White Post Murder Suspect Arrested in Mexico
On July 10, 2010 at approximately 9:30 pm Jose Cuevas-Gonzalez was arrested in Hostotipaquillo, a town in Jalisco Mexico. When confronted by federal police, Cuevas-Gonzalez attempted to flee but was taken into custody by agents of the Policia Federal Ministerial (PFM), which is the former AFI agency. Specifically, he was arrested by the extradition group that handles all arrests involving provisional arrest warrants. Clarke County authorities provided information that led to obtaining the provisional warrant some months ago.
The Clarke County Sheriff’s Office currently has an outstanding warrant and three indictments on Cuevas-Gonzalez stemming from the July 9, 2008 shooting incident on Nelson Road.
Sergeant Travis Sumption obtained the warrant for the attempted murder of Daniel Guerrero-Lopez on July 11, 2008. Sergeant Sumption and Investigator Tricia Putnam presented their case to the Clarke County Grand Jury on August 18, 2008. Cuevas-Gonzalez was indicted on charges of murder, use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, and possession of a firearm by an unlawful alien.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation, who assisted in the matter, reports that Cuevas-Gonzalez will be handed over to U.S. authorities per the regular process, which could be in as little as 90 days or as long as 18 months.
Posted by News Staff
on Jul 14 2010. Filed under News.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Great, so now the taxpayers are going to have to pay for his incarceration, legal defense, etc.
A 50-cent bullet to the brain stem would have been much cheaper for this scumbag.
It says “suspect”. A little premature with your punishment aren’t you?
And I bet he was in our country illegally. No charges filed regarding that though. All the more reason to seal the border and deport the millions of illegals here now. Anchor babies and all.
We should also gather up all the ignorant people in this country/state/county/town who think every latino is “Mexican†and/or “illegal†and seal them in a room with books where they can learn about people and cultures outside of their own.
How about we take the ignorant people who comment on stories that have already stated facts and shove them in a room with newspapers where they can learn to find the rest of the story?
If you followed the case at all, you’d already know that the suspect was in this country illegally.
Guilty until proven innocent, right?
That only applies to Legal Residents of the United States. Read the Constitution.
What is stated at the Statue of Liberty?
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
Or do you not care what she says because she is a French immigrant herself?
The Statue of Liberty was a gift from France. It was not a beacon for illegals to enter the country.
What part of LEGAL RESIDENT do you not understand? I don’t care what nationality immigrants are, as long as they go through the proper LEGAL channels.
Sheesh.
“That only applies to Legal Residents of the United States. Read the Constitution.”
That’s bull and you know it. Non residents/non citizens are tried, convicted and punished in this country every day.
jim,
RW is best left alone. Non-scholars never get constitutional law. Not worth the argument.
So Jeane, you believe that the Constitution covers illegal occupiers of American soil?
Thanks Jeane. The Constitution makes no mention of what he/she(RW) is referring to.
The constitution references to citizens and people throughout. This differentiation was made in order to give rights to non-citizens as well as citizens, but certain rights are reserved for citizens…i.e. voting.
Amendment 14 – Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This means that the protections of the Constitution only apply to US citizens.
Thank you for the excerpt…let’s break it down where this is written to acknowledge a difference between a citizen and a “person” (the intent of the Constitution was to have a person mean a non-citizen):
Amendment 14 – Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History
1. All persons (refers to a non-citizen) born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens (refers to a citizen) of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens (refers to a citizen) of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person (refers to a non-citizen) of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person (refers to a non-citizen) within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Exactly. “Person” refers to both citizens AND non-citizens alike. It’s part of how the push for equality and civil rights had something solid to stand on; if it had not applied to non-citizens, think how worse we’d be today…
Well man, that just stinks! I don’t think non-citizens should be provided anything except a one-way ticket back home, pronto.
Thanks for the interpretation that just seems wrong, even though it is correct. Humph!
That is why any attempt to pass a law, whether at the state or federal level, to rescind constitutional protections from “anchor babies” – newborn children of illegals born on US soil (and, thus, “citizens” by definition of the 14th Amendment) cannot pass constitutional muster.
Unless the 14th Amendment is somehow amended, that kettle of fish will be an interesting one for years to come.
Jeane, this reinforces you being correct.
Well Jim, as we take an important history lesson from Lonnie; I’m quite sure RW still loves the thought that Dred Scott was never appealed to the Supreme Court, only replaced by the 14th ammendment. Of course, you’d have to have gone to 7th grade history class to know that
Your assumptions that I am an ignorant, racist, bigot are quite wrong.
Well if we want to look at this realistically when our illegal national comes back here, what are the chances of him receiving the death penalty??? Bullet to the brain, death penalty… Ends the same will just take years longer.