• 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!

[W:85]Supreme court blocks Mexican family's legal bid over teen killed by border agent

J

Jean-s

Gone
Joined
Dec 21, 2019
Messages
4,325
Reaction score
1,388
Location
Spain
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
The US supreme court has refused to open the door for foreign nationals to pursue civil rights cases in American courts, declining to revive a lawsuit by a slain unarmed 15-year-old Mexican boy's family against the US border agent who shot him in the face from across the border in Texas. The court's conservatives voted 5-4 to uphold a lower court’s dismissal of the lawsuit against the agent, Jesús Mesa, who shot 15-year-old Sergio Adrián Hernández Guereca in the face in the 2010 incident.
Supreme court blocks Mexican family's legal bid over teen killed by border agent | US news | The Guardian

11p1-300x336.jpg
Sergio Adrián Hernández Guereca receiving first aid on the Mexican side of the border

There is no recourse for the family of a murdered child when shot from the United States by a rogue border patrol agent. It has to be wondered whether a similar judgement would be made were a an unarmed Canadian boy to be shot dead from across the border with Canada by an American patrol officer.
 
Last edited:
Jean-s said:
The US supreme court has refused to open the door for foreign nationals to pursue civil rights cases in American courts, declining to revive a lawsuit by a slain unarmed 15-year-old Mexican boy's family against the US border agent who shot him in the face from across the border in Texas. The court's conservatives voted 5-4 to uphold a lower court’s dismissal of the lawsuit against the agent, Jesús Mesa, who shot 15-year-old Sergio Adrián Hernández Guereca in the face in the 2010 incident.
Supreme court blocks Mexican family's legal bid over teen killed by border agent | US news | The Guardian

View attachment 67274471
Sergio Adrián Hernández Guereca receiving first aid on the Mexican side of the border

There is no recourse for the family of a murdered child when shot from the United States by a rogue border patrol agent. It has to be wondered whether a similar judgement would be made were a an unarmed Canadian boy to be shot dead from across the border with Canada by an American patrol officer.
Click to expand...

A person sues in the country where the civil or criminal offense occurred. It happened in Mexico. Sue in Mexico.
 
Yes, the Supreme Court would’ve made the decision because it’s clearly What the law requires.

The deceased was on Mexican soil and so the 4th amendment is not at issue. The agent was cleared in the investigation, and congress has passed no law allowing for recovery of damages against the US government in this case.
 
joko104 said:
A person sues in the country where the civil or criminal offense occurred. It happened in Mexico. Sue in Mexico.
Click to expand...

No, the killer was standing in Texas which is in the USA.
 
joko104 said:
A person sues in the country where the civil or criminal offense occurred. It happened in Mexico. Sue in Mexico.
Click to expand...

Well, that is the question, isn't it?

The Border Agent was standing on American soil when he pulled the trigger, but the child was standing on Mexican soil when that bullet entered his face and killed him.

Where exactly did the "offense" occur?
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Yes, the Supreme Court would’ve made the decision because it’s clearly What the law requires.

The deceased was on Mexican soil and so the 4th amendment is not at issue. The agent was cleared in the investigation, and congress has passed no law allowing for recovery of damages against the US government in this case.
Click to expand...
You think so? Really?
 
The Mexican government should seek restitution from the US government and, equitably, they should get it, but Judicial Branch should have no role in this.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
Well, that is the question, isn't it?

The Border Agent was standing on American soil when he pulled the trigger, but the child was standing on Mexican soil when that bullet entered his face and killed him.

Where exactly did the "offense" occur?
Click to expand...

The bullet in question was fired from the US.

Trying to claim that the target wasn't in the us so the US can't be sued is nonsense.

It might even technically be an act of war.

If NK launched a missile at japan, it certainly would be.
 
What if...? said:
The bullet in question was fired from the US.

Trying to claim that the target wasn't in the us so the US can't be sued is nonsense.

It might even technically be an act of war.

If NK launched a missile at japan, it certainly would be.
Click to expand...

It could be an act of war, but the Mexican government has not declared war on the United States so it is a moot point
 
What if...? said:
It might even technically be an act of war.
Click to expand...

Precisely, it IS a potential casus belli. That's EXACTLY why the Judicial Branch can render NO OPINION on it.

Of course we are not discussing full blown war here thankfully, but the Mexican Government must seek restitution through diplomatic channels.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
It could be an act of war, but the Mexican government has not declared war on the United States so it is a moot point
Click to expand...

So I guess if you want to murder somebody just shoot across a border and it's free of consequences.
 
What if...? said:
So I guess if you want to murder somebody just shoot across a border and it's free of consequences.
Click to expand...

No, actually the US Government could still arrest him and try him for homicide (obviously facts would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt). Quick googles seem to reveal that there was a fair amount of rock throwing going on.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
A person sues in the country where the civil or criminal offense occurred. It happened in Mexico. Sue in Mexico.
Click to expand...

The offense began when the BP Officer fired his weapon due to some rocks being thrown
 
newpublius said:
No, actually the US Government could still arrest him and try him for homicide (obviously facts would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt). Quick googles seem to reveal that there was a fair amount of rock throwing going on.
Click to expand...
Israelis can kill Palestinian kids for throwing rocks in the Occupied Territories so I guess the Americans can do it too.
 
newpublius said:
Precisely, it IS a potential casus belli. That's EXACTLY why the Judicial Branch can render NO OPINION on it.

Of course we are not discussing full blown war here thankfully, but the Mexican Government must seek restitution through diplomatic channels.
Click to expand...

The chances of that happening are close to if not nil
 
Jean-s said:
Israelis can kill Palestinian kids for throwing rocks in the Occupied Territories so I guess the Americans can do it too.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree, I mean actually the fact pattern isn't interested if the shooting is in self defense, right? I mean, if somebody attacks you and threatens you with death or serious bodily harm, yes, you can shoot them, not really very debatable. The fact pattern is really only interesting is we presume the shooting was excessive.

I wasn't there....
 
JANFU said:
The chances of that happening are close to if not nil
Click to expand...

Maybe, but you'd be surprised. Somebody I guarantee you we will want something from the federalis.



I'm not saying they would trade resitution here for Tom Brady's jersey, which was taken by a Mexican national who was a very big NFL fan. You get the point and someday they might get something.
 
newpublius said:
Maybe, but you'd be surprised. Somebody I guarantee you we will want something from the federalis.



I'm not saying they would trade resitution here for Tom Brady's jersey, which was taken by a Mexican national who was a very big NFL fan. You get the point and someday they might get something.
Click to expand...


Saved, will check out later- watching the debate
 
Jean-s said:
The US supreme court has refused to open the door for foreign nationals to pursue civil rights cases in American courts, declining to revive a lawsuit by a slain unarmed 15-year-old Mexican boy's family against the US border agent who shot him in the face from across the border in Texas. The court's conservatives voted 5-4 to uphold a lower court’s dismissal of the lawsuit against the agent, Jesús Mesa, who shot 15-year-old Sergio Adrián Hernández Guereca in the face in the 2010 incident.
Supreme court blocks Mexican family's legal bid over teen killed by border agent | US news | The Guardian

View attachment 67274471
Sergio Adrián Hernández Guereca receiving first aid on the Mexican side of the border

There is no recourse for the family of a murdered child when shot from the United States by a rogue border patrol agent. It has to be wondered whether a similar judgement would be made were a an unarmed Canadian boy to be shot dead from across the border with Canada by an American patrol officer.
Click to expand...

I don't think that the family should have standing to bring a civil suit, but the agent should have been criminally charged. Now there is no justice for the family and no justice for the murderer.
 
newpublius said:
Yes, I agree, I mean actually the fact pattern isn't interested if the shooting is in self defense, right? I mean, if somebody attacks you and threatens you with death or serious bodily harm, yes, you can shoot them, not really very debatable. The fact pattern is really only interesting is we presume the shooting was excessive.

I wasn't there....
Click to expand...

I guess you were never in the Occupied Territories either.
 
Jean-s said:
I guess you were never in the Occupied Territories either.
Click to expand...

Non sequitur, the point about not being there merely suggests the obvious that I was not there to witness events. We can debate the facts of the case but if we say its self defense than the Result is A and if we say its not self defense then the result is B. The former isn't worth discussing because if its self defense, the inquiry is over.
 
newpublius said:
Non sequitur, the point about not being there merely suggests the obvious that I was not there to witness events. We can debate the facts of the case but if we say its self defense than the Result is A and if we say its not self defense then the result is B. The former isn't worth discussing because if its self defense, the inquiry is over.
Click to expand...
I cannot debate with someone who cannot have an opinion because he was not there, for Pete's sake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom