kid 15 years of age, who was in the wrong place at the wrong time and not involved in criminal activities. shannon: the border patrol agent fired the gun because several people were throwing rocks at him and other agents. all of us have had rocks thrown at us. i used to keep it on my deck. deadly force is the last option and a border patrol agent can use it in self defense or defense of a partner or innocent third party. shannon: joining us now is the chief council for american law and justice. good to see you, jay. this goes to it the u.s. supreme court tomorrow. and we ll read from what we have from the legal team. the united states exercises no power or authority over the
authority where hernandez was standing when shot. so there is a lot of things to unpack. how does it work when there is a border patrol agent on the u.s. side and a citizen on the mexican side. the question is the constitutional fourth and fifth and reasonable search and procedures. this is a civil case where they are asking for damages. does it apply to out of country, noncitizens? and the answer with the supreme court has to be no. that would take an act of congress. the court can t extanned constitutional protection to a noncitizen outside of your borders. and the issue before the court and raised before the supreme court, is this issue of expansion of constitutional rights to noncitizens out of country. the incident was trag and i can
there was an ongoing criminal proceeding that the agent was dealing with. i am not saying the 15-year-old was involved in that. but does the law, does the constitution apply to a noncitizen when that noncitizen is not in the united states? the shot which the officer had the authority to take place in took place in the united states and struck the 15-year-old in mexico. i don t think the supreme court will do that expansion. shannon: we have a photo of the area and there was a large culvert and reports that the boys were touching the guard rail and run aring back again. and allegations rocks being thrown and you can see a little bit of the area that we are talking about. the court may consider are this when you talk about how it works
shannon: the supreme court ruling against a florist after refusing to serve a gay couple. she will take it all the way to the supreme court. which retailers made the zombie list. we ll explain, coming up. hello, i m an idaho potato farmer
first of all, the law protects religion where she is a member of. but it is interesting attorney general ferguson in the oral arguments that creating flower and a visual art is protected under the first amendment. the first amendment allows for broad protection for this custom protection. we have rich tolerance and artist shouldn t be forced to create work that is inconsistent of their convictions under the threat of government punishment like the kind she is facing right now. shannon: did you think you would be part of the case before the supreme court? they are considering another case similar that involves someone baking cakes for same- sex ceremony and declining to. what is it like for you, you built your business and happy doing your work and now you are