Thread: U.S. Attorney Protects Mexican Invaders

You need to direct that question to the AUSA's Office.

I guess so. I thought you'd be up on it being an insider. Nothing ever happened where I worked that we all didn't know the story. Felony prosecution of an employee would have gotten the word around.

Originally Posted by loservillelabor

Felony prosecution of an employee would have gotten the word around.

While CBP Officers and BP Agents both work for CBP and do similar jobs, we are two different job fields and communication between the two is limited to friends and acquaintances.

From the BP Agents I know, they all agree they both screwed up but they don’t deserve the raw deal they are getting from the DOJ and AUSA.

From the BP Agents I know, they all agree they both screwed up but they don’t deserve the raw deal they are getting from the DOJ and AUSA.

I think we can all agree they made a mistake by picking up their shell casings and not reporting the discharge of their firearm, but shouldn't something like that be taken care of administratively, not criminally?

As for giving pursuit to a suspected criminal, I don't care what anyone says - they did the right thing! It's just ludicrous that the BP would have a rule that hot pursuit can only be authorized by a supervisor. Hopefully that rule will get dropped as a result of the investigation currently being called for by several elected officials. Heck, the pursuit was even in a heavily populated area.

Originally Posted by MW

I think we can all agree they made a mistake by picking up their shell casings and not reporting the discharge of their firearm, but shouldn't something like that be taken care of administratively, not criminally?

I would agree.

Originally Posted by MW

As for giving pursuit to a suspected criminal, I don't care what anyone says - they did the right thing!

The non-pursuit policy is for vehicles pursuits, not on foot pursuits.