Murder at the Border

Post Reply New Topic

In this case, the defendant, U.S. Border Patrol agent Lonnie Swartz is arguing that it's legal for border agents to recklessly shoot and kill unarmed people on the Mexican side of the border because they don't have 4th amendment rights. If he prevails on his claim, I think Mexico would have cause to complain.

https://psmag.com/murder-at-the-border- ... .qunnzc99f

There are other abuses at the border:

http://prospect.org/article/abuses-border

I wonder if this would end up sparking an international incident. Say, U.S. border patrol agents begin firing across the border at unarmed people again, and some Mexican police officers who happen to be nearby fire back. That would be a major screw-up. The U.S. and Mexico would be at loggerheads with each other.

A properly financed and properly operated international border with Mexico is what Trump is advertising. The present situation is a mess, almost as bad as the Secret Service, although not quite.

What I found interesting ...

From wiki: "The shooting led to a protracted court case which examined whether the 5th amendment protected Guereca's life, liberty and property even though he was not standing on US soil"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Sergio_Guereca

From article: "In the case of Hernandez, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled in favor of the Border Patrol, stating that Hernandez’s Fifth Amendment rights were not “clearly established” when he was killed".

Update March 2016
"The family of a Mexican teen shot and killed in Mexico by a border patrol agent in Texas is again urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its case, refuting the federal government's argument that the agent had qualified immunity".
http://www.law360.com/articles/775344/a ... court-told

"The" [family's] "brief said that, under the government's reasoning, officers would be immune from litigation "for even the most obviously unlawful conduct at the border, just so long as the victim is not on U.S. soil and turns out not to have been a U.S. citizen."

So the Obama administration is backing up the agents saying 1) they have immunity, 2) the en banc, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, means no 4th or 5th amendment rights for non-US citizens killed on Mexican soil

"So the Obama administration is backing up the agents saying 1) they have immunity, 2) the en banc, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, means no 4th or 5th amendment rights for non-US citizens killed on Mexican soil"

Isn't this the "unwritten" code of conduct by our armed forces in conflict overseas?

US gov.'s first argument is that the border agents have "qualified immunity" from prosecution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity

"Qualified immunity, when applicable, shields government officials from liability, unless their actions are found to violate an individual's federal constitutional rights".

Note: the US gov. says Mexicans on Mexican soil have no "constitutional rights".