I’ll leave the legal discussion to those better able to handle it, but I do believe that our border patrol has an extremely difficult job. I am inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt and a large measure of understanding as to how difficult that job is. Additionally, the extent to which these men were prosecuted—and the drug runner was granted all manner of privilege—is disgusting. Still, as I’ve stated, I think the way congress is handlng this is very dangerous and a mistake. Hopefully their tactic will work and Bush will pardon the men before an even larger mistake can be made.
Is there actually going to be a debate here? Is anybody arguing yet that this action by the House is wise or proper?
Alright, since you’re the one who made the original assertion, please provide the citation to the criminal offence of negligent injury to another person. Not a civil tort, but a criminal offence.
Yes. In the same sense, my opinion is that the atomic number of oxygen is 8.
Not all negligence that injures another is a crime. There is such a thing as “criminal negligence,” yes. But all negligence is not criminal. That’s the “incomplete” part of your claim.
Typically, when discussing mens rea, negligence is the word used to describe the least of the culpable mental states, and most often mere negligence will not support a criminal conviction. Intention is the most culpable of mental states, and will support specific intent crimes. Hanging around in the middle we find phrases like “recklessness,” “criminal negligence,” “gross criminal negligence,” “wanton disregard for human life,” “depraved indifference,” and a host of others.
So, strictly speaking, no – when someone injures another as a result of negligence, they are not necessarily guilty of a crime. That’s the “wrong” part of your claim.
OK, OK it is conceivable that there is a non criminal injury as a result of negligence. In your experience, is this ever the case when one person intentionally shoots another?
No.
As I said above, intention is the most culpable of mental states.
Yes: Dick Cheney shot that lawyer negligently.
I say this as someone who shoots, and specifically shoots shotguns in similar environments.
It’s the governments own misguided policies that contribute towards those deaths. You don’t see employees of Budweiser performing driveby shootings on Coors, do you? When drug dealers screw each other over, they can’t settle the dispute in a courtroom. But now we’re going off on a tangent. These border agents knew absolutely nothing about this man other than he was a smuggler. He could have put Gandhi to shame for how pacifistic he was for all they knew. And shooting him to keep his weed off the streets doesn’t make a dent on the overall drug trade, it’s like taking a fistfull of sand off the beach.
The border cops took it upon themselves to use deadly force on somebody who was no immediate threat to them. A jury, who heard all the facts and deliberated on them, found them guilty. I see no reason to overturn the jury verdict in this case and doing so sets a bad example for law enforcement that being trigger happy has no consequences.
That’s not even the issue of discussion though. We could argue all day about whether the guy deserved to be killed, and never address the issue of whether Congress should have the power to overturn or indefinitely commute a jury conviction. But, the answer to that is a resounding “fuck no!” with a bit of “how the hell did they figure they could do that?” thrown in. Bricker’s right on the money for this one.
I’m another voice in agreement with Bricker on this one. There are reasonable arguments to be made that Ramos and Compean got too high a sentence. But this is a completely wrong way to proceed on this or any other similar issue. While I’m not surprised there was a Representative or two who would initiate a defiance of the Constitution this large, I am amazed that the House was able to achieve a bipartisan majority on it and pass it.
I believe that these two men had a trial and at that trial they had legal representation that was competent. They had their day in court and they were found guilty of a crime. If they have been sentenced, then they serve that sentence and ‘we’, the state, the government, pay to put them in jail.
I don’t think there is much a debate about congress doing this. It’s stupid. It’s completly out of line. None of the money approiated for housing criminals is approiated for a specific person. It’s not like the budget for that department lists each criminal by name and how much they intend to spend on them. In short, there isn’t a form to fill out to do this so there is no way it could be legal.