The Bush Pardons
 

Bush's final two pardons went to two border patrol agents convicted of attempting to murder (they shot off 15 rounds only once hitting the victim in the ass) a man at a traffic stop, and attempting to cover it up.

In my verrrry red state, apparently the fact that the victim here turned out to be a Mexican drug smuggler is enough to excuse these agents of any sort of crime. Is the sentiment the same elsewhere?

I think these guys got off light with 10-year sentences and should have served every damn day.

I thought he commuted their sentences. Isn't there a difference between a commutation and a pardon? And as for you original question, I'd say down here the sentiment is that the only thing they are/were guilty of is bad aim.

Yeah, but you've got the level of severity in reverse - commutation actually lets them out of jail, while a pardon simply removes the offense from their record (presuming they've already served their time, if any).

I think that what makes them guilty is that they tried to cover up what they did. If they were proud of what they did, then they would have been upfront. They knew that they did something wrong! I think they should definitely stay in jail, but from what I read about the pardons, it had bipartisan support (including Obama.) I'm actually really proud of Bush for not getting on that usual pardon bandwagon like previous administrations. He was very reserved, which I appreciate.

Your reply makes no sense at all to me. Both men weer still in prison. Do you think they would still sit in prison if they had been pardoned?

If they were pardoned, they would also be released from prison. The conviction would have been removed from their records and they would actually be eligible to serve as border patrol agents again.

With a commutation, the conviction stands. They both still have felony records, which will follow them for the rest of their lives. This simply reduces the amount of time they spend in prison.

My reply was unnecessarily short, I agree - also, I read Kevlar's post as saying it was "only" a commutation, which he didn't really imply, it was more on my end. Whoops.

Generally speaking, the overwhelming majority of pardons are done post hoc, after the sentence has been completed, hence the tone of my reply. While the President will give out over a hundred pardons on his way out the door, very few of those usually result in getting out of prison, although I will agree the potential exists (we can argue about their ability to be Border Patrol in the future, but that seems unnecessary at best).

I would tend to think that having your sentence commuted is more important to the average person serving a 10-year sentence than the felony following them for the rest of their lives, but that's just me. If I recall correctly, there are dozens of post hoc pardons for every commutation, and the commutations tend to be much more controversial (excluding Richard Nixon's pre-indictment pardon, obviously).

One got a 10 year sentence and the other got 12.

I think the sentiment here is mixed (well seeing as how the agents are from here). In my opinion, they are guilty. The guy they shot, albeit a drug smuggler, was running away from the agents and trying to cross the Rio Grande.

The agents claimed they shot in self-defense, because they thought he was armed. Plus, they supposedly tried to tamper with the evidence (by picking up the shell casings) and they never filed a report on the shooting.

They got a mandatory 10 year sentence for "discharging a firearm during the act of a crime." That is what most people here have an issue with--the mandatory sentence.

I personally think they should be in prison, whether the guy was a drug smuggler or not it shouldn't matter.

You obviously don't know the details of this case very well Kevin. The shooting incident itself was justified, it was them picking up the casings and the subsequent "cover-up" that landed them in prison. And since they weren't pardoned, they are and convicted felons barring them from federal law enforcement employment.

How do you think the shooting was justified?

They lied about hearing about a gunshot -- and that's what convinced them to fire 15 rounds at the back of a fleeing suspect (from a gun which apparently exists -- I've heard a lot of gunfire and it has a rather distinct sound).

Did they? Really? Maybe you're right and these guys should serve their whole sentence, as if they and their families haven't suffered enough. Question, do you get this riled up over pardons of Scooter Libby and Marc Rich types?

Also- Not sure if you keep up on the news put getting shot in the ass over 800 pounds of marijuana is nothing these days. People lose their heads over it now;)

Those border patrol agents were shooting to maim a fleeing criminal. It was many things but attempted murder is not one of them. They should have just lost their jobs (as they already have).

No. They haven't. They haven't suffered as much as the family of the innocent man they killed.

WTF are you talking about??

Did the conservative media repeatedly feed the public lies in an attempt to get them to clamor for presidential mercy for two bad cops who were guilty as hell and deserved no such mercy?

Libby I can see because the guy probably took the fall for more important officials.

Rich's pardon was straight up corruption.

At the time of the shooting, the agents had no way to know whether this was a drug smuggler or just an ordinary law abiding citizen.

I see where you're going with this...but, you realize that the pardons for Libby and Rich types get just as much criticism, right? I mean, Obama's nominee for AG (Eric Holder) is getting a lot of flack because of his role in the Rich pardon process.

I think Presidential pardons across the board get a lot of scrutiny and tend to fire people up.