搜索关注在线英语听力室公众号:tingroom,领取免费英语资料大礼包。
(单词翻译)
RACHEL MARTIN, HOST:
As the Trump1 administration plans to ramp2 up security on the border and has already done so in many cases, one court case is being watched very closely. It has to do with whether U.S. agents should get immunity3 when shooting into Mexico. The Supreme4 Court, Monday, gave one Mexican mother a partial victory, saying that a lower court had erred5 in granting immunity to an agent who shot and killed her son. As John Burnett reports, the case stirs strong reactions down the border.
JOHN BURNETT, BYLINE6: Two contrasting images - the Supreme Court justices in their courtroom with its great columns, vaulted7 ceiling and marble friezes8 consider the case of Maria Guereca. Two thousand miles away, the 60-year-old jobless Mexican mother sat in her $20-a-month, one-room apartment with a fan and a hot plate beside a picture of her dead son.
Fifteen-year-old Sergio Hernandez was shot and killed by a Border Patrol agent seven years ago. The lawman was standing9 on one side of a culvert in El Paso, Texas. The unarmed teenager was on the Juarez, Mexico, side. Federal courts are deciding whether the young man has rights under the U.S. Constitution and if his mother can sue the agent for damages. Monday morning, she received a call from her attorney in Texas.
MARIA GUERECA: (Speaking Spanish).
BURNETT: "He told me there was some good news, but we're still waiting for victory," she says. "I want justice. This officer cannot be allowed to continue because there'll be another young victim, then another and another." The high court called the shooting a disturbing incident resulting from a heartbreaking loss of life. It asked the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans to reconsider its decision giving agent Jesus Mesa Jr. qualified10 immunity from civil liability.
He claims he shot Hernandez in the head because the boy had been throwing rocks at him and the agent feared for his life. The FBI investigated the case and sided with Mesa. Hernandez v. Mesa is not the only cross-border shooting case. Three other Mexican plaintiffs are waiting and watching to see if they, too, can pursue lawsuits12 against Border Patrol officers who killed family members across the international boundary line. Maria Guereca says she's in touch with them.
GUERECA: (Speaking Spanish).
BURNETT: "They're all the same - they're over rocks. They were killed because the border agents said they were throwing rocks." In each case, the Border Patrol said the agents were acting13 according to their training. In recent years, in response to these controversial shootings, the agency now urges its agents to take cover or get out of the range of rocks. Stuart Harris, vice14 president of the Border Patrol union in El Paso, points out that agents can still use deadly force.
STUART HARRIS: When there's a situation where your life is threatened by another human being, does the nationality matter? It shouldn't.
BURNETT: But the victim's nationality is the reason this case reached the Supreme Court. If the teenager had been shot on U.S. soil, he would have constitutional rights and the officer could be held liable. But because the victim was standing outside of U.S. territory, a lawsuit11 has, up until now, been impossible. Monday's decision may be the first step toward removing that legal shield. Again, the Border Patrol's Stuart Harris.
HARRIS: And it's terrible precedent15. If there is no qualified immunity there, then what are we doing? The job is already dangerous enough. And decisions like this, if ultimately it goes against us, is going to make things even worse.
BURNETT: The Supreme Court now sends the case back to the conservative-leaning 5th Circuit to decide whether or not Maria Guereca can move ahead with her lawsuit against the agent. Bob Hilliard, representing the family of Sergio Hernandez, says it's possible that they will...
BOB HILLIARD: Determine that constitutional protections apply along the border to anyone who finds himself at the border with the law enforcement officers in the United States.
BURNETT: The Supreme Court's decision split 5-1. Justice Thomas dissented17, saying liability of federal agents does not extend to cross-border conduct. Justices Breyer and Ginsburg issued a separate dissent16, saying Hernandez deserves Fourth Amendment18 protection because the United States is responsible for what happens on the concrete riverbed that divides the two nations. John Burnett, NPR News, El Paso.
(SOUNDBITE OF GOGO PENGUIN'S "HOPOPONO")
本文本内容来源于互联网抓取和网友提交,仅供参考,部分栏目没有内容,如果您有更合适的内容,欢迎 点击提交 分享给大家。