Analysis: Shootings, Transparency and the U.S.-Mexico Border

 

Share

0

During the three-day span between the initial reports, which listed drug smugglers as suspects, and the disclosure that friendly fire was a possibility (now said to be "indisputable," by the FBI), politicians used the tragedy to make a point. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, for example, pinned the death on a lack of funding for the border:

"There should be anger, too," Brewer said in a statement on the day of the shooting. "Righteous anger – at the kind of evil that causes sorrow this deep, and at the federal failure and political stalemate that has left our border unsecured and our Border Patrol in harm's way."

The FBI declined to comment on the Ivie shooting for this article, citing the ongoing investigation.

According to Arizona State University's Michael White, some "more progressive" police departments try to make their policing more transparent to better serve the community and avoid miscommunication:

"I would argue that being transparent is very important, especially with departments that have a long history of antagonistic relationships with their communities...whether it be the minority community or a different community."

The Department of Homeland Security is currently reviewing the use of deadly force by U.S. Customs and Border Protection after a request by 16 members of Congress concerned with a 2010 death of a Mexican man who had a heart attack after being Tasered. Since January 2010, 18 people have been killed by Border Patrol agents, according to the ACLU's Regional Center for Border Rights.

The tally includes a Mexican man who was shot and killed in September by a Border Patrol agent while barbecuing on the Mexican side of the Rio Grande after the agent was allegedly subjected to rock throwing. More recently, a 16-year-old boy was added to the list of border casualties on October 10 when a Border Patrol agent fired on a crowd on the Mexican side of the border fence across from Nogales, Arizona, again after rock throwing.