Supreme Court denies Mexican family's damages claim for cross-border shooting

Discussion in 'Politics and Religion' started by LoyaltyisaCurse, Feb 25, 2020.

  1. LoyaltyisaCurse

    LoyaltyisaCurse IF AND WHEN HEALTHY...

    Age:
    45
    Posts:
    40,572
    Likes Received:
    6,794
    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    Location:
    CA
    SCOTUS just declared open season on killing with ruling on cross-border shootings. Great job, zealots.

    It's like duck hunt now.

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-denies-mexican-familys-152319989.html
     
  2. TJ

    TJ NUKed

    Posts:
    27,295
    Likes Received:
    9,010
    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2005
    Location:
    South Bay
    You know where else this happens? North Korea.
     
    LoyaltyisaCurse likes this.
  3. Dback Jon

    Dback Jon Killer Snail Contributor

    Age:
    57
    Posts:
    54,354
    Likes Received:
    7,526
    Joined:
    May 14, 2002
    Location:
    Scottsdale
    So if Mexican guards shoot and kill Americans across the border, that is just fine?


    Deplorable.

    Really. Trump and EVERYONE who voted for him (or didn't vote for Hillary) are destroying this country.
     
    LoyaltyisaCurse and UncleChris like this.
  4. LVG

    LVG Your Friendly Neighborhood P&R Mod Contributor

    Posts:
    21,296
    Likes Received:
    4,580
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Location:
    Vegas, baby, yeah!
    US courts wouldn't have jurisdiction in that situation because the Mexican guard was in Mexico when it occurred.

    Haven't read the opinion yet, so I'll hold off talking about the law.
     
  5. Kel Varnsen

    Kel Varnsen Moderator Contributor

    Age:
    42
    Posts:
    33,372
    Likes Received:
    11,961
    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Location:
    Phoenix
    Me, neither, but the snippet above seems to imply there was a dispute about what country the shooting happened in (where the shot was fired or where it hit someone).
     
  6. LVG

    LVG Your Friendly Neighborhood P&R Mod Contributor

    Posts:
    21,296
    Likes Received:
    4,580
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Location:
    Vegas, baby, yeah!
    I thought the facts were established - US guy was in the US and the Mexican victim was in Mexico.
     
  7. LVG

    LVG Your Friendly Neighborhood P&R Mod Contributor

    Posts:
    21,296
    Likes Received:
    4,580
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Location:
    Vegas, baby, yeah!
    Side note: appellate courts hate to decide facts. Hate Hate Hate. If there's a dispute of facts and both sides of the facts are in the record, appellate courts will almost always defer to what the trial court determined.

    Appellate courts really only want to decide the law.
     
  8. Kel Varnsen

    Kel Varnsen Moderator Contributor

    Age:
    42
    Posts:
    33,372
    Likes Received:
    11,961
    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Location:
    Phoenix
    Right. It just sounded to me, based on the quote above, like the majority said the killing happened in Mexico and the dissent said it happened in the US. I thought that legal concept was settled a long time ago, though, so I will have to read the actual opinion.
     
  9. LVG

    LVG Your Friendly Neighborhood P&R Mod Contributor

    Posts:
    21,296
    Likes Received:
    4,580
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Location:
    Vegas, baby, yeah!
    Me too. I'll circle back to this point once I have. SCOTUS's site is not letting me download the opinion.
     
  10. Linderbee

    Linderbee Let's GO, CARDINALS! Contributor

    Posts:
    29,106
    Likes Received:
    2,533
    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2005
    Location:
    MESA! :thud:
    I think RBG was saying the act of "shooting" was on our side, not that the victim was.

    I did read it the same as you at first, and I'm not convinced I'm right now, lol.
     
  11. LVG

    LVG Your Friendly Neighborhood P&R Mod Contributor

    Posts:
    21,296
    Likes Received:
    4,580
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Location:
    Vegas, baby, yeah!
    Having skimmed through the opinion and dissent, I think the court reached the wrong conclusion. The dissent is better reasoned.

    Was it the wrong outcome? I don't think so - if I'm perfectly honest - but for other reasons. Specifically, a Bivens action arises for a constitutional violation by a federal officer. But (and I hate to say this), the kid's U.S. constitutional rights were not violated because he was in Mexico when he was shot. He didn't have U.S. constitutional rights. Absent those rights, or some treaty or law that provided the kid with some level of protection under US law, there is no Bivens action here.

    I feel dirty for even having typed that. I hate that analysis, but I think, legally, it's correct.

    However, that question did not appear to be before the court. Absent that argument, the suit should have been allowed to go forward.

    My 2 cents. Rip away.
     
  12. Dback Jon

    Dback Jon Killer Snail Contributor

    Age:
    57
    Posts:
    54,354
    Likes Received:
    7,526
    Joined:
    May 14, 2002
    Location:
    Scottsdale

    So you are saying that short of declaring war, Mexico can't stop the US from killing people on Mexican soil.
     
  13. Kel Varnsen

    Kel Varnsen Moderator Contributor

    Age:
    42
    Posts:
    33,372
    Likes Received:
    11,961
    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Location:
    Phoenix
    One could argue that shooting another country’s citizens is an act of war.
     
    LVG likes this.
  14. LVG

    LVG Your Friendly Neighborhood P&R Mod Contributor

    Posts:
    21,296
    Likes Received:
    4,580
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Location:
    Vegas, baby, yeah!
    No, it can diplomatically protest, go to the UN, take precautions on its borders, shoot back (without declaring war), etc...

    But there is no option in the US courts in this specific instance.
     
  15. nidan

    nidan Oscar Contributor

    Posts:
    23,167
    Likes Received:
    677
    Joined:
    May 15, 2002
    Location:
    Lake Oswego, Oregon
    Maybe not but from what I heard of this it is monstrous that the border agent got off scott free.

    From what I understand he shot an unarmed child hiding behind some wood for nothing more that playing a game of chicken
     

Share This Page