• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Court rules Mexican mother can sue over cross-border Border Patrol shooting

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
94,329
Reaction score
82,720
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Court rules Mexican mother can sue over cross-border Border Patrol shooting

article-2709873-201C42C600000578-641_634x348.jpg

Araceli Rodriguez with a photo of her deceased son Jose Antonio.

8/7/18
A woman whose son was killed on Mexican soil by a U.S. Border Patrol agent in Arizona can sue for damages, a federal court ruled Tuesday. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Border Patrol agent Lonnie Swartz is not entitled to qualified immunity, saying that the Fourth Amendment — which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures — applies in this case. "Based on the facts alleged in the complaint, Swartz violated the Fourth Amendment. It is inconceivable that any reasonable officer could have thought that he or she could kill J.A. for no reason," Judge Andrew J. Kleinfeld wrote in the majority opinion. "Thus, Swartz lacks qualified immunity." Swartz, who was found not guilty in April of second-degree murder for the 2012 shooting, has said he shot at people throwing rocks through the border fence in Nogales, Arizona. A retrial in the case will take place in October. Jose Antonio Elena Rodríguez, 16, was hit mostly in the back by about 10 bullets, according to the court ruling. Swartz fired between 14 to 30 bullets at Rodríguez.

In the lawsuit filed by Araceli Rodriguez, mother of Jose Antonio Elena Rodríguez, she says her son was "peacefully walking down the Calle Internacional, a street in Nogales, Mexico," according to the opinion. She said the 16-year-old was not throwing rocks and was not engaging in any illegal behavior. Kleinfeld also wrote that if the facts presented in the case "turn out to be unsupported," then it may be exposed that the shooting could have been excusable or justified. "There is and can be no general rule against the use of deadly force by Border Patrol agents," he wrote. "But in the procedural context of this case, we must take the facts as alleged in the complaint. Those allegations entitle J.A.’s mother to proceed with her case." Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project who argued in the case, said that the court's decision "could not have come at a more important time." “The court made clear that the Constitution does not stop at the border and that agents should not have constitutional immunity to fatally shoot Mexican teenagers on the other side of the border fence," he said in a statement. "The ruling could not have come at a more important time, when this administration is seeking to further militarize the border."

I'll reserve comment until after the retrial decision is rendered. Probably the critical facets to quantify are "threat-severity?" and "excessive-force?".

Related: Court allows Mexican family to sue Border Patrol agent over cross-border shooting
 
Swartz, who was found not guilty in April of second-degree murder for the 2012 shooting, has said he shot at people throwing rocks through the border fence in Nogales, Arizona.

Not sure what retrial they are talking about? He was found not guilty? (The civil trial?)

Kleinfeld also wrote that if the facts presented in the case (lawsuit) "turn out to be unsupported," then it may be exposed that the shooting could have been excusable or justified. "There is and can be no general rule against the use of deadly force by Border Patrol agents," he wrote.
 
mother says boy was shot 10 times while just walking, ...ahhhh no!

Ahhhh yes.

The Guardian
5/11/18
Prosecutors have announced they will stage a retrial of a US border patrol agent who was cleared on a murder charge last month after shooting a teenager 10 times through the border fence into Mexico. Lonnie Swartz was found not guilty of second-degree murder, but jurors were deadlocked on whether he was guilty of manslaughter. José Antonio Elena Rodríguez, 16, died four blocks from his home in Nogales after Swartz fired 16 times through the border fence which separates Arizona from Mexico. On Friday, prosecutors confirmed Swartz would be tried again, on lesser charges of voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. A date was set for 23 October.
Border patrol agent to face retrial over shooting of teenager in Mexico

He was hit from behind by 10 bullets.[4] The autopsy revealed that gunshot wounds to the head, lungs, and arteries killed him.[2][5]
Killing of José Rodríguez

Swartz still faces another criminal trial, and a civil trial.
 
They were throwing rocks.









So......





Pepper them with a hail of bullets?
 
he was found not guilty. the 9th court gets it wrong again.
while she can try and sue for civil charges he cannot be prosecuted again for criminal trial.

double jeopardy applies.
this will be appealed to the scotus and probably overturned.

this 9th court of lunatics needs to be gotten rid of.
all of the disbarred and never allowed to practice law again.

violated the 4th amendment my ass.

the constitution doesn't extend into mexico.
these guys just make **** up all day long i think it has to be the pot they smoke.

they are lacing it with something and they are technically losing their minds in the process.
 
he was found not guilty. the 9th court gets it wrong again.
while she can try and sue for civil charges he cannot be prosecuted again for criminal trial.

double jeopardy applies.
this will be appealed to the scotus and probably overturned.

this 9th court of lunatics needs to be gotten rid of.
all of the disbarred and never allowed to practice law again.

violated the 4th amendment my ass.

the constitution doesn't extend into mexico.
these guys just make **** up all day long i think it has to be the pot they smoke.

they are lacing it with something and they are technically losing their minds in the process.

Lol. What year did you pass the bar examinations?
 
Lol. What year did you pass the bar examinations?

do you not know what double jeopardy is?

Double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same (or similar) charges and on the same facts, following a valid acquittal or conviction.
he was found innocent of murder. now they want to re-try him on lesser charges of the same thing.

that is a directly violation of what double jeopardy is and exactly what it is meant to prevent.
you don't need a law degree to know this. it take simple reading a bit of logic and knowing what the law is.
 
His new criminal trial starts in October. Deal with it.

no it will get appealed to the SCOTUS and will get overturned like most of the 9th court rulings do that go to the SCOTUS.
deal with it.

we have laws in this country for a reason whether you like them or not deal with it.
 
no it will get appealed to the SCOTUS and will get overturned like most of the 9th court rulings do that go to the SCOTUS.
deal with it.

we have laws in this country for a reason whether you like them or not deal with it.

So says u. He was previously acquitted of 2nd degree murder.

In the upcoming October 23 trial he is charged with [1] Manslaughter (10 yrs) and [2] Negligent Homicide (8 yrs).
 
Back
Top Bottom