Miles Hilbelink
Mrs. roskamp
8c, La
9 december, 2016
Position paper
In the situation, there was a bad shooting. A boy and his friends decided to go and race to see who could touch the fence and come back the fastest. while they were going they saw a man named Mesa shot the boy. The boys were looking like they were going to go and get into America, but they were not going to, and it was his job to protect the border. I think that we should know what they are doing before they actually jump to conclusions.
In the Fourth Amendment it says that all of the citizens of America are protected by law. If you shoot somebody it will be brought to the court, but it never says that the Mexicans are protected. It was the boy’s fault because he was the one who wanted to race, it was a bad idea because they saw that there was an agent so that he could have shot them.
In this case it is very bad because first, the boy wanted to do a dangerous game of crossing the frontier. The man killed the boy. Mesa lide about the boy revolving around him and throwing rocks at him. So it is just a big pile bad stuff. So then also Mesa shot the boy by the eye, and the boy had no time to react. He could not move because when you shoot someone in the eye, they die immediately.
Petitioner Graham was in a shop to grab orange juice and then decided to go to Berry’s friend’s house. A police officer was there and he was suspicious. Conor’s police chased the car and without asking Petitioner Graham and his friend quickly arrested him without letting him say anything. This is like the court case, because it involved the police making assumptions.
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents was a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that an implied cause of action existed for an person whose Fourth Amendment freedom from unreasonable search and take had been violated by Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. In this court case it is really bad because the man had broken the fourth amendment. That is not good at all because he had hurt a person that was a citizen of the united states.
United states v Verdugo-Urquidez, A mexican man was part of the selling of drugs and was apprehended in Mexico and brought to the US border. There he was arrested for many more related offences. But there was never a search warrant sent so that the us could search in mexico for him. So they basically had no right to go and capture him in mexico and give him a punishment.
The Fourth Amendment refers to “the people,” which wich has a concern with people who are part of the national community, in contrast to foreigners with connection to the US. In addition, people are not even entitled to rights under the Fifth Amendment, which speaks in the relatively more universal term of “person.” And non-fundamental rights are not even guaranteed to the of the unknown places under the sovereign control of the United States, much less to foreigners. Therefore, restrictions on the search and take of people that are not a part of it and their foreign property must be told to do by the political branches through agreements, treaties or laws.
I think that in this case there is good proof for both sides. I know that it was a bad idea for Hernandez to hold a race to see who could touch the border fence. Then Mesa shot Hernandez instead of giving a warning or telling them to stop. I have to take Mesa’s side because I think that it was the bad idea to try and touch the fence when they could see the agent by the fence, but why did they not take that into consideration when they saw him.
I think that we should know what they are doing before they actually jump to conclusions. I still think that mesa is innocent, the boy were crossing the border and he was supposed to make sure people so not cross the border and what was he supposed to do. If he gave a warning he they would be back trying to taunt him. I think that this entire thing is a bunch of crap because they were both naughty people, but I still think that Hernandez is wrong.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2016/15-118
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/386/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bivens_v._Six_Unknown_Named_Agents/
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/06-1195/
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x7DogNfNWRyACoIVjVc__guwkeKLR-8g4M6XBD6o24s/edit
Leave a Reply