Stupid Question of the Day

By TChris, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 05:03:59 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This:

Today's stupid question comes from Sen. Tom Coburn, who asks:

"Why is it wrong to shoot the [drug trafficker] after he's been told to stop?"

At least two answers come readily to mind. First, the fleeing suspect is only a suspect, having not been tried or convicted. Second, even if the suspected trafficker is guilty, death isn't the appropriate penalty for smuggling marijuana. We don't leave it up to the police (or Sen. Coburn) to assume the role of jury and executioner.

Here's a third answer:

Johnny Sutton, the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Texas, said the Supreme Court has ruled that using deadly force in that way is illegal.

A little technicality like the law doesn't trouble Coburn, who remains confounded by the thought that Border Patrol agents were convicted for shooting an unarmed man and then covering up their misconduct. In the strange world of the GOP, as we learned in the Scooter Libby case, cover-ups deserve no punishment. Neither, apparently, does shooting at unarmed Mexicans.

If there is anything useful to come out of the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing concerning the conviction of agents who shot an unarmed man in the back, it is the GOP's sudden realization that mandatory minimum sentences (as in "use a gun, go to prison") are a bad idea. In that revelation they are joined by Sen. Diane Feinstein, who vaguely proposed changing the law, at least as it applies to rogue Border Patrol agents. A better plan would be to eliminate all mandatory minimum sentences, leaving judges to decide whether a harsh sentence is just in any individual case.

Other useful questions focused on the common prosecutorial tactic of doing favors for criminals if they think it will help them prove charges leveled against other criminals:

Why the drug smuggler, who had been driving a van with a million-dollar payload of marijuana, was given immunity to testify against Ramos and Compean; why the trafficker was given unfettered permission to cross into the United States after the agents were charged; and whether he used that border-crossing privilege to bring in another million-dollar marijuana haul just months after the February 2005 incident near El Paso.

In the meantime, those who feel that the Border Patrol agents acted heroically by shooting an unarmed man in the back and then lying about it would like to see President Bush give the men a pardon. What's the likelihood of that? It's not like they lied to protect Dick Cheney.

< Harry Potter and the Cultural Infantilism | Oprah to Throw Fancy Fundraiser for Obama >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Stupid Question of the Day | 76 comments (76 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

My answer.... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by kdog on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 05:10:09 PM EST

for the same reason it's wrong to shoot a senator after he's been told to stop pissin on liberty.

Moral grounds.

A law for the rich...... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Electa on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 08:31:19 PM EST

that's what I get from this entire fiasco. Scotter Libby and now the 2 border patrol agents receiving commuted sentences. I thought that in America when you are convicted by a jury of your peers for a criminal activity the cost is the lost of one's freedoms. That's the price I paid, although, winning on appeal I served a 18 months of my life in confinement.

The actions of GWB, Coryn, Feinstein and Lou, whom I agree with on several issues one being illegal immigration, further erodes confidence in the psuedo justice system of this country and further substantiates it's judicial inequalities.

What will the impact of these actions have on individuals currently serving draconian sentences under the US Sentencing Guidelines w/o chance of parole? Now that the rich and so-called law enforcement are feeling the realities of this injustice system that so many of us have experienced for years upon years maybe something will be done to abolish the USSG and its RICO arm. Over zealous prosecutors have ran rampant for years empowered with the mighty USSG/Conspiracy dagger as demonstrated with the so-called War on Drugs and the unorthodox increase in prison population since its inception.

Defendants are FORCED to take plea bargins simply by association. Defense attorneys coach their client to plead out to avoid worst case sentences should they elect to go to trial....families are stripped of their limited assets trying to defend their children....the gov't always wins if you're poor.

In the federal system there is no innocense until proven guilty, you're forced to admit guilt regardless. The system is evil and should imo be abolished.

Electa (1.00 / 1) (#37)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 02:43:34 PM EST

and now the 2 border patrol agents receiving commuted sentences

I wish you were right, but you're not.

[ Parent ]

Well, not yet anyway... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by Electa on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 03:47:40 PM EST

but its likely their sentences will be commuted. I'm sure that you get my point. If illegal immigration wasn't such a hot political issue there probably wouldn't be as much media hype over the 2 border patrol agents.

[ Parent ]

electa (1.00 / 1) (#40)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 04:03:16 PM EST

If you want to complain about Libby, guidelines, etc., that works for me.

