Marine to remain in Mexican prison

[Skip8282]

Dude had a rifle, shotgun, handgun, boxes of ammo...
plates showed up 3 times previously doing this.
Dude tried to escape from prison in Mexico lol...

It doesn't matter what we *believe* because the FACTS are clear here.
He smuggled 3 guns into a very anti-gun country, knowing the law full well.
He went THRU the border crossing, knowing that was highly illegal.

I find it VERY difficult to believe "but but but there were no U-turns before entering another nation" haha.

Yes he lied.  Also, his guns were loaded and within his reach - not legal in CA.

And the only evidence he didn't do this intentionally seems to be his (and his moms) claim.

But, even giving him the benefit of the doubt and buying he didn't do this on purposes, he still needs to serve time for his irresponsible stupidity.

[Dos Equis]

I wonder if the President has done something similar to this?

http://hunter.house.gov/sites/hunter.house.gov/files/documents/HunterTahmooressiLetter.PDF

[Dos Equis]

Facing 6 to 21 years in prison:

In 1999, a Marine was detained in Tijuana for two weeks after driving into Mexico with guns.

If Tahmooressi is convicted, he faces six to 21 years in a Mexican prison, his lawyers said, adding that alternatively the case could be dropped if the Mexican attorney general's office in Mexico City requests dismissal.

Tahmooressi served four years in the Marines, including two tours in Afghanistan. He says he was honorably discharged in November 2012.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2686787/Marine-accidentally-crossed-Mexico-guns-truck-finally-day-court-101-days-bars-Mexican-jail.html#ixzz37UY6ib2m

[Kazan]

Maybe the Mexican government should arrest Obama and Holder should they go to Mexico, you know fast and furious......

[240 is Back]

Yes he lied.  Also, his guns were loaded and within his reach - not legal in CA.
And the only evidence he didn't do this intentionally seems to be his (and his moms) claim.
But, even giving him the benefit of the doubt and buying he didn't do this on purposes, he still needs to serve time for his irresponsible stupidity.

I don't see why we need to give him the benefit of the doubt here.

He doesn't respect California law.   He doesn't respect MEX law nor their prison system.  He believes he can carry guns in a country, drink cervezas and enjoy the fruits of their lawlessness, but whines about an ass-whooping he took trying to scale a fence to escape.

Dude's one of those people that thinks he is entitled.  He thinks the laws don't apply to him.  He makes stuff worse for the rest of us.  To believe him claim of "I didn't know I did anything wrong", you would have to accept this well-traveled man, wise to the ways of the world and experienced in well, international war, doesn't have a clue about local gun laws?   We have to believe he "accidentally" took 3 weapons with ammo into a country that bans guns - and he had to drive thru a checkpoint to do it.  

I'd love to see this defense work, just so dudes from Mexico could start arriving and "accidentally" crossing the border because, well, there was just nowhere to turn around lol.

Dude's a liar.  He broke the law continually in his own state and finally got caught smuggling guns & ammo after making that trip several times before.  

I have to wonder if the bedwetting liberals on this board, who don't respect the rule of law, would be equally cool with mexican smugglers getting released with no charges because "oh, they no comprende the laws, sorry about that..."   NO WAY they would.  

Break the law, smuggle guns, you do the time.  Insane how fast major felonies become "oh, let's just look the other way" for people who claim to be conservative.  Reminds me of that elected official in Colorado that carried a gun to work - and left it and was caught - Some leftwing getbigger suggested they should look the other way.  Why?  Cause laws shouldnt apply to everyone?  Cause govt officials should get to carry guns where civilians cannot?  Sheesh libs, go hump a tree and let law enforcement actually enforce the law.

[Dos Equis]

Maybe the Mexican government should arrest Obama and Holder should they go to Mexico, you know fast and furious......

Or what about the millions of illegals who have crossed our border? 

[RRKore]

Or what about the millions of illegals who have crossed our border? 

Et tu with the weak moral equivalency argument, BB?

Some would say that we really cannot justify anything this Marine has done wrong by pointing to the past bad deeds of illegal immigrants or even the current president...(even if the current president is himself an illegal immigrant, lol.)

