What is right
February 23, 2017 7:58am CST
So a border patrol agent on US soil shoots a kid on the Mexico side of the border and the parents are not allowed to sue for compensation and no jail time either. Do you consider this right? The Supreme Court says that the Constitution Does not extend to Mexico therefore it cannot sue the guard or the government. I don't know. I think since the guard was acting under legal constitutional law and it was a weapon used constitutionally that extended itself through a bullet into the Mexican territory then by that action the Constitution was extended as well and does should allow the family to seek compensation. What do you think?
3 people like this
23 Feb 17
I do not know the solution in your country, but if something like this was decided by the Supreme Court in mine, the family would still be able to start a civil lawsuit against the person of the guard and to ask damages. The guard would ask to the state to cover the trial. The state would have to decide if he shot as part of his work and, if yes, if he committed or not a strong fault. If there was no fault or a light fault, the state would have the obligation to cover the trial and to pay the damages. If the fault was considered too important, they would not cover him. In both cases, you would have bypassed the Supreme Court, by forcing the state to take a decision about the behavior of the guard.
• United States
23 Feb 17
Since it was a federal employee has to go through the federal courts. And they say that they do not want to set a precedent because this would be the first retro employee to be charged. Our member, there have been over 30 such incidents and no one has been charged for anything