But the two Border Patrolmen aren't likely to be pardoned or have their sentence commutated by Bush because they violated his border policy.

[ Parent ]

: Hilarious (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by squeaky on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 04:19:27 PM EST

Bush, a man of principal accoding to ppj,

the two Border Patrolmen aren't likely to be pardoned or have their sentence commutated by Bush because they violated his border policy.
Libby violated his leaker policy.

[ Parent ]

Yup (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Claw on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 09:17:07 AM EST

I hate that. The "if he's in a court room, he must be guilty" bias makes me insane. It's especially pronounced in cases where the crime is odious. Like child molestation. I've joked with prosecutors that all they really need to do for opening statement is stand before the jury (frowning in a dignified manner as only a prosecutor can), pause, and say "child molestation."

: Amazing how ::bright:: people can be, huh? (none / 0) (#23)
by Edger on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 09:21:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Self Defense?? (1.00 / 0) (#20)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 09:10:48 AM EST

"We both yelled out for him to stop, but he wouldn't stop, and he just kept running," Ramos told California's Inland Valley Daily Bulletin.
"At some point during the time where I'm crossing the canal, I hear shots being fired," Ramos said. "Later, I see Compean on the ground, but I keep running after the smuggler."
At that point, Ramos said, Aldrete-Davila turned toward him, pointing what looked like a gun.

"I shot," Ramos said. "But I didn't think he was hit, because he kept running into the brush and then disappeared into it. Later, we all watched as he jumped into a van waiting for him. He seemed fine. It didn't look like he had been hit at all."

They shot him in the ass (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by roy on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 09:22:19 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Awww, Roy!!! (none / 0) (#26)
by Edger on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 09:25:24 AM EST

You can't say "ass" when you're talking to ppj. Unless you want him to try to turn the thread into another "all about ppj" thread again.

Then we'll have way more than three stupid questions of the day. ;-)

[ Parent ]

On second thought... (none / 0) (#28)
by Edger on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 09:28:57 AM EST

Maybe it was self defense. Maybe he was farting at them.

[ Parent ]

hahahahaha poot, poot, poot, (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by Electa on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 03:53:54 PM EST

What an intelligent comment. (1.00 / 1) (#47)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 08:45:14 PM EST

Medical records obtained by WND clearly establish the bullet wounds suffered by Aldrete-Davila involved a lateral wound to the left buttocks, not a "shot in the back" as repeatedly claimed by Sutton.

The medical records document that March 16, 2005, Dr. Winston Marne removed a large bullet fragment from Aldrete-Davila's right thigh. The records indicate bullet fragments were found in Aldrete-Davila's pelvis but not removed. The path of the bullet is clearly described as entering in the left side of the left buttocks, traversing the groin area, and lodging in the right thigh.

As I noted he was sideways, or turning sideways, when he was hit.


[ Parent ]

Shot in the ass? (5.00 / 0) (#51)
by Edger on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 09:23:12 PM EST

That's terrible, ppj. Good thing it wasn't you. Where would you get your "facks" from?

Of course, they might have missed and got you in the head, and there would no damage at all.

[ Parent ]

Ankle biter attack (1.00 / 1) (#55)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:54:55 AM EST

If it had been you I would have been bitten on the ankle.

[ Parent ]

: OFF TOPIC PERSONAL ATTACK (none / 0) (#75)
by Sailor on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 07:09:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]

ppj sucks WND opinions like ... (none / 0) (#49)
by Sailor on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 08:59:42 PM EST

... golfballs thru a garden hose.

[ Parent ]

: Sailor (1.00 / 1) (#53)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:02:49 AM EST

Medical records are not "opinions."
If you want to claim that WND us lying, why don't you?

[ Parent ]

PPJ, unfortunately for you, the medical report (none / 0) (#52)
by Dark Avenger on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 09:55:09 PM EST

proves that he was shot in the back.

From the Wikipedia:

The buttocks (anatomical nates, clunium, gluteus, regio glutealis) are rounded portions of the anatomy located on the posterior of the pelvic region of the apes, humans and many other bipeds or quadrupeds.

And if you look at the second diagram here, it's clear that there is no gluteus maximus exposure on the side.

So if the bullet entered the left side of the left buttocks, then he was shot not while he was sideways or turning, he was shot from behind.

TTFN!

[ Parent ]

DA loves strawmen (1.00 / 0) (#54)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:53:47 AM EST

While I again thank you for adding such things as the location of the buttocks on the human body, I must chide you a small bit for wasting all of our most valuable time in telling us that the buttocks are located on the back side of the body.

