Bush almost did something right.
 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...ED4815D4SF.DTL

Commute my ass,those two should get full pardons and their lives returned.Two men whose lives were destroyed by a PC liberal way of life.

And yet in our society sub-humans like Mike Nifong and that whore who destroyed those three Duke lacrosse players ride for free.

I truly give up.Bush at the very end still didn't have the nads to go all the way.How do you not give these guys a full pardon?They shot an illegal immigrant drug dealer and these border patrol officers did hard time!

PARDON THEM GODDAMIT!

Oops to late.Political Correctness once again beats out morality.

But none of this matters as half white/black jesus will save us all.:doh:

Yea, I didn't even notice they didn't get pardoned until later in the day.

I'll need to read up more to understand why he didn't go all the way.

Seems odd.

Because they broke the law.

There are common sense exceptions to the rule, and this looked to be one of them.

I guess they should have finished the job then
Better aim next time


:nailem::nailem:

We want America back, change the laws or amend them so people can do their jobs and stop giving criminals more rights than victims while we're at it.

They shot people running away and then they tried to cover it up but fooling w/the evidence.

If you really believe that I gotta a great rod to sell ya,just meet me BEHIND the 7-11.

Those two men should have full pardons.The only reason they don't is so that idiot Bush can preserve some dignity in a politically correct world.

By your standards I guess American soldiers should never shoot at those running away even though those running away just planted a roadside bomb that just killed a half dozen of their fellow soldiers.

I'll never get people like you.I'll wager you're one of those folks who lives by the mantra:"Give them what they want and you won't be harmed".Translation:"We won't hurt you just let us fly these planes":end result 9/11.

What if someone breaks into your house?Are just going to curl up and give them what you've rightfully earned?%$%$%$%$ that,shoot them dead and not be ashamed or made to feel guilty about it.


Realism is a much better way to live than idealism.Ideas are what's gotten us and this planet in this mess.

Complete pardon for those men.

I've always felt that the Border Patrols should be allowed to protect the border with a more liberal use of deadly force. They hop the fence and start running, take them down. They don't fully cooperate, take them down.

Maybe deadly force will cause people to think twice about trying to illegally enter this country. The virtues of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness should only apply to those here legally.

Punishing the border patrols for shooting someone who entered the country illegally, is no different than punishing me for killing the person who broke into my home while I was in bed.

Yet people call me a liberal democrat.

It seems a big issue here is that they tried to cover the incident up. I can't find any info that indicated to what degree this was proven by evidence or witness testimony.

From what I read though, Bush's commutation seems to be appropriate. If there was a use of force and the agents did lie about it, they deserve to be charged appropriately. The trust given to someone who can use deadly force in the line of duty isn't exactly negotiable.

If anyone has any more info I'd like to read it.

-spence

i agree and disagree
 

Smuggling aliens isn't so easy any more

neither is getting drugs into the country

Smugglers use guns all the time and need to be considered
armed and DANGEROUS without question...

but the humble and meek average working mexican who just wants to get back to his trailer out in the orange groves after visiting his family down south... doesn't need to be shot trying to feed his family....

it really depends on who they are and where they are from...

some are the nicest people you'd ever chance to meet
and others from countries below mexico usually
will kill you for a pack of cigarettes ...

it depends on whether they were raised up in a murderous GANG
or not.... there's more heads being lopped off in mexico these days than over in IRAQ or Afghanistan lately

Almost exactly three years ago I had to leave the RISAA show because I got the call our house was broken into.We got lucky,the phone rang and our yorkie barked.The only person in the house was a 16yr old girl and the purp ran.20+ house breaks later the guy basically got himself busted.Good job Tiverton PD,hell taking a photo of the boot print on my front door apparently was a waste of time.

If I'd been home that person would be maimed or dead.No regrets whatsoever.None.DEAD.

You can't get hurt if you don't commit the crime.

You don't have the right to kill someone because they put a bootprint on your step, or even try to jimmy your door.

Even law enforcement doesn't have the legal right to kill someone without specific conditions being met.

While I do think some of the retreat laws on the books in some states are a bit over the top, there is always a common sense test to be applied.

-spence

When I was 15 my parents, who never went out, were at the MA Bass Banquet (NO BS!), sis was babysitting and I was home alone watching Phantasmic Features on the tube. At a little past 12 the front door handle starts moving. I yell "who's there" and the person starts laying into the door hard. I sat on the 2nd floor stairway facing the door with the trusty Ithaca 20 ga.single pointed at the door and announced my intentions loudly. It was only then that my sis let me in on her little joke. I shook and cried for about 10 minutes....then beat the sh&t out of my big sister. I have no doubt if it had been a home invasion that I would have shot the perp. Being prior to the change in the MA Home Invasion Law I would probably still be in jail.! I don't know if these guys were right or wrong and won't judge them but if a 15 yr. old scared sh&tless kid can think twice before pulling the trigger I think a trained agent should be able to make the right decision..but...if you've never had your finger on the trigger pointing a gun at another person you'll never understand the magnitude of the decision.