[Primemuscle]

Facing 6 to 21 years in prison:

In 1999, a Marine was detained in Tijuana for two weeks after driving into Mexico with guns.

If Tahmooressi is convicted, he faces six to 21 years in a Mexican prison, his lawyers said, adding that alternatively the case could be dropped if the Mexican attorney general's office in Mexico City requests dismissal.

Tahmooressi served four years in the Marines, including two tours in Afghanistan. He says he was honorably discharged in November 2012.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2686787/Marine-accidentally-crossed-Mexico-guns-truck-finally-day-court-101-days-bars-Mexican-jail.html#ixzz37UY6ib2m

Yeah, breaking the law in a foreign country can have serious consequences. Forget to flush the toilet after peeing in Singapore and face public caning. If you are caught changing your clothes with the blinds open, you'll go to prison and also face heavy fines. It is considered pornographic. Any pornography there is illegal.

[avxo]

You have an analogous example or are you just being a contrarian?

No need for an analogous example; the process here is clear: people caught bringing weapons into the United States illegally by CBP are taken in custody until they go before a Magistrate Judge, who can decide to either grant bail or remand them for custody until their case can be adjudicated.

I'm not familiar with Mexican law, but I presume that bringing a weapon into Mexico illegally is as much a crime there as bringing a weapon into the United States illegaly is here. Furtermore, I assume that the Marine in question was taken into custody in accordance with Mexican law, afforded the due process he is entitled to under Mexican law and remains in custody in accordance with Mexican law. If those assumptions hold (and I have no reason to think they don't) then I have absolutely no problem with this situation.

When you are in a different country, you are subject to the laws of that country; that you "accidentally" broke the laws of that country doesn't make everything OK. That you "unknowningly" broke the laws of that country doesn't make everything OK. Caveat emptor.

The facts are clear cut: This guy crossed the border into Mexico with a gun. So his intentions are irrelevent at this point; his action is all that matters. Whether he had the requisite mens rea (may) will come into play later: during his trial.

I doubt someone who mistakenly crosses the border into the U.S. would be locked up for months.  In fact, we'd probably give them healthcare, an ID, etc.

Really? I expected more from you... The issue here isn't that he crossed into Mexico mistakenly. It's that he carried a weapon into Mexico. Don't try to obfuscate that very simple fact.

[Dos Equis]

Et tu with the weak moral equivalency argument, BB?

Some would say that we really cannot justify anything this Marine has done wrong by pointing to the past bad deeds of illegal immigrants or even the current president...(even if the current president is himself an illegal immigrant, lol.)

I was being facetious.  But you sort of have to not be a simpleton to see that. 

[Dos Equis]

Yeah, breaking the law in a foreign country can have serious consequences. Forget to flush the toilet after peeing in Singapore and face public caning. If you are caught changing your clothes with the blinds open, you'll go to prison and also face heavy fines. It is considered pornographic. Any pornography there is illegal.

Yep.  You gotta educate yourself and be careful when traveling abroad. 

[Dos Equis]

No need for an analogous example; the process here is clear: people caught bringing weapons into the United States illegally by CBP are taken in custody until they go before a Magistrate Judge, who can decide to either grant bail or remand them for custody until their case can be adjudicated.

I'm not familiar with Mexican law, but I presume that bringing a weapon into Mexico illegally is as much a crime there as bringing a weapon into the United States illegaly is here.

I assume that the Marine in question was taken into custody in accordance with Mexican law, afforded the due process he is entitled to under Mexican law and remains in custody in accordance with Mexican law. If those assumptions hold (and I have no reason to think they don't) then I have absolutely no problem with this situation.

The facts are simple:

When you are in a different country, you are subject to the laws of that country; that you "accidentally" broke the laws of that country doesn't make everything OK. They you "unknowningly" broke the laws of that country doesn't make everything OK. Caveat emptor.
 
This guy crossed the border into Mexico with a gun. His intentions are irrelevent at this point; his act is all that matters. Whether he had the requisite mens rea (may) come into play later: during his trial.



