Obama Justice Department Sends Border Agent to Prison

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Bugs, Nov 2, 2011.

  1. Bugs

    Bugs Well-Known Member

    Oct 19, 2011
    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep..._prison_for_violating_rights_of_drug_smuggler

    This was on TV this morning and really pissed me off. Really, he violated the "rights" of an ILLEGAL Immigrant & DRUG DEALER. They are now giving this dirtbag a Visa to enter the US. Wah , wah, wah he's only 15 years old...agent injured him during handcuffing because perp was resisting arrest. Tough ****, your a criminal. Your lucky you did not get shot. I am so sick of Obozo and his "jack*ss" administration. :frusty:
     
  2. dilespla

    dilespla Never made it to step 12 Supporting Addict

    Oct 12, 2011
    Further proof that this country is going down the drain...
     

  3. GM*

    GM* ~

    246
    Oct 15, 2011
    If I say how I feel about this I will most probably be banned from the forum :frusty:.
     
  4. Blayglock

    Blayglock Supporting Addict Supporting Addict

    Aug 18, 2011
    Y'all did see this right http://www.justice.gov/

    You see what happened. The Flag was replaced with a black and white color scheme. They also have this as the motto : "The common law is the will of mankind issuing from the life of the people." That is at odds with an understanding of natural law and the founding principles of this country IMO.
     
  5. Carolinaboy

    Carolinaboy Aim Small Miss Small Supporting Addict

    671
    Sep 17, 2011
    Pussification of America......this makes my blood boil :mad2:
     
  6. GM*

    GM* ~

    246
    Oct 15, 2011
    Obviously you want me banned from the forum :tape2:
     
  7. drcfirearms

    drcfirearms Forum Sponsor

    517
    Aug 16, 2011
    Common Law (Case Law) is nothing more than law that has been developed through previous court rulings and precedent (stare decisis). Nothing has changed in the the United States on that. If it does, you will find two similar cases with similar fact patterns could be decided completely opposite by different courts....Not good. Natural law, on the other hand gives certain rights and values that are inherent by virtue of human reasoning or human nature. Natural Laws had a profound influence on the development of English common law. You are correct though, Derek....the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are rooted in natural law, only because it is the base of modern common law. But they are certainly not in contradiction with each other.
    And as for that story? I am no bleeding heart, but in reading it, there are a whole lot of facts left out of that report and the story has an obvious bend. Just because a "defense attorney" alleges a certain fact or set of facts does not make them evidence. The jury reaches a verdict based on the facts presented in the case. I have a hard time believing a jury in Texas sent this Border Patrol agent to prison for two years for bruising the wrists of a suspected drug dealer crossing into the United States. All I am saying is my guess is there is a whole lot more to this story than is being reported in that article.....like the actual evidence.
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2011
  8. thecableguy

    thecableguy I hate this addiction Supporting Addict

    570
    Aug 16, 2011
    ^
    This. There are other facts that are missing from that story. No way in hell is a jury going to send a BPA to jail for only bruising a wrist especially here in TX where illegals are a big problem.
     
  9. dilespla

    dilespla Never made it to step 12 Supporting Addict

    Oct 12, 2011
    It seems there is always more to the story, always a spin, and these days it's hard to form an opinion on anything unless you have been directly involved.
     
  10. Bugs

    Bugs Well-Known Member

    Oct 19, 2011
    Really? Maybe if we start getting tougher on illegals with drugs crossing our borders there may actually be a deterrent to doing it. But as long as we have Obozo as president good luck. We'll just keep smuggling weapons into Mexico and then just try to blame local gun shops. Obama is a worthless POS (and I'm not referring to Position Of Safety) that needs to go.

    Here's an interesting fairly short article that is credited to the Washington Post of all places on August 18, 2011.
    I found it worth the read.




    The Washington Post
    August 18, 2011 Obama: The Affirmative Action President By Matt Patterson (columnist - Washington Post, New York Post, San Francisco Examiner)

    “Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job?

    Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer"; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present") ; and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions. He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator.

    And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?

    Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal:

    To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass.

    Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass -- held to a lower standard -- because of the color of his skin. Podhoretz continues:

    And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?

    Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon -- affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.

    Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist.

    Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin -- that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is. And that is what America did to Obama.

    True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary. What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks?

    In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people -- conservatives included -- ought now to be deeply embarrassed. The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when he has his teleprompter in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth -- it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.

    And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?

    In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.
     
  11. dilespla

    dilespla Never made it to step 12 Supporting Addict

    Oct 12, 2011
    Good post Bugs.
     
  12. Blayglock

    Blayglock Supporting Addict Supporting Addict

    Aug 18, 2011
    Dave, you're the (soon to be) JD here so tell me, should not common law be derived from the principles of Natural Law? I'm really interested in what you have to say as IANAL.

    On a side note I'm pretty uncomfortable with being ruled according to the institutes of "mankind" of those who believe that man is the sole measure of morality. That never turns out well.
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2011
  13. GeorgiaRedfish

    GeorgiaRedfish Well-Known Member

    Aug 19, 2011
    People in power to charge LEO's for things like this, need to understand basic arrest techniques and how hard it can be to get someone who does not want to comply restrained. It is a lot more difficult than many believe.
     
  14. drcfirearms

    drcfirearms Forum Sponsor

    517
    Aug 16, 2011
    The current administration has nothing to do with the original post. You will NOT find me standing up in defense of this administration by any stretch of the imagination. But for anyone to suggest the rule of law be stretched based on the status of the individual breaking the law is just opening the door for bigger problems. The fact is, for those of us that consider ourselves Constitutionalists, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim on one hand this administration usurps the Constitution and turn around and disregard the 4th Amendment and other constitutional protections (look up 42 U.S.C. 1983) when you see fit....it just does not work that way.

    Derek.....you are absolutely correct. Re-read my post....Common law is based/derived from Natural Law. I think where things get really muddy is with Statutory Law, which are derived from legislation. Sometimes (and more common in modern days), these man made laws directly contradict natural law (depending on what version of Natural Law one believes in....there are many different theories of NL.....Christian, Islamic, ect).
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2011
  15. 230gr

    230gr Active Member

    450
    Aug 23, 2011
    well said.
     
  16. Blayglock

    Blayglock Supporting Addict Supporting Addict

    Aug 18, 2011
    Gotcha. Just re-read your post. An interesting case study is going on right now I think with some courts ruling to uphold Obamacare and some declaring it unconstitutional. Thanks for taking the time to respond and good luck on your finals!! You need to hurry up and pass the Bar Exam. I need someone to set-up my NFA Gun Trust lol!!
     
  17. drcfirearms

    drcfirearms Forum Sponsor

    517
    Aug 16, 2011
    The conflict between the courts on Obamacare will guarantee the SCOTUS will hear it. With the current makeup of the court, I would guess they will finally decide to limit the powers of the Commerce Clause, which has got way out of hand, in my opinion.
     
  18. Bugs

    Bugs Well-Known Member

    Oct 19, 2011
    "The current administration has nothing to do with the original post. You will NOT find me standing up in defense of this administration by any stretch of the imagination. But for anyone to suggest the rule of law be stretched based on the status of the individual breaking the law is just opening the door for bigger problems. The fact is, for those of us that consider ourselves Constitutionalists, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim on one hand this administration usurps the Constitution and turn around and disregard the 4th Amendment and other constitutional protections (look up 42 U.S.C. 1983) when you see fit....it just does not work that way."

    Help me understand your point here. We have an illegal transporting drugs across our border. How are his rights being violated?? No illegal search and seizure here & plenty of probable cause. He was illegally entering our country. Border Patrol has every right to search him.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/bor...n-for-rough-cuffing-a-drug-smuggling-suspect/

    Charged with roughing up an illegal transporting drugs into the US. And no marks or injury to the perp. Give me a friggin break. :frusty:
     
  19. drcfirearms

    drcfirearms Forum Sponsor

    517
    Aug 16, 2011
    I don't have the answers to those questions.....my point is that neither does the article. Just because the guy is an illegal crossing the border with drugs does not reduce his protections under 42 U.S.C 1983 (this specific case is probably under 1983, not the 4A). Like I said, not drawing any conclusions, because I don't have the foggiest idea what the actual evidence presented was......that is all I am saying. From the verdict rendered in the case, apparently the jury decided, based on their jury instructions, the burden of proof was met. There is always the appeal process....