I am sure all doctors will be glad that you have found proof of this. And to stop further discussions on such obvious subjects, I note that there is also a back of the head, back of the neck, back of the thigh, back of the knee, and back of the ankle. Indeed, the human body can be said to have a front, back and two sides.

So when someone is said to have been shot in the back, the inclination is to think that he has been shot from behind. In fact, most people would think he had been wounded in an area between the bottom of neck and the top of the buttock.

When people say, "My back hurts," others don't think they mean, "The back of my hand hurts."

And given that language is about communication, I submit that saying, "He was shot in the back," is an effort to transmit a negative image of the shooter by creating a false impression.

However, as I noted, the human body, has "sides" in addition to "front" and "back." (Please feel free to verify this not well known fact.) You will find this commonly referred to in such statements as, "He hit me on the side of my head." "The pain is coming from the left side of my chest."

We now turn to the word lateral:

lateral

of or relating to the side
2 : situated on, directed toward, or coming from the side
3 : extending from side to side <lateral axis of an airplane>

We now turn to the medical report:

The path of the bullet is clearly described as entering in the left side of the left buttocks, traversing the groin area, and lodging in the right thigh.

So saying that he was shot in the back is grossly inaccurate. He was shot in the buttocks. His wound proves that he was sideways to the path of the bullet, entering the left buttock and going through from left to right.

[ Parent ]

Why are you shouting? (5.00 / 0) (#56)
by Edger on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:59:19 AM EST

No one listens to you anyway.

[ Parent ]

Edger -Then why are you complaining? (1.00 / 1) (#58)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:14:48 AM EST

Edger, when you claimed he was shot in the back you made a claim that is simply wrong.

Since I pointed that out you have made a series of personal attacks and snarky remarks, none of which even attempt to refute my comment.

Such displays are typical of you, and add nothing to the conversation.

[ Parent ]

ppj (5.00 / 1) (#62)
by Edger on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:33:42 AM EST

Most people have their ass on the back of their body.

Not on the front of their face.

[ Parent ]

Edger (1.00 / 1) (#64)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:55:59 AM EST

That is a well known fact.

Are you claiming to be an exception?? Who knew until you told us??

Again I ask you. What does making such attacks as the above prove?? You have added nothing to the conversation, merely proving that your purpose is only to make vulgar personal attacks.

Come edger. Reform yourself and show that you have the intellectual capacity to make a comment and add to the knowledge level of the debate.

Isn't that what this is supposed to be about??

[ Parent ]

PPJ can't comprehend (none / 0) (#65)
by Dark Avenger on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:57:19 AM EST

the anatomical definition of lateral isn't the same as that in everyday usage:

Lateral: 1. In anatomy, the side of the body or a body part that is farther from the middle or center of the body. Typically, lateral refers to the outer side of the body part, but it is also used to refer to the side of a body part. For example, when referring to the knee, lateral refers to the side of the knee farthest from the opposite knee. The opposite of lateral is medial.

Also:

Lateral: Toward the left or right side of the body, as opposed to medial.

and if you can't figure out what posterior means in anatomical terms, there's this:

Posterior: The back or behind, as opposed to the anterior.

Also, apparently PPJ didn't look at the second diagram in the second Wikipedia link, which demonstrates that the buttocks don't extend to the side of the hip, so if one is shot in the buttocks, one was shot on the posterior, or back side, of the body.

I'm almost honored by PPJ bringing up strawmen, but he shouldn't be jealous, he's much better in this kind of activity than I am as a perusal of the archives would reveal to the casual observer.

It's not surprising that a non-native speaker of English demonstrate such confusion on the subject, so again, PPJ has given even more reasons to doubt anything that he says about himself here.

[ Parent ]

DA (1.00 / 0) (#69)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 01:20:33 PM EST

Shall I be blunt????

Yes, I think I will.

Why would I be concerned about what you say, or TChris says when I have what the medical profession says.

And if your buttock doesn't have a left side, as the medical report says the illegal alien has, then it is obvious that you have been playing poker and have lost your as*.

;-)

[ Parent ]

You were just citing a report (none / 0) (#71)
by Dark Avenger on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 07:42:14 PM EST

written by members of the medical profession, I merely tried to enlighten you as to the differences between medical and everyday usage of certain terms.

