TX Rangers seek to charge US Marine in death of Texas teenager
Michael Zarlenga
A teenager was shot this year by US Marines from Joint Task Force 6
on a War on Drugs border patrol in Texas.
Frustrated by contradictory testimony from the Marines involved, es-
pecially the claim of self-defense, the Texas Rangers are now seeking
to charge the Marine in the incident.
My paper today carried only a small snippet a few sentences more than
what you see above ... and this was the first blurb they printed on this,
which happened months ago. Can anyone point me to a fuller, more com-
plete wire story? I believe the boy's name was Ezeqial Hernanadez.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
"Never before in American history has one man taken so much
from so many for so long." Steve Forbes on Bill Clinton
Jason Dunlap
Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
>A teenager was shot this year by US Marines from Joint Task Force 6
>on a War on Drugs border patrol in Texas.
>
>Frustrated by contradictory testimony from the Marines involved, es-
>pecially the claim of self-defense, the Texas Rangers are now seeking
>to charge the Marine in the incident.
>
>My paper today carried only a small snippet a few sentences more than
>what you see above ... and this was the first blurb they printed on this,
>which happened months ago. Can anyone point me to a fuller, more com-
>plete wire story? I believe the boy's name was Ezeqial Hernanadez.
>
Scooped from Dejanews, used w/o permission.
Subject: another life lost to the war on some drugs
From: kst...@pyramid.com (Kevin Stoner)
Date: 1997/05/22
Message-Id: <5m21ud$j...@halley.eng.pyramid.com>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
[snip]
Marine kills high school student in border
detail
REDFORD, Texas (AP) -- Military activities aimed at stemming drug
traffic on the Texas-Mexico border were suspended Wednesday following
the shooting death of a local high school student by a Marine.
Ezequiel Hernandez Jr., 18, was shot Tuesday after opening fire on four
Marines who were watching a suspected drug-trafficking route, the U.S.
Border Patrol said.
Hernandez, a 10th-grader at Presidio High School, fired twice and was
getting ready to fire a third time when he was shot in the chest, Border
Patrol spokesman Mario Ortiz said.
Relatives said Hernandez had taken his .22-caliber rifle to tend the
family's 30 goats after dinner when they heard a single shot. The shooting
took place about a half-mile away.
``Even if he did shoot at them twice like they said, I think they had no right
to kill him,'' said Belen Hernandez, Hernandez' 26-year-old sister. ``They
could've shot him in the leg or arm, but not to kill him.''
The Texas Rangers were investigating and military border activities in the
area about 200 miles southeast of El Paso were suspended.
``One, you have the death of a U.S. citizen. Secondly, it did involve the
military. And thirdly, it was obviously a very unfortunate incident,'' Ortiz
told The Dallas Morning News.
The shooting drew sharp criticism from immigrant rights advocates, who
argue that using troops along the border incites violence.
``They're not local, they're not trained as Border Patrol agents, and they
probably don't know the field very well. You're asking for more and more
bloodshed,' said Suzan Kern, coordinator of the El Paso-based Border
Rights Coalition.
The shooting was the second on the border involving the military. An
Army Green Beret conducting surveillance along the Rio Grande near
Brownsville wounded a Mexican man who opened fire on him on Jan. 24.
The man, Cesario Vasquez Acuna, 30, later pleaded guilty to assault and
other charges. He faces up to 15 years in prison and a $500,000 fine at his
sentencing next month.
The January shooting was the first in 2,000 missions authorized since 1989
by Joint Task Force Six, a federal agency that helps local authorities fight
drug smuggling, said spokeswoman Maureen Bossch.
Soldiers involved in such operations are forbidden by federal law from
confronting suspects, but they are allowed to shoot in self-defense.
Copyright © 1995-97 Deja News, Inc. All rights reserved.
--
Jason Watch out where the huskies go,
And don't you eat that yellow snow...
Paul Garrow
Michael Zarlenga wrote:
>
> A teenager was shot this year by US Marines from Joint Task Force 6
> on a War on Drugs border patrol in Texas.
>
> Frustrated by contradictory testimony from the Marines involved, es-
> pecially the claim of self-defense, the Texas Rangers are now seeking
> to charge the Marine in the incident.
>
> My paper today carried only a small snippet a few sentences more than
> what you see above ... and this was the first blurb they printed on this,
> which happened months ago. Can anyone point me to a fuller, more com-
> plete wire story? I believe the boy's name was Ezeqial Hernanadez.
>
http://www.dallasnews.com/texas-southwest-nf/tsw216.htm
This is a link to newspapers of the world on the net.
http://www.southamerica-business.com/newspapers/usa.html
This is one of my favorites, the A.P.
Michael Zarlenga
Michael Zarlenga (zarl...@conan.ids.net) wrote:
: plete wire story? I believe the boy's name was Ezeqial Hernanadez.
Correction ... the article identifies the dead teenager as "Ezequiel
Hernandez."
John McReynolds
In article <5ojutd$m...@paperboy.ids.net>, zarl...@conan.ids.net says...
>
>A teenager was shot this year by US Marines from Joint Task Force 6
>on a War on Drugs border patrol in Texas.
>
>Frustrated by contradictory testimony from the Marines involved, es-
>pecially the claim of self-defense, the Texas Rangers are now seeking
>to charge the Marine in the incident.
>
>
>
>My paper today carried only a small snippet a few sentences more than
>what you see above ... and this was the first blurb they printed on this,
>which happened months ago. Can anyone point me to a fuller, more com-
>
>-- Mike Zarlenga
According to The New York Times (Sunday, 6/21/97, p. 11), the Texas Rangers
will seek an indictment for murder against the corporal who fired the fatal
shots (Cpl. Clemente Banuelos, USMC). They will seek lesser charges against
the other three members of the team involved in the shooting. Investigators
said "the evidence revealed discrepencancies in the military's version of
events" in the shooting.
The military has said that Hernandez fired twice at the Marines with a .22
rifle. When he raised his rifle a third time, Banuelos returned fire and
killed him. The Ranger chief investigator alleges that 22 minutes passed
before the Marines called for help or administered first aid.
Regards,
John McReynolds
EndWe...@work4aliving.com
:SNIP
>Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
>A teenager was shot this year by US Marines from Joint Task Force 6
>on a War on Drugs border patrol in Texas.
>
SNIP
Scooped from Dejanews, used w/o permission.
Subject: another life lost to the war on some drugs
From: kst...@pyramid.com (Kevin Stoner)
Date: 1997/05/22
Message-Id: <5m21ud$j...@halley.eng.pyramid.com>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
[snip]
>Marine kills high school student in border
>detail
> REDFORD, Texas (AP) -- Military activities aimed at stemming drug
> traffic on the Texas-Mexico border were suspended Wednesday following
> the shooting death of a local high school student by a Marine.
> Ezequiel Hernandez Jr., 18, was shot Tuesday after opening fire on four
> Marines who were watching a suspected drug-trafficking route, the U.S.
> Border Patrol said.
> Hernandez, a 10th-grader at Presidio High School, fired twice and was
> getting ready to fire a third time when he was shot in the chest, Border
> Patrol spokesman Mario Ortiz said.
>Relatives said Hernandez had taken his .22-caliber rifle to tend the
>family's 30 goats after dinner when they heard a single shot. The shooting
>took place about a half-mile away.
> ``Even if he did shoot at them twice like they said, I think they had no right
> to kill him,'' said Belen Hernandez, Hernandez' 26-year-old sister. ``They
> could've shot him in the leg or arm, but not to kill him.''
If you are shooting at a group of armed marines, it is very likely you are
going to die.
Posted below is a group of NO RIGHTS that need to be officially adopted.
If that young man would have been informed and followed article 6, none of
this would have happened.
We, the sensible of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get
along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid any more riots, keep our
nation safe, promote positive behavior and secure the blessings of
debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great grandchildren,
hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense
guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt-ridden delusional, and other
liberal, commie, pinko bedwetters.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that a whole lot of people were
confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim that they require a Bill of
No Rights.
ARTICLE I
You do not have the right to a new car, big-screen color TV or any other
form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no
one is guaranteeing anything.
ARTICLE II
You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on
freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may
leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but
the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.
ARTICLE III
You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver
in your eye, learn to be more careful, do not expect the tool manufacturer
to make you and all of your relatives independently wealthy.
ARTICLE IV
You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most
charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we
are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of
professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of
another generation of professional couch potatoes.
ARTICLE V
You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but
from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public
health care.
ARTICLE VI
You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap,
rape, intentionally maim or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest
of us get together and kill you.
ARTICLE VII
You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat,
or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised
if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you
still won't have the right to a big-screen color TV or a life of leisure.
ARTICLE VIII
You do not have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in
foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate oppressive
governments and won't lift a finger to stop you from going to fight if
you'd like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not
want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant
with a military uniform and a funny hat.
ARTICLE IX
You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have one,
and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take
advantage of the opportunities in education and vocational training laid
before you to make yourself useful.
ARTICLE X
You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you
have the right to pursue happiness -- which, by the way, is a lot easier
if you are unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created by
those around you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.
Michael Zarlenga
Source: http://www.dallasnews.com/texas-southwest-nf/tsw216.htm
Marchers mark death anniversary
The Dallas Morning News: Texas and Southwest News
Call renewed to keep soldiers off the border
Associated Press
EL PASO - Several demonstrations were held Friday on the one-month
anniversary of the slaying of an 18-year-old shot on the Texas-Mexico
border by a U.S. Marine participating in an anti-drug operation.
Immigration rights advocates used the national "day of reflection" to
renew their calls to keep the military out of border enforcement.
At a protest outside the El Paso federal building, the Rev. Bill
Morton said that meekly accepting events such as the slaying of
Ezequiel Hernandez Jr. and the use of soldiers on the border could
eventually result in a more militarized nation.
"The military has a role to play, but it's not to police U.S.
citizens," he said.
In Washington, a knot of people stood across the street from the
Immigration and Naturalization Service headquarters holding a banner
that read: "Stop the violence at the border. Remember Ezequiel
Hernandez."
"The vigil is designed to bring attention to what has happened to
Ezequiel and reflect on what the human costs are of militarizing the
border,' said Layne Mosler, who helped organize the event.
The action came as the U.S. House approved a measure that could
station up to 10,000 U.S. troops along the Mexican border to help stop
illegal immigration and drug trafficking.
Meanwhile, questions are mounting.
Characterized at the outset by the military as a clear-cut case of
self-defense, the May 20 shooting in Redford has taken on mysterious
undertones as state officials have released details of their
investigation.
Military officials say a member of the four-man team shot Mr. Her-
nandez after he had fired twice at the Marines, who were watching a
suspected drug route at the request of the Border Patrol.
The military maintains that Mr. Hernandez had raised his .22-caliber
rifle for a third shot when the Marine opened fire.
Texas Ranger David Duncan, the lead investigator, said Friday that 20
minutes elapsed between the time Ezequiel Hernandez Jr. allegedly shot
at a military surveillance team and the time the Marine returned fire.
Mr. Duncan indicated that the Marines had tracked Mr. Hernandez for
about 700 feet before the fatal shot was fired from about 140 yards
away. Earlier, Rangers had indicated that the fatal shot was fired
from about 230 yards away.
Mr. Duncan would not discuss what else may have happened during the
interval before Mr. Hernandez died in the hilly country 200 miles
southeast of El Paso.
However, he reiterated what other officials have said in recent weeks:
Evidence gathered so far is revealing discrepancies in the military's
version of events.
Afterward, the Marines took 22 minutes before calling for aid, Mr.
Duncan said. An ambulance was finally requested when the Border Patrol
and a sheriff's deputy arrived on the scene.
Mr. Duncan said he didn't know if the delay might have played a role
in Mr. Hernandez's death. The Rangers have not received a copy of the
autopsy report.
Mr. Duncan said investigators have other details but don't want to
release them until the case is presented to a grand jury.
Investigators are also still trying to interview others connected with
the operation and have obtained subpoenas for three officials with
Joint Task Force Six, a Fort Bliss-based military agency that
coordinates anti-drug missions involving the armed forces and civilian
authorities.
A request to serve the subpoenas has been made at the provost
marshal's office at Fort Bliss.
Task force spokeswoman Maureen Bossch said agency officials are
awaiting the subpoenas.
"We haven't been contacted by the Texas Rangers about anything," she
added. "We're standing by to cooperate fully with them."
Andy Katz
cbo...@fellspt.charm.net (Chet Bober) wrote:
>
>Michael Zarlenga (zarl...@conan.ids.net) wrote:
>: The military maintains that Mr. Hernandez had raised his .22-caliber
>: rifle for a third shot when the Marine opened fire.
>
>If you are going to open fire on a four-man team of armed Marines, you'd
>better be prepared to pay the consequences.
Naturally this is and will remain speculative, but how likely is it
that Hernandez knew that Marines were even in the area? And if he was
aware that he was firing upon Marines, what possible motive could he
have had?
Andy Katz
__________________________________________
So sophisticated is my Net presence that I
now disdain sigs, ascii and even URLs....
a...@interport.net
a...@texas.net
andre...@aol.com
Chet Bober
alt.drugs:
References: <5ojutd$m...@paperboy.ids.net> <33ADDF...@acmenet.net> <5olrc0$c...@paperboy.ids.net>
Organization: Charm Net, Inc.
Distribution:
Michael Zarlenga (zarl...@conan.ids.net) wrote:
: Source: http://www.dallasnews.com/texas-southwest-nf/tsw216.htm
[snip]
: Military officials say a member of the four-man team shot Mr. Her-
: nandez after he had fired twice at the Marines, who were watching a
: suspected drug route at the request of the Border Patrol.
: The military maintains that Mr. Hernandez had raised his .22-caliber
: rifle for a third shot when the Marine opened fire.
If you are going to open fire on a four-man team of armed Marines, you'd
better be prepared to pay the consequences.
--
********************************
Chet Bober Maybe I am imagining things, but
that doesn't make them any less
cbo...@charm.net (home) real.
cbo...@sinai.sinai-balt.com (work) ********************************
Jason Dunlap
Andy Katz <a...@interport.net> wrote:
>cbo...@fellspt.charm.net (Chet Bober) wrote:
>>
>>Michael Zarlenga (zarl...@conan.ids.net) wrote:
>
>>: rifle for a third shot when the Marine opened fire.
>>
>>If you are going to open fire on a four-man team of armed Marines, you'd
>>better be prepared to pay the consequences.
>
>that Hernandez knew that Marines were even in the area? And if he was
>aware that he was firing upon Marines, what possible motive could he
>have had?
Lessee, possibly that there were unidentified individuals on his
familiy's land without permission? IIRC, in Texas, he'd have every
right in the book to pop off a few warning shots. Hell, if he killed
someone trespassing he'd probably get off with not too much hassle.
Conversely, a trespasser who then kills a property owner on his own
land in Texas should, in theory, be held pretty strictly accountable.
Of course, it's still a pretty dumb idea to pop off those shots, but
the fact that four men were Marines doesn't excuse their actions or
absolve them of the consequences. The Marines may be all about high
testosterone levels and automatic weapons (which certainly do have
have their place in the world, don't get me wrong there), but that
doesn't mean they can kill with impunity and not have to face the
judicial system. And I don't think that having those same folks
wandering around Texas and killing civilians is a good plan.
Still unresolved in the news accounts are some key questions:
1) Were the Marines in fact on private land? The original AP story
indicated that Hernandez was out tending the family's flocks,
which supports but does not confirm this supposition.
2) What business did the Marines have, legally, to be in their
location? The military isn't supposed to be in the business of
law enforcement. Don't let the wolf cry of "Drugs! Drugs!"
make you all forget about little trivia like the Constitution.
If the Marines are just cruising around in the Rio Grande area
loaded for bear and shooting any property owner who happens
to disagree with their presence, I consider this a very serious
problem.
3) Were the shots even at the Marines? Hernandez could have been
shooting to hit, then again taking what he thought a reasonable
action: firing a few warning shots to express a reasonable
Texas sentiment of "get off my land". Then again, he could
also have been a bored 18-year old plinking cans in the back
forty.
4) Did the Marines ever identify themselves as such, or even make
an attempt to do so? If they had been, say, local sherriffs
instead of Marines, trespasssing without a warrant followed
by killing a property owner would be *extremely* constitutionally
questionable. Why should people defend this action because
it was Marines and not police? Are they both not arms of the
government, both of which have obligations to follow the law
as well as enforce it?
5) Who did the Marines think they were shooting at? Did the brains
who came up with the idea of using troops for drug interdiction
not consider that some people have legitimate business on land
near the Rio Grande, and that quite a few of the people (this
being Texas, after all) are going to be armed as well? What
were the rules of engagement for the Marines? Is land near the
river effectively a free-fire zone, where citizens have to worry
about getting killed by their own military? Do the drug squads
assume that anyone armed in that area is a drug smuggler?