Really? I expected more from you... The issue here isn't that he crossed into Mexico mistakenly. It's that he carried a weapon into Mexico. Don't try to obfuscate that very simple fact.

?  I made the comment:  "We would never take away someone's liberty for this kind of mistake in the U.S."  You call that statement naive, but cannot provide an example of the U.S. locking someone up indefinitely because they made a mistake like this? 

Nobody sits in jail for three months over this kind of mistake in the U.S. 

And yes, the issue is that he missed his exit and wound up in Mexico with weapons.  He wasn't trying to transport weapons into Mexico.  He simply made a mistake.  If you've ever driven into a country with open borders you'd understand how easy it is to miss your "last U.S. exit," especially in that part of the country. 

[RRKore]

I was being facetious.  But you sort of have to not be a simpleton to see that. 

lol, name-calling already?  That escalated quickly.

Chill out, BB.  I was being facetious, too.

[Dos Equis]

lol, name-calling already?  That escalated quickly.

Chill out, BB.  I was being facetious, too.

Who called you a name?  You are awfully sensitive, sort of like a female.  (That's not calling you a name either.) 

[avxo]

?  I made the comment:  "We would never take away someone's liberty for this kind of mistake in the U.S."  You call that statement naive, but cannot provide an example of the U.S. locking someone up indefinitely because they made a mistake like this? 

Nobody sits in jail for three months over this kind of mistake in the U.S.

This "mistake" business is a red herring. You assert that we would never hold someone up over a "mistake" but the fact is that he's not held up over a mistake. He's held because he is accused of a crime and either Mexican law doesn't allow bail for the crime for which he is accused or the Mexican authorities aren't willing to grant him bail.

It wouldn't surprise me if they weren't willing to grant him bail. Many Americans who are accused of crimes in Mexico return to the United States after being granted bail and never return to face the charges. In other words, they break the law with relative impunity.

And yes, the issue is that he missed his exit and wound up in Mexico with weapons.  He wasn't trying to transport weapons into Mexico.  He simply made a mistake.  If you've ever driven into a country with open borders you'd understand how easy it is to miss your "last U.S. exit," especially in that part of the country.

Maybe it was a mistake, and an honest one at that. My point is that it is, at this point, irrelevant. That comes up when you go to Court, and they decide whether you had the mens rea - a critical component in deciding whether your actions are or are not a crime.

[Dos Equis]

This "mistake" business is a red herring. You assert that we would never hold someone up over a "mistake" but the fact is that he's not held up over a mistake. He's held because he is accused of a crime and either Mexican law doesn't allow bail for the crime for which he is accused or th
e Mexican authorities aren't willing to grant him bail.

It wouldn't surprise me if they weren't willing to grant him bail. Many Americans who are accused of crimes in Mexico return to the United States after being granted bail and never return to face the charges. In other words, they break the law with relative impunity.

Maybe it was a mistake, and an honest one at that. My point is that it is, at this point, irrelevant. That comes up when you go to Court, and they decide whether you had the mens rea - a critical component in deciding whether your actions are or are not a crime.

I'm not saying he didn't break the law.  I'm saying several things: 

1.  These kinds of laws were not targeting people like him. 

2.  There is a lack of proportionality. 

3.  Mexico law enforcement is corrupt. 

4.  We should be doing more on a diplomatic level to bring this kid home.

It is way too simplistic to say he broke the letter of the law so lock him up.  It's much more complicated than that.  Or at least it should be.

[avxo]

I'm not saying he didn't break the law.  I'm saying several things: 

1.  These kinds of laws were not targeting people like him.

2.  There is a lack of proportionality. 

3.  Mexico law enforcement is corrupt. 

4.  We should be doing more on a diplomatic level to bring this kid home.

I don't disagree with points 3 and 4. I partially disagree with point 1 - I don't presume to know the intentions of Mexican lawmakers and I don't think you do either. As to point 2, perhaps there is.

It is way too simplistic to say he broke the letter of the law so lock him up.  It's much more complicated than that.  Or at least it should be.

They are locking him up until he can stand trial. Whether he broke the letter of the law but not the spirit is irrelevant. He broke the law, and he's being prosecuted.

