Originally Posted by
B747-437B
While I do appreciate the point you are trying to make, it doesn't change the fact that I was physically assaulted by an INS officer (pre-DHS days) and that every attempt to pursue the matter was met with DoJ claiming that INS was now part of DHS so they could not investigate, and DHS claiming that the incident occured before they existed so they could not investigate. I've also spent enough time in the detention cells myself and dealt with enough inads and depus to realise that not everyone can be making up the same stories. Every account of a personal experience is inevitably skewed by the perspective of the narrator (which is inevitably biased in cases like this, including my own), but that doesn't change the FACTS of what took place in each incident.
Before I could pass judgment on the merits of your case, I'd have to have access to the other side of the story. Of course, my opinion counts for jack and well, you know.
My point is that had you replaced the LEO/INS label with another label many would be crying racism or sexism or something else. Broad strokes and all that jazz. As someone who arrested thousands of illegal aliens with never a complaint raised, your story naturally comes from the other side of my experience. This is not to say I never used physical force - I certainly did, including deadly force. But it was justified by the situation at hand. Assault and authorized physical force are different animals. You say it was assault and it may well have been. On the other hand, it might have been legitimate use of force. Both sides of the story would be needed to judge correctly, IMO.
That's all.