    Here is a portion of the 1983 Pattern Jury Instruction.....In this case, the jury felt these elements were met. They observed the actual trial...their evidence did not come from a news story. Keep in mind the word "reasonable" and the fact this kid was 15 years old and already restrained in handcuffs. Just a couple of things that jump out to me with what little I have seen about this case.

    Pattern Jury Instruction
    A. LIABILITY
    Federal law2 provides that [plaintiff] may recover damages if [defendant],3 acting under color of law, deprived [him/her] of a right guaranteed by the Constitution.4 The right at stake here is the right to be free from the use of excessive force. [The parties have agreed that [defendant] acted ―under color‖ of law. The only issue for you, therefore, is the issue of excessive force.] You are not to determine the legality of the [e.g., subsequent arrest].
    (1) Definition of Excessive Force
    Every person has the constitutional right not to be subjected to unreasonable or excessive force by a law enforcement officer. On the other hand, in [making an investigatory traffic stop, making an arrest, etc.] an officer has the right to use such force as a reasonable officer would believe is necessary under the circumstances to [complete the investigatory traffic stop, effectuate what a reasonable officer would believe to be a lawful arrest,5 etc.]. Whether or not the force used was unnecessary, unreasonable or excessively violent is an issue for you to decide on the basis of that degree of force that a reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer would have applied under the same circumstances disclosed in this case. The test of reasonableness requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances including, but not limited to, the severity of the [crime the officer was investigating, crime for which the arrest was made, etc.]; whether [plaintiff] posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officer or others; whether [he/she] was actively resisting the [investigatory traffic stop, arrest, etc.]; and the severity of any injury to [him/her].6
    The ―reasonableness‖ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. With respect to a claim of excessive force, the standard of reasonableness at that moment applies. Not every push or shove, even if it may later seem unnecessary, violates the Constitution. The determination of reasonableness must allow for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.
    The ―reasonableness‖ inquiry is an objective one. The question is whether an officer‘s actions are ―objectively reasonable‖ in light of all the facts and circumstances confronting [him/her], without regard to [his/her] underlying intent or motivation. Evil intentions will not make a constitutional violation out of an objectively reasonable use of force; and good intentions will not make an unreasonable use of force proper.
    5
    (2) Elements of the Plaintiff’s Claim
    In order to prove [his/her] claim of unconstitutionally excessive force, [plaintiff] must prove by a preponderance of the evidence the following:
    That [defendant] intentionally, rather than negligently, used unconstitutionally excessive force as I have defined it. However, it is not necessary to find that [defendant] had any specific purpose or desire to deprive [plaintiff] of [his/her] constitutional rights in order to find in favor of [plaintiff]. [Plaintiff] must prove only that the action was deliberate, not that the consequence was intended. Mere negligence, however, is not sufficient. [Plaintiff] is entitled to relief if [defendant] intentionally acted in a manner that resulted in7 a violation of [plaintiff]‘s constitutional rights.8
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2011
  20. Bugs

    Bugs Well-Known Member

    Oct 19, 2011
    He is not a US Citizen. Do those "rights" apply to him? 15 year old perps have committed some pretty heinous crimes including murder. And Obama and all the Liberal Politically Correct Fruit loops do factor in here. This administration puts idiots in charge of everything. Have heard that the agent may have lied; probably to protect his *ss. Funny how the "illegals" seem to have more rights than US citizens. Reduced college tuition, free school lunch, etc. etc. Now we give an illegal drug smuggler a Visa. I don't care if he was 10 years old. Why we can't stop the flood of illegals, drugs, weapons, etc. crossing our borders. We are expected to offer them free lunch instead of arrest and deport them. We don't allow border patrol to do their job; apparently not politically correct and prevents Obama from pandering to the corrupt Mexican president. Maybe Obozo can go do a Mexico apology tour next for our agents roughing up illegal drug smugglers.

    By the way it is etc, not ect.
     

You need 3 posts to add links to your posts! This is used to prevent spam.

Verification:
Draft saved Draft deleted