the Criminal Investigation Division
and Inspectors of the Internal Security Division of the Internal
Revenue Service;
   (8) Civilian Special Agents of the United States Naval
Investigative Service;
   (9) Marshals and Deputy Marshals of the United States
Marshals Service;
   (10) Special Agents of the United States Immigration and
Naturalization Service; and
   (11) Special Agents of the United States Department of
State, Bureau of Diplomatic Security.
   (b) A person designated as a special policeman by the
Federal Protective Services division of the General Services
Administration under 40 U.S.C. Section 318 or 318d is not a peace
officer but has the powers of arrest and search and seizure as to
any offense under the laws of this state.
   (c) A customs inspector of the United States Customs Service
or a border patrolman or immigration officer of the United States
Department of Justice is not a peace officer under the laws of this
state but, on the premises of a port facility designated by the
commissioner of the United States Immigration and Naturalization
Service as a port of entry for arrival in the United States by land
transportation from the United Mexican States into the State of
Texas or at a permanent established border patrol traffic check
point, has the authority to detain a person pending transfer
without unnecessary delay to a peace officer if the inspector,
patrolman, or officer has probable cause to believe that the person
has engaged in conduct that is a violation of Section 49.02, 49.04,
49.07, or 49.08, Penal Code, regardless of whether the violation
may be disposed of in a criminal proceeding or a juvenile justice
proceeding.
   (d) A commissioned law enforcement officer of the National
Park Service is not a peace officer under the laws of this state,
except that the officer has the powers of arrest, search, and
seizure as to any offense under the laws of this state committed
within the boundaries of a national park or national recreation
area. In this subsection, "national park or national recreation
area" means a national park or national recreation area included in
the National Park System as defined by 16 U.S.C. Section 1c(a).
   (e) A Special Agent or Law Enforcement Officer of the United
States Forest Service is not a peace officer under the laws of this
state, except that the agent or officer has the powers of arrest,
search, and seizure as to any offense under the laws of this state
committed within the National Forest System. In this subsection,
"National Forest System" has the meaning assigned by 16 U.S.C.
Section 1609.
   (f) Security personnel working at a commercial nuclear
power plant, including contract security personnel, trained and
qualified under a security plan approved by the United States
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, are not peace officers under the
laws of this state, except that such personnel have the powers of
arrest, search, and seizure, including the powers under Section
9.51, Penal Code, while in the performance of their duties on the
premises of a commercial nuclear power plant site or under
agreements entered into with local law enforcement regarding areas
surrounding the plant site.
   (g) In addition to the powers of arrest, search, and seizure
under Subsection (a), a Special Agent of the Secret Service
protecting a person described by 18 U.S.C. Section 3056(a) or
investigating a threat against a person described by 18 U.S.C.
Section 3056(a) has the powers of arrest, search, and seizure as to:
   (1) misdemeanor offenses under the laws of this state; and
   (2) any criminal offense under federal law.

Penal Code Chapter 49 deals with alcohol offenses (DWI, PI, ect.)

Maverick · « **Reply #42 on:** August 13, 2006, 02:01:19 PM »

I'd like to point out a minor bit here.

There was no physical evidence at the scene that indicated the drug pusher had been hit during the shooting on this side of the border. All that anyone has is his testimony (paid for with money, status and immunity from his own criminal acts) that he was shot on that date and by that particular Border Patrol agent. There was no treatment North of the border to confirm he had even been wounded that day.

If the individual in question, wonderful fount of objectivity and truth that he is, did not get wounded on that day then the worst offense the Border Patrol officers committed was a Departmental policy violation of failure to report the firing of a weapon.

Would not this contention provide something called a reasonable doubt? Of course drug runners who assault Law Enforcement Officers ALWAYS tell the whole and unvarnished truth...

Concho,

Something about that bit you pasted is this. That statute only gives the listed positions the right to enforce Texas STATE laws. It only grants them the authority to arrest etc. for Texas state felonies. It has nothing to do with the Federal status and authority to enforce Federal statutes. In other words Texas has nothing to say about them enforcing immigration and customs violations. Federal law trumps State law in that regard.

Example, without that statute if a FBI agent happened to interupt the robbery of a convenience store he could not arrest the suspect without that law you posted. It wouldn't be a federal violation and he would have no arrest authority other than possibly the citizens arrest situation, if that exists in Texas. I assume it does.

Horn · « **Reply #43 on:** August 13, 2006, 02:41:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
horn , you understand he was/is a drug smuggler who was in this country illegally?

i do agree however that the agent was a bad shot, he only wounded the perp.

Read the article. They DID NOT KNOW HE WAS A SMUGGLER (SMIGGLER). Got it? It was a "suspicious van"--period.

Horn · « **Reply #44 on:** August 13, 2006, 02:52:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Edbert1
Dude, you are taking the word of the illegal alien drug smiggler (a term that is not open for debate here) over that of two uniformed peace officers on every one of your suppositions.

1.) The criminal said he did not have a gun (his testimony means less than nothing, were I on a jury I'd take every word he utters as a total lie).
2.) So what, he had just asssaulted the guy's partner and he DID have a gun (according to testimony he was about to fire).
3.) His even being here was a violation of federal law making him a felon.

I did not say they committed no errors, I cannot figure out why they picked up their casings, and there should be reprimands for doing so but not hard time. I beleive the DA should have laughed when the case came accross their desk. A drug smiggler from a foreign company wants charges filed against US Border patrol.....ummmm....no. Drop the file into the trash and move on to prosecuting BAD GUYS.

You need to read it again:

1) They didn't know he was a smiggler or a criminal.
2) No gun was found (doesn't mean he didn't ditch it but no casings found either indicating the runner actaully discharged a weapon)
3) He was only a suspicious character--he was not a felon--you actually must go to court and be convicted to get that label, remember?
4) If everyone is not subject to the same rules, what good are they?

C'mon man--these guys made so many errors, the BP policies suck and the minimums required for their "errors" --all conspire to create this unfortunate scenario. It has nothing to do with the DA.

Best that can be said for this situation is that the BP's policy will be changed and that the Fed will look again at the ridiculous minimum sentence laws.