Should we apply political pressure to the Mexican government if he's being treated unfairly? Absolutely. But this mock outrage that some peope exhibit is just bullshit.

[Dos Equis]

I don't disagree with points 3 and 4. I partially disagree with point 1 - I don't presume to know the intentions of Mexican lawmakers and I don't think you do either. As to point 2, perhaps there is.


They are locking him up until he can stand trial. Whether he broke the letter of the law but not the spirit is irrelevant. He broke the law, and he's being prosecuted.

Should we apply political pressure to the Mexican government if he's being treated unfairly? Absolutely. But this mock outrage that some peope exhibit is just bullshit.

I agree with most of this, although I do make an assumption that laws are designed to deter and punish knowing violations of the law.  That's a pretty reasonable assumption.  At least from my point of view.   

[RRKore]

Who called you a name?  You are awfully sensitive, sort of like a female.  (That's not calling you a name either.) 

AM NOT!!!

[Skip8282]

I'm not saying he didn't break the law.  I'm saying several things: 

1.  These kinds of laws were not targeting people like him. 

2.  There is a lack of proportionality. 

3.  Mexico law enforcement is corrupt. 

4.  We should be doing more on a diplomatic level to bring this kid home.

It is way too simplistic to say he broke the letter of the law so lock him up.  It's much more complicated than that.  Or at least it should be.

Yeah that's the problem though, you're making a huge assumption for #1 about 'people like him' that just doesn't fit the facts.  Driving around with loaded guns, in reach, and hidden under clothing doesn't make 'people like him' look all that good, lol.  In fact, it makes him look down right criminal.  Not to mention the lying.

[Skip8282]

?  I made the comment:  "We would never take away someone's liberty for this kind of mistake in the U.S."  You call that statement naive, but cannot provide an example of the U.S. locking someone up indefinitely because they made a mistake like this? 

Nobody sits in jail for three months over this kind of mistake in the U.S. 

And yes, the issue is that he missed his exit and wound up in Mexico with weapons.  He wasn't trying to transport weapons into Mexico.  He simply made a mistake.  If you've ever driven into a country with open borders you'd understand how easy it is to miss your "last U.S. exit," especially in that part of the country. 

Of course they do.

Here's an ex-cop spending 5 years in jail for accidentally violating NJ's requirements while moving.  I had thought we had this case on this very board too.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/41/4110.asp

[Dos Equis]

Yeah that's the problem though, you're making a huge assumption for #1 about 'people like him' that just doesn't fit the facts.  Driving around with loaded guns, in reach, and hidden under clothing doesn't make 'people like him' look all that good, lol.  In fact, it makes him look down right criminal.  Not to mention the lying.

You really think he was trying to go sell guns in Tijuana? 

[Dos Equis]

Of course they do.

Here's an ex-cop spending 5 years in jail for accidentally violating NJ's requirements while moving.  I had thought we had this case on this very board too.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/41/4110.asp

Close, but not really comparable.  This guy was a former cop.  Much more likely that he knew exactly what he could and couldn't do with firearms and ammunition.  Also, I doubt he was arrested and held without bail.  And the article says:

A jury acquitted him of the charges for possession of the "assault firearms" and handgun possession but convicted him in absentia of illegal possession of hollow-point bullets, shotguns, rifles and a high-capacity magazine.

That means he wasn't even present for his trial. 

I think this one is a closer example (just read this today):

'Honest mistake' leads to Philly mother facing three years on gun charge
By Joshua Rhett Miller
Published July 16, 2014
FoxNews.com

Shaneen Allen, 27, was pulled over in New Jersey’s Atlantic County after making an unsafe lane change in the early morning hours of Oct. 1. Allen then told the officer that she had the .380 Bersa Thunder handgun, as well as a concealed carry permit in Pennsylvania, unaware that her permit was not transferable to The Garden State. (Courtesy: Evan Nappen)
A Philadelphia mother of two is facing three years in prison after she mistakenly entered New Jersey, where she was stopped for a traffic violation and found in possession of a handgun loaded with hollow-point bullets.

