this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2023
315 points (97.3% liked)

World News

32282 readers
630 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

This incident marks another friction point between Mexico and Texas due to Governor Abbott's anti-immigrant policies.

On Thursday, Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO) accused the Texas National Guard of violating international law by shooting a Mexican man in the Rio Grande, the river shared by Mexico and the United States.

"It's a violation of international law because you can't shoot from the U.S. side to the other side of the river, which is already our territory," he said.

The Mexican president referred to an incident that took place on Saturday on the bank of the Rio Grande in Ciudad Juarez, bordering the U.S. city of El Paso, where a National Guard member fired from U.S. territory into Mexico.

While it was initially mentioned that the victim was a migrant, local authorities identified the victim as Darwin Garcia, a 37-year-old man from Veracruz, who was on a dirt path used by runners and cyclists for exercise over 10 meters from the riverbed.

"Texas authorities argue that it was in defense of a migrant, that the injured person wanted to harm a migrant, and that's why he fired into the air and then at the person," said AMLO, announcing that the Mexican government has initiated an investigation into this incident.

On Wednesday, officials from the Mexican Consulate in El Paso met with representatives of the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS), expressing that the incident is "unacceptable" and voicing their concern about the impact on human rights and migrant safety.

"The injured person in Ciudad Juarez was fortunately discharged yesterday. However, there is an ongoing investigation, and the person who fired from the Texas Guard has been temporarily suspended from duty pending a full investigation," AMLO stated.

This incident marks another friction point between Mexico and Texas due to Republican Governor Greg Abbott's anti-immigrant policies.

On Aug. 3, AMLO labeled Abbott as "inhumane" following the deaths of two individuals in the Rio Grande, where Abbott had placed buoys and a wire fence to prevent migrant crossings.

The Mexican Foreign Affairs Ministry has sent three diplomatic notes to Washington to lodge complaints about the buoys, alleging that they violate migrants' human rights and international water treaties.


all 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 113 points 1 year ago (3 children)

So an injured migrant (how did he get injured?) was on the Mexican side of the border. Was approached by a guy on a motorcycle. And the Texas guard decided to shoot the guy? Because, according to the Texas Guard, e was trying to harm the migrant?

So… Obviously made up story to justify what is still an illegal act.

These guys have abandoned all pretense of adhering to the rule of law.

[–] [email protected] 45 points 1 year ago (1 children)

been temporarily suspended from duty pending a full investigation

and the classic US way of "paid vacation for (attempted) murder"

[–] SkyezOpen 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The military isn't the police. Dude will face punishment.

[–] givesomefucks 12 points 1 year ago

Yeah.

We hold soldiers to a much higher standard than cops.

Cops can shoot all their bullets at someone because the felt scared.

A soldier pretty much has to be under fire, and even then they're not supposed to keep shooting till their out of bullets

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Yeah just like all the rapists do, right?

Military justice is a joke, hidden from public eye.

[–] givesomefucks 8 points 1 year ago

Thats two people under the same command, and the entire command wants to make it go away ASAP so it doesn't look bad.

Rape is a huge issue in the military, but it's a lot different when something happens to a foreign national and both countries press catches wind of it.

[–] SkyezOpen 7 points 1 year ago

The difference is those often get swept under the rug by the chain of command. THIS is public and big, it's not going away.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Sexual assault is a systemic issue in the military mainly due to chain of command. There have been recent pushes to change the process on how it is handled since there have been too many reports of the issue being swept under the rug due to team cohesion. These are two separate issues though and should be approached as such.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, wait, you don't understand. The guys who signed up to round up and (possibly) kill migrants were trying to protect a guy in another country. /s

[–] Spiralvortexisalie 6 points 1 year ago

It is the National Guard, there are probably way more people there for GI Bill benefits than some political ideology.

[–] obinice 61 points 1 year ago (3 children)

An act of war, you say.

I wonder why those Americans were shooting people in a river in the first place. That's their solution to everything, shoot people. Got a problem? Shoot at it.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago (3 children)

If you're so smart, how do you turn the light switch off after you get in bed without firing a shot?

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"Alexa, shoot the bedroom lights"

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

Cut on the lights

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Why use lights? Muzzle flash is the new in for light sources in the US. It even saves on the electric bill!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/3I9_hlnkvew?si=f6koMt04OPZc4EgM

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago

It's worse than that. The shots were fired across the river into Mexican territory. The national guard should know their authority on that type of situation. This was a major fuck up and they are definitely being chewed out for the mountains of paperwork he just created. Stuff like this isn't easily swept under the rug, especially if our southern neighbor pushes the issue.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hmm but we can’t apply that to the problem most of the country has with the Texas government, a weird double standard

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I guess that you are joking, and I disagree with their stupid policy, but it's not really that weird for policies to be different in the border of a country with inter country borders. It's not a double standard, they are clearly two well defined different standards.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It’s not on the border it was on the other side of the border, the guy with the gun was on the Texas side of the border

[–] [email protected] 56 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Just a reminder the republican platform is we should invade and bombs Mexico, that’s what they say we should do

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 year ago (2 children)

"Texas authorities argue that it was in defense of a migrant, that the injured person wanted to harm a migrant, and that's why he fired into the air and then at the person," said AMLO

Pretty sure that's still illegal.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Only when the perpetrator isn't Republican.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Illegal yes, morally wrong, I would say no.

If(and it's a big if) this is an accurate statement, then defending a presumably innocent person from harm should take higher priority than complying with jurisdictional boundaries.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

In this case, it isn't quite "defending". With the distance involved, the chance of hitting your target and the risk of hitting someone else, it really is not something you should be doing.

[–] Shialac 7 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

No idea what really happened, but whether the story as presented in this article is true or not. The fact remains that even IF a US National Guardsmen really was "defending" a migrant, he shouldn't hav. That isn't how national relations work, and even if he were Jesus and 100% morally correct (he wasn't) he STILL shouldn't have done that. As long as borders exist, your morality can't extend beyond your country unless you are willing to accept the consequences of the most bad faith interpretations and outcomes.

[–] InverseParallax 2 points 1 year ago

Texas: "Well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree."