THE BORDER REPORT

Here's a story I wrote for High Country News about a murder mystery on the Arizona-Sonora border. Well, the mystery, and its ensuing political theatrics.

THE BORDER REPORT

Well here's a fine idea from our elected politicos. Madres, que bola de ratas. Fearing that terrorists will smuggle a nuclear weapon (!!!) across the border, a Republican nominee for a northern New Mexico district thinks it's a fine idea to install land mines along the U.S.-Mexico border. I would like to say that Republican hopeful Tom Mullins is merely stoking the fires of fear that propagate so many wild tales of the borderlands, but I don't know the guy well enough to judge whether he's serious or merely insane. Or both. On one hand, he could be taking the land mine position to posture for the low hanging votes of northern New Mexico's hard right wing. On the other, he could be an inept interviewee, I've seen that type before, people who suddenly find themselves rambling out loud and what comes out ain't pretty. I strongly suspect the man lost control of his mouth – which is nice because stream-of-consciousness provides a useful window to a man's thoughts – and abruptly found himself talking "nuclear weapons" and "land mines" when he meant to say "illegal immigrant" and "drug-runners." According to The Associated Press, Mullins made the comments during a radio interview with KNMX in Las Vegas, last month. In the interview, he advocated placing land mines and barbed wire along the border and placing signs along the line showing people where they could cross legally. Mullins seems to be another militant with only the vaguest idea of the problems encountered along the border. In a blog post he wrote up last month, he advocated for the rise of armed militias, tying the necessity for their formation to the wars across the Mexican border. At least he had the presence of mind to tell the AP reporter he wasn't suggesting we actually install land mines, for Chris'sakes; are you insane? he just thought it was an interesting idea. Think, then speak, Mullins. It'll do wonders for your burgeoning political career.

THE BORDER REPORT

The founder of an Arizona militia accused of threatening to kill his wife has until midnight tonight to make himself available for a court Order of Protection by a Phoenix police officer or may face arrest, an email to the man obtained by BorderReporter.com shows. Simcox was slapped with a restraining order by his ex-wife, Alena Simcox, on April 16. He was ordered to stay 200 yards away from her, their two children, and his wife's child from a previous marriage, after a Maricopa County court commissioner granted her request. The court also ordered him to surrender his weapons, according to the story broken by Phoenix New Times' Stephen Lemons. Apparently he hasn't done so and it's starting to get serious. Here's the latest message, an email to Simcox from Fugitive Recovery Services of Arizona. The email warns Simcox that he has until midnight tonight to be served an order of protection by a Phoenix police officer, or his ex-wife will turn over to police the last 30 days of emails he'd sent to her and police will arrest him.

Chris, Here are your options, as I confirmed for you via text earlier today: 1) You can let me know a location to have local law enforcement meet you to serve you with the Order of Protection. This needs to happen prior to midnight tonight. or 2). Alena Simcox will take the emails you have sent her over the past 30 days and lodge another complaint with PPD, and they will arrest you for your contact. Per your emails, you are completely aware of the Protection Orders, barring you from contacting her or the children in any form except through the courts. PPD is VERY interested in you right now. Do the right thing, make this happen. In order to keep those emails from reaching PPD tomorrow, you need to make yourself available for service today, therefor providing the address in which you want to be served. Please advise.

The former founder of the Minuteman Project dropped out of a Senate race against Sen. John McCain and became a "self-proclaimed" advisor to J.D. Hayworth's in the race. The Minuteman Civil Defense Corps disbanded last spring after issuing a call to arms to actively engage illegal immigrants on the Arizona border then backing off the planned hunt, claiming it had lost control of who would sign up to do so.

THE BORDER REPORT

Well here's a move we didn't predict: It appears that first came the gun, then came the rocks. A cellphone video obtained by Univsion shows a U.S. Border Patrol agent drawing his weapon to keep two Mexican nationals from fleeing back to Mexico, an escalation that puts last Monday's killing of a teenage boy nicely in context. The Americans were quick to inform the media last night that the dead kid, Sergio Hernandez, was a known migrant smuggler, a tactic that suggests a bit of desperation on the their part. And I think we're beginning to see why. The agent draws his weapon at about 0:55 in the video as two Mexican nationals were running back south of the line. He rode up on his bike, intercepted the two and had his weapon out, reaching with one hand to grab one of the suspects by the arm. Border Patrol agents are not supposed to draw their weapons unless they are under threat. If El Paso agents have been pulling weapons indiscriminately like this regularly, it goes a long way toward explaining why the Mexican cops had their own weapons out and pointed at the Border Patrol agents, a move that the Americans were also quick to point out. I'm working on getting the agency's weapons protocols and will post when I receive them.

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. FBI Yesterday:

"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."

FBI Today:

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.