Talk about political correctness.
An American border guard shoots dead an unarmed 13 year old boy who was taunting him, standing on the Mexican side of the border, and Republicans rush to defend the guard who they insist should be immune from prosecution. They take that stand because they want to be seen as defending our borders; they are for always standing with police and the forces of authority, even when the policeman is a cold blooded murderer, captured on video.
Given that political belief, that authority is always to be endorsed, Justices Thomas, Roberts, Alito will likely side with the Right, and they will vote to hold innocent the murderer who happened to wear the badge of United States border control. Because the murderer is on our team, on the American side of the political border.
Kennedy, as always, is a wild card, but will likely side with the conservatives and Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan will vote for the dead kid, and his parents.
The facts of a case are, of course, where you begin in trying to make a decision.
In this case the reality appears to be the 13 year old was playing touch-the-fence with his friends, running up and touching the wall or fence and then running back to the Mexican side and laughing. The Border patrolman, Officer Mesa, shouted to stop that but the boys continued to taunt him. So the policeman shot the boy in the head and then claimed he fired because he felt his life was in danger.
Of course, that's what police always say when they fire their guns, even if the guy they shot is running away as fast as he could.
In this case, there was a video.
The Obama administration refused to extradite the homicidal cop to Mexico, which surprises me.
The Trump administration is saying the murderous cop is a hero in the war on Mexican rapists.
Someone has argued before the Supreme Court the protection for the child ended at the border because the Constitution doesn't apply in Mexico.
If the German concentration camp guard, who was not violating the German constitution, or any German law, by murdering children at Auschwitz can be tried for crimes against humanity, i.e. for doing something which you do not need to be a lawyer to know is wrong, namely shooting a child in the head, do we really need arguments about where we draw lines in applying the U.S. Constitution?
An American border guard shoots dead an unarmed 13 year old boy who was taunting him, standing on the Mexican side of the border, and Republicans rush to defend the guard who they insist should be immune from prosecution. They take that stand because they want to be seen as defending our borders; they are for always standing with police and the forces of authority, even when the policeman is a cold blooded murderer, captured on video.
Given that political belief, that authority is always to be endorsed, Justices Thomas, Roberts, Alito will likely side with the Right, and they will vote to hold innocent the murderer who happened to wear the badge of United States border control. Because the murderer is on our team, on the American side of the political border.
Kennedy, as always, is a wild card, but will likely side with the conservatives and Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan will vote for the dead kid, and his parents.
The facts of a case are, of course, where you begin in trying to make a decision.
In this case the reality appears to be the 13 year old was playing touch-the-fence with his friends, running up and touching the wall or fence and then running back to the Mexican side and laughing. The Border patrolman, Officer Mesa, shouted to stop that but the boys continued to taunt him. So the policeman shot the boy in the head and then claimed he fired because he felt his life was in danger.
Of course, that's what police always say when they fire their guns, even if the guy they shot is running away as fast as he could.
In this case, there was a video.
The Obama administration refused to extradite the homicidal cop to Mexico, which surprises me.
The Trump administration is saying the murderous cop is a hero in the war on Mexican rapists.
Someone has argued before the Supreme Court the protection for the child ended at the border because the Constitution doesn't apply in Mexico.
If the German concentration camp guard, who was not violating the German constitution, or any German law, by murdering children at Auschwitz can be tried for crimes against humanity, i.e. for doing something which you do not need to be a lawyer to know is wrong, namely shooting a child in the head, do we really need arguments about where we draw lines in applying the U.S. Constitution?
No comments:
Post a Comment