January 29, 2007
FITTING HEROES FOR THEM THOUGH:
The Border-Patrol Two Deserve Jail: Law enforcement defends its honor, despite the "hero" propaganda (Andrew C. McCarthy, 1/29/07, National Review)
A solid law-and-order conservative, [Johnny] Sutton's position, United States Attorney for the Western District of Texas, is a unique perch from which to appreciate hundreds of dedicated Border Patrol agents, to grasp in a real way -- not a bandwagon way, but a rubber-meets-the-road way -- that these men and women truly are our last line of defense against the hordes for whom our political elites are determined to put out a big, fat welcome-mat reading "AMNESTY."He has thus vigorously supported them. Sutton's office prosecutes their cases against alien smugglers and narcotics importers at an impressive clip. It is not for nothing, moreover, that badlands are called "badlands." Illegals and their facilitators routinely assault the agents. Frequently, there is gunfire. Sutton knows the outnumbered agents have to be able to defend themselves and impose what passes for order. Since he's been U.S. attorney, there have been several incidents in which agents have shot at hostiles, including four resulting in fatalities. In each, Sutton's office investigated the matter thoroughly and the agents were cleared without charges being filed.
So why are some Border Patrol agents vilifying Sutton today? Why are they joined by a full-throated chorus of union reps, anti-immigration activists, media heavyweights, and a small but vocal cabal of mostly Republican congressmen? Because two rogues who had no business wearing badges and carrying guns have managed to entangle their gross malfeasance in the impassioned politics of immigration, that's why.
Posted by Orrin Judd at January 29, 2007 12:00 AM
From what I have heard from Mr. Sutton and the news of many different venues. Mr. Sutton's office actively searched for the drug dealer, gave him immunity to testify against these agents. Little evidence was shown that the dealer was telling the truth. It appears that it is dealer said, agents said. The DA pursued the agents solely on the word of a drug dealer with little or no evidence to back him up.
If that is true and I have seen nor heard anything to the contrary, then there is something terribly wrong with this case.
Posted by: ijricha at January 29, 2007 3:47 PMThe Right defending corruption because they hate Mexicans.
Posted by: oj at January 29, 2007 3:53 PMThe contention that criticism of this case is a matter of hating Mexican is beneath being dignified with refutation.
Focus instead of the distinction between "training" and "rules of engagement" on the one hand, and the law of justification on the other. The law of mistake of fact comes into play, as well.
They are not the same thing. Breach of organizational discipline regarding use of force does not make an action criminal. The issue is what the law says an actor may to to effect an arrest, to prevent escape, and to overvcome resistance to arrest, not what some police manual says. A RoE violation is an act of insubordination, it may or may not be a crime.
I have yet to read an account of this case which presents enough facts to support an opinion. It is likely that the agents lied all over the place to cover up their mistakes and wound up looking like total liars to the jury.
Posted by: Lou Gots at January 29, 2007 7:20 PMThe facts don't matter. The reactions are about race.
Posted by: oj at January 29, 2007 8:32 PM"The facts don't matter. . ."
Beneath refutation, as I had said already. Truth means less than nothing, only the class and/or race interests matter, the Commies and Nazis held.
Posted by: Lou Gots at January 29, 2007 9:26 PM
The Commies and Nazis weren't reacting to truth. Neither do nativists. The True Believer lives in a fantasy world.
Posted by: oj at January 29, 2007 9:31 PM