Zonie63
Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
I'm not making any direct claims or allegations here, nor am I claiming any expertise in the field of law enforcement. All I'm saying is that "this is what it looks like to me." If it doesn't look the same way to you, then I invite you to state what it does look like to you.
If you are not making any direct claims or allegations, why create the thread in the first place?
Because the article in my OP raised some questionable activities that I wanted to run past the forum to see if anyone else saw the same things as I did. It wasn't intended to have any ulterior political motive, if that's what you're trying insinuate here.
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
Most of us have access to quite a number of news source to obtain a wide amount of information already. Hell, we have search engines that we can 'plug' information into and look at the results (takes some searching in some cases). The second half of the OP (that would be your first post as well), IS the allegation.
"Apparently, the Border Patrol has a different procedure than most local police departments when it comes to officer-involved shootings:"
That's your words!
The usage of the qualifying adverb "apparently" would make it speculation, not an allegation. There is a difference. The PCSO report cited in the article indicated that the Border Patrol agents had no training as to what happens when there is an officer-related shooting. The report also indicated that standard investigative procedures amounted to "treating [the border agents] as criminals," indicating surprise that there would be any investigation at all. ("Investigation? We don't need no stinkin' investigation!")
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
If it looks to you differently than the way it does to me, and/or if you have any expertise or insight of your own that you wish to share, I'll be glad to hear your viewpoint.
You can try to question my motives if you wish or try to make the discussion about me, but since there were other threads related to border and immigration issues, I only thought this might be an interesting sidebar to what seemed to be an important issue facing this country. The information provided in the article I linked seemed straightforward enough, unless you're saying that the Pima County Sheriff's Office is lying.
Your making one or more allegations of concepts to which the evidence does not so far support. I'm simply pointing that out to you.
And as I pointed out to you, it was speculation, not an outright allegation. I was basing it on the information provided in the article, which you haven't even come close to addressing yet, so I have reason to wonder if you've even bothered to look at it or even care about the issue in question. In that case, I would wonder why you even bothered to reply at all.
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
What isn't a conspiracy and is pretty well established as fact is that the Border Patrol shot and killed an unarmed man who was running away from them. That doesn't bother you in the slightest?
That is one of the possible outcomes when people are given firearms.
That some black kid was being stalked by some 'neighborhood watch', racist, idiot with a firearm; did trouble me. Or of some idiot that left the security of his house to confront an unidentified intruder, shooting to kill, only to find the man needed some help. Yes, that troubled me as well. Or of the idiot that shot up a car full of kids whom were playing their music loud; because he thought one or more of them were going to kill him. Yes, that was troubling as well. Yes, if a Border Agent shot and killed an unarmed man, that too should be investigated. The same as any of these armed vigilantes along the border whom feel the laws of the nation do not apply to them, since they are protecting the nation.
The key thing to consider here is that the laws apply to everyone equally. There is no special set of laws applying only to cops and government officials. When investigating any shootings done by anybody, then the same rules and procedures should apply, no matter if the alleged shooter was wearing a badge or not. Nobody is above the law. To believe otherwise is to support tyranny.
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
Unlike the first group of people that shot and killed someone, the Border Agent has rules, regulations, procedures, processes, and laws to follow.
Ah, but there is no "first group of people" in this comparison. Those who shoot other people would all be in the same group - innocent until proven guilty, without any favoritism or prejudice - until a thorough investigation can be completed. It might also be said that during the course of such an investigation, an alleged shooter might very well be asked pointed questions and might even be "treated like a criminal," which is what the Border Patrol agents in this case were complaining about. But according to a quote in the article where a Border Patrol agent said something to the effect of "We're all cops," it implies that police should be treated differently than a civilian and should be held to a different standard.
If you're suggesting that a Border Patrol agent or other law enforcement personnel should be treated any differently than any of the civilians you referred to above, then I would say that's a very bold assertion which would require some very careful justification and support.
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
If he or she gets out of line, there exist specific penalties.
It's the same for any civilian who gets out of line.
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
And there are those, whose responsibility to the organization and the people they report to, to maintain discipline and the following of 'The Rule of Law'. That is what "A Well Regulated Militia...." means in the 2nd amendment. Those other idiots that killed people? They were not in 'A well regulated Militia...'.
We're talking about claims of self-defense, not a militia. In the case of the Border Patrol agent, he was chasing someone who was pulled over with marijuana in his car. According to the agent, he thought the suspect had a gun (which he didn't) and shot him. So, his contention was that he had no other choice, as he saw it as a case of defending himself and his fellow agents.
Which is the exact same defense used by those other guys. They "thought" their lives were in danger, just as this border agent "thought" that his life was in danger.
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
If anything all of them ignore the first half of the amendment and reinterpret the second half however they wish. Would you want law enforcement to ignore the first 2/3rds of the 8th amendment? And reinterpret the remainder however they want? NO! Course not! Because that would be.....INSANE....! So why do we allow it with the 2nd?
Given the last sentence or two, lets keep this thread focus on the topic and NOT, the 2nd amendment....
If the Border Agent shot and killed someone, I'm in favor of the issue being investigated. Their ability to do their jobs requires credibility to be maintain with the American population.
