2007-09-15 10:35:25 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Absolutely, yes!! They were doing their jobs. They have been upstanding and honorable agents and should not have been charged in any way. It is a disgrace that they have not been pardoned yet.
2007-09-15 10:57:12 · answer #1 · answered by turkeybrooknj 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Yes I do! I very much disagree with Bush on this issue. Border agents should have the same right to defend themselves as law enforcement.
2007-09-15 11:45:09 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you consider that an illegal border crossing is in fact an invasion of this country, then I believe that the agents acted in the best interest of this nation defending our borders and should be honored not vilified.
There would be a lot less illegal border crossing if we shot a few of these "coyotes" bringing people across. Harsh truth but still truth.
2007-09-15 10:48:53 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
The real question here is should law enforcement officials in the United States be allowed to shoot people on the basis of suspicion. And the answer to that question is "no".
So, of course there should be no pardon. If those border agents were pardoned, than the message that would send to U.S. law enforcement would be, "Shoot anyone you want to, whenever you want to. All that's required is that you 'suspect them' of something."
And if that's the message, then absolutely no one is safe...ever. A cop can shoot you at will...just 'because'.
2007-09-15 10:48:53 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
optimistically he in no way will. One might might desire to seek everywhere to locate somebody who's extra professional-regulation enforcement than i'm. That being suggested, those 2 are hardly ever the poster infants for professionalism in regulation enforcement.
2016-12-26 12:12:39 · answer #5 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
absolutely not. they shot him basically "for fun", and probably got a big laugh out of it at the time. they obviously never felt in danger at any time, although they briefly tried to make that argument before giving it up. they shot him well before they had any idea there were drugs in his van, and even before they were certain he was illegal. the shooting of this man was no more justified than if a border control agent shot you today.
2007-09-15 10:44:32 · answer #6 · answered by White 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
absolutely not.
they shot an unarmed person 15 times and gave a false report.
claiming that they were defending the united states is the same argument that people used for amadou diallo.
sure, they fired 41 shots at a guy who was trying to pull out his wallet. but they were defending themselves!
2007-09-15 10:59:14 · answer #7 · answered by brian 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋
No. They broke protocol, they were never able to prove that the guy was a drug dealer or that he had a gun, and they shot him in the back.
They murdered him. If he was about to shoot them, how'd they manage to shoot him in the back? Magic bullets?
2007-09-15 10:47:16 · answer #8 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Absolutely! They never should have been charged in the first place. That was ridiculous!
2007-09-15 10:42:09 · answer #9 · answered by jrldsmith 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
They broke the law. Should all lawbreakers be pardoned?
2007-09-15 11:23:04 · answer #10 · answered by OPad 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