Wednesday, December 28, 2016


There have been a number of cross-border shootings on the Mexican border.
The shots have come from both sides.
One of these cases made to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"It sounds like the beginning of a riddle: An American border patrol agent, standing in America, shoots a Mexican teenager, standing in Mexico.
But that’s exactly what happened on the El Paso-Juárez border. Now, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether the teen’s grieving parents are allowed to sue the man responsible. . . .
“This raises fundamental questions about the reach of protection under the Constitution,” said Deepak Gupta, a lawyer working on behalf of the teenager’s family. “It’s hard to understate how fundamental it is.” . . .
Americans have constitutional protections against the use of deadly force by federal officers. If those protections are violated, Americans have the right to bring a lawsuit against the officers involved. But Hernández was not an American, and he was not in the U.S. when he died.
Randolph Ortega, a lawyer representing the border patrol agent, says that simple fact makes it clear Hernández did not have constitutional protections."

Surprisingly, the Mexican family won at the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

I think the precedents are on the side of the agent.  The Guantanamo cases are not a precedent.  Guantanamo was just' technically' a part of Cuba.  The U.S. government exercised complete sovereignty there.

However, I would feel better about that result if I was sure there were effective Border Patrol sanctions consistently applied against officers who kill.

No comments:

Post a Comment