Again, you demonstrate a lack of written English comprehension which you attempt to cover with your usual unwitty remark.

To paraphrase you from a while back, "Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much."

I'd say that you just lost both sides of both cheeks here PPJ in your attempt to 'win'.

T!

[ Parent ]

DA still loving them strawmen. (1.00 / 1) (#72)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 08:28:46 PM EST

Well, I again thank you for wasting your, and our time, explaining such things as what lateral means in medical terms. I must say that I have been rabidly eager for that information.

The fact that I provided a dictionary definition stating what I meant seems to have escaped you.
Waste a few more minutes and read the thread and you will discover that your buttocks have greatly expanded.

In the meantime, for the information of someone who should happen to wonder what we are talking about, the answer is this.

Several commentators, including TChris, claim that he was shot in the back.

This is what the medical report said:

I repeat. To say he was shot in the back is clearly misleading and grossly inaccurate.

And anyone who claims to not have a side on their buttock should report to the circus...or a good reconstructionist plastic surgeon..

[ Parent ]

: You're the expert on strawmen, PPJ (5.00 / 1) (#73)
by Dark Avenger on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 01:57:30 PM EST

and again your poorly-disguised attempt to hide your jealousy that I might excel you in this area is risible, and fact-free to boot.
As for your dictionary definition, it didn't cover the meaning as used in the
medical report and instead of welcoming a little more light on the subject you get all 'That depends on what the meaning of is is" and fail to understand the issue here.
Whether you call the area where the bullet entered the back, buttocks, etc.,it's clear that he was struck from behind. It was clearly a misuse of deadly force, as anyone who has a basic knowledge of our law enforcement system would know.
Again, you're providing more evidence for us to doubt that you are in fact a native-born American who grew up speaking English as a primary language.
As for the location of the buttocks, everyone can see for themselves in the second diagram in the second Wiki link upstream who to believe, you or their lying eyes.
If you have a buttock on your side, it would be more surprising than if you had one where the frontal lobes are usually located, which would be a diagnosis made purely from your comments here, you understand.
T!

[ Parent ]

Nice link (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by txpublicdefender on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 09:59:15 AM EST

You left out the stuff where their account was proven to be LIES. That's why they were also convicted of obstruction of justice.

[ Parent ]

: txpublicdefender (1.00 / 0) (#34)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 02:34:10 PM EST

That is their claim.
BION

[ Parent ]
: TxPD (1.00 / 1) (#48)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 08:50:11 PM EST

And you left out this:

Rep. John Culberson, R-Texas, yesterday called for the resignation of four DHS investigators, including Assistant Inspector General Elizabeth Redman, after DHS Inspector General Richard Skinner testified under oath his deputies had lied to Congress about non-existent reports that were supposed to have established Ramos and Compean as rogue cops who wanted to "shoot some Mexicans."

[ Parent ]

Great site, Jim (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by jondee on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 01:16:34 PM EST

Any more follow ups in there on the Vince Foster/Ron Brown hits?

That Zion Oil & Gas "exploring for oil in the Biblical Lands.." is a hoot too.

[ Parent ]

jondee (1.00 / 0) (#35)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 02:35:44 PM EST

Yeah they are almost as bad as the NY Times...

[ Parent ]

BTW WND is not the source.... (1.00 / 0) (#36)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 02:41:16 PM EST

But, if you didn't specialize in false attacks, you would have seen:

We both yelled out for him to stop, but he wouldn't stop, and he just kept running," Ramos told California's Inland Valley Daily Bulletin.

Just couldn't wait, could you?? ;-)

Now, what's your problem with the Bulletin?

[ Parent ]

They were proven wrong ... (5.00 / 0) (#42)
by Sailor on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 04:55:17 PM EST

... and BTW, the posterior is in the 'back' (see definition.)

BTW2 they were convicted of all those crimes, do the crime, serve the time.

[ Parent ]

sailor (1.00 / 0) (#43)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 06:45:13 PM EST

No, the jury convicted.

That is not "proven wrong."

[ Parent ]

Not Proven Wrong (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by squeaky on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 07:06:08 PM EST

Because ppj believes that it is good to shoot people that he thinks are looters, drug runners, undocumented workers aka mexicans, in general lesser humans that he perceives himself to be.

Just like the good ole days. Saves time, taxpayer money and who cares if you made a mistake, they are not worth as much as the white man. Not all cultures, races or peoples are equal in ppj's world.