6) Did the Marines track, shoot, and then delay medical attention
for Hernandez as alleged by the Texas Rangers? This strikes
me as relatively easy to determine: if there were a few fresh
.22 casings near his corpse and a round in his rifle, that's
corroboration for the Marines; if not, their version of the
story is open to serious doubt.
Of course, some folks are going to fall back on the "Hernandez got
what he deserved" line. Those same folks should think long and
hard about the role of the military in this country. I believe
they serve a very valuable role - but that killing their own
civilians doesn't happen to be one of them. Regardless of the
outcome of the Hernadez case itself, this incident should prompt
an extremely close review of the role of the military in what
is a matter of civilian law enforcement.
Todd
John McReynolds wrote:
Just let Bill Clinton take of all the marines, he'll send them into a
hot LZ with fruit baskets and flowers
Fetus
EndWe...@work4aLiving.com wrote:
>
> ARTICLE VIII
>
> You do not have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in
> foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate oppressive
> governments and won't lift a finger to stop you from going to fight if
> you'd like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not
> want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant
> with a military uniform and a funny hat.
Huh? I thought it was the right-wing conservo-dudes who were responbile
for such wars- e.g., Panama and the Gulf War under Bush- and US
involvement in Vietnam started with Eisenhower...
Fetus
Guardian
> >If you are going to open fire on a four-man team of armed Marines, you'd
> >better be prepared to pay the consequences.
>
> Naturally this is and will remain speculative, but how likely is it
> that Hernandez knew that Marines were even in the area? And if he was
> aware that he was firing upon Marines, what possible motive could he
> have had?
>
> Andy Katz
Who cares if he knew they were there.
HE WAS ON HIS OWN PROPERTY!
Guardian
Guardian
Chet Bober, showing just how deep ignorance can flow, burped up this
shit:
> If you are going to open fire on a four-man team of armed Marines, you'd
> better be prepared to pay the consequences.
>
> --
> Chet Bober
Boy, you're a real bright light aren't you Chet.
May you choke on your own bile.
Guardian
"0" Tolerance
Well gee. What is one to do when you are suddenly faced with four armed
men in camo on your property. Just be shot to death?? Because they are
within their rights to come on your property and kill you? I think the
overall picture here is being missed. And as far as this isolated incident
is concerned, beware of Texas. It is a state unlike any other.
Talons
Andy Katz <a...@interport.net> wrote in article
<33ae8fa0...@news.interport.net>...
> cbo...@fellspt.charm.net (Chet Bober) wrote:
> >
> >Michael Zarlenga (zarl...@conan.ids.net) wrote:
>
> >: The military maintains that Mr. Hernandez had raised his .22-caliber
> >: rifle for a third shot when the Marine opened fire.
> >
> >If you are going to open fire on a four-man team of armed Marines, you'd
> >better be prepared to pay the consequences.
>
> Naturally this is and will remain speculative, but how likely is it
> that Hernandez knew that Marines were even in the area? And if he was
> aware that he was firing upon Marines, what possible motive could he
> have had?
>
> Andy Katz
>
John McReynolds
In article <33AEF716...@imperium.net>, trob...@imperium.net says...
>
>John McReynolds wrote:
>Just let Bill Clinton take of all the marines, he'll send them into a
>hot LZ with fruit baskets and flowers
>
For the record, John McReynolds did not write this. Please use
care with your attributions.
Regards,
John McReynolds
Evelyn L Ray
Jason Dunlap wrote:
>
> Andy Katz <a...@interport.net> wrote:
> >cbo...@fellspt.charm.net (Chet Bober) wrote:
> >>
> >>Michael Zarlenga (zarl...@conan.ids.net) wrote:
> >
> >>: The military maintains that Mr. Hernandez had raised his .22-caliber
> >>: rifle for a third shot when the Marine opened fire.
> >>
> >>If you are going to open fire on a four-man team of armed Marines, you'd
> >>better be prepared to pay the consequences.
> >
> >Naturally this is and will remain speculative, but how likely is it
> >that Hernandez knew that Marines were even in the area? And if he was
> >aware that he was firing upon Marines, what possible motive could he
> >have had?
>
I'm confused. What side of the border was he on? Was he an American
citizen? Was he really on his own property? Sorry, but even if the
answer is yes, You just don't go around shooting at people. I'd be
hauled in if I shot someone in my yard. In my home with intent to
harm-now that's another story.
Guardian
Evelyn L Ray wrote:
> I'm confused. What side of the border was he on? Was he an American
> citizen? Was he really on his own property? Sorry, but even if the
> answer is yes, You just don't go around shooting at people. I'd be
> hauled in if I shot someone in my yard. In my home with intent to
> harm-now that's another story.
He was on the US side.
He was an American citizen.
It was HIS property.
He has every right in the state of Texas to shoot anyone that is a
threat to his life or property.
Were I to see 4 men dressed in camo with weaponry in my yard, I WOULD
SHOOT THEM.
You really need to think of the ramifications of letting the military
roam around peoples private property.
Guardian
Michael Zarlenga
: > If you are going to open fire on a four-man team of armed Marines, you'd
: > better be prepared to pay the consequences.
And if you're a government agent fighting in the War on Drugs,
so what if you kill Americans? There are NO consequences aside
from maybe a paid suspension and a desk job until the heat blows
over.
Samson
In article <5oovqp$1...@chronicle.concentric.net>, Guardian
<"guardian"@awareof things.com> wrote:
>
> Were I to see 4 men dressed in camo with weaponry in my yard, I WOULD
> SHOOT THEM.
Let's see -- you: one man with a .22; they: four men with M-16's.
Good idea. Shoot them.
--
gj bart
Evelyn L Ray <el...@citynet.net> writes:
>I'm confused. What side of the border was he on? Was he an American
>citizen? Was he really on his own property? Sorry, but even if the
>answer is yes, You just don't go around shooting at people. I'd be
>hauled in if I shot someone in my yard. In my home with intent to
>harm-now that's another story.
He was an American citizen walking his herd after dinner. The
Marines have claimed that he was shooting at them. There are several
problems.
1) The Marine section was operating undercover, in heavy camouflage.
The idea apparently is to monitor drug smugglers operating out beyond the
fringes of town. Note that all sides now concede the young man had
nothing whatsoever to do with drugs or drug-dealing.
2) Some witnesses reported hearing only one shot, which is at variance
with the claim by the marines that they were fired on twice.
3) The marines waited over 20 minutes before attempting to treat him.
4) They stalked him for several hundred yards before fatally shooting him.
gj
Doughboy
Jeffrey Day <jd...@fcg.net> wondered aloud:
> Actually, in Texas, you're required to alert the intruder that you are
> armed and will shoot if they don't leave. You can't just walk up on
> someone and shoot them without a warning.
Really? That's odd. I don't recall that from the Texas penal code
anywhere regarding the use of lethal force; I'm pretty sure that our
training at the academy would've covered it.
I'm glad the grand jury that no-billed my brother-in-law didn't know that,
or they might've indicted him for those five rounds of 12-guage that wound
up in a burglar's back. Ooops. Forgot to tell him he was armed. I think
the dead guy figured it out, though.
What's your citation for that penal code reference?
___________________________________________________________________________
Just when you thought it was safe to eat cookies again...
doug...@techrefuge.com
_________________________________________________________________
For email purposes, removed the OOO from both ends of my address.
Commercial spams will be charged $200 per hour for proof-reading.
___________________________________________________________________________
Shannon Mossman
>
> I'm glad the grand jury that no-billed my brother-in-law didn't know that,
> or they might've indicted him for those five rounds of 12-guage that wound
> up in a burglar's back. Ooops. Forgot to tell him he was armed. I think
> the dead guy figured it out, though.
>
> What's your citation for that penal code reference?
> ___________________________________________________________________________
Anything worth doing is worth overdoing, but, wasn't that hell on the
carpet??
Regards,
Shannon
Chris Meissen
Chet Bober, in his State-loving ignorance, vomited forth:
> If you are going to open fire on a four-man team of armed Marines, you'd
> better be prepared to pay the consequences.
>
> --
> Chet Bober
Of course, it might help if the Marines were not in full camo, doing
their best to appear to be nothing more than desert scrub. As I
recall, the original news story on this commented that the Marines
were heavily camoflaged and the boy was probably not aware of their
presence as they trespassed on HIS FAMILY'S LAND.
mike...@austin.ibm.com
In article <33AFB7...@citynet.net>, Evelyn L Ray <el...@citynet.net> writes:
> Jason Dunlap wrote:
> >
>
> I'm confused. What side of the border was he on? Was he an American
> citizen? Was he really on his own property? Sorry, but even if the
> answer is yes, You just don't go around shooting at people. I'd be
> hauled in if I shot someone in my yard. In my home with intent to
> harm-now that's another story.
Texas Rangers would not be involved if it happened on the Mexican side of the
border. The boy was an american citizen. Trespassing on someone's property is
taken very seriously in Texas, especially in the rural areas. I am sure the law
is more rational now, but some years ago it was assumed you were up to no good if
you trespassed on someones ranch. He could have been shooting at coyotes. They
are rampant in every area of texas, and love sheep and goats.
--
Michael (Mike) C. Dean
IBM - RISC/6000 Division
Austin, Texas.
Disclaimer - The opinions expressed in this append are mine alone.
Guardian
Jeffrey Day wrote:
>
> > He has every right in the state of Texas to shoot anyone that is a
> > threat to his life or property.
> >
> > SHOOT THEM.
>
> armed and will shoot if they don't leave. You can't just walk up on
> someone and shoot them without a warning.
>
> CW2
Hello Jeffery.
I must disagree with you on that.
While you are correct on the warning, the presence of four armed men in
camo on my property is enough to make me fear for my life.
Given the nature of the threat,(armed, on my property), it would be
enough in the state of Texas and elsewhere under the given circumstances
to shoot in self defense.
While some may make the arguement I had nothing to fear, I bet a Texas
jury would side with me.
Cordially,
Guardian
Jeffrey Day
doper
zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga) wrote:
>A teenager was shot this year by US Marines from Joint Task Force 6
>on a War on Drugs border patrol in Texas.
This border killing illustrates why we don't want military police.
A military approach to law enforcement will only lead to a more
repressed and frightened America. We should promote the idea of
an open society instead, the vision of George Soros.
Why doesn't the law enforcement community join us to express our
outrage at this cowardly murder? Your profession and our country
are both disgraced when the military is used for law enforcement.
I think the story broke in the Dallas Morning News, and if I can
find it I'll post it. Otherwise the incident happened in Marfa,
TX, and Marfa would be your keyword for a search.
<////////////>
MJay 45
Guardian wrote:
>
> Evelyn L Ray wrote:
>
> > I'm confused. What side of the border was he on? Was he an American
> > citizen? Was he really on his own property? Sorry, but even if the
> > answer is yes, You just don't go around shooting at people. I'd be
> > hauled in if I shot someone in my yard. In my home with intent to
> > harm-now that's another story.
>
> He was an American citizen.
> It was HIS property.
> threat to his life or property.
>
> Were I to see 4 men dressed in camo with weaponry in my yard, I WOULD
> SHOOT THEM.
>
> roam around peoples private property.
>
> Guardian
You really need to study Texas law a bit more carefully. Walking on
someone's property in Texas is criminal trespass, a class B misd and is
only then so if the area is posted, someone notifies you to depart and
you fail to do so or if you have been previously warned not to trespass
there.
I hardly think that a reasonable person would want to kill someone just
for walking on their land.
Guardian
MJay 45 wrote:
>
> Guardian wrote:
> >
> > Evelyn L Ray wrote:
> >
> > > citizen? Was he really on his own property? Sorry, but even if the
> > > answer is yes, You just don't go around shooting at people. I'd be
> > > hauled in if I shot someone in my yard. In my home with intent to
> > > harm-now that's another story.
> >
> > He was an American citizen.
> > It was HIS property.
> > He has every right in the state of Texas to shoot anyone that is a
> > threat to his life or property.
> >
> > Were I to see 4 men dressed in camo with weaponry in my yard, I WOULD
> > SHOOT THEM.
> >
> > You really need to think of the ramifications of letting the military
> > roam around peoples private property.
> >
> > Guardian
>
> You really need to study Texas law a bit more carefully. Walking on
> someone's property in Texas is criminal trespass, a class B misd and is
> only then so if the area is posted, someone notifies you to depart and
> you fail to do so or if you have been previously warned not to trespass
> there.
>
> I hardly think that a reasonable person would want to kill someone just
> for walking on their land.
I have read several of your posts and you appear to be an intelligent
individual.
I will continue to assert that the presense of four, armed, camo clad,
who knows what they are in my yard, is enough to make me feel in
imminent fear for my life and that of my families. (I am being generous
in the scenario that I have actually seen them, versus the story now
being that these Marines stalked the boy for twenty minutes and are
lying BIGTIME).
In this case, I am within my rights to shoot.
While you may not find this reasonable, I bet a Texas jury would. ;)
Remember, this was a rural area.
No time to involve the police, assuming I have seen the illegal
intruders.
I think a reasonable person would indeed shoot.
There are of course plenty of constitutional reasons that Marines are
not allowed to lurk around on private property but we won't get into
that.
I shall close by stating that you were correct.
I would not want to kill anyone for walking on my land.
That is of course assuming that it is daylight and the individuals are
unarmed and not dressed in camo.
The border is a nasty place MJ.
If the Military can't protect the residents, and in fact KILLS THEM, I
think that erring on the side of personal safety is quite reasonable.
Guardian
Paul Garrow
He fire two shots, and the intuders did not leave,
but continued to stalk him for twenty more minutes.
I would consider them as having been warned and a potentially
deadly attacker. Take any measure you deem necessary to preserve
your life.
Guardian
Samson wrote:
>
> In article <5oovqp$1...@chronicle.concentric.net>, Guardian
> <"guardian"@awareof things.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > SHOOT THEM.
>
>
> Good idea. Shoot them.
Thank you.
It is a far better thing to take a few of them with me, than to be
gunned down unanswered.
22s are for plinking or sniping.
Were I to live on the Southern flank, they would have been taken out by
my landmines!
Fortunately, I am comfortably situated in the interior of our great
country.
My needs are satisfied with the protection of local law enforcement.
I have no need for a gun here because the police are so good at stopping
acts of violence, that self defense is unnecessary.
I guess what I'm saying is that the police should be involved with
tresspassing on private property, instead of the Marines.
BTW,it is nice to see that people in our educational system still have
such intellectual prowess.
I salute you Small Bug!!
Guardian
Anthony Garcia
From the Houston Chronicle:
http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/page1/97/06/21/border-shoot.html
8:25 PM 6/20/1997
Headline: "More questions in border shooting"
Subhead: "Investigators say anti-drug force stalked teen for
about 20 minutes"
By THADDEUS HERRICK
Copyright 1997 Houston Chronicle San Antonio Bureau
SAN ANTONIO -- Anti-drug troops on the Texas-Mexico border followed a
teen-ager for about 20 minutes after he fired his .22-caliber rifle,
investigators said Friday, raising additional questions about the
military's claim of self-defense in the shooting death of Ezequiel
Hernandez Jr.
Military officials maintain U.S. Marines on a surveillance mission
near Big Bend National Park had no choice but to shoot Hernandez, a
Presidio High School sophomore who was tending his family's goats on
the evening of May 20 when he inexplicably fired his rifle twice.
At a news conference two days after the incident, Marine Col. Thomas
Kelly, deputy commander of Joint Task Force-6, which operates
anti-narcotics efforts with federal agents, said only that the Marines
"took immediate defensive posture" and tried to "maintain visual
observation."
But Texas Rangers said Friday that the heavily camouflaged troops who
had staked out a surveillance post in the tiny town of Redford went
"bush to bush" tracking the youth for 20 minutes, closing the gap
between themselves and Hernandez from 700 feet to 425 feet.
"It just doesn't sound like your typical self-defense case," said
Texas Rangers Capt. Barry Caver, who is overseeing the work of head
investigator David Duncan in Alpine.
Potentially more troublesome for the military is that investigators
say Hernandez, a U.S. citizen, was not aiming at the Marines when he
was shot once with an M-16. The Marine named in the shooting is Cpl.
Clemente Banuelos, who like the other three Marines was on loan from
Camp Pendleton, Calif.
Though the 125 or so troops on the border anti-narcotics operations
cannot perform traditional police duties such as search and seizure,
they are allowed by law to defend themselves. But Caver said the
Marines apparently violated military policy when they followed
Hernandez.
"My understanding is that this is totally against the rules of
engagement," he said. "I'm not sure what their intent was."
Joint Task Force-6 spokeswoman Maureen Bossch refused comment on the
matter, saying she was not aware of the facts of the investigation.
Caver said the investigation thus far also has revealed that the
Marines failed to administer first aid to Hernandez once he was shot
and that they waited 22 minutes to call for medical help. Though the
Marines reported a "man down" to the Border Patrol at 6:27 p.m., the
call for a helicopter did not go out until 6:49 p.m., he said.
