Jaime Avila Jr., the straw purchaser for the weapon which killed Agent Terry was convicted on December 12, 2012 and sentenced to 57 months in prison for his admitted role as a straw buyer for the ring that authorities say bought and smuggled guns into Mexico for the Sinaloa drug cartel. Mexico's drug cartels often seek out guns in the United States because gun laws in Mexico are more restrictive than in the United States.[1] Jaime Avila Jr. purchased 52 firearms over a period of 10 months.
On Jan. 16, 2010, Avila walked into the Lone Wolf Gun Club in Glendale, Ariz., and illegally purchased three rifles, plopping down $1,500 in cash. Nearly a year later, two of the weapons (WASR-10/63 assault rifles, a Romanian AK-47 variant)[2] were found in a desolate section of the Arizona desert after they were dropped by the men who are suspected of killing Terry on Dec. 14, 2010.[3]
Since Agent Terry's death, as of Jan 2013, seven more agents have died in the line of duty. None of these was quite so glorious an end as a gunfight. There are many ways to die in the line of duty as an Agent for the United States Border Patrol, but not all are equally thrilling news coverage.[4] The last officer before Agent Terry to die as a result of gunfire was: Border Patrol Agent Robert Wimer Rosas, Jr. who's end of watch was Thursday, July 23, 2009.[5][6] I doubt Jay Dobyns went to Agent Rosas funeral and drank half a bottle of whiskey. (Well, at least a Google search of the two names together didn't turn up any promising search results.)
Agent Perry died 18 miles north of the Mexican border in Arizona's Peck Canyon. This tidbit of information heads up Katie Pavlich's chapter. She continues to describe some of the conditions of the border near where the Agent was shot and begins to slightly veer off on a tangent. Understandably so, however. The goal is to portray the danger of the border patrol and therefore highlight Agent Perry's status as "warrior."
She mentions the death of an Arizona Rancher, Robert Krentz. Robert Krentz was killed one day after 300 pounds of marijuana near his ranch. She doesn't mention that the arrest happened subsequent to a tip received from Robert Krentz's brother[7]. The footnote she references[8] mentions a set of footprints followed to the Mexican border. The story itself, however, mentions specifically that the authorities are investigating a person in the United States in connection with the killing. The article shes uses as a footnote appears uncertain.
Another report on the topic said matters clearly,
“To be clear, the suspect is believed to be in the US,” the note said. “The suspect's nationality is unknown.”[9]
This reference seems intended to contain some elements that point toward a racial mistrust of Mexican nationals. For example, Robert Krentz's death by a supposed Mexican national is implied by the tracked heading back to the border. Robert Krentz's kindness towards illegals needing help which he encountered on his grounds were presumably not mentioned because it might soften one's hatred. I feel this does injustice to Robert Krantz. The possibility that the subject's nationality is unknown is hidden by the implication of the tracks headed toward the border instead of entertaining the possibility that the nationality of the suspect should be kept as an open issue. It seems the Author is seeing what she needs to see to validate an existing opinion. This is called confirmation bias and leads to logical fallacies.
She continues this display of partisan and biased thinking. She references a declaration in June of 2010 by Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu that areas of Arizona were under the cartel's control. She follows this by drawing attention to signage posted in the area declaring these parts unsafe because of possible smuggling or illegal immigration occurring there. She concludes that the Obama Administration has ceded control of these regions to the drug cartels. I do not see her reasoning. If dangerous activities are occurring in known areas, one would expect a responsible government to make citizens aware of the risks. There is no reason to allow citizens to fall into harms way if this can be avoided. This does not equate to ceding control, merely acknowledging a risk which needs to be dealt with.
Emotions are wonderful things, but flawed. They empower us to take action by selectively blinding us to distracting options. A hawk diving into a flock of birds cannot analytically discern the best possible target from a swarm of fluttering wings. He chooses any target and then pursues it to the exclusion of others. The same happens when people become emotional. Distractions fall away and one becomes less capable of observing the fine nuances of the situation or the virtues of different perspectives.
As a father, I have tried to illustrate this to my daughter. I tell her, "When two people are yelling; there are zero people listening." Listening is how we make peace. Listening is the key attribute of a peace maker; it is how one finds common ground and secures conciliation through compromise. A passionate person is handicapped in their understanding; they are locked into their own perspective and turn and twist all evidence to suit their theory instead of adjusting the theory to suit the facts.. which is a paraphrase of Sherlock Holmes.
"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." ~~ Sherlock Holmes
I would think it better for a reporter to collect all the facts impartially and then draw conclusions. In the case of this book, the author seems to have made a conclusion. She has an ax to grind; all data will be turned, twisted, distorted, or ignored unless it achieves her goal or aim. Unfortunately, this makes the book worthless as a source of information. One would have to research independently the evidence provided with a critical eye on the author's bias.
This is too much work. If I wanted to research everything myself, I could just do that instead of reading a biased report and then trying to sift out bias afterwards. But, perhaps this is a confusion over the intent of the book. It makes perfect sense if the author is not intending to educate the reader at all. If she is providing a service to fulfill a need and that need is not evidence or a pursuit of truth, it seems reasonable to suppose her book is one large batch of confirmation bias. People who have already made up their mind can tell from the title that this book supports their existing view. As they are already suffering from confirmation bias, they will not notice or be troubled by the author's bias.
So, back to the book....
This chapter seeks to paint a picture as backdrop to inflate the esteem one feels for Brian Terry by portraying the situation at the border very darkly. In part, this is true. In part it is fiction. If you look at the least of officers dying in the line of duty, many of the causes of death are noticeably less heroic seeming. Dying of an illness during a hike: Border Patrol Agent David Richard Delaney; Accidental Gunfire: Border Patrol Agent Nicholas J. Ivie; Heat exhaustion: Border Patrol Agent Jeffrey Ramirez; Stuck by while assisting disabled vehicle: Border Patrol Agent James R. Dominguez; Dying in an ATV accident: Border Patrol Agent Leopoldo Cavazos, Jr.; Hit by a train because of where you parked for surveillance: Border Patrol Agent Eduardo Rojas, Jr. and Border Patrol Agent Hector R. Clark; Hit by a drunk driver; Border Patrol Agent Michael Vincent Gallagher; Hit a steer while driving; Border Patrol Agent Mark F. Van Doren; Stuck with a dirty needle during a car search and contracting Hep C; Supervisory Patrol Agent Trena Renee McLaughlin; Shot while being robbed: Border Patrol Agent Robert Wimer Rosas, Jr.
Most of these deaths could have occurred anywhere. The author is obviously portraying the dangers of duty in a manner intended to inflate the drama of the incident. All of the above listed agents died in the line of duty and should be afforded respect for the sacrifice made in service to the public. Brian Terry's death is known to more Americans because publicizing his death was convenient for some political agendas. Yes, he died. Yes, it is bad. But exploiting his death to further your own agenda is also extremely disrespectful.
.....
At this point in the story: there are some important facts to draw attention to before moving forward.
Agent Terry died and his death was linked to a gun purchased as a part of Operation Fast and Furious. The operation was criticized for allowing guns to walk. However, this gun was purchased in Arizona and used to kill and officer while still in Arizona. Eighteen miles north of the border. A simple theory is that the weapon was purchased and stayed in Arizona. Apparently, it is not illegal to be a straw purchaser. It is illegal to provide incorrect information when buying a weapon. It might have been that the weapon never left. In fact, this is most reasonable. For the weapon to have "walked" to Mexico requires it to have been smuggled across the border. For it to be used in the death of Agent Terry 18 miles north of the border requires it to be smuggled back. Why would anyone smuggle a gun across the border twice?
There is no reason to believe that Agent Terry was shot with a gun that was allowed to "Walk" by Operation Fast and Furious. To say such would require a more extreme theory that the weapon went to Mexico and came back. Extreme theories require extreme evidence. There is, to the best of my knowledge, no evidence that this weapon was in Mexico and returned to the United States.
Essentially, the death that sparked the investigation of guns walking was most likely originated by the death of an agent unlikely to have been shot by a gun that actually walked.
Brian Terry was shot in the line of duty and his death was callously exploited for political agendas. The process of doing so added additional pain and angst to his family.
No comments:
Post a Comment