Isn’t the razor wire already up? What’s the difference?
What’s the difference between razor wire and you being a sniper shooting a child in the head, is that your question?
This is why you should be banned.
Yes. When putting up the razor wire, I believe the intellectually honest thing to do is figure, hey, this could wind up killing someone trying to cross the border here. And when firing bullets at someone, I believe the intellectually honest thing to do is figure, hey, this could wind up killing someone trying to cross the border here.
Again: worse than an advocate for pedophilia, and I hope @Miller takes out the trash.
And, to clarify: I want folks planning on bringing someone along on an illegal border crossing to likewise figure, hey, this could wind up killing someone trying to cross the border here.
Yes, you goddamned monster, we know you want to enact murder so that people think, “Hey, there’s a sociopathic murderer here.” Posting a sign that you’re a monster doesn’t make you less of a monster.
There is a difference in degree between lethal deterrent (passive: razor wire) and lethal action (active: shooting people) which represents a significant escalation.
Capturing people at gunpoint is not a lethal anything, though the threat of lethal action is implicit and the potential for lethal actions are high.
Personally, I’d rather de-escalate. Every time I, a US-born US citizen (who also happens to be white and a native English speaker) cross the border, I get aggression. Usually it’s overall a good interaction, but I’ve been yelled at and bullied, sometimes just for misunderstanding them when they’re not clear. (Barking a noun phrase at me, for example: I need a verb if you want me to do something.)
The whole system is designed to see border-crossers as inherently criminal, and that’s simply not necessary. Other countries don’t do that. Try presuming innocence: it’s amazing. Make it easy to get to a legitimate, staffed border crossing. Have the person greeting be nice, fluent in Spanish if at the southern border, and helpful: if people aren’t admissible, give them an option so they don’t choose “risk life sneaking across” as the alternative.
I get the feeling that Waldo is one mistaken address away from being this guy.
“But your honor, I put up a sign saying that I would shoot home invaders, and that people who weren’t home invaders shouldn’t come up to my house!”
He’s just one of the pro lynching posters on this message board. Don’t forget the Arbery thread where they also showed up.
I think a border guard fatally shot an unarmed child in the face in the 2010s, and then a couple years ago the Supreme Court ruled that the family had no standing to sue. Because technically the bullet had left US jurisdiction to meet it’s target.
Point is, the name of the victim escapes me.
~Max
You must love that parsing of the law, you old rules lover, you.
What case was this?
Hernandez v. Mesa?
Facts of the case
Sergio Adrián Hernández Güereca, a 15-year-old Mexican national, was playing with friends in the cement culvert between El Paso, Texas, and Cuidad Juarez, Mexico. Border Patrol Agent Jesus Mesa, Jr. arrived on the scene and detained one of Hernández’s friends on U.S. territory. Hernández ran into Mexican territory and stood by a pillar near the culvert. From U.S. territory, Mesa fired at least two shots across the border at Hernández, one of which struck Hernández in the face and killed him.
Thank you. from your link: " On its appeal in 2019, the Court decided the situation was an international one that required a diplomatic solution to be set by Congress rather than a civil one determined by the courts, and upheld the Fifth Circuit’s ruling."
Congress, of course, has done nothing.
Actually I think it was a bad decision. There’s no surer way to submit an alien to U.S. jurisdiction than for a federal government agent, standing on U.S. soil in official capacity, to shoot him dead. I would argue that the act of extraterritorial punishment extends U.S. jurisdiction under a theory of respondeat superior. Whatever offense Mexico takes is due to our actual encroachment upon her territory (an insult to her sovereignty). Mexico may have a claim against us in the realm of international law, but that is independent of the suit brought by the survivors of the deceased.
I have my doubts as to the legality of Bivens actions (implied right to sue a federal govt official w/o waiver of sovereign immunity), but the precedent on that is clear and the majority made no pretense of overturning that.
With regards to @The_Other_Waldo_Pepper’s position, I’ve already opined that shooting aliens on U.S. soil just because of unlawful presence is both illegal and unconscionable. I received no response. I think I am being consistent here when I opine - as a layman - if The_Other_Waldo_Pepper were a border patrol agent, and he shot people trying to cross the border before they arrived on U.S. soil, he should be personally liable to them in tort action under the law (though the Supreme Court has indicated otherwise), and probably in criminal prosecution too.
ETA: It goes without saying, just because the Supreme Court rules in a certain way (that I disagree with), and just because The_Other_Waldo_Pepper might in some unrealistic hypothetical get away with mass murder, doesn’t make his position morally justified.
~Max
Even the case you’re alluding to, odious as it is, pales in comparison to what this maniac is calling for. In Hernandez v Mesa, the guard claims the boy was throwing rocks at him, and he used that to justify his murder of the boy. TOWP wants to justify murder of someone crossing the border at the wrong place.
It’s very much Bart Simpson’s “I’m just swinging my arms, and if you get hit it’s your fault,” only it’s murder.
The border patrol agent was lying about the rocks and self defense. The plaintiffs introduced video evidence that directly contradicted his claims. But see my edit,
~Max
Video evidence showed that the checks forum murdering piece of shit posing as a border patrol officer was lying about that.