Last night on KVOA Channel 4 News, Tucson I heard an intriguing update on the facts surrounding the “friendly fire” killing of Border Patrol Agent Ivie. News anchor Christie Tedesco said the latest information released by the Cochise County Sheriff’s Department was that the responding male and female BP agents and BPA Ivie linked up, had their flashlights on, were in constant communication through their radios, and that they had identified each other. That’s interesting because the Sierra Vista Herald’s headline last week was “Radios May Have Played a Role In Shooting”. I debunked that rationale in my essay “Radios My ASS!” as well as the initial report that “thick brush” was a major factor in the oxymoronic “friendly fire” shooting of Agent Ivie in my essay “Agent Ivie “Friendly Fire….More Benghazi Bullshit”. The full essays can be found at this blog address: wwwLigonClanLaw.com Ms. Tedesco also said the information came from the female agent and that no information has yet been provided by the wounded male agent who arrived with the female.
First, I’m curious why the information is released through the Cochise County Sheriff’s Office when the FBI is conducting the investigtion. It couldn’t be because Undersheriff (I can’t say that without picturing a bandy-legged, old man in long johns….like “underwear”) Rothrock is fighting an uphill battle against the party nominee to replace the deceased Sheriff Dever. Perhaps he believes being the spokesman grants some kind of legitimacy for the position. Why isn’t a Border Patrol or FBI spokesman cited? Undersheriff Rothrock is just an interested third party in the incident. Does he have clearance by the FBI to release the information or is he providing “RUMINT” (rumor intelligence) to the media? Neither the FBI nor the Border Patrol works this way. They don’t comment until all the facts are in and a final determination is made. I believe it is unprofessional for Undersheriff Rothrock to pose as the spokesman and pass on tidbits of an investigation before it is concluded.
Secondly, the information that I debunked regarding “thick brush” being a cause proved to be true. I questioned the “first ‘friendly fire’ killing in Border Patrol history on its’ face and posited that someone didn’t follow standard procedure(s) that are drilled into every type of law enforcement officer in every academy in the nation. Thirdly, the news anchor confirmed my refutation that terrain or thick brush played a part by making communication difficult. This leaves us with increasingly fewer – but more serious- questions: 1. If they could see and talk to each other why did they shoot at each other? 2. Why is the female agent talking and the wounded male agent not?
Federal government employees have their version of Miranda warnings. The Garrity warning is an advisement of rights usually administered by U.S. federal agents to federal employees and contractors in internal investigations. The Garrity warning advises suspects of their criminal and administrative liability for any statements they may make, but also advises suspects of their right to remain silent on any issues that tend to implicate them in a crime. But, unlike Miranda, a federal employee can be administratively disciplined -up to being fired- if he doesn’t provide the requested information. I am intimately familiar with this procedure having been given my Garrity warning repeatedly by corrupt management at the Douglas, AZ Port of Entry. I was lucky. I was telling the truth about simply trying to enforce the law. The false charges simply disappeared.
What we know is the female has apparently been forthright by making a statement. We also know that, according to the media and “RUMINT”, it was a .223cal. bullet from the female’s M-4 that killed Agent Ivie. The male agent either has not made a statement or his version of the incident has not been released. Both had obtained legal counsel – a wise move in light of previous BPAs going to prison for doing their jobs. This conjures up several possible scenarios. Assuming the male agent has not slipped into a coma and is able to communicate: A. The male agent doesn’t want to implicate himself in a violation of firearms procedure that could subject him to severe criminal, administrative and civil penalties. B. The male agent doesn’t want to contradict the facts presented by the female because it would subject them both to the same penalties; or C. the female is lying.
The proffered aggravating factors having been proved false, the focus (as I mentioned in my previous essays) seems to now be vectoring in on possible violations of procedure or the veracity of the statements compared to the physical evidence. The first questions that come to my mind regard physical evidence. Where was the entrance wound on Agent Ivie’s head? Was there tattooing around the fatal wound – a pattern of powder burns on the victim’s head (or wound location) either superficially or subcutaneously that can determine proximity between the victim and the weapon? If there was then all pretense of misidentification is gone. Powder residue from a fired weapon can be deposited two ways: by blowback onto the shooter from the chamber of the weapon and by expulsion of the exploding gases following the bullet out of the muzzle of the weapon. Both methods indicate who shot the weapon and how close they were to the victim. Was there tattooing on the male agent’s wound?
If there was tattooing on one or both then they were in close proximity to each other. If that is the case why did he/she shoot? She says Agent Ivie fired first. Is that true? Why would he if they were identifying each other via flashlights and radio as they approached? I wonder if it was a case of sympathetic reflex on the part of one or the other. Upon rendezvousing perhaps someone reached for something and still had their finger on the trigger of their weapon. It is not an uncommon occurrence having done it myself while arresting a hispanic gang-banger who was beating my sons with baseball bats- the maggot was unharmed. An off-duty ICE agent killed a man in Las Vegas because of sympathetic reflex a few years ago in Las Vegas.
But that doesn’t explain -if true- why the Border Patrol, who sealed off the area so quickly, was granted the unusual authority to cross the border into Mexico hot on the trail of two Mexican males – whom they arrested and turned them over to………the Mexican police. Perhaps they were the ones who tripped the alarm and were running back to the border when the incident occurred. Stay tuned.
