Author Topic: Border patrol agents sued and prosecuted (Read 1787 times)

RedTop · « **Reply #15 on:** August 10, 2006, 05:18:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by LLv34 Jarsci
That whats most of my friends here in Europe have said also. As inviduals you Americans are mostly nice , hardworking and friendly fellows who help people in distress. Yes we are. Most times.

But as a nation you overregulate yourselves (reason is leaving Europe too as EU is gaining strenght.. politicians seem to think that if there is a law about something it will make life easier..like toilet paper widht regulation etc..) , make silly laws as they would make difference and such. So for me it seems that you have sound crew without captain and officers to keep the course straight... The course is IMO what is in question. Half the crew wants to go one way and the other half wants to go another. Meanwhile the officers and Captain are trying to play to thier respective sides of the crew so they aren't taken to the plank and made to walk it.

Some are burning sails, other make their own canoes to escape the ship, at the bridge is full scale backstabbing war going on who has the helm and captain is making speeches at the masttop for seagulls who only listen because breadcrumbs.. and the rudder has been sawed off by some naysayers... That my friend is what our governemnt has turned into

If only you would get your **** together and drown lawyers you would become strong again but now your ship is rotting..from inside.

It's not all lawyers that are the problem....its morals and people not caring about right or wrong. They only care about themselves. I am prolly in that mode as well. But , on a different scale. I don't care about the government snooping around in things. I think they should be in this post 9-11 world. If they didn't and something happened then the nay sayers would be the first to ask why they weren't. Stupidity.

But it's against our freedoms and an invasion of our rights is what I hear. What invasion? IF you never heard of it and were a typical law abiding citizen then you wouldn't have anything to worry about. Your life would never be disrupted cause you wouldn't know. Not the point they say. It's exactly the frikin point. Why worry about it? Hiding something?

We put up with politically correct B.C. talk because people are to afraid to speak the friggin minds because someone may be offneded. Freeedom of speech is only good when you say what they want to hear. Other wise they just want you to be quiet. Squelch that word "God". Please don't say Jesus or I'll have to call the ACLU and sue you for me hearing that. But , oh yeah let me burn that flag in protest of my government.

This whole Frikin nation is one big melting pot of politically correct bullch*t.

I have gotten a bit older. I have gotten a bit more set in my ways. But anymore I call a spade a spade. I don't give a crap about who doesn't like it or not. I may not be right but it is my right to say I believe in God , Jesus , Heaven and marriage being between Men and Women. Not a pitcher and a cather. Not between 2 lickity splitters.

I want our borders secured and people sent home who are here illegally.

I want common damn sense in poiltics.

I want 1 term or at the most 2 terms of Senators and Reps.. Then they are OUT.

I want freedom of speech in ALLL AVENUES and not just what is politically correct for some.

I'm sick and tired of being screwed by laws made by people out of touch with the PEOPLE! Who are basically bought by groups who want to impose thier will on ME.

Generally I am just sick of hearing the BULLCRAP I hear everyday.

Why people just cant use thier DAMN heads and some COMMON SENSE and simple reason is beyond me.

Sorry...vented there.

nirvana · « **Reply #16 on:** August 10, 2006, 09:40:39 PM »

Wow, un-freaking-believable. Without making any stupid comments, i'll leave it at that.

RedTop · « **Reply #17 on:** August 10, 2006, 09:50:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by nirvana
Wow, un-freaking-believable. Without making any stupid comments, i'll leave it at that.

Shuckins · « **Reply #18 on:** August 10, 2006, 10:02:51 PM »

In a lot of cases, the love-affair some have with the philosophy of moral relativism and the protection of individual "rights" collides with their desire that the government regulate everything and keep order.

T'aint always possible to do both, especially when Americans are divided on how to define the boundaries of each of these goals.

RedTop · « **Reply #19 on:** August 10, 2006, 10:08:46 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Shuckins
In a lot of cases, the love-affair some have with the philosophy of moral relativism and the protection of individual "rights" collides with their desire that the government regulate everything and keep order.

T'aint always possible to do both, especially when Americans are divided on how to define the boundaries of each of these goals.

Yep

Edbert1 · « **Reply #20 on:** August 11, 2006, 07:07:46 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Shuckins
In a lot of cases, the love-affair some have with the philosophy of moral relativism and the protection of individual "rights" collides with their desire that the government regulate everything and keep order.

T'aint always possible to do both, especially when Americans are divided on how to define the boundaries of each of these goals.

I agree, but I don't see all the grey areas in this case. Two uniformed members of our law enforcement are going to jail for attempting to apprehend an illegal alien who was also a drug smuggler. On top of that the US Attorney used the testimony of a criminal to indict, prosecute, and ultimately convict said law enforcement officers. The moral relativism there, is about 99.9% versus 0.1%.

I want this DA not only disbarred but also tarred and feathered, lets ship her sorry arse over to Kabul post haste and fire every member of her chain-of-command right up to the AG himselfl. I cannot beleive this story is not on the front page of every paper in the country! What a travesty.

Shuckins · « **Reply #21 on:** August 11, 2006, 07:50:39 AM »

I agree...there are no grey areas in this case.

I smell corruption.

Mickey1992 · « **Reply #22 on:** August 11, 2006, 08:25:33 AM »

I wonder who the hell was on that jury?

Edbert1 · « **Reply #23 on:** August 11, 2006, 09:13:30 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mickey1992
I wonder who the hell was on that jury?

If it was held in El Paso, it's pretty safe to assume the obvious.

lazs2 · « **Reply #24 on:** August 11, 2006, 09:16:30 AM »

and yet.... the alphabet soup secret police in their ninja outfits are never treated like this even if they break into the wrong house or kill real American citizens.

lazs

lukster · « **Reply #25 on:** August 11, 2006, 09:28:21 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
and yet.... the alphabet soup secret police in their ninja outfits are never treated like this even if they break into the wrong house or kill real American citizens.

lazs

Gotta protect that cheap labor source.

Horn · « **Reply #26 on:** August 11, 2006, 02:41:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Edbert1
This should be overturned immediately. Deborah Kanof works for us after all, I've written letters to both of my congresspersons asking that she be fired and disbarred, in reality I'd like to see her do time, hard time, in a Turkish prison, for her crimes against rational humanity. And she commits these crimes in my name, literally makes me ill.

Our employee

Yeah sure:

"The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled it is a violation of someone's Fourth Amendment rights to shoot them in the back while fleeing if you don't know who they are and/or if you don't know they have a weapon," said Kanof, the assistant U.S. attorney. "

"The prosecutor also said the men destroyed the crime scene when Compean picked up his shell casings and attempted to cover up their actions by not reporting they'd fired their weapons. "

I've all due respect for LEOs but they blew it. And it really sucks when mandatory minimums creeps up and smacks someone in the fold, eh?

ASTAC · « **Reply #27 on:** August 11, 2006, 06:41:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Horn
Yeah sure:

"The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled it is a violation of someone's Fourth Amendment rights to shoot them in the back while fleeing if you don't know who they are and/or if you don't know they have a weapon," said Kanof, the assistant U.S. attorney. "

"The prosecutor also said the men destroyed the crime scene when Compean picked up his shell casings and attempted to cover up their actions by not reporting they'd fired their weapons. "

I've all due respect for LEOs but they blew it. And it really sucks when mandatory minimums creeps up and smacks someone in the fold, eh?

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.

nirvana · « **Reply #28 on:** August 11, 2006, 06:54:13 PM »

That's probably a standard law Astac, some places they have minimums for use of different weapons and such.

LePaul · « **Reply #29 on:** August 11, 2006, 07:03:29 PM »

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