Shaneen Allen, 27, was pulled over in New Jersey’s Atlantic County after making an unsafe lane change in the early morning hours of Oct. 1. Allen then told the officer that she had the .380 Bersa Thunder handgun, as well as a concealed carry permit for Pennsylvania, unaware that her permit was not transferable to The Garden State.

“The gun charge was not proper to begin with at all,” her attorney, Evan Nappen, told FoxNews.com. “She made an honest mistake.”

Allen, who has no criminal record, was later charged with unlawful possession of a weapon and possession of hollow-point bullets. If convicted, the illegal possession of the handgun is a second-degree felony punishable by a mandatory minimum sentence of three years in prison.

"So in the effort of promoting gun control in New Jersey, they’ve created a situation where very sympathetic people get harmed and turned into the victim by gun laws."
- Attorney Evan Nappen
“New Jersey’s draconian and crazy gun laws gives the judge no discretion here — none,” Nappen continued. “You will get three years with no chance of parole if you’re convicted of this gun charge. So in the effort of promoting gun control in New Jersey, they’ve created a situation where very sympathetic people get harmed and turned into the victim by gun laws.”

Allen, who could not be reached for comment early Wednesday, had only owned the gun for a week prior to the arrest, Nappen said, and purchased it for her protection after being robbed twice in the past year.

“The officer knew there was a gun there, she was completely honest and open,” he continued. “There’s no aggravating factors in this case; she’s a single mom of two, working in the medical field who was robbed twice and that’s what inspired her to get a gun license in the first place.”

Despite a lack of a criminal record, Nappen said Allen was not accepted into a diversionary program that would allow her to avoid jail time altogether.

Nappen said Allen’s arrest also coincided with a gun buyback program in New Jersey last year that netted more than 10,000 handguns. Individuals who turned in weapons during the “no questions asked” buyback period were paid up to $250 per gun.

John Lott, Jr., president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, said the case was similar to that of Brian Aitken, a New Jersey man whose seven-year prison sentence was eventually commuted by Gov. Chris Christie.

In early 2009, Aitken moved back to New Jersey from Colorado to be closer to his young son and estranged wife. A planned visit with his son was canceled at the last minute and his mother, who was concerned for his safety, called the police. A subsequent search of his car by officers revealed two locked and unloaded handguns in the trunk, both of which were purchased legally in Colorado.

Aitken's father, Larry, told FoxNews.com at the time that he refused to see his son lost in the patchwork of state gun laws throughout the country.

"I don't think there are words yet invented that could characterize the — I guess anger would be one word, but it's a lot deeper than anger," Larry Aitken told FoxNews.com in 2010. "Whatever the word is that's a combination of anger, shock, disbelief, horror and a desire to expose all of this — that's the word.”

Lott, meanwhile, said he hopes “something similar” happens in Allen’s case, adding that she clearly did not intend to commit any crime.

"These mandatory sentences sometimes create really unfortunate results,” Lott continued. “My own academic research indicates that Ms. Allen is the type of person who benefits the most from having permitted concealed handguns: a minority woman who lives in high-crime urban areas. The people who are most likely to be victims of crime are the ones who benefit the most from having a gun for protection. In addition, women benefit much more than men do because they tend to be much weaker physically than their attackers.”

Jay McKeen, public information officer for the Atlantic County Prosecutor's Office, said Allen has a pre-trial conference scheduled for Aug. 5. Prosecutor James McClain declined to comment on the matter, McKeen said.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/16/honest-mistake-leads-to-philly-mother-facing-three-years-on-gun-charge/

[240 is Back]

You really think he was trying to go sell guns in Tijuana? 

I dont give a shit what his motivation was.

He broke the law.   And I dont buy into the liberal belief system that it's okay to break the law because of, at best, willful ignorance.  The guy broke the laws of another nation, then tried a freakin jailbreak lol... let them do as they see fit. 

[Dos Equis]

I dont give a shit what his motivation was.

He broke the law.   And I dont buy into the liberal belief system that it's okay to break the law because of, at best, willful ignorance.  The guy broke the laws of another nation, then tried a freakin jailbreak lol... let them do as they see fit. 

Yes, you are a real law and order man.  Lock him up and throw away the key.