Questions to ConsiderJun 9th, 2010 | By Michel Marizco | Category: General News, Immigration, Politics
Email Facebook Twitter Post to Delicious Stumble This Post Buzz This Post Digg This Post
THE BORDER REPORT
Monday’s border shooting has become a question of mere yards, but those yards change everything and the FBI appears to be changing its initial assessment of what exactly happened when the Border Patrol agent shot and killed the teenage boy.
El Universal reports that the mother of the 14-year-old boy slain at the U.S.’s border with Ciudád Juárez claims the agent walked into Mexico and shot the boy at close-range. First question is, how would she know? Tearful interviews make great drama but unless she witnessed the shooting herself, she’s a poor source. Maybe she did, that’s not clear in the story or any others that I’ve read so far.
This leads me to a few other questions this morning on the logistics of the area and I’m hoping a few of you readers can explain some of the geography of the shooting scene.
Yesterday, the FBI reported the agent was kneeling by a suspect when the first rocks came flying, the first from behind. The Chihuahua Attorney General’s Office claims a .40-caliber spent casing was found by the boy in Mexico, suggesting a near-execution on Mexican soil. Then it’s suggested that Mexican cops walked over to the U.S. side, picked something up and returned to the boy’s body in Mexico so obviously, someone is lying and let’s be honest, cops from both countries are capable of telling incredible lies.
What is the boundary under Puente Negro? is it chainlink fence or it merely a canal that can be walked across?
Throughout much of the border, Homeland has erected remote video surveillance cameras, are there any cameras mounted under the bridge?
Is the FBI changing its version of events?
The FBI maintains the agent was defending himself and shooting at suspected migrant smugglers throwing rocks at him. Yesterday, the FBI was reporting the rock-throwers had surrounded the agent. Today, the FBI is saying the assailants had retreated to Mexico and thrown the rocks from across the line.
“The subjects surrounded the agent and continued to throw rocks at him. The agent then fired his service weapon several times, striking one subject who later died.”
Other suspects ran back into Mexico and began throwing rocks, the FBI said.
So which is it? The context of both scenarios are completely different. The first implies an immediate threat the agent needed to counter. The second implies the agent was at risk but not immediate and I do believe U.S. Border Patrol policy prevents agents from firing their weapons at targets across the border. If I’m wrong on that policy, feel free to correct me.
This killing isn’t even 48 hours old yet but ambos gobiernos should be able to give the most rudimentary information: was the agent in Mexico? Were the rock-throwers in Mexico? Until either question is answered, we still don’t know what happened.
The lack of real information isn’t slowing down the rhetoric from the usual suspects, of course. The Mexicans were quick to condemn what they deemed an “over-reaction” by the agent and Amnesty International has hopped aboard that train. I’m guessing neither entity will have much to say if it is determined the boy was indeed trying to hurt the agent. I’ll remain open to facts before blaming either side.