Mexico taking legal action on U.S. for walmart shooting

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

ignerntbend

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
15,797
Reaction score
3,270
Location
Oklahoma
Has anyone seen an actual count of how many victims are American citizens? I know hispanic people in El Paso and they are not illegal aliens. This idiot assumes everyone he randomly shoots in an El Paso Walmart are illegals, or did I miss something?
The early reports were saying that 6 Mexican citizens were shot, but only three fatally. There are plenty of Mexican nationals who legally cross the border everyday to work or shop. I don't know what kinds of papers are required.
 

Louro

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Sep 26, 2014
Messages
2,468
Reaction score
2,158
Location
Lawton
I believe they have something like 1500 homicide this year. I think they need to do some soul searching, to figure out how to keep their citizens safe.
 

NightShade

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Apr 24, 2013
Messages
4,116
Reaction score
1,812
Location
Guthrie
Mexico can do whatever they want. In the US it would have to go before the Supreme court and the first thing that would be brought up is the decision that police do not have a duty to protect. If that is the case the government also has not duty to protect. In Mexico the decision by a court would not be binding in the US except for if they want the actual guy who did it but he is going to visit death row anyway. For that matter I would just let the state try him and not even step in to it, he will be a corpse pretty fast down there. For Mexico it will likely have to go in front of some international court where honestly any decision is not really binding, they can try and do something at the UN level but the US being one of the big five can dissent at which point it becomes worthless as well.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice#ICJ_and_the_Security_Council

Article 94 establishes the duty of all UN members to comply with decisions of the court involving them. If parties do not comply, the issue may be taken before the Security Council for enforcement action. There are obvious problems with such a method of enforcement. If the judgment is against one of the permanent five members of the Security Council or its allies, any resolution on enforcement would then be vetoed.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice#Criticisms

"Compulsory" jurisdiction is limited to cases where both parties have agreed to submit to its decision, and so instances of aggression tend to be automatically escalated to and adjudicated by the Security Council. According to the sovereignty principle of international law, no nation is superior or inferior against another. Therefore, there is no entity that could force the states into practice of the law or punish the states in case any violation of international law occurs. Therefore, the absence of binding force means that the 193 member states of the ICJ do not necessarily have to accept the jurisdiction. Moreover, membership in the UN and ICJ does not give the court automatic jurisdiction over the member states, but it is the consent of each state to follow the jurisdiction that matters.

The International Court does not enjoy a full separation of powers, with permanent members of the Security Council being able to veto enforcement of cases, even those to which they consented to be bound. Because the jurisdiction does not have binding force itself, in many cases, the instances of aggression are adjudicated by Security Council by adopting a resolution, etc. There is, therefore, a likelihood for the permanent member states of Security Council to avoid the legal responsibility brought up by International Court of Justice, as shown in the example of Nicaragua v. United States.



So hey Mexico, I say go screw yourself and fix your own country before you start throwing rocks. Otherwise close the border and recall all of your citizens who are in the us both legal and illegal and see who ends up worse off when it's all done if you think you have the nuts to force something cause your court has no jurisdiction, our court will tell you to piss off and we sit on the security council and the UN nor the international courts can do a thing about it.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom