RetiredGySgt
Diamond Member
Terry, I don't believe Bush didn't know. His press secretary spoke on this issue. He knew. He played with the freedom of American Citizens. He has to pay for it.
Retard alert, RETARD ALERT.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Terry, I don't believe Bush didn't know. His press secretary spoke on this issue. He knew. He played with the freedom of American Citizens. He has to pay for it.
Fleaing druge smuggler, who they had no idea he was unarmed!
So why did they not report what they did? Why did they try to cover it up?
Because they shot an unarmed man in the back.
Sounds like you're saying they killed the guy because he wouldn't pay them a bribe.
I would not be surprised if that was so. Someone who would shoot an unarmed guy in the back is low enough to do that.
No one deserves to die for smuggling marijuana.
No proof other then his word he WAS unarmed.
The wound was consistant with him turning to fire.
Where's the gun then?
The cops fired like 14 shots before they hit the guy. Do ya think with 14 shots whizzing by him that the suspect might begin to zig-zag or run erratically?
Sorry but the whole "turning to fire" thing just doesn't hold water.
Lets see the guy made it back into Mexico. The gun got left at home when the DA came calling.
The wound was not consistant with zig zagging but consistant with a man twisting his body to turn to fire.
The idea that a guy smuggling hundreds of pounds of MJ would be unarmed makes perfect sense? Right? I mean him not having to worry about crooked cops, other smugglers, other crooks, NOPE being unarmed makes perfect sense.
Can you prove that?
Was that documented?
It doesn't matter what you think "makes sense" it's what can be proven.
LOL can you prove he did not have a gun, since he was never apprehended?
And yes the medical professional that examined the wound made the statement.
Wrong again. One does not have to prove he had a gun, one need only show evidence that it made sense he would have a gun. Since he was never apprehended that would be all that was needed, the preponderance of evidence suggests he would have been armed.
The border agents disposed of all shell casings, failed to file a report and lied to their supervisors. Seems rather obvious they were covering up their misdeeds.Oh, okay I see what you are saying.
Is that true?
It seems kinda flimsy to me that a gun can be concocted without any hard evidence. If it is then I can't imagine it being weighted all that heavily.
The border agents disposed of all shell casings, failed to file a report and lied to their supervisors. Seems rather obvious they were covering up their misdeeds.
and were convicted by a jury of their peers...
I imagine if he had one they wouldn't have gotten rid of the bullet shells. None of them belonged to him would be my bet.Oh yeah, these pigs stink for sure.
It's just that people want to put a gun in this dude's hand and I haven't seen anything to confirm it.
I imagine if he had one they wouldn't have gotten rid of the bullet shells. None of them belonged to him would be my bet.