Deb Saunders complains against about the trial of Ramos and Compean. And once again, it seems the right is in need of having some basic facts explained to them.
We give cops a lot of power in order for them to enforce the law. These powers include the right to use deadly force under certain circumstances. That said, there is stuff that comes with this. Responsibilities to the people that cops serve and protect. When the cops use force, particularly lethal force, the people are owed an accounting of the use of force, be it pepper spray, a police baton, a Taser, or a gun.
And that is what the real issue about Ramos and Compean is. No matter the circumstances of the shooting (and admittedly they are questionable), their actions afterwards (specifically, not filing the reports and cleaning up the casings from their guns) were an attempt to deny the people who pay their salaries the accounting of their use of lethal force. That is their ultimate sin, and what they have been deservedly sent to prison for doing.
Is that being anti-Border Patrol? Maybe in the minds of immigration hard-liners. For me, it's just getting down to this country's first principles - those are laid out very clearly in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" seems pretty clear to me. So do the words "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" and "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".
I'm sorry, but it is very clear just how serious the actions of Ramos and Compean are just by looking at this. By attempting to deny the people the ability to hold their use of lethal force to account, they could have left us with no real way to determine whether or not the rights of the person they shot had been violated.
Why is this so hard for the right to comprehend?