Mission Implausible



By Kay B. Day





On the Net site for the U.S. Department of Justice, Western District of Texas, there is a mission statement. The first sentence begins in language so clear it is impossible to misconstrue the meaning: “Our mission is to enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States…”



Unfortunately, the mission reversed on December 1, 2006, in U.S. District Court in Del Rio, Texas.



The drama began in April, 2005, 75 miles away in the small town of Rocksprings, known as a wool and mohair center. Nearby is Devil’s Sinkhole. The population is 1,285.



On an evening in April, 2005, close to midnight, a deputy sheriff named Gilmer Hernandez stopped a blue Chevrolet Suburban for running a red light. Hernandez noticed the driver was the only person in a vertical position. Eight other people were lying down. The 25-year-old deputy asked the driver to step out of the vehicle.



Instead the driver lurched forward, then turned the Suburban towards Hernandez.



Being of sound mind, the deputy figured pretty quickly what was happening.



As the vehicle then sped away, Hernandez fired at the rear tires. According to the Washington Times, a female in the vehicle was “struck in the lip by bullet or other metal fragments.”



Various federal and state authorities were called in. Turns out the passengers had paid $2,000 to be driven across the Rio Grande from Acuna, Mexico.



On December 1, Gilmer Hernandez was convicted by a jury of “violating under the color of law” the civil rights of the woman with a lip injury. The Times says some of the illegals testified for the government. Fox News reported they are being given amnesty.



A law enforcement officer from a neighboring county told the San Antonio News he thought this was the first time Hernandez ever fired his weapon.



Hernandez will be sentenced next month. He could face 10 years in prison if a sane person in the federal justice system cannot be located.



U. S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, appointed in October, 2001, by President George W. Bush, selected Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Baumann to prosecute the case. He told the media law enforcement officers cannot use deadly force to stop a vehicle unless it poses an “imminent threat” to the officer or another person. Noting the vehicle was going away from Hernandez (and omitting the fact it had tried to run the deputy over seconds before fleeing), Baumann said this wasn’t “even a close call.”



The problem with Baumann’s narrow reasoning falls on the words “another person.” Does a vehicle full of people breaking the law, with a driver who attempts to injure a policeman, represent a broader threat to society? Is a law enforcement officer bound to protect the people he serves? If you try to harm a policeman, does it follow you might try to harm anyone else who gets in your way?



Is the mission of our courts to protect the people, or to make a political statement?



Baumann may have some Texas dust in his eyes.



Consider this. A group of illegal immigrants enters a town late at night and tries to run over a deputy who pulls them over for running a red light. Let’s see now. We have at least an infraction of federal law and a traffic citation. A case also could be made for resisting arrest since the vehicle fled. If this driver tried a game of hit and run on a law enforcement officer, what “imminent threat” might that driver pose to the rest of us?



With the threat level consistently elevated, are we to assume that those who come across our porous border pose no threat whatsoever to America? Am I overlooking something here?



What do you expect a lawman to do? This guy gets paid $20,000 a year to support his wife and infant girl. And we expect him to not react when someone aims a vehicle at him? And when he does react, we put him in prison even though the wounded illegal appears to be fine? Don’t the various tiers of justice permit disciplinary action rather than retribution?



I do not endorse unnecessary use of deadly force. No one should. But Gilmer Hernandez got one of the worst deals the federal government ever gave anyone. And Hernandez should not become part of a political statement spawned in the broader debate over illegal immigration. Turning this deputy’s case into an ideological statement is a completely implausible mission.



Prosecutors often throw the book at a party who will not plea bargain. And Hernandez refused to plead guilty. He faces sentencing in March.



Note that Hernandez’s description of the vehicle trying to turn towards him was verified by at least one of the illegals inside the van. I have no idea who was on the jury on December 1. But the men and women who served up this verdict should hang their heads in shame. As should the prosecutor.



Efforts are in motion to rectify this wrong. I hope they succeed.



If this had happened in Mexico, do you think a law enforcement official would be going to jail over an American with a wounded lip? And I want to know, is the driver of the vehicle being charged with anything at all?



I hope the U.S. Department of Justice Western District of Texas revisits its mission statement, reads these words aloud and acts on them: “Our mission is to enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States…”

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/ho ... id=724532#