[ Parent ]

squeaky (1.00 / 0) (#57)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:08:07 AM EST

I see that you have again proven that you stoop to smearing without facts.

Must I quote you time and again?

As you know, I am in favor of shooting looters who do not stop.

Would you let them continue? I suspect you would, because one of the quotes of the anarchist during the 60's and 70's is, "Food is."

Of course the truth is that without the ability to own and defend personal property, there can be no freedom.

And the result of anarchy is always a dictatorship.

You should stop and think about what you ask for.

[ Parent ]

Then you (5.00 / 1) (#60)
by jondee on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:28:08 AM EST

should be in favor of shooting those who abuse the public trust by lobbying for those they're supposed to be monitering; plugging between the shoulder blades those that divert billions in funds meant to insure the "security" of the nation.

But I forgot, the people who do that are the ones who's ankles you nibble affectionatly, not poor blacks absconding with food and second hand toaster ovens.

[ Parent ]

Smear? (5.00 / 0) (#66)
by squeaky on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:03:19 AM EST

Everything I wrote is directly from you so if you feel smeared you should reevaluate your own principals.

Care to point out anything I said that is a misrepresentation of your social liberal principals?

Perfect GOPer, act like a White Supremacist and call yourself a social liberal.

You are not fooling anyone here.

[ Parent ]

: Under the wire (5.00 / 0) (#67)
by jondee on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:15:42 AM EST

racism is how these ignorant cowards galvanize 2/3 of their base, Squeaky. Without that and "the wrath of God" factor, they're at sub-Nixonian approval levels.

[ Parent ]

OFF TOPIC PERSONAL ATTACK (none / 0) (#76)
by Sailor on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 07:11:24 PM EST

A correct assesment would be (5.00 / 2) (#45)
by Dark Avenger on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 07:08:48 PM EST

they had their day(s) in court.

I'm beginning to doubt that PPJ is a native-born American, given the lack of respect he shows for American juries if they deliver a verdict he disagrees with.

[ Parent ]

: Native Born (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by squeaky on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 07:27:34 PM EST

Most lilkely he is just very old fashioned.

[ Parent ]

ppj doesn't know his ass ... (5.00 / 0) (#50)
by Sailor on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 09:07:39 PM EST

... from his posterior.

And yet he's managed to hijack another thread.

TL should be ashamed for allowing this troll to continue to disgrace her site, no matter how much money the troll has donated.

ppj is the most virulent of violators of TL's rules.

So tell us Jeralyn, how much does it cost to get a pass to violate your site?

You never know, we might be able to match it.

[ Parent ]

Sailor (1.00 / 1) (#59)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:27:36 AM EST

All of my comments have been in regards to the subject.

It is the attacks by you and the dynamic threesome that are just off topic personal attacks.

I invite you to respond to my reply to DA.

By the way. I have claimed only what the medical report says.

Saying he was shot in the back is inaccurate and grossly misleading.

BTW - My posterior/buttock has a left side, a center and a right side. If yours does not then you must be some really weird looking dude.

[ Parent ]

No more word (5.00 / 1) (#61)
by jondee on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:31:16 AM EST

on the Foster/Brown murders, I take it?

[ Parent ]

jondee (1.00 / 0) (#68)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 01:15:24 PM EST

Ask Edger. He's the conspiracy expert.

[ Parent ]

: Sorry, ppj. (5.00 / 1) (#70)
by Edger on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 01:47:08 PM EST

I keep telling I don't believe in your wot conspiracy.

[ Parent ]
: You just link (5.00 / 1) (#74)
by jondee on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 06:57:11 PM EST

to conspiracy experts. And theories of mineral exploration based on Biblical prophecy.
Your cuckoo clock just went off again, Jim.

[ Parent ]

Is it serial or congenital? (5.00 / 1) (#77)
by Sailor on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 07:34:38 PM EST

Even on this thread ppj just can't stop lying:
"All of my comments have been in regards to the subject."
But that's just a lie.

If it had been you I would have been bitten on the ankle.

There's more examples on this thread, but I grow bored with ppj's lying and Jeralyn's allowing him to do it with impunity.

[ Parent ]

Quoting a convicted (5.00 / 1) (#63)
by jondee on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:44:45 AM EST

criminal. That's almost as credible as when you used to quote Tom Delay. lol

[ Parent ]

Self defense?? (none / 0) (#22)
by Edger on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 09:20:37 AM EST

From World Nut Daily???

Heh. Quite an achievement, there sparky. You've managed to turn ONE stupid question of the day into THREE stupid questions.

He was shot in the back.

Have some more coffee.

[ Parent ]

: Edgey (1.00 / 0) (#33)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 02:32:24 PM EST

Uh, I think he was shot in the buttocks, the entry indicating that he was turning, or standing side ways.....

[ Parent ]

The correct answer is ... (none / 0) (#2)
by Ellie on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:42:09 PM EST

He's neither Scooter Libby nor Tom DeLay, in which cases the Department of Just-Us prohibits the barest hint of questioning, not just from law enforcement but the voters they serve, even after found guilty, until every last remedy the full menu of due process the crony constitution can offer has been exhausted.

(That's the menu with the wine list but no prices on it, cause if you have to ask ...)

And this is why the "enemy" of our enemy (none / 0) (#3)
by kovie on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 07:12:31 PM EST

i.e. Lou Dobbs and his ilk, are NOT our allies, let alone friends, even though he's also SELECTIVELY opposed to SOME of the administration and GOP's policies. But he's a wingnut at heart, albeit a currently disgruntled one, and must be seen and treated as such. Same goes for Buchanan, Paul--even Hagel when it comes to anything but Iraq. I'm not even comfortable aligning with folks like Fein, Barr and Vigourie, who are currently having a fit over some of Bush's policies.

Let's not forget that our differences with these people divide us far more than our temporary similarities with them unite us. I'm all for tactical alliances with SOME of these people on SOME issues. But we are not like them at all.

I just heard this discussion on NPR and (none / 0) (#4)
by oculus on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 08:04:38 PM EST

was astounded how either clueless or disengenuous these people sounded, except the US Attorney, who nailed it.

a few loose screws (none / 0) (#6)
by Larriken on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 11:17:54 PM EST

A better question would be, "Why is it not wrong to shoot at a trafficker?"
The drug trafficker was in US territory illegally and my god, bringing in drugs. If you were one of the recipients, I suppose you wouldn't mind. The illegal trafficker was only loaded with 800 pounds of marijuana and trying to escape to do what? Maybe bring in more drugs again since he'd obviously be jailed if caught. How many thousands of people are screwed over drugs because the rulings like these protect the culprits and punish the victims. I wouldn't shed a tear for traffickers that were shot dead on the spot. Maybe I'm cold blooded but at least I would not praise honorable people imprisoned for protecting fellow citizens from drug trafficking vermin.

You are also probably (none / 0) (#7)
by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 11:41:30 PM EST

on the wrong site.

About TalkLeft

Just so you know.

[ Parent ]

middle lane (none / 0) (#8)
by Larriken on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 01:28:01 AM EST

You're probably right. I've tried the right lanes and my comments of them narrowed to pompous and inbred ideology. It's pretty hard finding decent ambidextrous sites to bolt in.

The Ramos and Compean case was one that personally struck me. We have our convictions and I just cannot accept a drug trafficker getting off while people that keep the bad guys away from our family and friends get jailed.

[ Parent ]

: Got away? (none / 0) (#14)
by Edger on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 07:31:57 AM EST

[ Parent ]

kill 'em all? (none / 0) (#10)
by THX1138 on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 05:39:03 AM EST

Larriken wrote:

I wouldn't shed a tear for traffickers that were shot dead on the spot.

Perhaps you would be happier in China...
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2357tc

[ Parent ]

No disrespect.... (none / 0) (#15)
by kdog on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 08:23:55 AM EST

but you're worse than cold-hearted bro, you support tyranny....murderous tyranny at that.

[ Parent ]

Jerk Senator From Oklahoma (none / 0) (#9)
by Mario on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 02:55:31 AM EST

What an uneducated comment for a federal senator to make. Shooting unarmed drug criminals simply because they are running away? Scary part is this jerk does not see anything wrong with shooting a human being in the back who does not present a threat to the agents.

The agents crossed the line of no return in shooting these unarmed men; then attempting to obstruct justice for their actions.

The agents deserved the incarceration time they were given. No sympathy here!

Law enforcement officers simply cannot shoot unarmed civilians, if they pose no physical threat, unless the officers can show exigent circumstances. (ex: murder suspect fleeing...)