I agree with this last part. That's what the article in the OP was about, the investigation into this shooting and the response of the Border Patrol agents involved, as reported by the PCSO investigation. I think it's still being reviewed by the County Attorney.
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
I doubt you would be 'intellectually honest' and acknowledge the history surrounding Mr. Bundy.
Well...I don't think you're in much of a position to be talking about "intellectual honesty" at this particular moment. That's all I'll say about that.
I'm not the one making up anything nor accusing others of wrong doing without good supporting evidence. Your the one that made the thread....
I haven't accused anyone, nor has the Sheriff's Department or the County Attorney. That you think that I have accused others or made anything up is an unwarranted extrapolation on your part. You're jumping to conclusions and trying to make the thread about me, which I find to be an intellectually dishonest approach - especially since you seem to falling all over yourself to avoid addressing the actual incident and investigation raised in the OP.
You're going all over the map, bringing up Bundy, Zimmerman, a few other unrelated cases, the 2nd Amendment, the 8th Amendment, militias. All I wanted to discuss in starting this thread was this one particular incident and the points raised about the investigation.
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
Its not so much a parallel here as 'same story, different side of the coin'. Your attacking the Border Agents for not helping the locals. In the 'Bundy Case', I'm pointing out that local law enforcement did not side with the Federal government.
I'm citing a report from the Pima County Sheriff's Office which indicated that the Border Patrol agents were balking against a legal investigation into a fatal shooting committed by one of their agents against an unarmed man who was caught with marijuana in his car. That one of the agents is alleged to have said "we're all cops" would also imply that the Border Patrol agents believe that they're entitled to preferential treatment from other cops; the kind of treatment that would not be afforded the average citizen.
And it's not the same story or the same coin. I think you're completely misreading this and trying to make a connection where there is none. Another major difference is that Bundy is still alive, but Jose Luis Arambula is dead.
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
When law enforcement fires a gun (regardless if that bullet or others like it, hit targets or not), there is an investigation into the whole issue. To make sure all laws, rules, and procedures were followed. That's what should happen when part of "A well regulated militia...". Being held accountable and responsible is vital to maintaining the public's good will.
One would think so, yes. At least that's what they do at the local level. But it's also important to maintain transparency, which is part of the problem and where much of the public's good will is lost. Even the appearance of wrongdoing is not good for an agency's reputation. There are some regions of the country where cops aren't very well received or trusted very much. Good citizens should consider why that's the case and also tell the government and police what they must do to mend their ways and restore faith in the citizenry. To blindly go along with the cops just because they're cops while accusing their critics of "making a conspiracy" is not good citizenship, in my opinion.
Doesn't matter if its a local police officer or an FBI agent. They are usually...ALWAYS....investigated when firing one or more rounds of ammunition.
Not according to the Border Patrol agents cited in this article. I would wonder why the FBI or Border Patrol wouldn't investigate a shooting by a Federal law enforcement officer, but if they handed the investigation over to the County Sheriff's Department, then this clearly isn't a case of the locals not siding with the Federal government or vice versa. The FBI or Border Patrol could have investigated this themselves, but they chose not to because "there was no one to prosecute." But since it was handed over to the County, it was their duty to investigate according to their own established policies and procedures.
quote:
Even when target practicing, they have to file out some forms to allow that process to take place. They'll tell you its a 'pain in the ass', but its there because the good citizens demanded it of government.
How do you know all this? You asked me earlier if I was a member of the FBI or Border Patrol, but are you now speaking as a voice of authority here?
quote:
Through out the history of this nation, more rules, regulations, laws, and such have been added to the 'police' side of law enforcement. Usually do to events that end in a tragedy. The aim is to keep such things from taking place in the future. And when they do happen, there exists a process for it.
Well, we have a Constitution which guarantees the rights of the people, and it's really a shame that we have found it necessary to add a bunch of extra rules, regulations, and laws to the "police" side of law enforcement to merely remind them of the Constitutional principles they've already sworn to uphold.
Another part of the problem is that the "citizen" side of law enforcement has also had to contend with all these extra rules, regulations, and laws - which, among other things, gives the law enforcement community far more tasks and obligations for them to perform. Society itself has gotten more complex that there's much more for the police to do, so that would also entail extra rules and procedures to deal with all these extra duties we put on their plate.
For example, in the case cited in this thread, the Border Patrol pulls over a "suspicious" vehicle allegedly carrying marijuana about 40 miles from the border. Why are they even doing stuff like that in the first place? That's another question that should be asked.
quote:
Each of the federal agencies that handle law enforcement in some way (FBI, Secret Service, US Marshals, ICE, etc.) all report to Congress. And there are routine hearings with each of those agencies by members of Congress to be updated on events within each organization.
I'm sure the matter has ben investigated by now, and given an update to Congress on where it stands. The agency might change one or more processes and the retraining of those agents will take place in the coming months.
How can you be so sure? You're so quick to jump all over me and decide that I'm wrong, yet you're so ready to trust the authorities in this case that you can be "sure"? Without even knowing the particulars or the substance of the investigation, you're "sure"? At least I never said that I was "sure." I just suggested the possibility.
|
Border Agents Complain of Being "Treated Like Crim... - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread