coldweatherfan Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Even if there's no threat to the border patrol agents? Shoot first. Ask questions later? Yep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True blue (and gold) Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Well, since this thread is about the conviction and pardon of 2 agents, should we not base the discussion on actual law ? So far, you guys have only based your arguments on hopes and rumors. It's interesting how the discussion is that the immigrants should come here legally, yet many are promoting the illegal actions of the border patrol agents. I guess everyone gets to pick and choose which laws are important to follow and which are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PepRock01 Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 I love #1. As for #2, I actually know children that were shot at while crossing the border, ages 2, 3 and 5. The two year old was in his mother's arms, the three year old was in his father's arms and the five year old was on his own two feet, holding his father's hand. Regardless of what choice their parents made (and how justified, unjustified they are), I will NEVER condone shooting unarmed individuals, particularly children. Note I only included shooting as a potential consequence if the mines didn't stop them. I feel as though unless there are clear-cut consequences then people will ignore any and all border restrictions. If children are harmed it is unfortunate but under the policy I suggest I feel as though anyone who decides to illegally cross the border has thrown away a nice carrot for a potential date with death. Make the benefits as sweet as possible with the consequences as dire as possible in order to entice people to make the right choice. It would be my sincere hope that my minefields would never once see an explosion on account of point 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clyde Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 I actually haven't read the case so I cannot comment on it. If the law was broken then there should be repercussions no doubt, however my comment was more based on my own desire for border enforcement as opposed to the current laws on the books. Fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoot Gibson Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 It's interesting how the discussion is that the immigrants should come here legally, yet many are promoting the illegal actions of the border patrol agents. I guess everyone gets to pick and choose which laws are important to follow and which are not.Border agents put their lives on the line every day and our federal government has not provided them with the support that they need. Mexican troops have been observed as deep as 40 or 50 miles within our borders with no consequences. Border agents deserve the benefit of doubt from the government that placed them in harm's way. That is the least that they should get for the risks that they take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PureFan Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Thanks for clarifying those points. I thought your intent was clear with your first posting. I love the phrase "explosively maim." I wonder why Jack Bauer has never used it. :lol: I like explosively maim also, and the 24 season is young maybe Bauer will use it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True blue (and gold) Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Border agents put their lives on the line every day and our federal government has not provided them with the support that they need. Mexican troops have been observed as deep as 40 or 50 miles within our borders with no consequences. Border agents deserve the benefit of doubt from the government that placed them in harm's way. That is the least that they should get for the risks that they take. I assume that border agents still have to follow the law. This includes not shooting those that are not threatening them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clyde Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Border agents put their lives on the line every day and our federal government has not provided them with the support that they need. Mexican troops have been observed as deep as 40 or 50 miles within our borders with no consequences. Border agents deserve the benefit of doubt from the government that placed them in harm's way. That is the least that they should get for the risks that they take. Very good points about the risk. However, that doesn't give these 2 carte blanche with their guns and their subsequent ineptitude and inabilty to follow procedure/law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoachBuckett Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Should have happened months ago. This should have happened over a year ago. Bush didn't have the courage to do it while he was in office. Not sure why it was the right thing to do. Thank you Bush for doing the right thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royal Uncle Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Bush has done some good things in office. He has also made some huge mistakes. This is probably the single best thing he has ever done in his life. Way to go. This should have been done over a year ago. I know these guys will not get their jobs back, but I feel they are deserving of some sort of severence package. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chickenliver3 Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 I think what they did wasn't that bad, but it is against the law so they should've had to serve it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodsrider Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 We need to clear something up this. Bush did not pardon the two border agents. He only commuted their sentences. Their conviction will still stand. Bush said he thought their sentences of 10 years were too harsh. They will end up serving 2 years and few months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clyde Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 We need to clear something up this. Bush did not pardon the two border agents. He only commuted their sentences. Their conviction will still stand. Bush said he thought their sentences of 10 years were too harsh. They will end up serving 2 years and few months. Just like pardons, I'm not comfortable with a lame duck President with one foot out the door and his bags packed for Texas overriding actual law. The guidelines for this crime were handed down by Congress with no exceptions to the minimum 10 year penalty. 100% politics without having a factual basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoot Gibson Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Just like pardons, I'm not comfortable with a lame duck President with one foot out the door and his bags packed for Texas overriding actual law. The guidelines for this crime were handed down by Congress with no exceptions to the minimum 10 year penalty. 100% politics without having a factual basis. At least there is no evidence that the commutations were purchased through large political donations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEXT Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 I feel all illegals should be shot if running from Border Patrol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts