The case occurred because of the fatal shooting of Juan Patricio Peraza, a 19-year-old young guy from Mexico. Boarder Patrol Agent (BPA) Venom Neal Billings on Februaary 22, 2003, killed the undocumented teen. The incident took place in El Paso, Texas where the BPAs were taking their patrol. The court case was filled on September 15, 2005. The parties progressed via the recognition and motion stage before the District judge. The parties assented to the jurisdiction on February 7, 2008, and the case was moved for trial and entry to the judgment according to 28 U.S.C Act 636 (C), as par, the local rules (Barraza, Soto, Peraza vs. USA 6). A five-day bench was hosted as from April 7, 2008, and completed on April 11 the same year. The suggested findings of facts and conclusions of law for each party were submitted on May 5, 2008. After a very keen examination of all the findings and facts submitted by at trial by both parties, the court made the following findings and conclusions according to the law.
The federal magistrate judge Richard P. Mesa ruled out the case that United States Boarder Patrol was not neglectful in the 2003 lethal shooting of the 19-year-old undocumented Mexican refugee Juan Patricio Peraza around the El Paso centre, Texas. The parents of the boy, Cesar Peraza Barraza and ex-wife Roman Irene Quijada Soto, took legal action against the federal government looking unspecified destructions asserting that the death of their kid was not justified (Barraza, Soto, Peraza vs. USA 8). Despite the fact that the shooting of Patricio was disastrous and regrettable, it was not the outcome of carelessness and neglectful. That was the closing decision by the U.S. Magistrate Judge Richard P. Mesa who filled on Thursday in support of the UnitedState government.
Peraza was wielding a 5-foot pipe in a cofrontation with agents around Annunciation House when he was shot and murdered by BPA, Vernon Billings. The officials of Annunciation House gave their comment on Tuesday where they stated that the incident was not good and that the detectives had to come in and assist with the investigation. However, when the El Paso homicide detectives went to interview the BPAs that were on duty on the incident day, they were given the representatives to speak to them and be interviewed. Besides, during the trial, an El Paso adjudicators turned down to impeach Billings in 2003. In fact, in his judgment, Mesa condemned the BPA and said, “The shortcomings of the investigation were not inconsequential and never generated confidence in Boarder Patrol management’s ruling decisions (Barraza, Soto, Peraza vs. USA 8).” This clearly implies that the failure to examine appropriately never caused Peraza’s death and never rose to the extent of misconduct that would make the Court to change its reliability determinations.
It is evidential to mention that Judge Mesa’s decision on the case was not fair. A number of good reasons make this context conclude that there was injustice on the judgment. To begin with, the investigation into the case was not done properly in the sense that the offender was the government and the detectives who investigated the case were the officials. There is no means an individual can kill and be allowed to make the judgment against his own self. It is definite that he will judge the case in favor of himself. The judge clearly knew that the investigations were not conducted properly and the findings provided by the detectives were not correct because the people who were supposed to be interviewed were the BPA individuals who were on duty on the incident day (Barraza, Soto, Peraza vs. USA 3). However, the people who were interviewed were the representatives of the BPA meaning that the detectives never acquired first hand information concerning the case. Therefore, it is clear that the investigations were unfairly conducted and the judge knew about it but never considered it, thus, favored the US government on the case.
Besides, the findings indicated that BPA Vernon Billing never shot Peraza out of negligence. However, it is evident enough that the action was done out of negligence because when the BPA arrived, Pezara was initially standing next to the vehicle that belonged to the male and female passengers. BPA Dominguez talked to Peraza where he instructed him to move rear of the passenger vehicle (Barraza, Soto, Peraza vs. USA 4). He was then questioned about his presence in America whether it was legal or illegal. After a while, Peraza ran away and was chased by BPA Dominguez who caught up with him and through the fear, Peraza opted to through a punch on him. Through that tussle, Peraza was shot on the forehead by BPA Dominguez and died. The argument is, the work of the BPA was to examine people around the boarder and find out if they were in America legally. If a person was in the country illegally, he was supposed to be caught and taken to prison. The fact that BPA Dominguez held his gun against Peraza clearly proves that he intended to shoot him probably because Peraza had become rough. However, that was not correct because his work was not to shoot him but to arrest him. Therefore, the judgment was wrong.
Lastly, the BPAs are people who are trained to undertake their work effective. Most of them take more than 3 years training and they know very well that they are not supposed to kill. The fact that BPA Dominguez lifted his gun up clearly implies that he had the intention of killing him and that was wrong according to the BPA policies. Therefore, the judgment was unfair.