Update: Border Patrol, 20 Years


PDA






Art Eatman
August 18, 2006, 10:45 AM
Check this out: A statement from the DOJ, using the evidence of testimony at the trial.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/2006/Sutton%20statement%20re%20compean%20and%20ramos%20conviction.pdf

Art

If you enjoyed reading about "Update: Border Patrol, 20 Years" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Frog48
August 18, 2006, 11:37 AM
Those trigger happy agents deserve every minute of that 20 years, and then some. What they did is simply inexcusable. They shot a man after they knew he was unarmed. They did not know that he was trafficing marijuana until after the fact. Based on the facts of the case, Compean should have never tried swinging at the suspect, much less Compean and Ramos opening fire upon him.

wingman
August 18, 2006, 01:25 PM
Those trigger happy agents deserve every minute of that 20 years, and then some.

My goodness no we would not want them doing their job, I suggest you work on the border for a short period and then perhaps you would draw a different conclusion, in no way should these guys do jail time, and on top of all this we are taking the word of a drug runner.:rolleyes:

rbernie
August 18, 2006, 01:34 PM
and on top of all this we are taking the word of a drug runnerNo, we're taking the word of the officers themselves when they stated that the man allegedly shot was demonstrably not armed, and we're taking the word of the forensics lab that the bullet pulled from the man who was shot in fact came from one of the officers' guns.

That's pretty cut-n-dried, and evidently a jury of their peers thought so as well.

Frog48
August 18, 2006, 01:44 PM
My goodness no we would not want them doing their job

Since when is it their job to shoot an unarmed man, and cover up the event? Their job is NOT to commit aggravated assault and obstruction of justice.

Phetro
August 18, 2006, 01:57 PM
No, we're taking the word of the officers themselves when they stated that the man allegedly shot

"Allegedly" shot? You mean it's possible that it was all a bad dream?

was demonstrably not armed, and we're taking the word of the forensics lab that the bullet pulled from the man who was shot in fact came from one of the officers' guns.

Shooting at fleeing felons is often legal, but certainly there are a lot of complicated circumstances here. The bottom line: citizens should always be given the benefit of the doubt. International drug runners: no way.

Frog48
August 18, 2006, 02:07 PM
Shooting at fleeing felons is often legal

This is true, but like I said earlier, the drugs were found after the fact. So at the time of the shooting, he was not a suspected felon.

Also, to shoot a fleeing felon, the felon must be armed and an immediate threat to the public. The guy was unarmed, and running to Mexico.

Cosmoline
January 21, 2007, 06:12 PM
This is a political prosecution from start to finish. Bush needs to placate his Mexican allies and ensure that the flow of illegals continues without fear of getting shot by border patrol.

We should be giving them a medal and opening up on all illegals. I guarantee the flow would stop quickly.

crazed_ss
January 21, 2007, 06:16 PM
They had the prosecutor on O'Reilly and Bill asked him some tough questions.. the prosecutor answered them all. These guys messed up and tried to cover it up. If anyone here shot an illegal in the back and tried to cover it up, you'd be going to jail to. Claiming that the person had it coming because they were illegal would be a pretty poor defense.

Cosmoline
January 21, 2007, 06:38 PM
So the illegal says. I don't buy anything that comes out of this administration's DOJ anymore. Moreover, since these people are part of an invading army we have a perfect right to kill all of them. It's the government's duty to stop them using all means necessary. Heck, we shoot to kill people crossing into IRAQ.

crazed_ss
January 21, 2007, 06:40 PM
Moreover, as part of an invading army we have a perfect right to kill all of them.

:uhoh:
oooooooooookkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk

Cosmoline
January 21, 2007, 06:41 PM
Do you deny we would have the right to mine the border with Mexico and issue shoot to kill orders? It's the basic right of any sovereign nation to defend its borders.

crazed_ss
January 21, 2007, 06:46 PM
You dont have the right to murder anyone.. doesnt matter what their immigration status is.


Do you deny we would have the right to mine the border with Mexico and issue shoot to kill orders? It's the basic right of any sovereign nation to defend its borders.

Mines? I think that's pretty extreme.

Shoot to kill orders? .. even more extreme. Who would man these towers? I doubt the average BP agent wants to gun down unarmed men, women, and children on a daily basis. Where are you gonna get people to work these towers? I dont think there are enough THR types to man them all.

It's not a viable plan. Im sure there's a better solution that doesnt entail wholesale murder.

Cosmoline
January 21, 2007, 06:49 PM
If even a dozen illegals were shot for crossing, the flow would slow enormously. This is exactly why we won't be seeing any such orders, and why Justice will continue to put any agents using their firearms in prison. The nation has been bought and sold.

jnojr
January 21, 2007, 06:50 PM
All they were "guilty" of was "covering up" after the shoot. Something which is routine, because if you report a shooting, you're inundated in paperwork and faced with politically-motivated prosecutions. They should have received a week off without pay, not 11 and 12 years in Federal prison for doing their jobs.

George Bush happily pardoned four drug dealers. Where are the pardons for Agents Campion and Ramos?

crazed_ss
January 21, 2007, 06:54 PM
Yea.. and if we banned and confiscated all guns, we'd probably see a massive decrease in the amount of gun crime. The ends do not justify the means.

Illegal immigration is not a crime punishable by death. And even if it were, it wouldnt be up to LEOs, Federal Agents, or private citizens to carry out such punishment.

crazed_ss
January 21, 2007, 06:58 PM
All they were "guilty" of was "covering up" after the shoot. Something which is routine, because if you report a shooting, you're inundated in paperwork and faced with politically-motivated prosecutions. They should have received a week off without pay, not 11 and 12 years in Federal prison for doing their jobs.

George Bush happily pardoned four drug dealers. Where are the pardons for Agents Campion and Ramos

I agree.. the punishment seems extremely harsh.

If there's one thing I learned in the Marines, it's integrity. If you do something wrong and admit to it, you might get NJP (Article 15) and you continue on with your life.. You might lose some money and a paygrade, but you might still get a decent discharge and your benefits.

Now if you do something wrong, and lie about it and then try to cover it up.. Well then you're going to get court-martial'd.. and then they're gonna throw the book at you.. Dishonorable Discharge, Brig Time, the whole 9-yards.

Im guessing that's what happened here.

cassandrasdaddy
January 21, 2007, 07:03 PM
the insane jail time stems from the weapons charges and some mandatory minimum federal nonsense

crazed_ss
January 21, 2007, 07:10 PM
the insane jail time stems from the weapons charges and some mandatory minimum federal nonsense

Ahh.. that would explain it.

It's interesting that everyone is always ranting about how LEOs are above the law.. Well, this time they got what the punishment that apparently goes with the crime and people want them pardoned.

Is it OK for LEOs to be above the law as long as they're shooting someone you dont like?

HuntingAintHuntingNoMore
January 21, 2007, 07:16 PM
If these agents had been soldiers stationed along the Iraq/Syria border and they shot one guy in the butt, it wouldn't make the news. But oh Lord, in the U.S. Crucify them! I support the agents, they got a raw deal. These guys were protecting you and now they and their families are screwed. I hope you sleep better at night.

crazed_ss
January 21, 2007, 07:24 PM
If these agents had been soldiers stationed along the Iraq/Syria border and they shot one guy in the butt, it wouldn't make the news. But oh Lord, in the U.S. Crucify them!

Big difference: The US/Mexico border is not the Iraq/Syria border.

Regardless of what people on THR tell you, we are not at war with Mexico. I was just there a couple weeks ago. I was not taken as a POW. During my visit I noticed there were hundreds more Americans out and about. If we were at war, I doubt we'd be able to walk around freely, eat tacos, and drink coronas in enemy territory.

See this line?
http://community.iexplore.com/photos/journal_photos/Onlineatborder.jpg
These are mostly American tourists waiting to get back into the US. It extends back into Mexico about 2 miles.

So as you can clearly see, the situation on the The US/Mexico border is not the same as the situation Iraq/Syria border.

cassandrasdaddy
January 21, 2007, 07:34 PM
but i believe the judge even commented that the sentence guidelines were disturbing. this is a situation where a commutation after 6 months to a year would be good. i'd favor less than that but the sad reallity is that they need to let things quiet down before they do anything.
if i was king they would be looking for a different line of work and get probation but heck i'm just a leo apologist

The Amigo
January 21, 2007, 07:40 PM
Not the case... Use of force policy for federal agencies state deadly force is justified If you are confronted with similar threat meaning the following:

1. Someone has a deadly weapon knife, gun, 3000lbs car.
2. Has the intent , IE (I'm going to kill you *******,or car running towards you or someone else after you told him to stop and you have no where to run, shots fired at you or your partner or 3rd party ext..

There's no agency out there that authorizes shooting a fleeing felon if he no longer is a threat. Do so and you will be in the same cell with these guys.

I understand the Job most immigration officers do is not easy. But if all was as described they had no right to shoot this guy even if he had 3 truck loads of any drug unless he did any of the above.

ConstitutionCowboy
January 21, 2007, 08:19 PM
This is true, but like I said earlier, the drugs were found after the fact. So at the time of the shooting, he was not a suspected felon.

Regardless of when the drugs were found, the perp failed to stop for the border guards, and in fact, ran from them. Sounds like rather suspicious behavior to me.

On February 17, 2005, Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean were on duty along the U.S./Mexico border, working out of the Fabens Border Patrol Station. At approximately one o’clock in the afternoon, Agent Compean observed a van near the border about two and a half miles west of Fabens. According to the testimony, the driver of the van, Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, failed to yield to Agent Ramos’ attempt to stop him, jumped out of his vehicle and attempted to run back to Mexico.

The DA seems to be rather neglectful of placing any blame on Aldrete-Davila's initial suspicious behavior that prompted the border guards to draw their weapons in the first place.

Ramos and Compean need to be pardoned. Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila belongs in prison instead of the border guards. Who could have known what Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila was up to or what information he might have been running away with about what he was attempting to deliver. There had to be more to this than what the obviously biased DA has let on. And why did he use official letterhead to espouse his views on the matter? Wouldn't that be a misuse of government property? Doesn't the DA's office have official channels and a whole department dedicated to press releases? Seems like someone is scrambling to cover something up or to save face.

Does anyone else find it strange that the trial of these two guys went so fast? From the alleged act to sentencing in less than a year and a half! The railroad tracks must still be red hot!

Woody


As the Court said in Boyd v. United States:

"It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon."

STAGE 2
January 21, 2007, 09:00 PM
Were the agents wrong for covering it up - yes
Do we know whether the illegal dope smuggler had a gun - no
Should we take the word of 2 BP agents over the word of an illegal criminal - most definately yes

Cosmoline
January 21, 2007, 09:50 PM
So as you can clearly see, the situation on the The US/Mexico border is not the same as the situation Iraq/Syria border.

Yeah, there's a huge difference. We've taken serious steps to secure the Iraq/Syria border.

MachIVshooter
January 21, 2007, 11:23 PM
I'm with both Cosmoline and crazed_ss.

Should our BP agents be authorized to use deadly force in the prevention of invasion? Absolutely. If the invader knows the potential consequences of his actions and proceeds, he deserves what he gets. Illegals from Mexico are not refugees fleeing from a tyrannical state; they are criminals with no regard for US law; they achieve this status the minute they violate our immigration laws by crossing the border.

Should the BP agents be excused for shooting a man who was running away from the border and back into Mexico? Hell no. He's no longer a threat or an invader. He's Mexico's problem at that point. Iraq was cited earlier as an example; Our soldiers are not allowed to shoot people running back away from the border.

Should these BP agents have been prosecuted? Most definitely. Even if he had not been running away, they are not authorized to use dealy force except in self defense. Until they are authorized to use dealy force to prevent invasion and until there are big signs at the border saying that they are, shooting the invader is a crime. There must a punishment established for breaking a law before one can be punished for breaking it, and the information regarding that law and the punishment need to be clearly established and available to everyone whom it may concern.

How would you like to get a ticket for driving with no registration and being thrown in prison for 20 years over it when there was absolutely NO WAY you could have known the punishment was so severe?

SalTx
January 21, 2007, 11:47 PM
I tell you, that immigration work is nasty stuff..if you're an American at heart it makes you puke your guts out about what goes on..can't trust your own people, that's who turned them in..other officers with relations across the border. But they did screw up, should have been better shots.

