Law Enforcement Pitfalls ?

As a former Military Policeman in the USMC and in southern California I am all to well familiar with dealling with illiegals and drug trafficers.

This prosecuter should be investigated by our press to see his lean on illegal issues. This is the same vile attack that we see on our military everyday. Guilty until proven innocent.

 

IF IF IF what the DA said is factual, then the agents over-reacted. One of the first things we were taught was "never violate the law to enforce it." That focus was applied to departmental regulations, as well. I certainly would not want to be the one tried IF the evidence is factual. Apparently, the jury or trial board believed the DA.

The case as presented leaves open many questions, including when, where, and how the DA got his evidence, and, secondarily, his attitude toward the concept of border patrol by federal agents.

 

Two problems - Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila didn't have a gun and he was shot in the back.

 

Shooting an unarmed man in the back does not sound good for these Officers.

I dont know the details of the case though. Does the prosicution know for sure that the man was unarmed. It sounds like he was able to escape and maybe ditch his weapon. If that is the case and both agents testifie that the man pointed a gun at them, that is more then enough reasonable doubt.

But at the least these agents violated their departments policys and may loose their jobs.

 

http://www.newswithviews.com/Evensen/greg.htm

 

I guess it depends on circumstances.

John Kerry got a Silver Star for shooting an unarmed man in the back.:smilewinkgrin:

The Border Patroll gets tried for murder.

 

Now I am not a Kerry fan. But there is a big difference between what solders do in war and what cops do everyday.

Kerry was fighting gorrila style warfair where solders would shoot rockets at the boats then run into the jungle to attack again some place else. They are fair game while retreating. Just like you can shoot somebody from a mile away with artilery with out giveing them a chance to surrender during war.

What police do is different and the rules of engagement are much different. The Officers are allowed to shoot when theirs or somebody elses lifes are in emediate danger (immenent jeprody) or if they are preventing the escape of a known violent person who commited a felony and who the Officer has reason to believe that the persons escape would put the public safety in jeprody.

 

Granted, but...

Unarmed is unarmed. Any way you slice it.

In Iraq, A soldier that shoots and kills an unarmed and wounded Iraqi would very likely be charged.

In Kerry's defense, he may not have been sure the Vietnamese was unarmed, but...

It appears the same could be said for the Border Patrol agent.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the the vietcong solder Kerry shot in the back came out of the jungle fired a shoulder rocket type weapon at the group of boats then ran turned and was running back into the jungle when he was shot in the back.

If that is the case, IF, I dont have a problem with it.

 

If a cop pulls an object out from his pants, under the car seat, bag, purse, and the Officer thought it was a weapon I dont have a problem with the shooting. We have to judge police based on the information they thought was correct at the time keeping in mind the split second they had to make the decition.

BUT the suspect had his back turned and was running. That is going to complicate thing in court. Unless his partner can backup his story.

It can happen, but it is going tough to defend. AND the department is more then right to investigate the incident. There are to many fishy details to be routine.

 

Not exactly, DJ.

We don't really know if Kerry shot him in the back or the front. It doesn't matter. He may have even had his arms up and been pleading for his life. No one knows for sure, but we do know he was wounded and unarmed, although Kerry may have had reason to believe he was armed.

In any case, I don't fault Kerry for his actions. I just noticed the similarities between his and the Border Patrol agent's actions. The results , though, are drastically different. One goes to jail, the other gets a medal and is a Senator.

 

Re:shot in back

The words "shot in the back" do not neccessarily give a correct picture of the incident. There is such a thing as fireing or aiming over the shoulder which would mean that any return fire could mean a suspect was shot in the back because that was the larger portion of the target provided and not that he was running away per se.

thjplgvp

 

He was armed and had just been shooting at them. Nice derail, carpro.

 

Right, If somebody is fireing over their shoulder while you are chasing them they are going to get shot in the back.

However after rereading this artical I think the Officers were in the wrong. This is why:

Cops only "snitch" on each other if there is very good reason. If they believe that the other cop is now a criminal. They dont tell on each other for making technical or procedural errors. Other agents who were on the scene testified that the cops were wrong.

TEXAS, do I need to say any more. A texas jury would be the most conservative, gun friendly, police friendly place in the world.

These cops knew they were wrong. They wanted the man to disapear accros the border and nobody to ever, ever know the incident happened. EVERY single cop in this country knows that each and every time you fire a duty weapon it has to be reported and investigated. The investigators report to the scene of the incident before you leave to investigate. This in no way could have been oversight. This was an intentional cover up by these two. I would have found them guilty on this alone if I was on the jury.

 

DJay

Did not read the article just the posts. Thanks for the clarification.

thjplgvp

 

Kerrys version

Swift boat vets / ship mates version

[SIZE=-1]

It seems in both versions the VC had a weapon and fired once at the boat. In one he had not reloded. I am still fine with shooting him, because letting him go would have made him a future threat. The only way for the VC to avoid being shot is drop his weapon and put his hands up.

Besides Kerry admited to other war crimes. We can fault him for that from his own admition. I cheer everytime I do not have to type president before his name. [/SIZE]

 

Sounds like carpro is the latest victim of the Swifties. He's their natural prey, because he wants so badly to believe them.

Yes, the guy Kerry shot and killed had an RPG and had aimed it at one of the boats in his flotilla.

The reason the VC didn't get the shot off, was that Kerry had improvised new tactics for such events, beaching the boats directly in the fact of the ambush, and focusing firepower on the enemy.

A dangerous, but highly effective tactic, for which he and his unit were praised.

The Swifties, of course, saved all their sympathy for the poor "unarmed" (except for a RPG) Viet Cong, who was "murdered" by the Americans.

Which may explain why they were working for Bush; he never did anything to harm the enemy.

 

You evidently don't read too well at times. Perhaps your agenda gets in the way.

I said clearly that I found no fault in Kerry's action whether he was armed or not.

Pay attention.:thumbs:

 

Ya, I would not go that far. Most of the swift boat vets accusations were believeable and like I said Kerry admited to war crimes himself. Out of his own mouth. Kerry has also been caught in several lies and some of his storys are compleatly unbelivable.

I think he was correct for shooting the VC with the RPG unloaded or not. But it does not make him a war hero. He did no more there then hundereds and hundereds of unknown troops who we will never know the name of. Shooting a retreating enemy with an unloaded RPG may not break the rules of war. But it in no way makes you a hero deserving of a silver star.

I just take issue with this one point they make about him. But you politics are obvious and you view is severly biased. I think Kerrys defeat in the election was one of the best things that happened for this country.

However I am willing to look at the facts and defend Kerry on this one (just this one :smilewinkgrin: ) point. Bush has certenly done harm to the enemies of this country. And if you say no then you are not willing to look at the facts past your own political agenda. And that makes you not worth listining to (or reading in this case). Try to think for yourself and not from you partys retoric.

Good night. :sleeping_2: