• 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

we are the new Rome.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
But the tortious act occurred in the United States.
Click to expand...

If between two US states the general rule that would apply would be lex loci delicti. Even so if I am standing in one state and shot you in the other, you could sue me in either. That's not really the problem here. The problem here is that crossing the international line has independent legal signifigance. The Judicial Branch cannot throw the Executive Branch under the bus here vz Mexico. Its beyond the scope of their authority.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
But the tortious act occurred in the United States.
Click to expand...

The tortious act was where he was killed because the killing was the tortious act - not the firing of the gun.

If someone decides to run over you, so drives into another country where it is known you jog, and runs over you there - the tortious act occurred where you were run over - not where he started the car.
 
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...

There are 2 issues from your post that I will address.

1. Any illegal activity, including if someone is killed, that happens in Mexico or Canada, is not a matter for US courts. That's how it's always been and how it should be.

2. What's your basis for calling the border patrol agent who shot him "rouge"? His actions were in compliance with both border patrol policy and US law. That "kid" who had been arrested 4 times in the previous 2 years for smuggling people into the US, was throwing rocks at border patrol agents while they were trying to arrest a group of people who were illegally crossing into the US.

It sucks that a 15 year old kid had to die, but his own actions are what led to his death.

.
 
newpublius said:
If between two US states the general rule that would apply would be lex loci delicti. Even so if I am standing in one state and shot you in the other, you could sue me in either. That's not really the problem here. The problem here is that crossing the international line has independent legal signifigance. The Judicial Branch cannot throw the Executive Branch under the bus here vz Mexico. Its beyond the scope of their authority.
Click to expand...

I understand the international political issues. But nevertheless, it's an interesting thought experiment.

What if the shooter was not a law enforcement agent? Which court system would have jurisdiction?
 
Jean-s said:
I cannot debate with someone who cannot have an opinion because he was not there, for Pete's sake.
Click to expand...

Yes, we can because we can stipulate to a certain set of facts as given.

If it is self defense, that's it, there is nothing else to discuss.

If it wasn't self defense, then the US government could try the agent themselves, but the victim in Mexico cannot seek redress in the Judicial Branch here, the Mexican Government must seek restitution because the action straddled the line.

We could presume that the border patrol agent killed this poor kid with malice aforethought, we could further presume that if the kid were in the US that he would be unequivocally be entitled to damages from a wrongful death suit of some sort.

But that doesn't change the fact that the actions on that day DID actually straddle the international line.
 
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...

It is interesting what the Guardian article does not say about the incident. Like the fact that juries found the agent not guilty in two criminal trials over the shooting. The Guardian called the Border Patrol agent a "rogue " agent. That does not make it so.

Here is a tip. Don't cross into the US illegally, Don't throw rocks at agents even when your are not in the US.

As far as your reference to Canada. Yes, I believe the SC would have ruled the same. It is interesting you would play the race card. Especially since the Agent was not white.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
What if the shooter was not a law enforcement agent? Which court system would have jurisdiction?
Click to expand...

Private citizen this isn't even an issue. I would be subject to criminal and civil process in both jurisdictions based on specific jurisdiction, potentially subject to general jurisdiction in another state. I live in FL, let's say I went to TX and did this, in theory I could be sued in FL as well.
 
mike2810 said:
Like the fact that juries found the agent not guilty in two criminal trials over the shooting.
Click to expand...

But just keep in mind that OJ was acquitted at a criminal trial, higher standard of proof, but found liable in a civil proceeding based on a lower standard of evidence.
 
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...

Nazis gonna Nazi.
 
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...

Given the same circumstances the decision would have been the same. The "conservative" Justices consider the law.
 
newpublius said:
But just keep in mind that OJ was acquitted at a criminal trial, higher standard of proof, but found liable in a civil proceeding based on a lower standard of evidence.
Click to expand...

I know. The civil case is held up in the 9th Circuit. It was waiting on the SC ruling. Hopefully the civil case will be dismissed.
 
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...

Saved Obama's hiney it looks like to me. Keep in mind, the agent worked for Obama.
 
It was determined to have been a reasonable use of force in as much as there was no evidence that the border patrol agent acted in order to deprive the person he shot of any of his civil rights, or that the officer acted outside any Federal laws.

Bottom line: Doesn't matter if you are 15; doesn't matter if you are on the other side of that border fence; DON'T THREATEN OUR CITIZENS---especially our Border Patrol agents or you may end up shot in the face or worse. Therefore find better places to hang out and/or cause trouble than along a border zone that is constantly under attack by criminals both drug smugglers and illegal invaders. What part of that shouldn't be obvious?