Car Knocker
January 21, 2007, 11:53 PM
can't trust your own people, that's who turned them in..
At least someone knows right from wrong and acted accordingly.

wingman
January 22, 2007, 09:47 AM
At least someone knows right from wrong and acted accordingly.


Have not been to the border area much have you.:rolleyes:

STAGE 2
January 22, 2007, 01:13 PM
From what I've seen on the news from both the agents and their atty, and the prosecutor, I don't see why people are so supportive over the drug runner.

The only thing the officers did wrong in this case was to not report the incident. This guy came into the country illegally with a van full of 800 lbs of marijuana (which was withheld from the jury BTW). Don't think a guy with a load like that isn't going to carry a gun:rolleyes:

Sure the agents deserve punishment, but punish them for what was wrong (not report the shooting) not for what wasn't ( shooting an illegal narco traficante who presumably had a gun).

jeep-2
January 22, 2007, 01:24 PM
I would rather have 500,000 illegals here than have cops like those 2 on the job. From where i sit, they would have shot anyone and tried to cover it up if they could and how many other crimes have they covered up, was their bank accounts cked and how was their life styles?

ConstitutionCowboy
January 22, 2007, 01:39 PM
I would rather have 500,000 illegals here than have cops like those 2 on the job. From where i sit, they would have shot anyone and tried to cover it up if they could and how many other crimes have they covered up, was their bank accounts cked and how was their life styles?

They are not nor were they cops. They were Border Patrol Agents. They were part of our national defense, not domestic law enforcement. There is a big difference.

Woody

There is perspective and there is pretense. No amount of bombast or emotion can truthfully equate the two. One does not add validity to the other. Bombast and emotion added to pretense does not equal perspective. Reason, fact, and logic? That's a different matter. That will net you perspective every time. B.E.Wood

CannibalCrowley
January 22, 2007, 02:32 PM
They are not nor were they cops. They were Border Patrol Agents. They were part of our national defense, not domestic law enforcement. There is a big difference.

Well apparently the Border Patrol disagrees with you because they often refer to themselves as a part of "law enforcement" not "national defense".

Example: U.S. Customs and Border Protection is America’s largest uniformed law enforcement organization and is dedicated to providing homeland security by securing our borders.

http://www.customs.gov/xp/cgov/border_security/antiterror_initiatives/border_security_overview.xml

crazed_ss
January 22, 2007, 05:15 PM
I don't see why people are so supportive over the drug runner.


Just because people arent ready to give the agents a pass, doesnt mean they're supportive of a drug runner.. and they did a little more than not report the shooting. The one guy collected up and disposed of shell casings.

Honestly, what do you think would happen if you were involved in a shooting and disposed of shell casings? What do you think the jury would think?

Also.. BP guys are not soldiers at war. They're federal LEOs.

nemoaz
January 22, 2007, 06:46 PM
Big difference: The US/Mexico border is not the Iraq/Syria border.
Regardless of what people on THR tell you, we are not at war with Mexico.

You've obviously never looked down the barrel of a Mexican Army heavy machinegun providing security for a dope load. I know people that have.

Just because you have your eyes closed doesn't mean it isn't happening... almost every day. And just because Democrips want new voters and Republicants want cheap illiterate labor doesn't mean they aren't invading.

BTW, being at war isn't the requirement for getting your arse shot if you try to invade a country. Try driving a speed boat past the Coast Guard and see what happens. For that matter, try running past a French border station.

Just because some slobbering ignorant Kalifornicated liberals think 20-30 million foreigners the right to invade so they can have a better life for their mota doesn't mean it's true.

nemoaz
January 22, 2007, 07:00 PM
I understand the Job most immigration officers do is not easy. But if all was as described they had no right to shoot this guy even if he had 3 truck loads of any drug unless he did any of the above.

What you mean to say is if all occurred the way the lying dirtbag drugsmuggler said.... then they had no right to shoot they guy. What the agents said was that they shot at the drug smuggler because he pointed a weapon at them. They also didn't believe they hit him. They then failed to report the shooting AT THE URGING OF THEIR SUPERVISOR because no one wanted to spend the next year or two on administrative duties carrying a rubber gun while the investigation took place. Right? No. Lazy? At least. Lying? I don't know. And neither do you. Their supervisor supported that story. Believe a piece of shyte career felon drug smuggler. Never.

What's even more funny is that while these guys rot in jail and their wife and children are harrassed by the local drug smugglers... and starve, the dirtbag agent who has "friends and family" in the drug cartel gets applauded by the govt.

Alberto Gonzalez... Janet Reno.... no difference in my book.

nemoaz
January 22, 2007, 07:08 PM
No, we're taking the word of the officers themselves when they stated that the man allegedly shot was demonstrably not armed,

That is an outright lie. You obviously know nothing of the case.

nemoaz
January 22, 2007, 07:10 PM
They did not know that he was trafficing marijuana until after the fact.

Really? They already ran the plate and knew it had previously been used to smuggle drugs. And quite frankly, once you see a vehicle in the desert and don't see thirty heads in the back, there is only one other option.

nemoaz
January 22, 2007, 07:12 PM
can't trust your own people, that's who turned them in..
At least someone knows right from wrong and acted accordingly.

Yeah... I got this ahhhhhhhh..... amigo.... in Mejico.... he madre say la Migra shot him in the culo. How do I know him? Why do you ask?

cassandrasdaddy
January 22, 2007, 07:17 PM
"What you mean to say is if all occurred the way the lying dirtbag drugsmuggler said.... then they had no right to shoot they guy. What the agents said was that they shot at the drug smuggler because he pointed a weapon at them. They also didn't believe they hit him. They then
failed to report the shooting AT THE URGING OF THEIR SUPERVISOR because no one wanted to spend the next year or two on administrative duties carrying a rubber gun while the investigation took place. Right? No. Lazy? At least. Lying? I don't know. And neither do you. Their supervisor supported that story. Believe a piece of shyte career felon drug smuggler. Never. "

even by the 2 agents themselves story. they made a bad series of mistakes. and got turned on by theor fellow agents. do they deserve that much time? heck no. but were surely not innocent

STAGE 2
January 22, 2007, 09:21 PM
Honestly, what do you think would happen if you were involved in a shooting and disposed of shell casings? What do you think the jury would think?

I would hope I would hire a good enough attorney to show that my only wrong was not reporting and policing up my brass.

There hasnt been any evidence that shows these two agents did anything wrong up until the time they decided not to follw post shoot procedure.

They should face whatever punishment that merits, but not for a good shoot.

bg
January 22, 2007, 09:27 PM
Illegal immigration is not a crime punishable by death. And even if it were, it wouldnt be up to LEOs, Federal Agents, or private citizens to carry out such punishment.
Should be.

crazed_ss
January 22, 2007, 09:30 PM
Just because some slobbering ignorant Kalifornicated liberals think 20-30 million foreigners the right to invade so they can have a better life for their mota doesn't mean it's true.

Nice strawman.. let me try!

Just because a bunch of backwoods, racist redneck gun owners think deporting 20-30 million people and murdering women and children who try to cross the border is a good idea, doesnt mean it is a good idea.

crazed_ss
January 22, 2007, 09:32 PM
Illegal immigration is not a crime punishable by death. And even if it were, it wouldnt be up to LEOs, Federal Agents, or private citizens to carry out such punishment.

Should be.

Ok, so it should be OK for LEOs to perform summary executions?

Ok.. wow.... guess you got me there.

nemoaz
January 22, 2007, 09:39 PM
>>Just because a bunch of backwoods, racist redneck gun owners think deporting 20-30 million people and murdering women and children who try to cross the border is a good idea, doesnt mean it is a good idea.

You're right. Deporting ever damn one of them would be a good idea. But 20-30 million would be a good start.

And it's not a strawman. You need to some research and learn to use your terms correctly.

crazed_ss
January 22, 2007, 09:50 PM
And it's not a strawman.

A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position

This is how you stated the "opposition's" argument:

Just because some slobbering ignorant Kalifornicated liberals think 20-30 million foreigners the right to invade so they can have a better life for their mota doesn't mean it's true.

I also see an ad hominem attack or two in there also. It seems you're the one who needs to do some research. Here's a start.. http://atheism.about.com/od/criticalthinking/Critical_Thinking_Using_Logic_and_Reason.htm

nemoaz
January 22, 2007, 09:53 PM
even by the 2 agents themselves story. they made a bad series of mistakes. and got turned on by theor fellow agents. do they deserve that much time? heck no. but were surely not innocent

They did not get turned in by there fellow agent who was present or knew anything about it. They got turned in by an agent almost a thousand miles away who had a "friend" who is a drug dealer. He claims he didn't know the guy was a drug smuggler.... right.

As to your other assertions, you have no idea what you are talking about. They agents NEVER said the guy was unarmed. NONE of the agents there said he was unarmed. ALL OF THE AGENTS WHO SHOT SAID HE WAS ARMED. Do you really think these drug cartels load up hundreds of thousands of dollars worth drugs and send a the driver with no protection? (Sorry, I don't know the value. Maybe some of you do.) Since the drugsmuggling piece of excrement ran into Mexico to the waiting drugdealing comrades, he lost the opportunity to prove he wasn't armed. The dungpile's word against the word of all the agents there. And a jury in south Texas, about many of whom were illegal aliens at one point and most of whom hate la migra, found him guilty. What do you expect in Texico?

Same "Prosecutor" indicted a local cop claiming that he shot a woman and has a medical expert claiming that the bullet entered her lip and exited the lip in one small hole. The medics thought she probably got kicked by the other illegal aliens as they tried to jump out of the vehicle. http://www.freegilmer.com/

nemoaz
January 22, 2007, 09:54 PM
No thanks, SS. I have a doctorate with much training in debate.

Y soy el jefe de jefes. El gran chingon.

cassandrasdaddy
January 22, 2007, 09:56 PM
you might wanna read the transcripts and not from a blog at best you are confused . at worst?!... welll...

SamTuckerMTNMAN
January 22, 2007, 10:06 PM
But they did screw up, should have been better shots.

:D

I'll admit, they were trigger happy, perhaps. But imagine yourself in the shoes of a drug cartel leader now, perhaps a runner yourself. Imagine how you would feel knowing there is some crazed ******* out there blasting your compadres for whatever, carrying a phone or something, driving dope, illegally entering. Everyone cheers him on. He's a good shot, there are crazy camo dudes wandering around desert and long range rifles are in hand.

Now imagine you are same person. Your friends get a farm because the owner whos land they trespassed on hit one once. People are protesting your right to run across said border. Mexican gov't gives out maps and GPS coordinates, US border patrol alerts to movt of minutement vigilantes. Agents that blasted buddy in ass get 20 freakin years in jail away from their families. Buddy is hero for smuggling 800 lbs of dope. National Gaurd celebrated for brave retreat. Border advocates labeled racist right wing extremists. Yeehaw...now that's an effective deterrent to border crime.
:barf:

st

nemoaz
January 22, 2007, 10:10 PM
Cassandra my friend, I am not reading from a blog. I have intimate knowledge of this and access to various things, but not the complete transcripts. I have read pieces of the transcripts, as referenced in motions by both parties. I have also read almost every piece of journalism, even the leftwing trash and the press releases from the US Attorney and Attorney General, and no one make the assertions that you have made. I'm not saying you purposefully made that up, just perhaps that you misunderstood what was said.

The agents never said they fired on an unarmed man. If they did, they would have no defense. All the agents that fired said they thought the guy was armed (and still do). And none of the agents there said the guy was unarmed or that they had any reason to disbelieve the shooters. The single tidbit of evidence that suggested he was unarmed was the dungpile's own testimony. And that's enough for Johnny Sutton.

cassandrasdaddy
January 22, 2007, 10:15 PM
"single tidbit of evidence that suggested he was unarmed was the dungpile's testimony."

here i was thinking that the abscence of any evidence he was armed spoke a lil. that and the agents actions or lack aof actions after spoke to a planed cover up. in fact it was the testimony of the other 3 agents vis a vis cleaning up casings and neither agent mentioning him being armed that sunk em. 3 of the prosecution witmesses were other agernts if i remember right

SamTuckerMTNMAN
January 22, 2007, 10:15 PM
Just because a bunch of backwoods, racist redneck gun owners think deporting 20-30 million people and murdering women and children who try to cross the border is a good idea, doesnt mean it is a good idea.

C'mon back there wild man.....I resist the temptation. . . must.....resist...taking.....high........r.....road.....................

It sure is a good thing though that we are going broke securing a desert border around the world, contaminating our soldiers with depleted uranium munitions, AND the whole region, disfiguring babies in the process, to keep " ? " safe and secure.
ST

--------going to bed, solve the worlds problems guys

crazed_ss
January 22, 2007, 10:22 PM
It sure is a good thing though that we are going broke securing a desert border around the world, contaminating our soldiers with depleted uranium munitions, AND the whole region, disfiguring babies in the process, to keep " ? " safe and secure.

I was just showing an example of the extreme arguments that people here constantly make.. He's calling me a "slobbering ignorant Kalifornicated liberal", but it isnt so fun when someone turns it around the other way.

I'd rather everyone calm down, rein in their emotions, and look at the case objectively. I doubt that's possible though.

Also, dont blame me. I didnt vote for Bush either time :)

nemoaz
January 22, 2007, 10:24 PM
here i was thinking that the abscence of any evidence he was armed spoke a lil.

He ran into Mexico and we picked up by the van waiting for him! There is no evidence that he was or was not armed other than the testimony of those involved. And although there is no doubt that the agents shot the guy, ALL the agents testified that he didn't appear to be limping and that they found no blood. They therefore assumed he wasn't hit and decided "no harm no foul" and to be lazy. That's dumb, but that isn't a 20 year crime. It's probably not even a crime, but is certainly a fireable offense that would cost them their income and pensions. No small punishment.

neither agent mentioning him being armed that sunk em

No agent testified to that. The others admitted when the Assistant US Attorneyette asked that they didn't see the gun themselves (and thus didn't fire themselves), but that they also could not know for sure he was unarmed due to their vantage. They had no reason to disbelieve the shooters. That is not the same as saying he was unarmed. The were farther away and looking at a different side of the elephant.

They testified about policing the brass, what the supervisor said, and failing to report the shooting to higher supervisors. The shooters admitted this from the beginning.

I invite you to disprove this. I promise you, you will not.

I know there is a certain reaction to hearing the assertions. I felt the same way. There is no one who likes to see a dirty cop arrested any more than me, local, fed, or whatever. But it's ridiculous for these guys to get 20 years while the admitted dope and alien smuggling agents get 2. Guys who were absolutely corrupt for years, and they only get 2.

But Compean and Ramos were screwed.

SS, I agree. Truce. And thanks for your service. (Looked at your myspace since you posted it.) This just strikes a nerve with me.

He's calling me a "slobbering ignorant Kalifornicated liberal",

Wait a minute. You changed that. I put liberals... and it clearly wasn't aimed at you but rather a general comment. And I missed a comma. :)

Just as I didn't interpret this as applying to me.

bunch of backwoods, racist redneck gun owners

Especially the racist part. Pretty proud of being a backwoods, redneck gun owner, though. :)

cassandrasdaddy
January 22, 2007, 10:33 PM
i'm working from memory here and bear in miind i was originally supportive of these guys. but one agent was missing 5 shell casings and telephoned another agent(one who testified) who went to scene found 5 missing casings and threw em in a ditch. the call and asking someone else to conceal evidence puts the lie to his claim that he was just policing brass in the aftermath.

crazed_ss
January 22, 2007, 10:54 PM
I agree SS. Truce. And thanks for your service
lol no problem.. :)

Wait a minute. You changed that. I put liberals
Well, Im a little liberal I guess.. I think I'm an inch left of center. I still love my guns though :)

As far as the shooting goes, I honestly think the punishment seems extremely harsh. 10yrs in federal prison is tough. What Im concerned about here is everyone seems to be focused on the "victim's" status as a drug dealer as a well to justify the shooting. If it was a bad shoot, then it was a bad shoot.. doesnt matter who the victim is.

If you believe the prosecutor, it sounds like a bad shoot.. I saw him on the O'Reilly factor and he didnt come off like a guy who was just trying to put these guys away for kicks. He mentioned that the agents were on some kind of evidence investigation team that looks into shootings by BP Agents. He claims they knew exactly what they did was wrong and that's why they failed to report it and threw away some of the casings.

nemoaz
January 22, 2007, 11:00 PM
the call and asking someone else to conceal evidence puts the lie to his claim that he was just policing brass in the aftermath.

I agree with you completely on that Cass. They knew they were hiding it, but ALL of them claimed they just didn't want the hassle. I think one was a firearm instructor, not an investigator. But I'm not certain about that. The Sup was certainly trained in the first line actions to a shooting. However, they didn't concoct a plan or anything, or brag about shooting an unarmed fleeing Mexican out of boredom or whatever. Just thought they'd pretend that it didn't happen, that no one would know the difference, and that they'd go home on time.

I'll bet writing memos and sitting the desk for 6-18 months doesn't look so bad now.

I saw him on the O'Reilly factor and he didnt come off like a guy who was just trying to put these guys away for kicks.__________________

He has stars in his eyes. He is running for something soon. Governor or Senator. Who knows? Not your average US Attorney who is just looking at a job at main justice, a nice private practice, or perhaps a judgeship. I would bet he calculates running a little counter to a Department of Justice that is portrayed as overzealous probably isn't hurting him. However, he's is completely limpwristed against drug and violent offenses. He has no interest in violent gangbangers, but a hardon for cops, especially BP. Try googling him and see what else comes up. He never indicts corrupt politicians and sits amongst the most dangerous drug cartels in the northern hemisphoere. Nuevo Laredo is worse than Beirut. Yet he never makes a case against those guys. Not in 6 years.

Good night, all.

wingman
January 22, 2007, 11:04 PM
doesnt matter who the victim is.

Can a drug carrier be a victim, guess it depends on your point of view or
perhaps what you view as right or wrong. What I know of this case these
agents should not be in jail. The border is a war zone and one of the most
corrupt place in America it is not the streets of your average city. In my
opinion 50 miles of land north of the border may be called USA but it
is controlled and run by the drug cartel, they have full pockets folks
and the money is used to purchase anyone or anything they wish so before
you judge the agents go down to the border stay awhile and soak up the
atmosphere.

cassandrasdaddy
January 22, 2007, 11:06 PM
screwed em. the jury doesn't wanna hear it after that. kinda like mark furmans moment of glorious stupidity.

crazed_ss
January 22, 2007, 11:22 PM
Can a drug carrier be a victim
Can a prostitute be raped? I'd say yes.

The border is a war zone and one of the most
corrupt place in America it is not the streets of your average city. In my
opinion 50 miles of land north of the border may be called USA but it
is controlled and run by the drug cartel, they have full pockets folks
and the money is used to purchase anyone or anything they wish so before
you judge the agents go down to the border stay awhile and soak up the
atmosphere.

The cartels run everything South of the Border. They have operations here, but they dont control government and Law Enforcement like they do in Mexico.. They just extradited a bunch of big name drug guys here. In Mexico, they coulda paid their way out, but here they're screwed.

When I see the San Diego PD doing this, then Ill start worrying :)

(Mexican Feds/Army taking away Tijuana Police guns)

http://photos.signonsandiego.com/gallery1.5/albums/070105tijuanapolice/JG_Disarm266721x008.jpg

http://photos.signonsandiego.com/gallery1.5/albums/070105tijuanapolice/JG_Disarm266721x001.jpg

http://photos.signonsandiego.com/gallery1.5/albums/070105tijuanapolice/JG_Disarm266721x002.jpg

http://photos.signonsandiego.com/gallery1.5/albums/070105tijuanapolice/JG_Disarm266721x003.jpg

http://photos.signonsandiego.com/gallery1.5/albums/070105tijuanapolice/JG_Disarm266721x004.jpg

http://photos.signonsandiego.com/gallery1.5/albums/070105tijuanapolice/JG_Disarm266721x006.jpg

http://photos.signonsandiego.com/gallery1.5/albums/070105tijuanapolice/JG_Disarm266721x007.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y134/MrTenX/Misc/27215913.jpg

Biker
January 22, 2007, 11:31 PM
And this is the culture that we want to import into the US?

Biker

Sindawe
January 22, 2007, 11:38 PM
Ah Biker, your thinking is all wrong headed and racist. Don't you know that they did not cross the border, but the border crossed them? :neener:

That last pic by crazed_ss is certainly telling.

crazed_ss
January 22, 2007, 11:38 PM
And this is the culture that we want to import into the US?

If you're referrring to importing a culture of corruption? Of course not.

Interestingly enough, that's what this whole case is about! If this same case had happened in Mexico, they would have just swept it under the rug.. because thier law enforcement isnt too trustworthy. Our LEOs are supposed to be upstanding and do the right thing and all that jazz.

Now, If you're referring to Mexican culture in general.. it's about 200 years too late to stop it from coming here now. It's not going anywhere anytime soon either. There are more Hispanic-Americans than Black Americans now and the birth rates of Hispanic mothers are like 2-3 times that of Blacks and Whites.. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8147476

Biker
January 22, 2007, 11:52 PM
Yes, I'm aware of the birthrate stats, SS, and I find it not at all comforting. The plan is coming along by the numbers.
All hail Norte America...

Biker

bg
January 23, 2007, 02:31 AM
http://www.usmarshals.gov/news/chron/2007/010907.htm

Zoogster
January 23, 2007, 03:02 AM
Can you imagine if your someone that likes to keep pristine, and not scratch your beautiful toys and you not only had to turn them in like that, but then see them all stacked on top of eachother where they will slide against eachother and go down bumpy roads and look like something coming back from a desert war zone when they get them back scratched and chipped?
Ugh..those pretty toys in the toy box and chest are being treated so wrong!

razorburn
January 23, 2007, 03:54 AM
They attacked a man trying to surrender, unarmed, holding his hands up in the air. Then when he tried to run in fear of his life after the unprovoked attack, they shot at him. Couldn't be any more clear cut. If he was white and not a criminal, that is. Except that the victim isn't really a victim, because he's just a damn dirty mexican, who was smuggling marijuana no less. Their lives are not like ours. They deserve everything they get. We should start raping their children if we can catch them. That'd deter them. Nobody wants to go somewhere if you know the folks there are out to sodomize your children. They're evil bastards coming here with the intent of killing and murdering as many white women as they can, it's a damn war. I heard Bin Laden is trying to smuggle nukes across the Mexican border using illegal aliens as cheap labor to do it so they can blow up Louisiana. But those BP agents were of mexican descent too. So many dirty mexicans.

WildeKurt
January 23, 2007, 09:57 AM
We've set a very bad precident on the border. If you get caught, the consequences are minimal. If you run away and get away, there are no consequences at all. Yes there are some poor people trying to get here to feed their families. However, there are also drug smugglers and terrorists in their midst (oh yes there are). Should we ignore these last two threats to our society in preference to the first group. Are we, as a nation, so spineless anymore, that we can't make hard desisions about our national security becuase we don't want to hurt the feelings of a particular group of people. Those people know what their up against sneaking into our country. The consequences should be enough to deter. As far as smugglers and other armed groups: Shoot to kill.

For gods sake, our own military, on the border, is under orders to run away from armed invaders. Where the hell is this country going?

crazed_ss
January 23, 2007, 11:22 PM
Here is the interview with the US Attorney if anyone's interested.

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/01/18/video-us-attorney-defends-prosecution-of-border-patrol-agents/

Powderman
January 24, 2007, 03:11 AM
As much as I said to myself that I would not comment on threads like this again, I think that I must say this:

I am NOT looking at the crap load of marijuana that was found.
I am not looking at the attempted border crossing.

I AM looking at the shoot.


And, if what was posted at the link is true--and the facts are true as presented--

then both the BP agents should ROT IN PRISON.

You do NOT shoot an unarmed man who is fleeing from you. If the person does not have the means to hurt you, you do NOT hurt them.

If the person was fleeing into the United States, guess what? He's on foot, and you have a radio and a vehicle. Just drive behind them until they get tired, then take them into custody.

If they flee into Mexico, then they're gone. They'll be back, there will be other times.

I know that there have been numerous incidents where armed individuals and Mexican soldiers have made excursions into the United States. I know that shots have been fired. But I am talking about this incident.

From what I see, it was a bad shoot. The now ex-officers who did the shooting should be in prison for a long time.

Bad cops.
Bad ending for them.
It fits well, to me.

STAGE 2
January 24, 2007, 04:47 PM
You do NOT shoot an unarmed man who is fleeing from you. If the person does not have the means to hurt you, you do NOT hurt them.



And why exactly are you making the assumption that the guy was unarmed.

Both agents testified that he had a gun. The only evidence that he didn't have one is the word of the smuggler. Furthermore, this guy was not shot in the back or while he was fleeing. The MD confirmed that the injuries sustained by the smuggler were consistent with someone facing or turning towards the agents.

What it comes down to is their words versus the crook's words. Why are you taking the latter:scrutiny:

Powderman
January 24, 2007, 05:12 PM
And why exactly are you making the assumption that the guy was unarmed.



Go back to the first post.

Click the link.

Read the third paragraph.

Obiwan
January 24, 2007, 05:48 PM
"I don't see why people are so supportive over the drug runner"

Put lost scared confused college student in the situation and you would be screaming police brutality

They had nothing but suspicions and they shot him

Everyone wants to argue everything EXCEPT the facts of the case

razorburn
January 24, 2007, 08:18 PM
Both agents testified that he had a gun.

No they didn't. They testified that he didn't have a gun. They said he was holding his hands up, open palms, surrendering. Then while he was surrendering, one of the agents tried to hit him with the butt of his shotgun. So the guy ran. Then they shot him. No weapon was visible at any time. All the other border agents said they didn't see any weapons on him either.

STAGE 2
January 24, 2007, 09:01 PM
Go back to the first post.

Click the link.

Read the third paragraph.


Gee, you mean the statement issued by the US attorneys office. Yeah thats going to be real impartial. :rolleyes:

Again, there isn't any evidence that the illegal didn't have a gun other than his word. The prosecutor doesn't know, he wasn't there. The only people that know are the illegal himself and the two agents.

And even if he didn't, if the agents had a credible fear then the shooting was still justified.

So once again, why are you taking the word of a crook over 2 agents.

cassandrasdaddy
January 24, 2007, 09:43 PM
"Both agents testified that he had a gun. The only evidence that he didn't have one is the word of the smuggler. Furthermore, this guy was not shot in the back or while he was fleeing. The MD confirmed that the injuries sustained by the smuggler were consistent with someone facing or turning towards the agents. "

really my reading got that one agent saw something shiny and that the other one fired when he heard the shots . he was too far away to see clearly. could you pint out where i missed your assertion?

"
"So once again, why are you taking the word of a crook over 2 agents."

ummmm because the agents lied? and got caught at it? because other agents testified against them? because they tried to cover the shooting up? take your pick

BAT1
January 24, 2007, 11:45 PM
Since illegally entering the U.S is a felony, he was a committing a felony at that point. 20 yrs ago, they would be gunned down if they came near the border, how things have changed. This happened because the Mexican govt is not controlling their borders on either end. Blame fox and Bush, they are the culprits here. The agents just got caught up in the mix.

razorburn
January 24, 2007, 11:46 PM
Gee, you mean the statement issued by the US attorneys office. Yeah thats going to be real impartial.

Again, there isn't any evidence that the illegal didn't have a gun other than his word. The prosecutor doesn't know, he wasn't there. The only people that know are the illegal himself and the two agents.

And even if he didn't, if the agents had a credible fear then the shooting was still justified.

So once again, why are you taking the word of a crook over 2 agents.

Are you joking? Why are you taking the word of nobody over the words of the justice department and the agents? Did you even read the article? Nobody says they saw a weapon in the hands of Aldrete-Davila. Nobody. Not even the 2 agents that were prosecuted. Agent Ramos, one of the men charged, even testified that he looked at the illegals hands and saw no weapons. I think that's the part in the 3rd paragraph Obiwan wanted you to look at? Some people let their hate of illegal mexicans cloud their judgement so badly they're at the point of delusions.

Powderman
January 25, 2007, 01:56 AM
Blame fox and Bush, they are the culprits here. The agents just got caught up in the mix.

No, sir.

Unless an unarmed assailant is attacking a law enforcement officer with such ferocity and demonstrated intent that the officer's life is in danger--or unless the assailant is committing a crime of violence against another person that will result in their death or maiming unless they are stopped RIGHT NOW, shooting an unarmed suspect is wrong. Dead wrong.

Shooting an unarmed suspect who is fleeing from you is doubly wrong.

Based on what has been presented so far by the US DOJ, these two idiots committed an aggravated assault. Period.

There is NO excuse for that. :fire:

wingman
January 25, 2007, 09:25 AM
Based on what has been presented so far by the US DOJ, these two idiots committed an aggravated assault. Period.

Number one you trust all the DOJ states and you state the two agents are
idiots, seems your judgment may be clouded. Personally I believe I will
take the word of two agents who have been on the job for years without
a bad record of any sort above an illegal drug coyote who is carrying drugs
into the country for kids. Not a big choice for me drug dealer bad guy
agents good.......Thinking otherwise is part of the problem with our country.

nemoaz
January 25, 2007, 07:21 PM
Just because some Assistant Attorneyette repeats the words of a Mexicano de mierda doesn't mean the mexicano de mierda isn't a lying piece of shiite.

nemoaz
January 25, 2007, 07:26 PM
Based on what has been presented so far by the US DOJ, these two idiots committed an aggravated assault. Period.

You're right. If I believe the word of a drug smuggling piece of **** (who needed an excuse for why he raised his hands but then ran... that didn't include leveling a pistol on the agents and attempting to escape), I would think the agents were guilty.

I guess it depends on whether you believe that two MEXICAN-American Agents with long distinguished careers with thousands of previous arrests and without a prior blemish (one was agent of the year) suddenly became racist murdering agents AT THE SAME SPLIT SECOND the drug dealer became an honest citizen and decided to surrender.

I must say it's also funny to see home these MEXICAN-American Border Patrol Agents were hung out to dry by the Department of Justice on the word of a drug smuggling piece of mierda while the very same Department of Justice spent years trying to defend the FBI's shoot any adult on sight order-- which was clearly illegal and any cop or soldier would know that-- at Ruby Ridge. In fact they fought til the end until ordered by a judge.

Biker
January 25, 2007, 07:33 PM
Me? I have no problem at all - morally - with shooting an illegal Mexican mule in the ass while he's running. However, we have to live by *some* kinda rules.
Cops have to play by the rules. If they can butt-shoot him, they can butt-shoot me. Tell ya the truth, I've grown quite attatched to my butt over the years and I figure it doesn't need any more holes in it than it already has.

Sometimes it's hard to be objective, but that's when objectivity is most needed.
JMO...