"The only thing they did was check his pulse," Caver said.
Details of the shooting released to date do not make it clear if
Hernandez died instantly or whether he could have been saved with a
faster response.
Bossch said the Border Patrol had called an ambulance when they first
heard from the Marines. But Presidio County sheriff's Deputy Oscar
Gallegos, who arrived on the scene at about 6:45 p.m., said last week
that he made the first ambulance call.
[...]
Local prosecutors are developing a criminal case against
Cpl. Banuelos in the Hernandez incident. Caver said Texas Rangers
intend to subpoena documents Tuesday from the military at Fort Bliss,
home of Joint Task Force-6.
[...]
MDK86
doper wrote:
>
> zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga) wrote:
>
> >A teenager was shot this year by US Marines from Joint Task Force 6
> >on a War on Drugs border patrol in Texas.
>
> This border killing illustrates why we don't want military police.
> A military approach to law enforcement will only lead to a more
> repressed and frightened America. We should promote the idea of
> an open society instead, the vision of George Soros.
Marines at the border is an excellent move, I hope the drug dealers and
illegals get wind that there are trigger happy Marines waiting for them
to cross.
> Why doesn't the law enforcement community join us to express our
> outrage at this cowardly murder?
Not me. I dont know it was "cowardly", if the kid was shooting at them
they did as Marines are trained to do, shoot back and hit your target.
IF the kid shot at them, and they returned fire I see no problem except
for the lack of communication between the ranchers and Marines that
could have avoided the incident. Then again, telling the ranchers runs
the risk of them leaking the information.
> Your profession and our country
> are both disgraced when the military is used for law enforcement.
Please, there are illegals pouring over the border, some looking for
work, some bringing drugs. Military personelle are a large semi trained
source of armed manpower, it's about time the US caught up with the rest
of the world and secured the border with the military.
-M-
Kevin Murphy
On Tue, 24 Jun 1997 17:44:40 -0700, Guardian <"guardian"@awareof
things.com> wrote:
>Kevin Murphy wrote:
>
>>
>> So it was a teenager who decided to shoot at some Marines? Not very
>> smart.
>
>Always nice to find another intellectual on the net.
>
>May you choke upon your own bile.
>
>May a company of homosexual Marines make you their playtoy.
>
>Guardian
I wouldn't be very proud of your reply, if I were you.
For real e-mail, send to:
Kevi...@cris.com
Kevin Murphy
On 24 Jun 1997 18:29:11 GMT, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga)
wrote:
>And if you're a government agent fighting in the War on Drugs,
>so what if you kill Americans? There are NO consequences aside
>from maybe a paid suspension and a desk job until the heat blows
>over.
>
>--
>-- Mike Zarlenga
> finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
Do the officials, at least, get a trial before you have them hanged,
Zarlenga?
Edward D. Holman II
Marines back soldiers in border killing
06/23/97Associated Press
CAMP PENDLETON, Calif. - The Marine Corps supports a corporal facing a
possible murder charge for shooting to death a Texas teenager during an
anti-drug mission, base officials said.
"There is no evidence from the Joint Taskforce 6 investigation which
indicates any criminal offense by our Marines. We are prepared to use all
legal methods to support them," Maj. Len Ryan, a spokesman at the San Diego
County base, said Saturday.
The Texas Rangers have said a murder indictment is possible against Cpl.
Clemente Banuelos and lesser charges against three other Marines for the
May 20 shooting of Ezequiel Hernandez along the U.S.-Mexico border.
The four-man surveillance team was part of a 56-member contingent from the
5th Battalion, 11th Marine Regiment, an artillery unit sent to Texas to aid
the U.S. Border Patrol in surveillance of a drug-trafficking route along
the border.
Military investigators contend that Mr. Hernandez, 18, fired two shots at
the team and that Cpl. Banuelos wounded him in self-defense when the
teenager raised a .22-caliber rifle for a third shot.
Mr. Hernandez died at the scene.
"We fully stand behind the level of training our Marines receive and
believe the Marines in this case acted in accordance with the established
rules of engagement and were using lawful self-defense," Maj. Ryan said.
But Texas investigators said evidence reveals discrepancies in the
military's version of the events in Redford, a farming community 200 miles
southeast of El Paso.
Capt. Barry Caver said an investigation by Rangers into the drug patrol's
actions found "a lot of little things don't quite fit."
The angle of the teen's wound indicates Mr. Hernandez was aiming away from
the camouflaged Marines, he said. The teen's family has said he sometimes
shot at targets with a rifle he carried to protect his goats.
The Rangers' chief investigator, Sgt. David Duncan, said the Marines waited
22 minutes after the shooting before rendering first aid or calling for
help. He said he didn't know if the delay might have played a role in the
death.
Marine, Army and California National Guard units operate observation posts
in isolated areas along the entire U.S.-Mexico border, including San Diego
and Imperial counties. The military often uses the deployments as training
exercises.
The shooting abruptly ended the deployment, and the Marines returned
immediately to Camp Pendleton, Maj. Ryan said.
Cpl. Banuelos, a three-year veteran, remains with his unit and is not in
confinement. He has been assigned a Marine Corps lawyer on an advisory
basis, Maj. Ryan said.
Autopsy shows teen shot at border bled to death He was killed by Marine in
drug-surveillance team
06/24/97
Associated Press
EL PASO - A teenager shot by a Marine on the Mexican border bled to death
after a bullet pierced his side, fragmented, then punctured or injured his
aorta, stomach and other organs, an autopsy report shows.
A diagram accompanying the report on Ezequiel Hernandez Jr., 18, shows that
the bullet entered on the right side of his chest, then traveled toward the
left side of his body on two divergent paths.
"It just cut so many organs," Dan Bodine, a justice of the peace in
Presidio County, said Monday after receiving the report.
The bullet perforated or injured the diaphragm, liver, stomach, spleen,
kidney, aorta, inferior vena cava and a rib. Two fragments were recovered
from the tissue of the teenager's left side.
The autopsy failed to find any substances in Mr. Hernandez's blood, except
maybe "a trace of coffee," said Mr. Bodine. "Everything came out clean."
Mr. Hernandez, a high school student, was killed May 20 while tending his
goats near his home in Redford, a farming community along the Rio Grande
200 miles southeast of El Paso.
Military officials say a member of a four-man surveillance team shot Mr.
Hernandez after he had fired twice at the Marines, who were watching a
suspected drug route at the request of the Border Patrol.
The military maintains that Mr. Hernandez had raised his .22-caliber rifle
for a third shot when the Marine opened fire.
Mr. Hernandez's family and friends have refuted the military's story. They
say Mr. Hernandez carried a gun only to protect his livestock and to shoot
at targets.
Civilian investigators have questioned the series of events. Authorities
say the evidence has not matched the Marines' stories.
A key discrepancy is that Mr. Hernandez's wound seems to indicate the
right-handed teenager was not facing the Marines when he was shot, said
Presidio County prosecutor James Jepson.
The Texas Rangers also said that no one called for aid until 22 minutes
after the shooting, even though the injured teenager was still moving. The
autopsy report did not specify how long he lived after being shot.
Evidence gathered by the Rangers will be presented to a Presidio County
grand jury next month.
Mr. Jepson on Monday denied a report that the state has decided to seek a
murder indictment against the Marine who opened fire, identified as Cpl.
Clemente Banuelos, and other charges against the other three.
"Before we would ever consider asking anyone to return an indictment we
would have to be convinced that there is wrongdoing and we haven't reached
that point yet," Mr. Jepson said.
Texas Rangers Capt. Barry Caver added: "All we do is present facts to the
grand jury. It's up to them to decide what charges, if any, to indict on."
Mr. Jepson said the autopsy report is one of the final pieces of
information needed.
Investigators are also awaiting the results of tests to determine whether
there was gunpowder residue on the teenager's body, which could help them
determine whether he had fired his gun the day he was killed.
They also are checking for metal impressions that would have been left on
his body if he had been holding and firing his weapon.
Mr. Jepson said a spent chamber was found in Mr. Hernandez's rifle.
Subpoena served in shooting
Official: Military plans to comply in border death
06/25/97
By Douglas Holt / The Dallas Morning News
EL PASO - Texas Rangers served the head of military anti-drug missions with
a subpoena Tuesday, seeking key documents related to the shooting death of
an 18-year-old goatherd, Ezequiel Hernandez.
Brig. Gen. James Lovelace, commanding officer of Joint Task Force-6, was
asked to provide a long list of documents, including military notes,
reports, witness statements and communications logs related to the May 20
shooting by Marine Corps Cpl. Clemente Banuelos.
With the delivery, investigators say they are closer to presenting a case
to a grand jury.
Meanwhile, the shooting has set off discussion of whether the case would be
removed to federal court if one or more Marines are indicted because of the
shooting.
That could set up a conflict. On the one hand, the U.S. attorney's office
is expected to begin a civil rights investigation into the incident. That
would seemingly preclude the U.S. attorney from defending military
personnel in a criminal case.
Already, the U.S. attorney's office in El Paso has taken steps to offer a
potential solution. The office has passed the names of several defense
lawyers to the Department of Justice should they be needed to defend the
Marines, sources told The Dallas Morning News.
Sam Ponder, chief of the El Paso U.S. attorney's office, declined to
comment on the report.
The subpoena delivery Tuesday capped more than two weeks of
miscommunications, unreturned phone calls and bad blood between the Rangers
and Joint Task Force-6, which coordinates military support for law
enforcement agencies involved in regional drug interdiction.
But on Tuesday, both sides expressed a desire to cooperate in an
investigation that has raised questions in some quarters about the
military's role in fighting drugs.
"I can say we're cautiously optimistic about the military's cooperation in
the investigation," said Texas Rangers Sgt. David Duncan, who is directing
the agency's investigation. "I think their degree of cooperation will be
reflected to the degree information is provided that was requested in the
subpoena."
A military lawyer on Tuesday told the Rangers that federal law may preclude
the military from handing over everything that was requested, Sgt. Duncan
said.
Maureen Bossch, task force spokeswoman, faulted the Rangers for failing to
return telephone calls from the military, but she said task force officials
intended to cooperate fully.
"The military is committed to assisting law enforcement in their
investigation," she said. "We're not trying to avoid anything."
But, echoing the comments of military officials at the Marines' base in
Camp Pendleton, Calif., Ms. Bossch said that military officials believe no
laws were violated during the shooting.
"All the reports we have indicate they fired within the rules of
engagement, and that's not criminal conduct," she said.
Mr. Hernandez, who authorities said was not involved in criminal activity,
was shot in the tiny border town of Redford near Big Bend.
Military authorities have said Cpl. Banuelos shot in self-defense after Mr.
Hernandez fired his weapon. The Rangers have noted discrepancies in
military's version of events, saying that evidence indicates the young
man's rifle was pointed away from the Marine unit when he was shot.
The subpoena identified the three other Marines in the surveillance unit
with Cpl. Banuelos as James Blood, Roy Torrez Jr. and Robert Wieler.
The Rangers have subpoenas for two other military officials, but they could
not be served Tuesday because one was not there and the other is based in
California.
Usually, serving a subpoena is a routine law enforcement task requiring a
few minutes. In this case, setting an appointment took weeks and serving
the subpoena took hours.
District Attorney Albert Valadez signed the subpoenas more than two weeks
ago, on June 5.
Since then, Sgt. Duncan said he has attempted numerous times to make an
appointment with the Provost Marshall's office in Fort Bliss near El Paso,
where the joint task force is located.
Typically, the Provost Marshall sets an appointment for the server to meet
the subpoena recipient. At the appointed time, the subpoena is read aloud
and handed over.
On Friday, Sgt. Duncan called to announce he would be there at 10 a.m.
Tuesday.
Accompanied by C.J. "Buster" Collins, a Rangers sergeant in El Paso, Sgt.
Duncan entered the Provost Marshall's office at the appointed time, wearing
cowboy boots and the tan uniforms of the Rangers.
The person they came to see, Staff Sgt. Juan Valadez Jr., wasn't there. A
man in green camouflage, who declined to give his name, ordered a driver to
take the Rangers to the base's Staff Judges Advocate's office, where the
subpoena process "would be explained."
But there, clerks who said they had no idea the Rangers were coming,
directed the Rangers to the Joint Task Force-6 offices on the other side of
Fort Bliss.
As the Rangers got back in their car, Staff Sgt. Valadez came up and
apologized for the confusion. "We hit a wall in that loop over there," he
said, apparently referring to the task force.
By this point, almost an hour had passed and the Rangers were clearly
frustrated. "We wouldn't have to exert this type of effort if they would've
just cooperated as we would expect from a governmental entity," Sgt. Duncan
said.
A reporter was barred at the gate of the Joint Task Force-6 facility. But
the Rangers returned nearly two hours later, considerably more upbeat.
Even reading the subpoena to the commanding officer didn't go so badly,
Sgt. Collins said. "He was very cordial, and very professional," Sgt.
Collins said of Sgt. Duncan.
San Angelo Standard-Times
June 25, 1997
Attorney set to file wrongful death claim in border shooting
By SCOTT STANFORD
Regional Editor
A Fort Worth attorney plans to file a wrongful death claim Friday with
several branches of the federal government - including possibly President
Clinton - on behalf of the family of Ezequiel Hernandez Jr.
Hernandez was tending goats near the tiny border community of Redford May
20 when he was shot and killed by a U.S. Marine. The Marine - identified as
Cpl. Clemente Banuelos - was part of a four-man detachment with Joint Task
Force Six conducting covert, counter-drug surveillance for the U.S. Border
Patrol.
Dan Estrada, a personal injury lawyer, said he will file an administrative
claim this week with the offices of Attorney General Janet Reno, Secretary
of Defense William Cohen and Secretary of the Navy John Dalton.
``We're looking at various entities right now who would have jurisdiction
in this,'' Estrada said. ``Certainly, the Secretary of Defense, the
Secretary of the Navy - which oversees the Marines - and the attorney
general's office. And we may put the executive branch on notice to make
sure we've covered everything.''
Estrada said the claim includes evidence indicating the government was
responsible for Hernandez's death and details damages to his family as a
result. The family will seek specific compensation in the claim, but
Estrada did not reveal the amount.
The government has six months to respond to the claim. Estrada said if the
claim is denied, he will file a lawsuit on the family's behalf against the
government.
Estrada said one of the points made in the claim is that the owner of the
property on which Hernandez was shot - identified as Alberto B. Carrasco of
Kermit - did not know his property was being used for counter-drug
surveillance.
``Esequiel had permission to graze his goats out there, but it's my
understanding the landowner was unaware of the Marines' presence,'' Estrada
said.
Carrasco, 56, was unavailable for comment. Neighbors said he owns about 12
acres in the area where the shooting occurred.
``We didn't have any idea there were Marines out there,'' said Mrs. Jesus
Valenzuela, who watched Hernandez lead his goats past her house the night
he was shot. ``They never asked us for permission or anything.''
Estrada said he is monitoring the Texas Rangers' investigation of the
shooting; however, he said the wrongful death claim does not hinge on
results of the criminal probe.
The Rangers served grand jury subpoenas Tuesday seeking documents from the
El Paso-based Joint Task Force Six, which coordinates joint drug
interdiction efforts involving the military and civilian law enforcement
personnel.
The Rangers served Army Brig. Gen. James Lovelace, commander of the task
force, and attempted to serve another officer, who could not be reached
because he was on leave, said task force spokeswoman Maureen Bossch.
The subpoenas ``were just to provide documents, not to appear,'' said
Bossch, adding that the papers already were being collected.
Military officials have said that Hernandez shot twice at the Marines and
had raised his .22 caliber rifle to fire again when the Marine returned
fire and killed him.
But the Rangers' investigation has raised questions about the series of
events. Authorities say the evidence has not matched the Marines' stories.
A key discrepancy is that Hernandez's wound seems to indicate the
right-handed teen-ager was not facing the Marines when he was shot, said
assistant District Attorney James Jepson of Big Lake.
The Rangers have said Hernandez was more than 100 yards away from the
heavily camouflaged Marines when the shots were fired, making it unclear
whether Hernandez even knew the Marines were there. The Marines made no
attempt to identify themselves during the 20 minutes authorities said
elapsed between when Hernandez allegedly fired his shots and when he was
shot and killed.
A complete autopsy report released this week showed Hernandez bled to death
after the M-16 bullet pierced his side, fragmented, then punctured or
injured his aorta, stomach and other organs.
A diagram accompanying the autopsy report shows the bullet entered on the
right side of his chest, then traveled toward the left side of his body on
two divergent paths.
The bullet perforated or injured the diaphragm, liver, stomach, spleen,
kidney, aorta, inferior vena cava and a rib. Two fragments were recovered
from the tissue of the teen-ager's left side.
The autopsy failed to find any substances in Hernandez's blood, except
maybe ``a trace of coffee,'' said Presidio County Justice of the Peace Dan
Bodine, who ordered the autopsy. ``Everything came out clean.''
The Rangers have said that no one called for aid until 22 minutes after the
shooting, even though the injured teen-ager was still moving. The Marines
apparently did not attempt to assist Hernandez after shooting him,
authorities said.
The autopsy report did not specify how long the boy lived after being shot.
Evidence gathered by the Rangers will be presented to a Presidio County
grand jury next month.
The Associated Press contributed to this report
Re: Deployment of 10,000 Federal troops along the Mexican Border:
In light of the legal (according to the Marine Corps) shooting death of
Ezequiel Hernandez on private property, it shocks the consciousness that
there is reportedly (ABC affiliate Dallas - Channel 8 news, 10 PM, Sunday
22 June) a bill before Congress to authorize the deployment of 10,000
active duty military forces along the Mexican border.
Suspend private property rights? Most of Arizona and New Mexico are
federally-owned which has allowed the military to project its power in this
region with impunity. But because of the way Texas entered the Union in
1845, most of this state is privately owned. Somehow, our military has
obtained additional powers to legally trespass in our state. At one point,
a spokesman for Joint Task Force Six stated they must receive permission
from the landowner, although the owner of the land where young Ezequiel was
slain flatly stated no such permission was asked for nor was it implicitly
granted. In the aftermath of the Hernandez atrocity, I doubt written
permission will be gained. This leaves the alternative . . . they will not
need permission. Declaration of some mutated form of Marshall Law would be
necessary to suspend private property rights. Does anybody see something
wrong with this scenario?
I do not blame the Marines. If I were the commander on the scene, I would
immediately request a massive build-up in the area of Presidio since our
forces engaged and killed a local teenager. Troop safety ranks just behind
the mission. The local population is outraged and random sniping will
become a real threat to the ground forces. You can count on it. As the
commander, I must have the available troop strength to pacify the local
population should they become hostile. Those extra ten thousand troops
would come in handy. Get the picture now?
Liberty vs. Safety
They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety,
deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin, 1759.
Edward Holman
6060 North Central Expressway, Suite 560
Dallas, Texas 75206
214/373-3097
eho...@cyberramp.net
Guardian
> Kevi...@cris.com
You're right.
I'm not proud of it.
Insensitive posts such as yours drive me to anger sometimes and I can't
clearly convey my thoughts.
What I meant to say was:
May a company of "drunken" homosexual Marines make you their playtoy.
May you choke on your own bile "when" they are finished with you.
May the next civilian casualty of the drug war strike your family.
**note**
***the above wishes represent my satirical view of justice for
insensitive remarks made by the poster!!***
You should know that if it were you in the dead boys spot, I would still
feel the same way about it.
EVEN KNOWING what a compassionate individual you are, I would still
maintain that Marines do not belong on your property.
That Marines have no right to murder you.
I would still defend you against insensitive, ignorant posters.
I will always support the Constitution of the United States.
Whether police state advocates or generally anti-social hatemongers like
it or not.
If a police state is what you really want, then folks like you should
call a Constitutional Convention and CHANGE THE RULES.
I for one would support that call because as I see it, it's the only
hope we have left...
To use the Constitutional process while people are still under the
impression that it counts for anything in these times.
You sir, should be ashamed of your original post.
Guardian
Guardian
> Kevi...@cris.com
Yes they should get a trial.
A trial like most Americans get.
A peoples judge shall instruct the jury as to the rules of justice.
A peoples judge shall then throw out the defendants arguements and not
allow the jury to hear them.
The peoples media shall then for a period of no less than 6 months,
saturate the people with evidence of their guilt.
All opposing views shall be harshly twisted and distorted for the good
of the public.
Families and friends of the defendants shall be drug thru the mud and
turned on their families.
Yes, they should get a trial.
Guardian
Divine...@pipeline.com
On 25 Jun 1997 22:04:03 GMT, aga...@neosoft.com (Anthony Garcia)
wrote:
>From the Houston Chronicle:
>
> http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/page1/97/06/21/border-shoot.html
>
> 8:25 PM 6/20/1997
> Headline: "More questions in border shooting"
> Subhead: "Investigators say anti-drug force stalked teen for
> about 20 minutes"
>
> By THADDEUS HERRICK
> Copyright 1997 Houston Chronicle San Antonio Bureau
>
> SAN ANTONIO -- Anti-drug troops on the Texas-Mexico border followed a
> teen-ager for about 20 minutes after he fired his .22-caliber rifle,
> investigators said Friday, raising additional questions about the
> military's claim of self-defense in the shooting death of Ezequiel
> Hernandez Jr.
More Americans would be outraged if only the kid who was killed had
been a right winger. (Of course, they would have been outraged that
anyone was criticizing the government action.)
Jon
EndWe...@work4aLiving.com wrote:
>
> :SNIP
>
> >Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
> >A teenager was shot this year by US Marines from Joint Task Force 6
> >on a War on Drugs border patrol in Texas.
> >
>
> Scooped from Dejanews, used w/o permission.
>
> Subject: another life lost to the war on some drugs
> From: kst...@pyramid.com (Kevin Stoner)
> Date: 1997/05/22
> Message-Id: <5m21ud$j...@halley.eng.pyramid.com>
> Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
>
> [snip]
>
> >Marine kills high school student in border
> >detail
>
> > REDFORD, Texas (AP) -- Military activities aimed at stemming drug
> > traffic on the Texas-Mexico border were suspended Wednesday following
> > the shooting death of a local high school student by a Marine.
>
> > Ezequiel Hernandez Jr., 18, was shot Tuesday after opening fire on four
> > Marines who were watching a suspected drug-trafficking route, the U.S.
> > Border Patrol said.
>
> > Hernandez, a 10th-grader at Presidio High School, fired twice and was
> > getting ready to fire a third time when he was shot in the chest, Border
> > Patrol spokesman Mario Ortiz said.
>
> >Relatives said Hernandez had taken his .22-caliber rifle to tend the
> >family's 30 goats after dinner when they heard a single shot. The shooting
> >took place about a half-mile away.
>
> > ``Even if he did shoot at them twice like they said, I think they had no right
> > to kill him,'' said Belen Hernandez, Hernandez' 26-year-old sister. ``They
> > could've shot him in the leg or arm, but not to kill him.''
>
> If you are shooting at a group of armed marines, it is very likely you are
> going to die.
Um, excuse me, but WHAT THE HELL ARE ARMED MARINES DOING ON PRIVATE
PROPERTY, SHOOTING AT THE PROPERTY OWNERS??????????????????????????
group of NO RIGHTS that need to be officially adopted.
> If that young man would have been informed and followed article 6, none of
> this would have happened.
>
> We, the sensible of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get
> along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid any more riots, keep our
> nation safe, promote positive behavior and secure the blessings of
> debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great grandchildren,
> hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense
> guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt-ridden delusional, and other
> liberal, commie, pinko bedwetters.
>
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that a whole lot of people were
> confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim that they require a Bill of
> No Rights.
>
> ARTICLE I
>
> You do not have the right to a new car, big-screen color TV or any other
> form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no
> one is guaranteeing anything.
>
> ARTICLE II
>
> You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on
> freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may
> leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but
> the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.
>
> ARTICLE III
>
> You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver
> in your eye, learn to be more careful, do not expect the tool manufacturer
> to make you and all of your relatives independently wealthy.
>
> ARTICLE IV
>
> You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most
> charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we
> are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of
> professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of
> another generation of professional couch potatoes.
>
> ARTICLE V
>
> You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but
> from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public
> health care.
>
> ARTICLE VI
>
> You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap,
> rape, intentionally maim or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest
> of us get together and kill you.
>
> ARTICLE VII
>
> You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat,
> or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised
> if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you
> still won't have the right to a big-screen color TV or a life of leisure.
>
> ARTICLE VIII
>
> You do not have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in
> foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate oppressive
> governments and won't lift a finger to stop you from going to fight if
> you'd like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not
> want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant
> with a military uniform and a funny hat.
>
> ARTICLE IX
>
> You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have one,
> and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take
> advantage of the opportunities in education and vocational training laid
> before you to make yourself useful.
>
> ARTICLE X
>
> You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you
> have the right to pursue happiness -- which, by the way, is a lot easier
> if you are unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created by
> those around you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.
Tommy the Terrorist
In article <01bc81c2$1a95e180$9253...@eholman.cyberramp.net> Edward D.
Holman II, eho...@cyberramp.net writes:
>"There is no evidence from the Joint Taskforce 6 investigation which
>indicates any criminal offense by our Marines. We are prepared to use all
>legal methods to support them," Maj. Len Ryan, a spokesman at the San Diego
>County base, said Saturday.
Well, one benefit for being a Jack Booted Thug is that you don't have to
rely on the local public plea bargainer...
MDK86
Stories located at:
http://www.dallasnews.com/texas-southwest-nf/tsw216.htm
Calls renewed to keep soldiers off the border
06/21/97
Associated Press
EL PASO - Several demonstrations were held Friday on the
one-month anniversary of the slaying of an 18-year-old shot
on the Texas-Mexico border by a U.S. Marine participating in
an anti-drug operation. Immigration rights advocates used the
national "day of reflection" to renew their calls to keep the
military out of border enforcement.
(((((((snip))))))))))))))
http://www.dallasnews.com/texas-southwest-nf/tsw3.htm
Marines back soldiers in border killing
06/23/97 Associated Press
CAMP PENDLETON, Calif. - The Marine Corps supports a corporal
facing a possible murder charge for shooting to death a Texas
teenager during an anti-drug mission, base officials said.
"There is no evidence from the Joint Taskforce 6 investigation
which indicates any criminal offense by our Marines. We are prepared
to use all legal methods to support them," Maj. Len Ryan, a spokesman
(((((((((((snip)))))))))))
http://www.dallasnews.com/texas-southwest-nf/tsw512.htm
Autopsy shows teen shot at border bled to death He was killed by Marine
in serveillance team 06/24/97Associated Press
EL PASO - A teenager shot by a Marine on the
Mexican border bled to death after a bullet pierced
his side, fragmented, then punctured or injured his
aorta, stomach and other organs, an autopsy report shows.
A diagram accompanying the report on Ezequiel Hernandez Jr.
18, shows that the bullet entered on the right side of his chest,
then traveled toward the left side of his body on two divergent paths.
((((((((((((((((snip))))))))))))))))))))))
http://www.dallasnews.com/texas-southwest-nf/tsw226.htm
Subpoena served in shooting Official: Military plans to
comply in border death 06/25/97
By Douglas Holt / The Dallas Morning News
EL PASO - Texas Rangers served the head of
military anti-drug missions with a subpoena Tuesday,
seeking key documents related to the shooting death
of an 18-year-old goatherd, Ezequiel Hernandez.
Brig. Gen. James Lovelace, commanding officer of
Joint Task Force-6, was asked to provide a long list
of documents, including military notes, reports,
witness statements and communications logs related
to the May 20 shooting by Marine Corps Cpl.Clemente Banuelos.
((((((((((((((((((snip))))))))))))))))))
Damm good shooting, pegged him in the chest at 270 yards, cant get any
more center mass than that. The Marine should get an honorary Sharp
shooter medal.
-M-
Kevin Murphy
>I will continue to assert that the presense of four, armed, camo clad,
>who knows what they are in my yard, is enough to make me feel in
>imminent fear for my life and that of my families. (I am being generous
>in the scenario that I have actually seen them, versus the story now
>being that these Marines stalked the boy for twenty minutes and are
>lying BIGTIME).
If I come across four armed men, it would be a good time to withdraw
and call for help. I don't know why this kid did what he did but, if
he was defending his land and family, he failed.
Now, you want me to be sensitive to him? Okay, I'm sorry that he's
dead and that his life ended before it began. It seems his daddy
failed to put some common sense in him. Why shoot when you're
outnumbered and outgunned? Had he withdrawn, the whole situation could
have been diffused.
Why were Marines on his land? I don't know. Perhaps they wandered on
to it by mistake. I haven't seen anything about how well marked the
land was. I suspect it must be rather easy to wander onto someone's
property in Texas, near the border.
Lone_Wolf
In <33b5e59d...@news.concentric.net> nos...@cris.com (Kevin Murphy) writes:
#On Wed, 25 Jun 1997 10:14:14 -0700, Guardian
#<guar...@awareofthings.com> wrote:
#>I will continue to assert that the presense of four, armed, camo clad,
#>who knows what they are in my yard, is enough to make me feel in
#>imminent fear for my life and that of my families. (I am being generous
#>in the scenario that I have actually seen them, versus the story now
#>being that these Marines stalked the boy for twenty minutes and are
#>lying BIGTIME).
#If I come across four armed men, it would be a good time to withdraw
#and call for help. I don't know why this kid did what he did but, if
#he was defending his land and family, he failed.
#Now, you want me to be sensitive to him? Okay, I'm sorry that he's
#dead and that his life ended before it began. It seems his daddy
#failed to put some common sense in him. Why shoot when you're
#outnumbered and outgunned? Had he withdrawn, the whole situation could
#have been diffused.
Actually, the evidence is growing that he may never have known they were
there, until he took a round in his right side, then lay there for 20
minutes before they bothered calling for paramedics. Hell, I was taught
that you even bandage the enemy, once the shooting's over in combat.
#Why were Marines on his land? I don't know. Perhaps they wandered on
#to it by mistake. I haven't seen anything about how well marked the
#land was. I suspect it must be rather easy to wander onto someone's
#property in Texas, near the border.
The Marines were there because they were supposedly watching the border
for drug traffickers. While I consider there to be SOME room for military
backup to the border patrol, I feel such backup should be accompanied by and
directed by sworn law enforcement officers, not random fire teams wandering the
desert. As for defining property lines, most folks with herd animals, such
as the goats the kid was herding, maintain some form of fencing to keep them
in. When I lived in rural New Mexico, I generally could tell whose land I was
on. The fenced area straight behind our house was owned by the people in the
house on the far side of the field. Area to the left of that was owned by
the people whose house was visible 1/4-1/2 mile down the road (with the
damned peacocks we could hear).
James
#For real e-mail, send to:
#Kevi...@cris.com
Michael Zarlenga
: > >And if you're a government agent fighting in the War on Drugs,
: > >so what if you kill Americans? There are NO consequences aside
: > >from maybe a paid suspension and a desk job until the heat blows
: > >over.
: > Do the officials, at least, get a trial before you have them hanged,
: > Zarlenga?
A trial? Where the hall have you been for the last 20 years?
In America, government officials who kill American citizens are seldom
prosecuted for their crimes, and that includes cops.
Right now, a government badge is a license to kill with impunity.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
"Never before in American history has one man taken so much
from so many for so long." Steve Forbes on Bill Clinton
Guardian
MDK86, in his own way, provided us with good information before burping
up words that attest to his ignorance:
May your badge become infected with flesh eating strep bacteria.
May you then catch it and pass it to your children.
May a gang of drunken homosexual Marines make you their playtoy.
May desert animals pick your bones when the Marines have finished with
you.
So many bright lights on alt.law-enforcement!
Now I know why people hate you guys.
Were it not for some decent human beings in this group, I might agree
with the anti-cop crowd.
I am gravitating to the anti-cop side though.
I figure if I read a few more of "M"s posts, I'll be firmly planted in
the anti-cop crowd.
BTW, thanks for making an anti-gun control arguement that I can sink my
teeth into.
I now know why we need them...
I now support an Americans right to own a tank!
I support the right of Americans to own landmines!
Keep you bastards off private property.
Cordially,
Guardian
Guardian
That would have been good.
Anything to break the goose..er..oops...I mean ..lockstep mentality.
A good, REAL (not scripted) fight between themselves might shock them
from their propaganda filled euphoria.
Kevin Murphy
>Yes they should get a trial.
>A trial like most Americans get.
>A peoples judge shall instruct the jury as to the rules of justice.
>A peoples judge shall then throw out the defendants arguements and not
>allow the jury to hear them.
>The peoples media shall then for a period of no less than 6 months,
>saturate the people with evidence of their guilt.
>All opposing views shall be harshly twisted and distorted for the good
>of the public.
>Families and friends of the defendants shall be drug thru the mud and
>turned on their families.
>
>Yes, they should get a trial.
>
>Guardian
I didn't ask you but, if I had, that's the answer I would have
expected.
Kevin Murphy
>You're right.
>I'm not proud of it.
>Insensitive posts such as yours drive me to anger sometimes and I can't
>clearly convey my thoughts.
Wow, insensitive posts really do set you off! I tried looking through
Dejanews for your replies to those who joke about killing cops or
laughing at reports of the deaths of officers but I couldn't find any.
What happened to them?
Guardian
Kevin Murphy wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Jun 1997 10:14:14 -0700, Guardian
> <guar...@awareofthings.com> wrote:
>
> >I will continue to assert that the presense of four, armed, camo clad,
> If I come across four armed men, it would be a good time to withdraw
> and call for help. I don't know why this kid did what he did but, if
> he was defending his land and family, he failed.
Well it turns out that the kid was probably just plinking.
The reports of the neighbors versus the Marines are of course in total
conflict as those things go.
> Now, you want me to be sensitive to him? Okay, I'm sorry that he's
> dead and that his life ended before it began. It seems his daddy
> failed to put some common sense in him. Why shoot when you're
> outnumbered and outgunned? Had he withdrawn, the whole situation could
> have been diffused.
That's all I'm looking for.
A little human compassion.
It wasn't that hard was it?
> Why were Marines on his land? I don't know. Perhaps they wandered on
> to it by mistake. I haven't seen anything about how well marked the
> land was. I suspect it must be rather easy to wander onto someone's
> property in Texas, near the border.
Nice try.
Plausible but off the mark.
The Marines were there in violation of posse commitatus.
They were sent there under the guise of the drug war to perform police
activities, which is in direct conflict with the United States
Constitution.
Now we have another 10,000 troops dedicated to venture forth onto
Americans private property, without their knowledge, in the borderlands.
We really do need to stop this crap and turn law-enforcement activities
back to where they belong.
With law-enforcement.
Not soldiers.
Cordially,
Guardian
Doughboy
Guardian <guar...@awareofthings.com> wrote:
> Well it turns out that the kid was probably just plinking.
> The reports of the neighbors versus the Marines are of course in total
> conflict as those things go.
Probably? Was that a post-mortem probably? "Gee, Dad, I was just out
plinking and shot at the Marines..." plinking? Which reports of which
neighbors? He was probably just scared because mommy's and daddy's green
cards were expired.
> The Marines were there in violation of posse commitatus.
*snicker* Clues for sale, $1.
> They were sent there under the guise of the drug war to perform police
> activities, which is in direct conflict with the United States
> Constitution.
Where'd you get your JD, a bubble gum machine? Last time I checked, the
Constitution required the US Gov't. to defend it's borders, and one of the
Marines' assigned missions, again IIRC, is to defend those borders, sea to
'shining' sea...
> Now we have another 10,000 troops dedicated to venture forth onto
> Americans private property, without their knowledge, in the borderlands.
Wait a second, is this "border land" or private property these 10k
imaginary troops are invading? I wish there were 10,000 troops on the
border down here in Texas. What torques me is that California with a
hundred or two miles of borders gets three times as many border patrol
agents as Texas with its 1k+ mile border.
> We really do need to stop this crap and turn law-enforcement activities
> back to where they belong.
> With law-enforcement.
> Not soldiers.
Well, if LEO could handle it (they don't have the man-power, the training,
or the mentality for this type of operation) we wouldn't need the Marines
there. But I think you'd whine just as much if the Texas Rangers or Border
Patrol hosed the stupid kid... I'm with Kevin here. "Let's see: I have a
.22 plinker. There's a fire team of US Marines over there with M-16s and
God knows what else. Oh, hell, I can take 'em!" Just as stupid as the kid
in Baytown that fled from the police screaming "Just leave me alone!" and
wound up with lead in his noggin'.
Instead of licensing guns, we really should license PARENTS. Obviously,
these had no common sense, or they would've taught their kiddies better.
I'm sure most of us who had fathers who cared enough to go shooting with us
heard, "Gun or no gun, run if you can..."
___________________________________________________________________________
Just when you thought it was safe to eat cookies again...
___________________________________________________________________
For email purposes, removed the Oooh! from both ends of my address.
Commercial spams will be charged $200 per hour for proof-reading.
___________________________________________________________________________
William Gray
nos...@cris.com (Kevin Murphy) writes:
>On Wed, 25 Jun 1997 10:14:14 -0700, Guardian
><guar...@awareofthings.com> wrote:
>>I will continue to assert that the presense of four, armed, camo clad,
>>who knows what they are in my yard, is enough to make me feel in
>>imminent fear for my life and that of my families. (I am being generous
>>in the scenario that I have actually seen them, versus the story now
>>being that these Marines stalked the boy for twenty minutes and are
>>lying BIGTIME).
>If I come across four armed men, it would be a good time to withdraw
>and call for help. I don't know why this kid did what he did but, if
>he was defending his land and family, he failed.
>Now, you want me to be sensitive to him? Okay, I'm sorry that he's
>dead and that his life ended before it began. It seems his daddy
>failed to put some common sense in him. Why shoot when you're
>outnumbered and outgunned? Had he withdrawn, the whole situation could
>have been diffused.
Given that the Marines were heavily camoflauged and over 100 yards away,
I have to wonder if he knew they were even there. If he saw something,
did he see four somethings? He was known to be a plinker--no harm in
that in that part of the world, unless there happen to be four heavily
armed, bloodthirsty stalking Marines hiding in plain sight
downrange--and may simply have been unlucky enough to let a couple of
rounds off in their general direction.
Idunno; the troops were trespassing and under arms. They made no
attempt to ID themselves or to capture instead of counterattack--which
took a lengthy stalk to set up--and they made no attempt to call for
help either before they shot the kid or for some time afterward.
All this talk about rules of engagement is plain stupid. Whoever put
those Marines there was criminally negligent in both the deployment and
the rules of engagement (assuming those rules actually do authorize
killing kids under these circumstances). Livestock is often under armed
guard and that is livestock country.
Tactically, though, Kevin is right. IF the kid knew there were four
armed Marines and IF he fired on them intentionally, he had the tactical
sense of an 11 year old Power Rangers fan.
But from the perspective of the rights of citizens in a constitutional
republic, you do NOT send armed troops to trespass by stealth and then
kill people who happen across them. That is what we call "bad."
Regards,
Bill
John Curtis
Its worse than this. The boy was a high school kid,
tending the family's sheep. He was carrying a .22 rifle
and fired two shots, its not clear that he fired at the
U.S. army guys, who were in cammo and doing concealed
surveillance. According to the account I read, they
were over 200 yards away. The troops stalked the boy for
20 minutes, closed the range, and then shot him.
They called for some civilian police, but NO AMBULANCE.
For 20 minutes they were near this kid they had just shot
and didn't take the basic step of calling an ambulance.
The first police on the scene called an ambulance within
three minutes.
This is a total, horrifying screw-up. Army guys aren't
trained to call ambulances; they're trained to kill
people. They aren't trained to make fine distinctions
as to whether someone is a deadly threat. They're trained
to secure areas and targets.
This is what posse commitas is about.
I think the TX Rangers are going to get these guys.
ciao,
jcurtis
Guardian
Kevin Murphy, the silent snipper, posed a fairly decent question by
writing this:
> Wow, insensitive posts really do set you off! I tried looking through
> Dejanews for your replies to those who joke about killing cops or
> laughing at reports of the deaths of officers but I couldn't find any.
> What happened to them?
The fact is I, like most folks, tend to view anyone shot in the line of
duty as a routine affair.
Sad but true in our hysterical, media saturated world.
There are no replies to those joking about killing cops.
Nor will you find any replies to those who joke about any other person
who dies in the line of duty, be they cops, cabbies, convenience store
clerks, fork lift operators or postal workers. (and they are just ripe
for the picking) ;)
Those types of posts deserve no response.
Your post however involved a situation that obviously should not have
occured.
It is one of those stories kind of like the OKC bombing.
Totally innocent victims.
Nothing to do with the line of duty really.
Unlike the previous occupations I listed, these people had no reason to
be in fear for their lives.
The same with the boy.
Minding his own buisness on his own property, snuffed out by US Marines
while tending to his animals.
You gotta admit, it's a heck of a story!
Those are the types of situations one can still sympathize with.
If I sympathized with every person cut down in the line of duty, I'd go
stark raving mad!
Some say I'm there already.
Cordially,
Guardian
Guardian
Kevin Murphy wrote:
> I didn't ask you but, if I had, that's the answer I would have
> expected.
Yeah, nothing like knowing where people stand is there.
Its those backstabbing double-dealing types you gotta worry about.
Jason Dunlap
Doughboy <Oooh!doug...@techrefuge.comOooh!> wrote:
>Guardian <guar...@awareofthings.com> wrote:
>
>> Well it turns out that the kid was probably just plinking.
>> The reports of the neighbors versus the Marines are of course in total
>> conflict as those things go.
>
>Probably? Was that a post-mortem probably? "Gee, Dad, I was just out
>plinking and shot at the Marines..." plinking?
Well, in fact it _was_ a post-mortem that provided one of the major
problems in the Marine's testimony. Hernandez was shot in the right
side, with the bullet mulching through internal organs on the way to
the left side. Hernandez was right handed. If he had been aiming a
rifle using a normal right-handed posture, he would have been pointing
*awa* from the Marines, not towards them.
>Which reports of which
>neighbors? He was probably just scared because mommy's and daddy's green
>cards were expired.
Hernandez was a US Citizen. Or do US Citizens not count if they have
Hispanic names? Are you trying to snicker your way through your
racist assumptions about the military killing its own citizens?
>> The Marines were there in violation of posse commitatus.
>
>*snicker* Clues for sale, $1.
>
>> They were sent there under the guise of the drug war to perform police
>> activities, which is in direct conflict with the United States
>> Constitution.
>
>Where'd you get your JD, a bubble gum machine? Last time I checked, the
>Constitution required the US Gov't. to defend it's borders, and one of the
>Marines' assigned missions, again IIRC, is to defend those borders, sea to
>'shining' sea...
There's a difference in this country between law enforcement and the
military. It's in the law of the land. Your ignorance of the fact
doesn't change this. Of course, if you want the US to sink to the
level of a banana republic, complete with military coups and
"disappearing" citizens, keep up with your vision of "democracy".
>> Now we have another 10,000 troops dedicated to venture forth onto
>> Americans private property, without their knowledge, in the borderlands.
>
>Wait a second, is this "border land" or private property these 10k
>imaginary troops are invading? I wish there were 10,000 troops on the
>border down here in Texas. What torques me is that California with a
>hundred or two miles of borders gets three times as many border patrol
>agents as Texas with its 1k+ mile border.
Hernandez was on private land. Private land leased from a neighbor
for the purpose of raising livestock. The neighbor who owned the land
specifically stated that no permission, implicit or explicit, was
granted for the Marines to be on his land. Got it?
>> We really do need to stop this crap and turn law-enforcement activities
>> back to where they belong.
>> With law-enforcement.
>> Not soldiers.
>
>Well, if LEO could handle it (they don't have the man-power, the training,
>or the mentality for this type of operation) we wouldn't need the Marines
>there. But I think you'd whine just as much if the Texas Rangers or Border
>Patrol hosed the stupid kid... I'm with Kevin here. "Let's see: I have a
>.22 plinker. There's a fire team of US Marines over there with M-16s and
>God knows what else. Oh, hell, I can take 'em!" Just as stupid as the kid
>in Baytown that fled from the police screaming "Just leave me alone!" and
>wound up with lead in his noggin'.
Unless, of course, he was shooting at a squirrel, and got a .223 in
the chest for being on his own land where the Marines just happened to
be trespassing. Careful - it could happen to you....
--
Jason Watch out where the huskies go,
And don't you eat that yellow snow...
JD
In article <5p1870$ekt$1...@news-sj-2.cisco.com>, jcu...@cisco.com (John
Curtis) wrote:
> Its worse than this. The boy was a high school kid,
> tending the family's sheep. He was carrying a .22 rifle
> and fired two shots, its not clear that he fired at the
> U.S. army guys, who were in cammo and doing concealed
> surveillance. According to the account I read, they
> were over 200 yards away. The troops stalked the boy for
> 20 minutes, closed the range, and then shot him.
Army guys? Better re-read the article.
> They called for some civilian police, but NO AMBULANCE.
> For 20 minutes they were near this kid they had just shot
> and didn't take the basic step of calling an ambulance.
>
> The first police on the scene called an ambulance within
> three minutes.
>
> This is a total, horrifying screw-up. Army guys aren't
> trained to call ambulances; they're trained to kill
> people. They aren't trained to make fine distinctions
> as to whether someone is a deadly threat. They're trained
> to secure areas and targets.
They were MARINES, not "Army guys." Subtle difference here. When you have
a nice ceremony that requires starched uniforms, you call the Marines.
When you have a war to be won on the ground, you call the Army.
--
Remove *nospam to reply via e-mail.
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation
has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more
efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future."
- Adolf Hitler, 1935
R
I
D
I
C
U
L
O
U
S
S
I
G
N
E
E
D
E
D
T
O
G
E
T
B
Y
P
O
S
T
I
N
G
L
I
M
I
T
A
T
I
O
N
S
O
F
M
Y
S
E
R
V
E
R
JD
In article <01bc837b$6e6bb5e0$0f02000a@steve>, "Gurney Hallack"
<g.ha...@far.nospam.north.com> wrote:
> Far more important questions... :-)
>
>
> What the hell are U.S. Marines doing patrolling the Texas boarder with
> Mexico? That is the job of the U.S. Sixth Army, not the U.S. Marine corps.
Actually, it's the Border Patrol's job.
> And what's with the Texas Rangers? Is Texas in rebellion again? How the
> hell can they "charge" U.S. Marines for doing anything when they are under
> orders of the U.S. government to patrol the U.S. boarder? Under the rules
> of engagement, any time U.S. military people are shot at while performing
> their lawful orders, they are empowered to shot back. It's been that way
> since that Regean had that idiot order in Lebanon to not shoot back and got
> a whole bunch of Marines killed. This is clearly a FEDERAL matter, not a
> Texas one.
Personally, I think the kid would get a better rap under TX law than
federal law. The feds did away with parole a while back, now he'd serve at
least 85% of a federal sentence if it turns out he murdered the kid....
jer...@creighton.edu
On 27 Jun 1997, John Curtis wrote:
> This is a total, horrifying screw-up. Army guys aren't
> trained to call ambulances; they're trained to kill
> people. They aren't trained to make fine distinctions
> as to whether someone is a deadly threat. They're trained
> to secure areas and targets.
>
> This is what posse commitas is about.
>
> I think the TX Rangers are going to get these guys.
>
> ciao,
>
> jcurtis
>
I snipped alot out but this is a great analysis of the issue. Perhaps
placing troops on our borders for immigration or other purposes is not a
good idea.
The Centurion
In article <5ot155$m...@snews5.zippo.com>,
Tommy the Terrorist <may...@super.zippo.com> wrote:
>In article <01bc81c2$1a95e180$9253...@eholman.cyberramp.net> Edward
D.
>Holman II, eho...@cyberramp.net writes:
which
>>indicates any criminal offense by our Marines. We are prepared to
use all
San Diego
>>County base, said Saturday.
>
>Well, one benefit for being a Jack Booted Thug is that you don't
have to
>rely on the local public plea bargainer...
Gee...sounds like Mitchey-Yellow-Stripe Holman and the troll from GMU
have MERGED into a Borglike being! LOL
--
AVE ATQVE VALE
CENTVRIO
(E-mail address modified to foil spambots.
Remove the extra "home" for the true address!)
The Centurion
In article <33B215...@usa.net>, MDK86 <MD...@usa.net> wrote:
>Stories located at:
>
>http://www.dallasnews.com/texas-southwest-nf/tsw216.htm
>Calls renewed to keep soldiers off the border
>06/21/97
>Associated Press
>EL PASO - Several demonstrations were held Friday on the
>one-month anniversary of the slaying of an 18-year-old shot
>on the Texas-Mexico border by a U.S. Marine participating in
>an anti-drug operation. Immigration rights advocates used the
>national "day of reflection" to renew their calls to keep the
>military out of border enforcement.
>(((((((snip))))))))))))))
>
>http://www.dallasnews.com/texas-southwest-nf/tsw3.htm
>Marines back soldiers in border killing
>06/23/97 Associated Press
>CAMP PENDLETON, Calif. - The Marine Corps supports a corporal
>facing a possible murder charge for shooting to death a Texas
>teenager during an anti-drug mission, base officials said.
>which indicates any criminal offense by our Marines. We are prepared
>to use all legal methods to support them," Maj. Len Ryan, a
spokesman
REPRODUCE and further pollute the Gene Pool!
Gurney Hallack
Far more important questions... :-)
What the hell are U.S. Marines doing patrolling the Texas boarder with
Mexico? That is the job of the U.S. Sixth Army, not the U.S. Marine corps.
There is an important constitutional difference here. The marines are part
of the Navy. There is no limit to how long congress can fund the Navy. The
Army, on the other hand, is restricted to two year funding. The idea was,
if the U.S. Army pisses off the citizenry, the next congress would no
longer fund them. Can't necessarily do that with the Marines. The Marines
are suppose to stay on ships, with the navy, or on in someone else's
country, bothering them. (Like Japan...) The founders felt that the very
nature of the navy prevented them from being much of a pest to the
citizenry.
Tommy the Terrorist
In article <01bc8308$a37ebb60$bfe7a386@IC_Nacht.shell.com> Doughboy,
Oooh!doug...@techrefuge.comOooh! writes:
>Where'd you get your JD, a bubble gum machine? Last time I checked, the
>Constitution required the US Gov't. to defend it's borders, and one of the
>Marines' assigned missions, again IIRC, is to defend those borders, sea to
>'shining' sea...
While it's stereotypical for the military to set up along the border with
weapons ... usually they're supposed to set up with the guns pointing
OUT...
Guardian
Doughboy wrote:
>
> Guardian <guar...@awareofthings.com> wrote:
>
> > Well it turns out that the kid was probably just plinking.
> > The reports of the neighbors versus the Marines are of course in total
> > conflict as those things go.
>
> Probably? Was that a post-mortem probably? "Gee, Dad, I was just out
> neighbors? He was probably just scared because mommy's and daddy's green
> cards were expired.
Those were all fair questions until you revealed your true agenda there
at the end.
I'll humor you though.
The neighbors all report one shot from the boy.
Twenty minutes later another shot is heard.
That would be the stalking Marines killing an American boy.
If he had fired "at them", why did they wait twenty minutes and let him
feed his cows before they capped him?
> > The Marines were there in violation of posse commitatus.
>
> *snicker* Clues for sale, $1.
You should purchase several at a time.
Put away a few bucks every week to get you thru the lean times.
> > They were sent there under the guise of the drug war to perform police
> > activities, which is in direct conflict with the United States
> > Constitution.
>
> Where'd you get your JD, a bubble gum machine? Last time I checked, the
> Constitution required the US Gov't. to defend it's borders, and one of the
> Marines' assigned missions, again IIRC, is to defend those borders, sea to
> 'shining' sea...
That is true.
They are however strictly forbidden from engaging in domestic law
enforcement activities.
"Assisting" law enforcement is a nice deceptive way to sell it though.
> > Now we have another 10,000 troops dedicated to venture forth onto
> > Americans private property, without their knowledge, in the borderlands.
> Wait a second, is this "border land" or private property these 10k
> imaginary troops are invading? I wish there were 10,000 troops on the
> border down here in Texas.
It's all the same.
> What torques me is that California with a
> hundred or two miles of borders gets three times as many border patrol
> agents as Texas with its 1k+ mile border.
Well then you should be grateful to those greencard holders!
You should keep em around at least until the 2000 census is taken.
Get all those Federal bucks ya can!
> > We really do need to stop this crap and turn law-enforcement activities
> > back to where they belong.
> > With law-enforcement.
> > Not soldiers.
>
> Well, if LEO could handle it (they don't have the man-power, the training,
> or the mentality for this type of operation) we wouldn't need the Marines
> there.
And several days after the execution of an American boy you still think
that the Marines do???
I don't want to take the bandwidth required to explain to you the
futility of continuing the drug war and the destruction it wreaks on a
global scale.
> But I think you'd whine just as much if the Texas Rangers or Border
> Patrol hosed the stupid kid...
Yeah you're probably right.
>I'm with Kevin here. "Let's see: I have a
> .22 plinker. There's a fire team of US Marines over there with M-16s and
> God knows what else. Oh, hell, I can take 'em!" Just as stupid as the kid
> in Baytown that fled from the police screaming "Just leave me alone!" and
> wound up with lead in his noggin'.
Like I said before, he was plinking.
He didn't even know they were there.
> Instead of licensing guns, we really should license PARENTS.
> Obviously these had no common sense, or they would've taught their kiddies better.
Yeah>>>> NOW DON'T FORGET TO WATCH OUT FOR HEAVILY ARMED HOMICIDAL
MARINES HIDING IN THE YARD JUNIOR, YOU DON'T WANT TO GET SHOT!!!
> I'm sure most of us who had fathers who cared enough to go shooting with us
> heard, "Gun or no gun, run if you can..."
That does seem to be a universal truth...
John_Johnson
In <01bc837b$6e6bb5e0$0f02000a@steve> "Gurney Hallack"
<g.ha...@far.nospam.north.com> writes:
> Far more important questions... :-)
[snip]
> And what's with the Texas Rangers? Is Texas in rebellion again?
Huh???
What does the premier criminal investigative agency in the
State of Texas investigating a homicide within the borders of
Texas have to do with "rebellion?"
> How the hell can they "charge" U.S. Marines for doing anything
> when they are under orders of the U.S. government to patrol the
> U.S. boarder? Under the rules of engagement, any time U.S. military
> people are shot at while performing their lawful orders, they are
> empowered to shot back.
And a police officer who believes he is "under fire" can shoot
back: but if it's discovered her/his actions were not justified
under the actual circumstances (s)he can be prosecuted for
homicide (be it murder; criminally negligent homicide; manslaughter;
etc.).
The Marines can; if *everyone* wants to pursue this to the fullest;
be prosecuted *three times* over this: by the State of Texas; by the
United States Attorney in Federal court; and by the Department of the
Navy JAG Corps at a Court Martial for violating the UCMJ.
> It's been that way since that Regean had that idiot order in Lebanon
> to not shoot back and got a whole bunch of Marines killed. This is
> clearly a FEDERAL matter, not a Texas one.
Wrong (see above).
--John Johnson
WAY TO GO New Hampshire!!! :-D (See this Thread in t.p.g NewsGroup)
[ or http://www.state.nh.us/gencourt/97hbills/hjr3.htm ]
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
--George Santayana, American Philosopher
"The further backward you look, the further forward you can see."
-- Winston Churchill
"Throughout recorded history, without exception, it has been
the sole accomplishment of organized government to deprive
their populations of their Liberty and of their Property."
--John C. Calhoun
"Those in possession of absolute power can not only prophesy
and make their prophecies come true, but they can also lie
and make their lies come true.
-- Eric Hoffer (1902-83), U.S. philosopher.
The Passionate State of Mind, aph. 78 (1955).
"Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government
officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that
are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence
of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the
law scrupulously."
--Justice Louis D. Brandeis, dissenting,
Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438 (1928)
"It would...be strange to find in the midst of a catalog of the
rights of individuals a provision securing to the states the
right to maintain a designated 'Militia' -- and to find that
purely institutional guarantee accorded a position of great
prominence immediately following freedom of religion and freedom
of speech." (Italics in original)
--Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
on the Second Amendment:
(A Matter of Interpretation: Federal
Courts and the Law, Princeton
University Press, 1997, 159 pages.)
"It is not the function of government to keep the citizen from
falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep
the government from falling into error."
--U.S. Supreme Court, 339 U.S. 382, 447
"Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be
maintained; for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
--Abraham Lincoln
ATTENTION citizens near the east coast! That rumbling sound you
hear is NOT an earthquake! It's just the sounds of Washington,
Hamilton, Jefferson, Allen, Witherspoon, et al; spinning in their
graves! --John Johnson (1996)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Copyrighted material contained within this document is used in |
| compliance with the United States Code, Title 17, Section 107, |
|"for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching"|
-------------------------------------------------------------------
--
From the computer of:
John_Johnson
TXJo...@ix.netcom.com
The opinions expressed above represent those of the writer (me)
and not necessarily those of his employer (also me).
By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer
meets the definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C),
it is unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to such
equipment. By Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned
Section is punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss,
or $500, whichever is greater, for each violation. All incoming
unsolicited commercial traffic will therefore be billed at a rate
of $500 per msg to compensate for loss of service.
Corrina, Corrina
Let me start by saying that something is wrong here but you don't
know what it is, Do You Mr. Jones?
What we have here is the murder of an eighteen year old backward slow
minded teenager, it seems to easy to see that. The paper said that
he was a sophomore in high school, bussed 94 miles to school, and
eighteen years old. What does that tell you, well, I will tell you
what it tells me. That the ( KID) was very slow minded first off,
out doing his after school work for his family, just like so many
others in farm areas in this country. The boy most likely never knew
any one was out there but himself and the goats, jack rabbits, snakes,
and what ever else you can find in the desert, because no one had a
right to be. Murder is what we have here, nothing more, nothing
less. You people want to debate some dumb ass drug war cop on the
internet, when the common sense of it, is all to plain for every one
who cares to see. Fuck that T.V. cop, too much N.Y. Blue in his
head. The Texas Rangers seem to think that the story the Marines
told was nothing more than lies, to cover up their own asses. Is
this so hard to believe form the government we have?
Fuck Maggie's Farm.
The real problem is, to many people that said no to Maggie's farm,
SOLD OUT. I hope that shit sandwich taste good, because you have
been chewing on it for a long time now. For me, I say the Emperor
Wears No Clothes, he's butt ass naked, and I never liked the taste
of shit that was feed to me out of Maggie's house. I will say this,
the real cops out there should stand up and say this death was wrong,
and do something about it.
Because I'll bet you, that if it would have been a cop's kid,
the story would read a lot different.
This is not debatable at all. What we have here is nothing more
than, A big Phat IDIOT WIND blowing form sea to shining sea.
As if things had really changed !!!! Everybody sees their self
walking around with no one else.
Don't follow leaders and watch your parking meters.
Because you will never get the truth form the Masters Of War.
How much do I know
To talk out of turn
You might say I'm young
you might say I'm unlearned
But there's a one thing I know
I'm younger than you
That even Jesus would never forgive what you do.
To: Tonto and the Lone Ranger.
I say, go get em boys, and hang em high.
Give the boots to the family, as a token of Justice.
I think, I remember another story like this one.
Remember Jesse and Frank James, they had a simple minded brother that
got killed by the Government's pinkertons ( not sure on the spelling )
I'll bet money, Ezequiel Hernandez never knew Jesse or Frank James.
I'll let cha be in my dream, if I can be in yours.
On 22 Jun 1997 19:37:17 GMT, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga)
wrote:
>A teenager was shot this year by US Marines from Joint Task Force 6
>on a War on Drugs border patrol in Texas.
>
>Frustrated by contradictory testimony from the Marines involved, es-
>pecially the claim of self-defense, the Texas Rangers are now seeking
>to charge the Marine in the incident.
>
>
>
>My paper today carried only a small snippet a few sentences more than
>what you see above ... and this was the first blurb they printed on this,
>which happened months ago. Can anyone point me to a fuller, more com-
>plete wire story? I believe the boy's name was Ezeqial Hernanadez.
Earl Turner
Was the kid a minority member. If the Marine is white Bill Klinton
and his commie friends will find a way to butt hole the Marine. If
both are white it will be settled out of court. The the boy is white
and the Marine is black/hispanic Bill will personnally award a medal.
On 28 Jun 1997 21:49:55 GMT, TXJo...@ix.netcom.com(John_Johnson)
wrote:
: In <01bc837b$6e6bb5e0$0f02000a@steve> "Gurney Hallack"
Michael Zarlenga
: > And what's with the Texas Rangers? Is Texas in rebellion again? How the
: > hell can they "charge" U.S. Marines for doing anything when they are under
: > orders of the U.S. government to patrol the U.S. boarder? Under the rules
Being under orders doesn't give them the right to kill American citizens
even if they were direct orders were to do just that.
I hope they fry this Marine's ass and those of his supervisors. Until
they do, more Americans will be killed by their government.
Bill
In article <5p13kt$l9s$1...@cronkite.cc.uga.edu>,
23s...@zappa.forestry.uga.edu-nuke-this-for-email (Jason Dunlap) wrote:
>There's a difference in this country between law enforcement and the
>military. It's in the law of the land. Your ignorance of the fact
>doesn't change this. Of course, if you want the US to sink to the
>level of a banana republic, complete with military coups and
>"disappearing" citizens, keep up with your vision of "democracy".
Please cite the section of the US Constitution that states the military
may not be used in a "police" function. Don't confuse the US code with
the US Constitution.
You should also note that it was acknowledged that the Marines were there
only to observe and not take action, Recon in a word. They could only be
active in self-defense. That the deceased was shooting at them or not is
the only real question. If he was then he probably deserved what he got.
If not, then the Marines should stand trial.
--
Liberals ban guns -- crime goes up.
Liberals start welfare -- crime goes up.
Liberals cut prison sentences short -- crime goes up.
The only thing Liberals seem able to do is to get crime to go up. Scary.
Bill
In article
<jd*nospam-ya02408000...@nntp.a001.sprintmail.com>,
jd*nos...@acca.nmsu.edu (JD) wrote:
>They were MARINES, not "Army guys." Subtle difference here. When you have
>a nice ceremony that requires starched uniforms, you call the Marines.
>When you have a war to be won on the ground, you call the Army.
If you want it to cost 10 times as much as it needs to cost and means
needlessly loosing thousands of soldiers lives then you call the Army. If
you want it cheap, professional and expert then you call the Marines.
When the US Army could not win in WWI, they called in the Marines. When
the US Army was being tossed off the Korea pennisulea then called in the
Marines to rescue them by landing an Inchon. When Kuwait needed
liberation, the Army "let" the Marines take Kuwait City in what was
considered the most dangerous of assignments. The Iraquis were so afraid
of the Marines they let a MAF sitting off-shore worry them more than the
whole US Army. How you like them apples, JD? ;-)
Remember we talking about a 4 man fire team in home made ghilli suits
pooping and snooping in the desert and one corporal firing one round.
This was not some massive Marine operation. If they were fired on he was
acting in self-defense and they were not fired on they violated their
orders.
Chet Bober
Guardian (guar...@awareofthings.com) wrote:
: You should know that if it were you in the dead boys spot, I would still
: feel the same way about it.
How about if it were you in the Marines' spot? What would be your
response to somebody taking potshots at you with a rifle? Would you
response be "geez guys we really shouldn't be here so I guess we just
better take it?"
Whether the Marines should have been there or not is a different point.
But it still seems to me that if you're going to open fire on a group of
armed Marines, WHATEVER they are doing there, you'd better be prepared to
pay the consequences.
--
********************************
Chet Bober Maybe I am imagining things, but
that doesn't make them any less
cbo...@charm.net (home) real.
cbo...@sinai.sinai-balt.com (work) ********************************
Walter Eric Johnson
On Mon, 23 Jun 1997 23:03:01 -0700, Fetus (foe...@sirius.com), waived his fifth amendment rights and wrote:
:
: Huh? I thought it was the right-wing conservo-dudes who were responbile
: for such wars- e.g., Panama and the Gulf War under Bush- and US
: involvement in Vietnam started with Eisenhower...
Lyndon Johnson, a liberal democrat, escalated the fighting in Viet
Nam like crazy. Nixon wound it down.
Eric Johnson
Jim Garlington
As both a combat vet and a retired career state level law enforcement
officer I would just simply note that if the Marine in question was within
his stated rules of engagement there is absolutely no possibility of a
state charge being brought that will stick. Whether he was right or wrong
is the second question to ask. The first is, what were the rules of
engagement and who set them for what purpose. The military does not deploy
troops armed with live ammo without a definite predefined set of these
rules.
Paul Garrow
These Marines were disguised as bushes. On private property.
If I come to your house with an M-16, and wear a bush costume,
and stalk you and your family, that's OK?
I'm only looking for smugglers.
What do you mean rights?
The government sold them.
Capt. Meat
Nixon, a right-wing lap-dog for PolPot, wound down the
Vietnam War by dropping more bombs on Cambodia and Vietnam
than you can shake a stick at, junior...Nothing's as soft
as the brick behind yer forehead...Or those that
surpassed the Black Rains of Dresden...
No point in confusing historical fact now...
Capt. Meat
Guardian
Bill wrote:
**snip*****
> If you want it to cost 10 times as much as it needs to cost and means
> needlessly loosing thousands of soldiers lives then you call the Army. If
> you want it cheap, professional and expert then you call the Marines.
I don't think you could call what they did in wasting the boy "expert"
or "proffesional".
If I had to choose who skulked around on my private property, I would
pick the Army.
I base my decision on the replies from the supporters of the Marines.
Their words form the proof of a policy run amok.
Of course, I don't get a choice...
> When the US Army could not win in WWI, they called in the Marines. When
> the US Army was being tossed off the Korea pennisulea then called in the
> Marines to rescue them by landing an Inchon. When Kuwait needed
> liberation, the Army "let" the Marines take Kuwait City in what was
> considered the most dangerous of assignments.
Turns out that was a pretty smart move eh?
Why did the Army "let" the Marines take Kuwait City?
> The Iraquis were so afraid
> of the Marines they let a MAF sitting off-shore worry them more than the
> whole US Army. How you like them apples, JD? ;-)
Maybe they didn't want to breathe the Biological WARFARE AGENTS!
Maybe they were just smarter than you. ;)
> Remember we talking about a 4 man fire team in home made ghilli suits
> pooping and snooping in the desert and one corporal firing one round.
Anything more would have been overkill and they couldn't have gotten
away with it.
TEXAS IS NOT SOMALIA!
> This was not some massive Marine operation.
Not yet.
10,000 more on the way though and one stupid vote or presidential whim
and there will be a hell of alot more than that.
Lock and load.
