Mexican teen has US constitutional rights

[ZombieApocolypse]

Unfortunately the agent doesnt have the right to defend himself?

Court: Teen in Mexico shot by US agent had rights

 

[ModernGunner]

U.S. should appeal. Guy shot was not a U.S. citizen, nor was he on U.S. soil.

But, Holder's the quintessential scumbag, so who knows.

 

[Denny347]

While not taking sides in this particular incident, the Agent is governed by the US Constitution is he not? As such, he could still violate it even if the "victim" was not a US citizen on US soil but the agent was.

 

[Classic]

Nice and neat, managers and administrators not accountable, just the agents.

 

[Denny347]

Nice and neat, managers and administrators not accountable, just the agents.

Hell, isn't that always the case? It's so rampant you'd think THAT was in the Constitution.

 

[ViperJock]

Well, are they natural rights or aren't they? Or are some of them natural rights, but not others? Hopefull they will lose the suit. Ah screw it. We know he deserved it, why bother with courts at all? Let's just shoot the bad guys in the streets. Or not.

 

[ViperJock]

Nice and neat, managers and administrators not accountable, just the agents.

So when INGO thinks cops have screwed up by hitting the wrong house etc they want the cops that were on the raid to pay. BUT if a cop gets sued for something you agree with, then the superiors are to blame for a decision he made in the field. Interesting. Backwards, but interesting.

 

[MCgrease08]

U.S. should appeal. Guy shot was not a U.S. citizen, nor was he on U.S. soil.

That's sort of the point. The ruling means a federal agent can't simply walk away from repercussions of killing someone simply because of their nationality or which country they were standing in.

The ruling doesn't give the dead Mexican teenager constitutional rights of the U.S., but rather holds federal agents accountable for their actions on U.S. soil.

 

[Birds Away]

Hell, isn't that always the case? It's so rampant you'd think THAT was in the Constitution.

QFT.

 

[Classic]

Managers and "superiors" are responsible for what happens on their watch IF their subordinates are acting in accordance with set policy and guidelines. Higher management generally claim responsibility for successes. This is true in business, military and any organization. Not sure what's backwards about that.

 

[rambone]

Without this, border patrol has the unchecked power to shoot and kill Mexicans for any reason (real or invented) with no recourse.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Managers and "superiors" are responsible for what happens on their watch IF their subordinates are acting in accordance with set policy and guidelines. Higher management generally claim responsibility for successes. This is true in business, military and any organization. Not sure what's backwards about that.

The problem is that generally the official written police is devised to protect those people at the top while they punish subordinates for actually following it, and then leave the subordinates holding the bag when a problem arises from doing exactly what they were told and/or rewarded for doing.

 

[hornadylnl]

Without this, border patrol has the unchecked power to shoot and kill Mexicans for any reason (real or invented) with no recourse.

That's what many people want.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So can the families of innocents abroad killed in drone strikes and errant bombings sue the military members and their supervisors?

 

[hornadylnl]

So can the families of innocents abroad killed in drone strikes and errant bombings sue the military members and their supervisors?

Don't know what venue they'd use but don't act all surprised when they become your enemies.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[IndyDave1776]

That's what many people want.

If they are engaged in illegal activities against those agents or the Republic, then certainly. Incidentally, I get rather tired of reports of 'rocks' being thrown at border patrol agents. Every picture or video I have seen has featured rocks or chunks of concrete the size of melons as opposed to the image deliberately painted in people's mind's of gravel from the driveway. Given that as I sit here I am waiting on surgery for an injury caused by an instrument I would consider less dangerous than a flying chunk of concrete, I am all in favor of such agents defending themselves. Their job is to keep illegal traffic, human and inanimate, from crossing the border. That is what they exist for. Likewise, although I am often critical of excessive force on the part of police closer to home, if those police are having hoodlums throwing melon-sized chunks of concrete at them, by all means, take care of business with my blessing.

I would also like to know how an incident with a foreign national who most likely initiated activity which brought him the results he deserved receives exponentially more outrage than domestic incidents in which I walk away seeing a cop who needs tried, convicted, and executed.

BBI raised a good question. The best I can offer is that those military personnel are indeed following orders without being able to assess the situation or apply personal discernment while dropping ordnance on 'X' marks the spot. In the case of the border patrol, CYA procedures notwithstanding, the man was in the position to assess and apply discernment to the protection of his personal safety from dangerous foreign nationals. If an officer in that position abuses that situation then he should be treated accordingly, but I do not believe that our people should feel compelled to compromise their safety or absorb injury first before responding to people proactively engaging them for the purpose of causing harm. In contrast with an ill-conceived or executed SWAT raid, the border patrol officers are exactly where they belong and generally incidents are caused by hostile foreign nationals bringing trouble looking for the officers.

 

[Leadeye]

Either way the public purse pays. This will probably develop into a new legal cottage industry along the border just like prop 65 out in california.

 

[Libertarian01]

So can the families of innocents abroad killed in drone strikes and errant bombings sue the military members and their supervisors?

To BehindBlueI's,

As Congress has not declared war we are not in a state of war.

As such, the normal rules of civilized society apply.

Therefore, not only liability but criminal charges should apply. Of what... Manslaughter? Murder? At the very least some sort of Reckless Endangerment.

This is the problem with failing to use troops on the ground who have a better ability to achieve surgical precision.

It is this hubris of raining death from above that is going to bite us in the butt in decades to come. We CANNOT remain the most powerful country on the planet earth forever! Great Britain, Rome, Alexander all proved that.

When we fall we will be left with the goodwill, or lack thereof, that we have built with foreign nations and other cultures.

We are like a crack addict who's problems can be solved by no one but himself. Regrettably, how often does that happen?

Regards,

Doug

 

[BehindBlueI's]

To BehindBlueI's,

As Congress has not declared war we are not in a state of war.

As such, the normal rules of civilized society apply.

Therefore, not only liability but criminal charges should apply. ...

So a declaration of war removes the "natural rights" of civilians in the war zone?

BBI raised a good question. The best I can offer is that those military personnel are indeed following orders without being able to assess the situation or apply personal discernment while dropping ordnance on 'X' marks the spot.

Yes, but remember this is civil litigation. There is no requirement for the harm to be caused intentionally. If you accidentally injure me by hitting me with your car in a parking lot, you didn't mean to, but of course that's no protection from a civil lawsuit.