This is exactly my feeling on the matter. Do not try to illegally sneak into the country and you won't get shot when you don't comply. They get two chances - the first is the big fence blocking the way and second is when the Border Patrol tells them to stop. Third chance only comes if they aren't fatally wounded.

My college philosophy prof asked backed in the 70s if we thought we had the right to take a burgular's life. My reply was that wasn't my decision, it was the burgular's, he made it when he broke in.

I'll ignore the insults. Realism - they broke the law and were sent to jail. They tried to cover their crime up by tampering with evidence. Why have laws if you don't think they apply to everyone? I don't think the guy they shot had a gun and their lives weren't threatened. It takes a special person to be a law enforcement officer and these 2 weren't special.

that, is a very profound statement. :cheers:
I hope I'm never ever in the position to comprehend that decision!

laws do not cover all circumstances which is why we have courts. This guy:
1. illegally crossed the border
2. Was carrying drugs
3. Tried to escape
4. Was caught AGAIN with drugs while he was testifying against the border patrol guards!

The "victim" was not shot in the head, he was not brutally murdered. he was shot in the ass. If this was a police matter, I'm not sure it would be a case, but because they were border patrol, the rules for them are different. Although they may have broken the law, the sentence was harsh. So you should ask yourself, harsh compared to what? Well, I read some of the postings of child molesters in my local library, a few guys, per their records were in jail for 3-4 yrs for raping a minor and now live freely in my town. If thats not a worse crime than the border guards, who risk their lives for our safety, I'm in the wrong country.
The law is the law, but we are advacned enough to have a court system to understand the circumstances and determine the best course of action. Somehow these guys were short changed in the court system.

I like the way all of you can justify shooting someone in the back. WHEN YOU KNOW FULL WELL BORDER GUARDS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO FIRE ON FLEEING INDIVIDUALS.
Maybe we can now switch attention to the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis that were killed in Iraq.

Jimmy, what the guy did is not germane to this discussion. We're talking about the border guards. We did not appoint the 2 guys as judges and executioner. They were guilty. If the sentence for someone crossing the border illegally was 5 years in jail, while its a separate discussion, I have no problem w/that.

I can't help but think about the "end purchasers" of the goods! If this guy had made it across and sold the stuff...would the cops be justified in shooting the kid who was selling it over here if when "caught" he ran...and if that kid managed to sell the stuff what about the guy who bought it from him and when confronted by John law tossed the joint and kept on moving. Me thinks half the guys on here wouldn't be sitting for a while themselves!

DISCLAIMER for those with no sense of humor...this was supposed to be a joke!

Of course it is, the circumstances need to be considered. Again, thats what courts are for! Not sure why we're arguing, many people , many Democrats supported the reduction in the sentence and in the end their sentences were reduced. I am happy about that.

The subject at hand wasn't, were they justified in shooting him because he had drugs, it is because he entered the country illegally and then fled. As such, there's a whole lot of immediate evidence of wrongdoing with the jumper than of the kid living in the US.

You're comparing apples to oranges.

So if I rob a bank b/c I lost my job I shouldn't have to be spend any time in jail or if I steal a loaf of bread b/c I'm hungry?

I don't have to go along with what "many Democrats" feel plus we're only discussing, not arguing.

the punishment was too harsh for the crime. This was not premeditated, they did not steal the drugs, etc. They screwed up, broke the law.
Im just saying, many people agreed the punsihment was too harsh and the sentence was reduced.

Tax evasion is breaking the law too.......hows our new Tresasury secretary doing?

Aren't there sentencing guidelines? They could have appealed the sentence also.

If the Treas. sec. evaded taxes then the IRS, under the Repub. administration should have prosecuted him - unless the Repubs don't view tax evasion as breaking the law. The Bush admin. politicized the justice department and if they thought he broke the law, I am sure that would have done all they could have to prosecute him (including firing people who refused to do what they wanted and then hiring hacks from some crappy southern school). Does Bob Jones university offer an accounting degree?

Hey Joe only shot Bob in the leg, lets reduce his sentence.

What if you shoot someone in the foot? A good laugh and pat on the back and try not to let it happen again?

Good to see accountability is out the door.

"Im just saying, many people agreed the punsihment was too harsh and the sentence was reduced."

All in favor , with one edit for spelling ;-), say aye! Done...next discussion!

following the news at all?

Tax evasion implies intent to evade. The IRS investigated and found no such intent.