Why is it that people always respected the Soviet era border zone during the cold war? Well, getting shot in the face was probably one reason, so I guess this takes a learning curve for some here on this continent. OUR BORDER is not to dismissed as something which we are not willing to protect.
 
mike2810 said:
I know. The civil case is held up in the 9th Circuit. It was waiting on the SC ruling. Hopefully the civil case will be dismissed.
Click to expand...

It will be....


JESUS C. HERNANDEZ, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. JESUS MESA, JR., ET AL. | FindLaw

"Because this case was resolved on a motion to dismiss, the Court accepts the allegations in the complaint as true for purposes of this opinion"

For purposes of a motion to dismiss the facts are the facts MOST FAVORABLE to the non-moving party. Essentially what they are saying is: "Even if everything the plaintiff is saying is true, he still loses"

The government will then ultimately win the motion to dismiss at the trial level and the case will be dismissed with prejudice.
 
calamity said:
Nazis gonna Nazi.
Click to expand...

Those were Obama's nazis doing the killing. I wonder if ever a Democrat will ever want to EVER actually study the entire case rather than leaping to conclusions?
 
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
...
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...


Maybe our lawmakers should be doing their job instead of rolling all responsibility onto the president and/or Supreme Court.

"... Justice Samuel Alito, writing for majority, said the case presented “foreign relations and national security implications” and noted that Congress should decide whether such lawsuits can be permitted, backing the position taken by President Donald Trump’s administration. ..."
 
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...

What is the constitutional basis for this nonsense? I have a feeling families will be able to sue in the future when the truth is not covered up to keep politics PC. This reminds me of the Tuskegee Syphilis experiments, or the Sterilization programs performed in the United States.

Obviously, the courts don’t so easily allow the US Government to treat white people like this. The Bundy’s, WACO, Ruby Ridge, etc
 
Grim17 said:
There are 2 issues from your post that I will address.

1. Any illegal activity, including if someone is killed, that happens in Mexico or Canada, is not a matter for US courts. That's how it's always been and how it should be.

2. What's your basis for calling the border patrol agent who shot him "rouge"? His actions were in compliance with both border patrol policy and US law. That "kid" who had been arrested 4 times in the previous 2 years for smuggling people into the US, was throwing rocks at border patrol agents while they were trying to arrest a group of people who were illegally crossing into the US.

It sucks that a 15 year old kid had to die, but his own actions are what led to his death.

.
Click to expand...
1. The illegal activity was the border guard shooting an unarmed boy. It happened in the USA and the victim was in Mexico.

2. It is not policy for a border patrol officer to kill an unarmed child.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
I understand the international political issues. But nevertheless, it's an interesting thought experiment.

What if the shooter was not a law enforcement agent? Which court system would have jurisdiction?
Click to expand...
The crime was committed in Texas and the victim was in Mexico. The Texas court has jurisdiction.
 
newpublius said:
Yes, we can because we can stipulate to a certain set of facts as given.

If it is self defense, that's it, there is nothing else to discuss.

If it wasn't self defense, then the US government could try the agent themselves, but the victim in Mexico cannot seek redress in the Judicial Branch here, the Mexican Government must seek restitution because the action straddled the line.

We could presume that the border patrol agent killed this poor kid with malice aforethought, we could further presume that if the kid were in the US that he would be unequivocally be entitled to damages from a wrongful death suit of some sort.

But that doesn't change the fact that the actions on that day DID actually straddle the international line.
Click to expand...
There was no straddling. The bullets were discharged in the USA and the victim was in Mexico. The bullets crossed the border but the crime was definitely in Texas.
 
mike2810 said:
It is interesting what the Guardian article does not say about the incident. Like the fact that juries found the agent not guilty in two criminal trials over the shooting. The Guardian called the Border Patrol agent a "rogue " agent. That does not make it so.

Here is a tip. Don't cross into the US illegally, Don't throw rocks at agents even when your are not in the US.

As far as your reference to Canada. Yes, I believe the SC would have ruled the same. It is interesting you would play the race card. Especially since the Agent was not white.
Click to expand...
The patrolman is considered 'rogue' because it is not policy for the border patrol to shoot unarmed children in Mexico. That should have been plain to you. Crossing the international border does not warrant a summary execution by a border guard. If you think that an Hispanic patrolman is incapable of unjustified homicide when the victim is Mexican then you probably think a black policeman would not shoot an unarmed black U.S. citizen. Really? Have you any idea of the mentality of some of these border guards? There is absolutely no way a Canadian kid would have been murdered this way. Were that so, the Mounties would return fire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom