Sovereign Commentary: Some of the most important news stories on the web with accompanying comment. Special attention to China, Illegal Immigration, the growing Police State, and the slow death of the Constitution for the United States of America with special focus on First Amendment and Second Amendment issues.

Federal Government Jails Border Patrolers for Doing their Job; Offers Drug Dealer/Illegal Alien Immunity

How are we supposed to defend our border from encroachment by illegal Mexican immigrants and drug traffickers if our own federal government is working on the side of these people?

In a recent and bizarre turn of events, the federal government of the United States prosecuted and sentenced two border patrol agents to lengthy prison terms. Their crime was to shoot at a fleeing drug runner who ignored commands to stop. He escaped into Mexico. The United States government pressed charges against the agents who shot at him. The "victim" was Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, who was illegally in the United States with a van carrying 800 lbs. of marijuana.

The United States government paid Osbaldo's medical bills and offered him complete immunity if he would testify against the border patrol agents who shot him while he was committing a crime. This is really not right.

In addition, it turns out that border patrol agents aren't allowed to chase fleeing criminals. How are they supposed to do their job if they can't pursue?

They were convicted, in part, because the United States Supreme Court has reportedly decreed it to be a violation of someone's Fourth Amendment rights to shoot an unknown person in the back while they're running away if you're not sure they're armed.(1)

I guess that's why no charges against Deval V. Bullock, who shot and killed Sal Culosi. Mr. Bullock knew exactly who Dr. Culosi was and was reasonably sure that he was not armed. Also, it is likely that Mr. Bullock shot Dr. Culosi in the side, and not in the back.(2) But I digress.

How are we supposed to guard our border with our own government working against us?

____________________________

(1) "Border Patrol agents sentenced to prison," WorldNetDaily.com, 2006 October 20, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52545.
(2) see: The Sovereign Editor. "More on the Unprovoked Killing of Dr. Culosi by Virginia Police" Sovereign Commentary, http://sovrealm.blogspot.com/2006/05/more-on-unprovoked-killing-of-dr.html; and ibid, "Paramilitary style police squad shoots unarmed optometrist," http://sovrealm.blogspot.com/2006/03/paramilitary-style-police-squad-shoots.html.

* * *

Technorati Tags: News Crime Border Patrol Drug Runners Culosi Sal Culosi Salvatore Culosi Mexico Supreme Court Illegal Immigration Bullock Deval Bullock Deval V. Bullock Illegal Aliens War on Drugs

_____________________________________________

4 Comments:

BadTux said...: Well, here's the thing. Law enforcement agents aren't allowed to shoot people just for running. They're only allowed to shoot people who present an immediate danger to the agent or to innocent bystanders. That's the law. That has always been the law, because law enforcement's job is not to be judge, jury, and executioner. Law enforcement's job is to apprehend *suspects*. Get that? SUSPECTS. Until a man has been judged in a court of law, he is not a criminal, he is a SUSPECT, and has a right to life that is enshrined in our Constitution, and any person -- lawman or no -- who tries to remove that life without meeting the fundamental criteria for doing so (i.e., immediate danger to life, or due process via conviction in a court of law) is a CRIMINAL.

These border patrol agents broke the law, and they paid the price for it -- as they should have. Being a lawman doesn't exempt you from following the law -- period. These lawmen knew better, and they allowed their emotions to override their training and departmental policy. It's not the first time, and it won't be the last time, but lawmen who break the law cannot be allowed to do so, because that sets up a dual system of law -- one for you and me, and one for lawmen. There is a name for such a dual system of law. It is called TYRANNY.

- Badtux the Libertarian Penguin; 10/24/2006 12:41 AM
_____________________________________________
BadTux said...: One more thing, while I'm thinking about it. I grew up around cops. My dad was close personal friends with the police commissioner of our town, and we lived next door to a cop and a cop's kid was my best friend growing up. I'll tell you this: If cops turned on two of their own, those two were BAD cops. As in, corrupt, violent, probably done a lot worse multiple times, until finally their co-workers got tired of having their good name sullied and ganged up and set these two up.

My suspicion is that there's a lot more dirt that could be dug up on these two, that got covered up under the blue wall of silence, until finally it got to be too much even for that wall. Because police agencies just don't prosecute their own unless we're talking *REALLY* bad cops, I mean the worst of the worse. Don't believe the propaganda that these two are somehow victims. Police agencies just don't work like that. If it was a righteous shoot, they'll stand up for the cops involved to the end, because they're all cops and they all know what it's like on the street. Just ask Police officers Edward McMellon, Sean Carroll, Kenneth Boss and Richard Murphy, who shot Amadou Diallo 41 times and still have a job (albeit McMellon retired and went to work for the fire department afterwards).

Either these two were dirty cops, or somehow human nature has changed over the years and the blue wall of silence has gotten thinner. I'm suspecting the former.

-Badtux the Law Penguin; 10/24/2006 2:05 AM
_____________________________________________
Ben said...: I'm not certain the Culosi case is a good comparison. In Fairfax county there is obviously one set of rules for cops (i.e. no such crime as manslaughter if a policeman kills someone negligently) and another set of rules for us.

I'm amazed that the D.A. and the police department didn't come against a firestorm of protest. If they did, I didn't read about it.

It seems we're quietly succumbing to an increasingly tyrannical government.; 10/31/2006 3:17 PM
_____________________________________________
The Sovereign Editor said...: Thanks for your comments, BadTux and Ben. Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to this, but I've not had much free time lately.

Everyone else reading this, pay attention to what the previous comments say, because they point out the flaws in my own thinking. In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have posted this article at all because I am conflicted in how I feel about it.

BadTux: I would agree with you, but this guy was fleeing law enforcement agents after receiving a lawful order to halt. That, in itself was a crime. You are right about him being a suspect when they tried to apprehend him, but when he fled, he became a criminal in fact -- as agents of an administrative agency in the field, law enforcement officers are permitted to make lawful in-the-field adjudications regarding crimes committed in their presence. If they weren't, traffic cops wouldn't be allowed to let people off with just warnings; they would be compelled to write a ticket each and every time they stopped someone. The reason what they did doesn't bother me, and you will likely disagree with me here (like most other libertarians), is because he was overtly defiant to a law enforcement officer and was fleeing custody and the jurisdiction of the United States. He was not just sitting around minding his own business when they shot at him. I know this sounds kind of weird considering my usual posts concerning law enforcement officers, but it's just how I feel. We can't have a lawful society if people are simply allowed to disobey our law enforcement officers when they are performing their duty. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with them just shooting anyone who runs away... but on the other hand, how are they supposed to get someone who is fleeing into Mexico? Would you have a problem if they used tranquilizer guns? I think that would be a good idea.

Ben: Yeah, that was a clunky reference there, I just like to mention Culosi's case whenever I can. I'm just mad that cops can just walk up, shoot someone (who hadn't given them cause), and have no repercussions.

You guys really hit it, though. I think that, on average, this is probably one of the worst posts I've done.; 11/06/2006 7:22 PM
_____________________________________________

Return Home