Well (none / 0) (#11)
by Edger on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 05:54:34 AM EST

If he's a suspected drug trafficker, or a suspected anything else, he's already guilty and an 'enemy combatant', and if the whining, appeasing, emboldening and surrendering Left would just shut up and let real men like Coburn eradicate evil from the world the war on drugs would have been over before it started and the problem wouldn't exist.

Besides, he was Mexican. Probably brown too. It's not like he was human or anything.

Jesus, what's the big deal here?

Coburn is a real special kind of guy too. (none / 0) (#12)
by Edger on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 06:12:39 AM EST

This guy is so far right he makes Bush look like a flaming liberal.

He's a doctor too, an OB-GYN:

An article published in the online magazine Salon charged that in October 1990, Coburn sterilized a 20-yearold woman without her consent while performing emergency surgery to treat an ectopic pregnancy (a life-threatening crisis in which an embryo becomes lodged in a woman's Fallopian tube). During the procedure, Cobum first removed the woman's Fallopian tube containing the lodged embryo then tied off her other Fallopian tube
...
Citing a Feb. 27,1992, deposition in which Coburn said he did not report the sterilization procedure to Medicaid because Medicaid did not cover sterilizations for women under 21, the magazine concluded that Coburn "knew he was billing Medicaid illegally."

Coburn has this down to a science here. (none / 0) (#18)
by Edger on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 08:48:24 AM EST

If he can't make sure they don't exist in the first place, well... no big deal. Just shoot 'em in the back after they're born.

But don't you dare touch 'em while they're just a few undifferentiated cells in a womb. He and his friends have invented a hell for you to go straight to if you even think of it.

[ Parent ]

Coburn is a longtime nutjob (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by txpublicdefender on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 09:57:04 AM EST

He's also the guy who said that NBC reached an "all-time low" when they aired Schindler's List unedited because of the profanity and nudity. I remember that being the first time I heard of him--I think he was just a Rep. at the time, but it obviously didn't prevent him from getting a promotion from the fine voters of Oklahoma.

I'm fascinated that all the wingnuts (and Feinstein--what's wrong with her???) are so outraged by this case. Their sentence was so harsh! Well, it was the mandatory minimum that Congress set in place and that is applied harshly to people in the federal system ALL the time, quite commonly on people who never even FIRED their weapon, unlike these guys who actually SHOT somebody. And I think it's been pretty clearly established law for quite some time that you cannot shoot a fleeing, unarmed suspect in the back, unless there is some genuine reason to believe he is about to commit some violent act. And all the outrage about the fact that the alleged drug smuggler was never charged is especially stupid. The reason they couldn't charge him was because the evidence was completely tainted by the obstruction and lies of the border patrol agents! Why aren't people outraged that the border patrol agents prevented locking up this horrible Mexican drug smuggler for years and years because they thought it was a good idea to shoot him in the back?

These guys shot an unarmed person in the back, then lied about it and fabricated evidence to cover it up, and obstructed justice. They got what they deserved.

[ Parent ]

: Yes, and (5.00 / 0) (#31)
by Edger on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 10:31:51 AM EST

These guys shot an unarmed country in the back (two countries, actually), then lied about it and fabricated evidence to cover it up, and obstructed justice.
And they still haven't got what they deserve.
Which is why, I think, that wingnuts defend other crazy insane wingnuts like Coburn.
Get precedents established, even if they are just social precedents, not case law.
Something is badly broken. It's not Coburn or the shooters here. They are just symptoms.

[ Parent ]

My God (none / 0) (#16)
by Claw on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 08:33:44 AM EST

When we start shooting suspected, fleeing, unarmed, nonviolent, criminals that's really it. People may not realize this but occasionally someone is suspected of committing a crime they did not commit. Shocking, I know.

: Welcome to brave new bushworld... (none / 0) (#17)
by Edger on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 08:40:45 AM EST

Where efficiency and process streamlining are god, and if someone is a suspect of course they are already guilty. They wouldn't be a suspect if they weren't.
See 'enemy combatant' for more detail. The whole concept saves a lot of unnecessary thinking, too. 100% result oriented. No fluff here.

[ Parent ]
: It's for the kids.... (none / 0) (#19)
by kdog on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 08:49:54 AM EST

we shoot people in the back for the children....always for the children.

[ Parent ]

Edger (none / 0) (#25)
by Claw on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 09:24:04 AM EST

The above was intended for Edger.

: Thanks, claw. I assumed it was. (none / 0) (#27)
by Edger on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 09:27:20 AM EST

[ Parent ]