Their crimes include shooting an unarmed man while on duty (the suspect was fleeing from them), and then covering up the evidence of their shooting. These were serious offenses, no doubt, and nobody has suggested that they should go completely un-punished.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AustinHill/2007/07/22/president_bush_gets_another_second_chance
2007-07-23 07:45:24 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
God Bless American...whoooo there scooter...I'm on YOUR side.....just asking the question....
2007-07-23 08:01:09 · update #1
AC.....who did they murder???.....NO ONE!!!...
2007-07-23 09:05:45 · update #2
Kathy....THATS the type of answer I'm looking for...
2007-07-23 09:07:07 · update #3
I saw this story on Fox awhile back, clearly the fear of being scapegoated was real for the BP agents, even if they did everything 100% by the book. There is a huge microscope on all things border related right now. The real issue at hand is why the prosecution is soo hell bent on making an example of these guys. Now, if they were truly rotten cops, involved in extortion, smuggling drugs and people, just using the badge for cover, then, yea, lock them up for good. There is nothing worse than a bad cop, period.
BUT, if they covered things up because they acted out of fear in using lethal force, lest we forget we are at war with terrorists right now, and our borders should be vigilantly guarded, if you are dumb enough to come here illegally and commit a felonious assault, be prepared to die.
These guys did the right wrong thing, should Bush commute their sentences, not completely. They should technically lose their jobs and do some time, but the extent to which they are being sentenced makes me sick.
Translation though, one less badguy in the world to come here and sell crap to my kids!
I have a friend in the BP and another one wanting to join, I think they must be nuts, because the ROE (Rules of Engagement) are so dumb, you have to practically be killed before you can use Lethal Force, the heck with that, when in doubt, fill the guy with lead and sort out the dead later!
2007-07-23 08:58:36 · answer #1 · answered by Wolfgang92 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No of course not but the sentence for shooting a suspect with cause and covering it up is a five day suspension. I mean look at it. These border patrol agents stopped the truck, checked it out, found he had drugs in the car, and he tried to drive away. After repeatedly asking him to stop they fired and oh my god hit him in the ***. And now this drug-runner was given a US visa so he can bring more drugs into the country because the district attorney who prosecuted the border agnets felt sorry for him. I think it is the DA who should be in jail.
2007-07-23 07:50:21 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
He was a repeat drug smuggler crossing the border who turned on them as if he had a weapon. The ONLY evidence the prosecution had that the drug smuggler was NOT carrying a weapon was the drug smuggler's testimony. Now what is wrong with that picture? The prosecution also squelched the MOTHER of the smuggler's statement that her son ALWAYS carried a gun when he went across the border.
So, yeah, the President ABSOLUTELY should commute the sentence.
2007-07-23 08:03:48 · answer #3 · answered by kathy_is_a_nurse 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
No, he should not--and you left out the fact that these two sleazeballs shot the man in the back.
You are wrong in saying that no one has sad they shouldn't be punished. There's been an effort among the right wing advocating exactply that--and trying to make these brutal cowards into "folk heros." One of the leading organizations in this effort was the KKK--which really shouldn't surprise anyone.
2007-07-23 08:02:29 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
There is no evidence that the suspect was unarmed, other than his own testimony.
I don't know about you, but there's something wrong when we take the testimony of a drug smuggler over the word of one of our own border patrol agents.
2007-07-23 07:50:17 · answer #5 · answered by Daniel A: Zionist Pig 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Unless they shot someone else during the coverup, they should get a slap on the wrist. Id rather our border guards be zealous for the cause then not enough.
2007-07-23 11:54:40 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. Because they broke the law, and were sentenced under what is a neutral law.
The purpose of the pardon is to provide a balance against unfair laws that are not neutrally applied to everyone. This is not one of those cases. These two were convicted of breaking the law. They got sent to jail. End of story.
As soon as we start making justice dependent on whether people like the criminals, or whether we agree with the verdict, we've lost the concept of uniform laws that apply to everyone.
2007-07-23 07:51:37 · answer #7 · answered by coragryph 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Yes he should. These Men were doing their Job ! God Bless Them.
2007-07-23 08:59:15 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
most demphatically yes! God Bless America!
2007-07-23 08:06:23 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
commute indicates guilt...overturn is the right thing to do...If Bush ties the hands of our Border Patrol with red tape like he has in Iraq...what's the point of even having them...Man up George...do the right thing...
2007-07-23 08:05:59 · answer #10 · answered by gary12850 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