Momma's: Protect your babies.
> If they were fired on he was
> acting in self-defense and they were not fired on they violated their
> orders.
Thanks for that insight.
Guardian
MDK86
Guardian wrote:
>
> MDK86, in his own way, provided us with good information before burping
> up words that attest to his ignorance:
(((snip))))))
> > Damm good shooting, pegged him in the chest at 270 yards, cant get any
> > more center mass than that. The Marine should get an honorary Sharp
> > shooter medal.
> >
> > -M-
> May your badge become infected with flesh eating strep bacteria.
> May you then catch it and pass it to your children.
</flame mode on/>
May your computer explode
May the shards of exploding glass dismember your family
> May a gang of drunken homosexual Marines make you their playtoy.
> May desert animals pick your bones when the Marines have finished with
> you.
May a sexually frustrated parolee move in next door
May he assault the females in your faily leaving them insane
> So many bright lights on alt.law-enforcement!
Along with so many dim wits!
> Now I know why people hate you guys.
Now you know why we hate you back
> Were it not for some decent human beings in this group, I might agree
> with the anti-cop crowd.
If not for the anti cop bunch, I might not get to laugh or have my every
view of society re-enforced
> I am gravitating to the anti-cop side though.
I am glad
> I figure if I read a few more of "M"s posts, I'll be firmly planted in
> the anti-cop crowd.
I figure that you are unable to handel reality if reading my opinions
bothers you so. If you plant yourself, I shall urinate in your gereral
direction so you may grow.
> BTW, thanks for making an anti-gun control arguement that I can sink my
> teeth into.
> I now know why we need them...
> I now support an Americans right to own a tank!
> I support the right of Americans to own landmines!
> Keep you bastards off private property.
I support your right to own a tank, then I'd get to carry an anti-tank
missile
> Cordially,
> Guardian
Yours truely,
-M-
Douglas Miller
In article <33B211...@usa.net>, MDK86 <MD...@usa.net> writes:
> doper wrote:
>>
>> zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga) wrote:
>>
>> >A teenager was shot this year by US Marines from Joint Task Force 6
>> >on a War on Drugs border patrol in Texas.
>>
>> A military approach to law enforcement will only lead to a more
>> repressed and frightened America. We should promote the idea of
>> an open society instead, the vision of George Soros.
>
> Marines at the border is an excellent move, I hope the drug dealers and
> illegals get wind that there are trigger happy Marines waiting for them
> to cross.
>
One can't help but be reminded of the bravery of another couple of
trigger happy Marines in Texas. Lee Harvey Oswald (the greatest of
marine marksmen), and Charles Whitman (who wasn't too bad a shot
himself) both distinguished themselves in action against civilians in
the Lone Star state. Does the Corps offer a medal for such
outstanding work?
--
/s Douglas L. Miller <do...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
----
Necessity is the excuse for every infringement of human freedom. It
is the argument of the tyrant and the creed of the slave.
-- William Pitt, 1763
India Incas, Mr. Peabody? -- Sherman
I want to say right here and now, I said things that were not true.
-- R. Nixon
Guardian
While I do agree with your assesment in general, I must point out some
qualifying pre-conditions for it to work.
(Like it or not, there are alot more civilians than LEOs or military.
People obviously are not going to accept this type of situation without
being informed.
This is not some foriegn operation.
The drug war is being waged on US soil. It is taking the lives of
American kids. It is stretching our society to the breaking point and
more people are coming to this conclusion every day)
#1. The American people must be fully informed of military operations on
our border.
The public must understand that THIS MEANS TROOPS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.
#2. The American public should be fully informed on the rules of
engagement for US soil.
The press should remind and update the public on a daily basis:
a. The status of all operations.
b. The purpose of those operations.
#3.Voluntary evacuation of any area with active military operations.(no
more dead, unprepared to have Marines in their yards, uninformed
civilians).
Cordially,
Guardian
JD
In article <nospammildbill-...@news.concentric.net>,
nospamm...@concentric.net (Bill) wrote:
> If you want it to cost 10 times as much as it needs to cost and means
> needlessly loosing thousands of soldiers lives then you call the Army. If
> you want it cheap, professional and expert then you call the Marines.
> When the US Army could not win in WWI, they called in the Marines. When
> the US Army was being tossed off the Korea pennisulea then called in the
> Marines to rescue them by landing an Inchon. When Kuwait needed
> liberation, the Army "let" the Marines take Kuwait City in what was
> considered the most dangerous of assignments. The Iraquis were so afraid
> of the Marines they let a MAF sitting off-shore worry them more than the
> whole US Army. How you like them apples, JD? ;-)
Spoken like a true "former Marine."
Oh well, as an "ex-Army" guy, I had to stand up for 'em.
BTW, you left out "when you want a 15 year old civilian murdered on his own
property", you apparently can call the USMC for *that*, too. ;-)
Guardian
Chet Bober wrote:
>
> Guardian (guar...@awareofthings.com) wrote:
>
> : You should know that if it were you in the dead boys spot, I would still
> : feel the same way about it.
>
> How about if it were you in the Marines' spot? What would be your
> response to somebody taking potshots at you with a rifle? Would you
> response be "geez guys we really shouldn't be here so I guess we just
> better take it?"
No.
Seeing as they had 20 minutes of stalking time on their hands, I'd like
to think that I would try to use that time to LEAVE THE AREA.
I would use my expert training in camo to GET OUT vs. stalk and kill.
>
> Whether the Marines should have been there or not is a different .
> point.
Yes it is.
Had they known armed Marines might be stalking their property, they may
have chosen to leave.
Frightening that 90% of the public is unaware of military ops on the
border.
Most are ignorant as well to the recent shootings (bad guys at B.P.) in
the border regions.
Now whose fault is that do you suppose?
Normally I would suggest an apathetic populace.
Not so in this case though.
Current events are my life.
The American public has simply not been told on a national level what is
going on.
Once again, they fear the people having knowledge.
Which, if the soldiers don't mind, is just fine for foriegn ops.
(I still can't believe they are getting away with hiding the fact of
bio-warfare in the GULF, but hey, what else is new?)
Not on US soil however.
The policy of keeping the people ignorant WILL NOT WORK.
> But it still seems to me that if you're going to open fire on a group of
> armed Marines, WHATEVER they are doing there, you'd better be prepared to
> pay the consequences.
I agree.
Only problem is, he wasn't shooting at them.
You have been following the investigation, no?
Guardian
das
In article <5p7a6h$ft4$1...@news2.charm.net>, cbo...@fellspt.charm.net (Chet
Bober) wrote:
-Guardian (guar...@awareofthings.com) wrote:
-
-: You should know that if it were you in the dead boys spot, I would still
-: feel the same way about it.
-
-How about if it were you in the Marines' spot? What would be your
-response to somebody taking potshots at you with a rifle? Would you
-response be "geez guys we really shouldn't be here so I guess we just
-better take it?"
No, they should have gotten the hell out of there. It was the kids right
to be shooting at them. What they did would be like me breaking into your
house, you pulling a gun on me, and me shooting you. The exact same thing
happened in Texas. What was done was murder.
-Whether the Marines should have been there or not is a different point.
No it isn't. If they weren't there, the whole thing would not have happened.
-But it still seems to me that if you're going to open fire on a group of
-armed Marines, WHATEVER they are doing there, you'd better be prepared to
From what I understand, he probably didn't even see them. Also, why did
they wait several minutes after he allegedly shot at them to shoot back?
It seems to be that the marines were just killing for sport.
-
-
---
- ********************************
- Chet Bober Maybe I am imagining things, but
- that doesn't make them any less
- cbo...@charm.net (home) real.
- cbo...@sinai.sinai-balt.com (work) ********************************
>-------------------------<|=ATHEIST #89=|>-------------------------<
"Look outside," I said. Then the chief captain came,
"Why?" and said, unto him, Tell me,
"There's a big... art thou a Roman? He said, Yea.
machine in the sky,... And the chief captain answered,
some kind of electric snake... With a great sum obtained I
coming straight at us." this freedom. And Paul said,
"Shoot it," said my attorney.
"Not yet," I said. But I was free born
"I want to study its habits." ACTS, XXII. 27, 28
GHalleck
Douglas Miller wrote:
> One can't help but be reminded of the bravery of another couple of
> trigger happy Marines in Texas. Lee Harvey Oswald (the greatest of
> marine marksmen), and Charles Whitman (who wasn't too bad a shot
> himself) both distinguished themselves in action against civilians in
> the Lone Star state. Does the Corps offer a medal for such
> outstanding work?
Remarkable generalization...2 nut cases indicate that the whole Corps is
whacko. That would be like saying that anyone that is anti-establishment,
writes silly anti-cop poems, embraces every government conspiracy theory
and who jumps to conclusions prematurely is also a whacko. Moreover, I'd
hestitate to discuss issues such as medals or merit, since you've
demonstrated an obvious lack of experience with either.
Best wishes, GHalleck.
William Gray
Guardian <guar...@awareofthings.com> writes:
>Jim Garlington wrote:
>>
>> As both a combat vet and a retired career state level law enforcement
>> officer I would just simply note that if the Marine in question was within
>> his stated rules of engagement there is absolutely no possibility of a
>> state charge being brought that will stick. Whether he was right or wrong
>> is the second question to ask. The first is, what were the rules of
>> engagement and who set them for what purpose. The military does not deploy
>> troops armed with live ammo without a definite predefined set of these
>> rules.
>While I do agree with your assesment in general, I must point out some
>qualifying pre-conditions for it to work.
>(Like it or not, there are alot more civilians than LEOs or military.
>People obviously are not going to accept this type of situation without
>being informed.
>This is not some foriegn operation.
>The drug war is being waged on US soil. It is taking the lives of
>American kids. It is stretching our society to the breaking point and
>more people are coming to this conclusion every day)
>#1. The American people must be fully informed of military operations on
>our border.
>The public must understand that THIS MEANS TROOPS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.
I think you misunderstand the meanng of the term "private property."
That means the gummint canNOT "take" it or any portion of it without
compensation. See the Third and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution
those Marines swore to uphold.
>#2. The American public should be fully informed on the rules of
>engagement for US soil.
>The press should remind and update the public on a daily basis:
>a. The status of all operations.
>b. The purpose of those operations.
Rules of engagement are for military operations against ENEMY troops
and for military conduct on military reservations. Armed troops
trespassing on private property who kill someone cannot rely on ROE
anymore than murderous FBI snipers can. They, like everyone else, are
subject to the rule of law. And the law says you cannot kill at whim
and you cannot kill at all except to protect your own life or the life
of another.
Furthermore, you cannot assert a self-defense claim (in many cases, at
least) if you are in the act of committing a crime, particularly a crime
of violence. Otherwise, you'd have bank robbers claiming they killed
the bank guard in self-defense where they are in fact guilty of murder.
Since the Marines were trespassing, it is a matter of Texas law to
determine whether the aggravating factors (camoflague, heavily armed,
stalking, failure to summon aid) elevate their trespass to a felony.
>#3.Voluntary evacuation of any area with active military operations.(no
>more dead, unprepared to have Marines in their yards, uninformed
>civilians).
Voluntary ceding of the use of private property for military exercises
is the prerogative of the land owner. If he cedes such limited
permission, then it is not trespass. Nevertheless, the rule of law
still applies; if a resident, unaware of the presence of armed troops,
is killed under circumstances like these, at the very least a grand jury
should hear the case.
Regards,
Bill
dgl...@telis.org
I agree with your assessment however it can't work (see comments in text)
Guardian <guar...@awareofthings.com> wrote in article
<33B824...@awareofthings.com>...
> Jim Garlington wrote:
> >
> > As both a combat vet and a retired career state level law enforcement
> > officer I would just simply note that if the Marine in question was
within
> > his stated rules of engagement there is absolutely no possibility of a
> > state charge being brought that will stick. Whether he was right or
wrong
> > is the second question to ask. The first is, what were the rules of
> > engagement and who set them for what purpose. The military does not
deploy
> > troops armed with live ammo without a definite predefined set of these
> > rules.
>
> While I do agree with your assesment in general, I must point out some
> qualifying pre-conditions for it to work.
> (Like it or not, there are alot more civilians than LEOs or military.
> People obviously are not going to accept this type of situation without
> being informed.
> This is not some foriegn operation.
> The drug war is being waged on US soil.
Waging a war on an inanimate object is ludicrous and can never be won and
should not be fought.
It is taking the lives of
> American kids. It is stretching our society to the breaking point and
more people are coming to this conclusion every day)
>
Treatment and families without government intervention would help a lot and
do more than the military
> #1. The American people must be fully informed of military operations on
our border.
Operational and security problems here if the public knows then the
druggies will know too.
> The public must understand that THIS MEANS TROOPS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.
I won't stand for it I hope America won't stand for it.
> #2. The American public should be fully informed on the rules of
> engagement for US soil.
> The press should remind and update the public on a daily basis:
> a. The status of all operations.
> b. The purpose of those operations.
If the enemy know the rules, when, where, and operational status then there
is no counter intelligence. Hence. the hole operation is useless.
> #3.Voluntary evacuation of any area with active military operations.(no
> more dead, unprepared to have Marines in their yards, uninformed
> civilians).
I believe our government has already taken far to many rights away from me.
I am not inclined to voluntarily to give up anymore. Remember, there is
nothing so permanent as a temporary solution as far as our government is
concerned. I also believe the Constitution is specific about what the
military can and cannot do with American citizens on US soil. I don't
believe anyone in the government is willing to look at the those rules of
engagement and enforce them.
--
David Lawler
dgl...@telis.org
Alturas, California USA
> Cordially,
> Guardian
>
Rob Carlson
On Sun, 29 Jun 1997 10:33:12 -0700, nospamm...@concentric.net
(Bill) wrote:
>Remember we talking about a 4 man fire team in home made ghilli suits
>pooping and snooping in the desert and one corporal firing one round.
>acting in self-defense and they were not fired on they violated their
>orders.
This was an act of cowardice and murder. These marines diplayed a
callousness toward human life that is uniformly present in members of
armed forces.
Only military people size up this situation and think there are only
two options: kill or be killed. In truth, the marines had many
options, including pulling back and notifying the proper authorities.
After the incident they could have summoned help instead of waiting to
be sure the boy bled to death. Their actions can only be considered
murder of a US citizen at the hands of the US military.
It is ludricrous to maintain that these men were in imminent danger
requiring deadly force to resolve.
This boy is an innocent victim of the alliance of cops, politicians,
drug dealers and gang bangers who profit from the black market they
call the War on Drugs. These folks are willing to kill teenage boys to
feed their greed and military induced machismo. Then they will justify
it by saying 'you shouldn't shoot at marines' (goes along with Semper
Fi and the other shit these people spout so that they don't have to
think for themselves).
Rob Carlson <ro...@no-spam.xmission.com>
You'll need to decipher my address to send email.
MDK86
Douglas Miller wrote:
((((((((snip)))))))))))
> > Marines at the border is an excellent move, I hope the drug dealers and
> > illegals get wind that there are trigger happy Marines waiting for them
> > to cross.
> >
>
> One can't help but be reminded of the bravery of another couple of
> trigger happy Marines in Texas. Lee Harvey Oswald (the greatest of
> marine marksmen), and Charles Whitman (who wasn't too bad a shot
> himself) both distinguished themselves in action against civilians in
> the Lone Star state. Does the Corps offer a medal for such
> outstanding work?
They were not active duty Marines, but you gotta admit, those guys were
damm good shots!!. Espically Oswald, he hit a moving target with an old
Itialan bolt action rifle from what, 200 yards?, that is some impressive
shooting.
I know you think your point is real clever, but MANY more pukey
civilians have wigged out and killed people than former Marines.
Semper Fi
-M-
MDK86
Rob Carlson wrote:
>
> On Sun, 29 Jun 1997 10:33:12 -0700, nospamm...@concentric.net
> (Bill) wrote:
> >Remember we talking about a 4 man fire team in home made ghilli suits
> >pooping and snooping in the desert and one corporal firing one round.
> >This was not some massive Marine operation. If they were fired on he was
> >acting in self-defense and they were not fired on they violated their
> >orders.
>
> This was an act of cowardice and murder.
Were you in the service?, by the sounds of your wienie post I think not.
These Marines are serving thier country rather than selling drugs or
gang banging, these Marines would be the first to go to war to protect
YOU. They are heros, they acted accordengly and as a former Marine I'm
PROUD of thier actions and I;d be proud to serve with any one of them.
> These marines diplayed a callousness toward human life that is
> uniformly present in members of armed forces.
WELL HELLO!!!, Marines are trained to go to war and not think twice
about killing, I think callousness is Kinda required eh?, I suppose
you'd have an armed force that is armed with stuffed animals and baby
food.
> Only military people size up this situation and think there are only
> two options: kill or be killed.
If you're getting shot at those are your options.
> In truth, the marines had many options,
YOUR truth is not reality.
> including pulling back and notifying the proper authorities.
Yeah right that is ABSURD!!! As far as they knew he was an armed drug
smuggler, you want them to lose sight of someone who just tried to kill
4 US Troops?, let that possible violent smuggler waltz back into Mexico,
that cesspool of corruption never to be seen again!! Do you know thier
orders?, if thier orders were to follow the suspect they had NO choice
(next....)
> After the incident they could have summoned help instead of waiting to
> be sure the boy bled to death.
They did radio "shots fired", right? After they shot him, supposedly he
was still moving, I dont just walk up to someone without a care in the
world after I shoot them!! My life is on the line here dude, you want me
to "hope" they dont try to kill me??, that's ridiculous. I dont put my
life in the hands of "hope". YOU waltz up to someone you just shot whos
still alive and moving, and hey if he kills you.. oops!
> Their actions can only be considered
> murder of a US citizen at the hands of the US military.
Murder requires some form of intent (specific intent ect..), prove
intent! and they did not know he was a US citizen when they shot him.
> It is ludricrous to maintain that these men were in imminent danger
> requiring deadly force to resolve.
Yeah, you're right...being shot at and having the person who did it
raise his rifle at you AGAIN deserves a fruit basket responce, not
deadly responce. "Hey he's gonna shoot at us, lets give him a fruit
basket!"
> This boy is an innocent victim of the alliance of cops, politicians,
> drug dealers and gang bangers who profit from the black market they
> call the War on Drugs.
Blame everyone but the one who pointed the rifle at the Marines.
Actually, it's the goats fault for being hungry.
> These folks are willing to kill teenage boys to feed their greed and military
> induced machismo.
Greed? They did'nt know he was a teenage boy AND yes they will kill
teenage boys, who do you think makes up the militaries of other
countries? teenage boys. Go to the clue store and get one.
> Then they will justify it by saying 'you shouldn't shoot at marines'
> (goes along with Semper Fi and the other shit these people spout so that they
> don't have to think for themselves).
Semper Fi is not "shit", you just insulted ever Marine and former
Marine, for what?, because you are spouting off about an incident that
you dont even know the facts about? that sir, is pure ignorance on your
part. You are shitting on America by saying these Marines are guilty
beofre being proven so.
I have a low opinion of you based on your post and will insult you now
in keeping with NG rules. You insulted my beloved Corps, the rules say I
must insult you in return.
Skirt wearing commie pinko Asshole
So there.
-M-
Walter Eric Johnson
On Tue, 01 Jul 1997 11:02:49 -0700, MDK86 (MD...@usa.net), waived his fifth amendment rights and wrote:
:
: Yeah, you're right...being shot at and having the person who did it
: raise his rifle at you AGAIN deserves a fruit basket responce, not
: deadly responce. "Hey he's gonna shoot at us, lets give him a fruit
: basket!"
Are you sure you used to be a marine? If so, the marines must have
some rather strange firearms. I'm right handed and the only way
you could shoot me on my right side with the bullet passing right
to left through my body while I'm aiming a rifle is if you are
standing to my left -- 180 degrees away from where I'm aiming.
Maybe the marine missed him and the bullet hit something and
richocheted (sp?) back into him? I doubt that.
I've never shot a rabbit where the bullet entered on the side
away from me.
Eric Johnson
Lone_Wolf
In <33b9015...@news.xmission.com> ro...@no-spam.xmission.com (Rob Carlson) writes:
#On Sun, 29 Jun 1997 10:33:12 -0700, nospamm...@concentric.net
#(Bill) wrote:
#>Remember we talking about a 4 man fire team in home made ghilli suits
#>pooping and snooping in the desert and one corporal firing one round.
#>This was not some massive Marine operation. If they were fired on he was
#>acting in self-defense and they were not fired on they violated their
#>orders.
#This was an act of cowardice and murder. These marines diplayed a
#callousness toward human life that is uniformly present in members of
#armed forces.
Actually, their actions go against what I was taught in Army ROTC, by
the Alabama Army National Guard, and how several friends were taught in
Basic Training. As soon as the kid was no longer posing a direct
threat to teh Marines (presuming some part of their story was true, whihc
may be giving them more benefit of the doubt than they deserve), they
should have called in a SALUTE report and performed first aid on the kid
while waiting for the medevac. Maybe Marines are trained differently, but
these were the steps *I* was taught were required for wartime, I doubt
peacetime reconnaissance missions would have lower standards.
#Only military people size up this situation and think there are only
#two options: kill or be killed. In truth, the marines had many
#options, including pulling back and notifying the proper authorities.
#After the incident they could have summoned help instead of waiting to
#be sure the boy bled to death. Their actions can only be considered
#murder of a US citizen at the hands of the US military.
I wouldn't condemn the entire military or anyone associated with it
for this. National Guard troops have been doing anti-drug recon missions
for a LONG time (late '80's) without any reports of such deaths.
#It is ludricrous to maintain that these men were in imminent danger
#requiring deadly force to resolve.
IF, as the Marines originaly stated, they returned fire only after having
been directly fired upon, I would consider SOME room for deadly force in
defense. I AM troubled by the inconsistencies in their story, the
lack of permission to be on the land, the reports that they had observed the kid
on other occasions, the delay in calling for medical support, etc...
#This boy is an innocent victim of the alliance of cops, politicians,
#drug dealers and gang bangers who profit from the black market they
#call the War on Drugs. These folks are willing to kill teenage boys to
#feed their greed and military induced machismo. Then they will justify
#it by saying 'you shouldn't shoot at marines' (goes along with Semper
#Fi and the other shit these people spout so that they don't have to
James
#think for themselves).
#Rob Carlson <ro...@no-spam.xmission.com>
#You'll need to decipher my address to send email.
Douglas Miller
In article <01bc85b9$7ee03c80$72f48acd@ghalleck>, "GHalleck" <GHal...@inreach.com> writes:
> Douglas Miller wrote:
>
>> One can't help but be reminded of the bravery of another couple of
>> trigger happy Marines in Texas. Lee Harvey Oswald (the greatest of
>> marine marksmen), and Charles Whitman (who wasn't too bad a shot
>> himself) both distinguished themselves in action against civilians in
>> the Lone Star state. Does the Corps offer a medal for such
>> outstanding work?
>
>
> whacko. That would be like saying that anyone that is anti-establishment,
> writes silly anti-cop poems, embraces every government conspiracy theory
> and who jumps to conclusions prematurely is also a whacko. Moreover, I'd
> hestitate to discuss issues such as medals or merit, since you've
> demonstrated an obvious lack of experience with either.
There was no generalization. To form a generalization, I would have
been required to make a statement such as X is like Y. Careful
re-reading of my post will reveal no such construct.
Instead, I was merely remarking on an apparent running problem that
Texas seems to have with marines. When viewed as an historical
progression, the problem seems to be getting worse. In the past,
these situations always seemed to involve discharged marines. Now, we
have a whole squad of active duty honchos popping away at civilians.
Given the lack of any generalization on my part, the analogy you
attempt to set up fails utterly. A rotten tree cannot produce
wholesome fruit.
As for your assertion that I "demonstrated an obvious lack of
experience," perhaps you can more specifically explain how a
rhetorical question employed in a poor attempt at sarcasm constitutes
such a demonstration.
> Best wishes, GHalleck.
I await your well-reasoned reply with great anticipation.
--
/s Douglas L. Miller <do...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
Steven Proffitt
MDK86 (MD...@usa.net) wrote:
:
: They were not active duty Marines, but you gotta admit, those guys were
: damm good shots!!. Espically Oswald, he hit a moving target with an old
: Itialan bolt action rifle from what, 200 yards?, that is some impressive
: shooting.
That's nothing. I've shot little birdies from that far with an old 22
single shot rifle while standing and nothing to prop on. Not that I
actually believe Oswald shot him. Actually, I think he was just a scape
goat. Even if he did, I do believe he was on contract by the government.
Steven Proffitt
Walter Eric Johnson (wej...@scully.tamu.edu) wrote:
: MDK86 (MD...@usa.net), waived his fifth amendment rights and wrote:
: :
: : Yeah, you're right...being shot at and having the person who did it
: : raise his rifle at you AGAIN deserves a fruit basket responce, not
: : deadly responce. "Hey he's gonna shoot at us, lets give him a fruit
: : basket!"
:
: Are you sure you used to be a marine? If so, the marines must have
: some rather strange firearms. I'm right handed and the only way
: you could shoot me on my right side with the bullet passing right
: to left through my body while I'm aiming a rifle is if you are
: standing to my left -- 180 degrees away from where I'm aiming.
Your using logical reasoning here. That stuff don't work with MDK.
He's too,,, Well, he's too something for logical reasoning.
JD
In article <5pc64v$b...@paperboy.ids.net>, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael
Zarlenga) wrote:
> The Bill of Rights means nothing to this government.
>
> Innocent people have their property, money, cars, real estate, etc
> taken away EVERY DAY under civil asset forfeiture laws by this govern-
> ment.
Innocent? Hardly.
Guardian
dgl...@telis.org wrote:
>
> I agree with your assessment however it can't work (see comments in text)
>
> Guardian <guar...@awareofthings.com> wrote in article
***SNIP****
> > While I do agree with your assesment in general, I must point out some
> > qualifying pre-conditions for it to work.
> > (Like it or not, there are alot more civilians than LEOs or military.
> > People obviously are not going to accept this type of situation without
> > being informed.
> > This is not some foriegn operation.
> > The drug war is being waged on US soil.
>
> Waging a war on an inanimate object is ludicrous and can never be won and
> should not be fought.
You're right.
>
> It is taking the lives of
> > American kids. It is stretching our society to the breaking point and
> more people are coming to this conclusion every day)
> >
> Treatment and families without government intervention would help a lot and
> do more than the military
That would require folks to actually read the statistics for themselves
vs. having it dished up on a plate in a nice little package from they're
particular special interest groups.
It seems like somewhere along the way a large segment of people just
quit thinking they needed to verify information for themselves.
>
> > #1. The American people must be fully informed of military operations on
> our border.
>
> Operational and security problems here if the public knows then the
> druggies will know too.
True.
>
> > The public must understand that THIS MEANS TROOPS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.
>
> I won't stand for it I hope America won't stand for it.
Me too.
>
> > #2. The American public should be fully informed on the rules of
> > engagement for US soil.
> > The press should remind and update the public on a daily basis:
> > a. The status of all operations.
> > b. The purpose of those operations.
>
> If the enemy know the rules, when, where, and operational status then there
> is no counter intelligence. Hence. the whole operation is useless.
Correctamundo.
>
> > #3.Voluntary evacuation of any area with active military operations.(no
> > more dead, unprepared to have Marines in their yards, uninformed
> > civilians).
>
> I believe our government has already taken far to many rights away from me.
> I am not inclined to voluntarily to give up anymore. Remember, there is
> nothing so permanent as a temporary solution as far as our government is
> concerned. I also believe the Constitution is specific about what the
> military can and cannot do with American citizens on US soil. I don't
> believe anyone in the government is willing to look at the those rules of
> engagement and enforce them.
Good for you!
I draw the identical conclusion.
Our numbers grow every day.
We have to keep on hammering away and confront those who seriously
disagree with that conclusion.
Most folks when presented with the facts in a non-media hype environment
are far more Libertarian than the press would have us believe.
JD
In article <33B946...@usa.net>, MD...@usa.net wrote:
> Rob Carlson wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 29 Jun 1997 10:33:12 -0700, nospamm...@concentric.net
> > (Bill) wrote:
> > >Remember we talking about a 4 man fire team in home made ghilli suits
> > >pooping and snooping in the desert and one corporal firing one round.
> > >This was not some massive Marine operation. If they were fired on he was
> > >acting in self-defense and they were not fired on they violated their
> > >orders.
> >
> > This was an act of cowardice and murder.
>
> Were you in the service?, by the sounds of your wienie post I think not.
> These Marines are serving thier country rather than selling drugs or
> gang banging, these Marines would be the first to go to war to protect
> YOU. They are heros, they acted accordengly and as a former Marine I'm
> PROUD of thier actions and I;d be proud to serve with any one of them.
Actually, there is ample evidence that gang members are infiltrating the
military at an alarming rate, and are serving on active duty while
retaining ties with their gangs. As for selling drugs, I saw GI's court
martialed for it when I was on active duty, which was 13 years ago.
>
> > These marines diplayed a callousness toward human life that is
> > uniformly present in members of armed forces.
>
> WELL HELLO!!!, Marines are trained to go to war and not think twice
> about killing, I think callousness is Kinda required eh?, I suppose
> you'd have an armed force that is armed with stuffed animals and baby
> food.
Perhaps if that is the case then we should rethink using them on our
borders, unless they are ordered to point their weapons OUTWARD, rather
than at *our* children.
> > Only military people size up this situation and think there are only
> > two options: kill or be killed.
>
> If you're getting shot at those are your options.
It seems the testimony of the Marines and the hard evidence are in
contradiction, at this point. I'm not altogether sure they WERE getting
shot at. Are you?
> > In truth, the marines had many options,
>
> YOUR truth is not reality.
>
> > including pulling back and notifying the proper authorities.
>
> Yeah right that is ABSURD!!! As far as they knew he was an armed drug
> smuggler, you want them to lose sight of someone who just tried to kill
> 4 US Troops?
With two shots from a .22 LR? Aimed in God knows what direction? Puhleeze.
, let that possible violent smuggler waltz back into Mexico,
> that cesspool of corruption never to be seen again!!
Possible violent smuggler? Do you apply that title to everyone who is
firing a .22 LR on their own property, or only Hispanics within a certain
distance from the Mexican border?
Do you know thier
> orders?,
No sir, do you?
if thier orders were to follow the suspect they had NO choice
> (next....)
>
> > After the incident they could have summoned help instead of waiting to
> > be sure the boy bled to death.
>
> They did radio "shots fired", right?
A far cry from summoning medical assistance. Oops, I forgot, you said they
aren't trained to call for help. Of course, you also said you'd be proud
to serve beside these men in combat. Gee, I guess it'd be ok then if YOU
got shot in combat for them to neglect calling a corpsman? Hey, they
aren't trained to call for help, right?
After they shot him, supposedly he
> was still moving, I dont just walk up to someone without a care in the
> world after I shoot them!! My life is on the line here dude, you want me
> to "hope" they dont try to kill me??, that's ridiculous. I dont put my
> life in the hands of "hope". YOU waltz up to someone you just shot whos
> still alive and moving, and hey if he kills you.. oops!
>
> > Their actions can only be considered
> > murder of a US citizen at the hands of the US military.
>
> Murder requires some form of intent (specific intent ect..), prove
> intent! and they did not know he was a US citizen when they shot him.
Whether or not they knew his citizenship is immaterial. ALL persons in
this country, whether legally or illegally, are afforded the protection of
our Constitution.
> > These folks are willing to kill teenage boys to feed their greed and
military
> > induced machismo.
>
> Greed? They did'nt know he was a teenage boy AND yes they will kill
> teenage boys, who do you think makes up the militaries of other
> countries? teenage boys. Go to the clue store and get one.
This boy was far from being a member of a foreign countries military
forces, and as far as I know, we are not currently involved in a military
conflict on our soil.
I've tried to avoid besmerching the Corps, as I don't want a personal fight
over this, but I do believe your response is just a tad over zealous.
--
J.D. (former Army, current cop)
Bill
In article <1997Jun3...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>, do...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
(Douglas Miller) wrote:
>One can't help but be reminded of the bravery of another couple of
>trigger happy Marines in Texas. Lee Harvey Oswald (the greatest of
>marine marksmen), and Charles Whitman (who wasn't too bad a shot
>himself) both distinguished themselves in action against civilians in
>the Lone Star state. Does the Corps offer a medal for such
>outstanding work?
Both individuals were former Marines. You draw an invalid comparison. In
any event they were not acting on orders as Marines but as private
individuals. I find your statement insulting and demeaning to the memory
of the thousands of Marines that gave their lives or were wounded to
perserve your right to be an asshole.
--
Liberals ban guns -- crime goes up.
Liberals start welfare -- crime goes up.
Liberals cut prison sentences short -- crime goes up.
The only thing Liberals seem able to do is to get crime to go up. Scary.
Bill
In article
<das3795-2808...@ppp-206-170-117-174.sndg02.pacbell.net>,
das3795@!!!REMOVE!!!pacbell.net (das) wrote:
>
>No, they should have gotten the hell out of there. It was the kids right
>to be shooting at them. What they did would be like me breaking into your
>house, you pulling a gun on me, and me shooting you. The exact same thing
>happened in Texas. What was done was murder.
No real sense in arguing with someone so badly informed as to the law. He
was not defending himself as the Marines had not fired upon him and as
such he had no right to shoot at the Marines. Further, in the middle of a
field is not the same as breaking into a house. If you aren't able to
tell the difference then any legal reasoning is probably beyond you as
well.