Biker

nemoaz
January 25, 2007, 07:34 PM
Here's the other side of the Department of Drug Dealer's story:

http://www.nbpc.net/ramos_compean/rebuttal_to_sutton.pdf

nemoaz
January 25, 2007, 07:36 PM
Since illegally entering the U.S is a felony,

Yes, he was a felon and committing the felony of "reentry by an aggravated felon", but no federal agent can shoot at someone just because they are a felon or committing a felony.

STAGE 2
January 25, 2007, 09:40 PM
Are you joking? Why are you taking the word of nobody over the words of the justice department and the agents? Did you even read the article? Nobody says they saw a weapon in the hands of Aldrete-Davila. Nobody. Not even the 2 agents that were prosecuted. Agent Ramos, one of the men charged, even testified that he looked at the illegals hands and saw no weapons. I think that's the part in the 3rd paragraph Obiwan wanted you to look at? Some people let their hate of illegal mexicans cloud their judgement so badly they're at the point of delusions.

From the Border Patrol council's response...

Both Agent Compean and Ramos testified that the drug smuggler turned and pointed a weapon at the while he was running away. The wound channel creatde by the bullet that struck the drug dealer corroborates their version of the events.... the Army doctor who removed the bullet fragment from the drug smuggler "advised that the bullet entered the lower left buttocks of the victim and passed through his pelvic triangle and lodged in his right thigh." At trial the doctor testified that the drug smugglers body was "bladed" away from the bullet that struck him, consistent with the motion of a left handed person running away while pointing backwards, causing the body to twist. There is only one logical object that he would have been pointing at them under these circumstances - a firearm

Once again, given the only piece of evidence concerning the shooting are the words of the agents, the word of the crook, and the medical evidence. I'm very surprised that so many here are siding with the crook.

razorburn
January 25, 2007, 09:44 PM
You're right. If I believe the word of a drug smuggling piece of **** (who needed an excuse for why he raised his hands but then ran... that didn't include leveling a pistol on the agents and attempting to escape), I would think the agents were guilty.

Do you believe the word of the accused border patrol agent? Ramos testified that he didn't see a gun in the guys hands and shot at him anyways. He basically confessed, and some people are still claiming he didn't do it.

Both Agent Compean and Ramos testified that the drug smuggler turned and pointed a weapon at the while he was running away. The wound channel creatde by the bullet that struck the drug dealer corroborates their version of the events.... the Army doctor who removed the bullet fragment from the drug smuggler "advised that the bullet entered the lower left buttocks of the victim and passed through his pelvic triangle and lodged in his right thigh." At trial the doctor testified that the drug smugglers body was "bladed" away from the bullet that struck him, consistent with the motion of a left handed person running away while pointing backwards, causing the body to twist. There is only one logical object that he would have been pointing at them under these circumstances - a firearm

You don't even understand what you quoted, do you? The doctor who examined Aldrete didn't say that last sentence. He only said that the bullet hit him at an angle. The rest was not said at the trial, but an extremely radical delusion jumped to in a last and desperate bid by that heavily biased group to try to sway morons who have trouble understanding big words. Do you understand the evidence they're using to qualify the conclusion they're jumping to? They're trying to say that he must've had a gun just because the bullet hit him at an angle! Do you how ridiculously stupid of an argument that is? But I can see now the level of intelligence of the guys trying to argue this point, this horribly failed point... and following an old adage... I'll leave it be.

STAGE 2
January 25, 2007, 11:36 PM
You don't even understand what you quoted, do you?

Ummm, yeah I did.


The doctor who examined Aldrete didn't say that last sentence. He only said that the bullet hit him at an angle.

Umm, yeah I know.


The rest was not said at the trial, but an extremely radical delusion jumped to in a last and desperate bid by that heavily biased group to try to sway morons who have trouble understanding big words.

Gee, the doctor testified that the guys injury indicated he was running away while pointing at the agents.

I don't know about you but when I'm being shot at I don't turn and point. That is unless I'm pointing something BACK at them.


Do you understand the evidence they're using to qualify the conclusion they're jumping to? They're trying to say that he must've had a gun just because the bullet hit him at an angle!

No, the doctor testified that the angle of the wound indicated he was hit while turning and pointing. Rational people don't turn and point when being shot at.


Do you how ridiculously stupid of an argument that is?

Just about as ridiculous as sentencing 2 agents with STELLAR records solely on the basis of a traffickers word. The prosecutions case was based purely on circumstantial evidence.

The fact that these two didn't report the incident doesn't support the inference that these guys were guilty anymore than it does the fact that they didn't want to deal with paperwork.

Think about it. If they were trying to kill him how hard would it have been to fabricate a viable story. The odds that this smuggler would have come back are a million to one. They had the van full of pot and the smuggler had ample opportunity to ditch the weapon in mexico. No one would have contested it and if the guy did come back, the incident would have been on record.

Furthermore, if the officers were lying about seeing a weapon, how do you shoot 16 rounds and only hit this guy once. If there was no weapon they wouldn't have worried about being hit and thus had the time to take careful aim. If they did have a credible fear of a weapon however, emptying a mag in haste makes alot more sense.

At any rate, I've still yet to see anyone point to anything other than the fact that this incident wasn't reported that indicates that this was a bad shoot.

razorburn
January 26, 2007, 12:07 AM
Gee, the doctor testified that the guys injury indicated he was running away while pointing at the agents.

I don't know about you but when I'm being shot at I don't turn and point. That is unless I'm pointing something BACK at them

No, he didn't. He said that the angle at a bladed angle. The article then says that would be consistent with that of a person who had been facing backwards and pointing. I know that this is going to be hard for your feeble mind to grasp, but being consistent with a thing, doesn't mean it is indicative of a thing. It just doesn't rule out that thing, that's it. All it means is that the angle of the shoot doesn't bar the possibility that he was at an angle where he was turned back and pointed, it would fit with that. But it is not deductive of that, because it doesn't rule out others while pointing exclusively of that. Which means it's basically meaningless. Kind of like all apples are fruit, but not all fruit are apples. If you have evidence that you have something which is carbon based, containing seeds, and came from a tree, then you would be able to accurately state that the evidence would be consistent with one situation where that something was an apple. But it doesn't prove that the something is an apple, because it doesn't rule out the enormous myriad of other possibilities. Get it? It fits in with the concept that it's an apple. It's consistent with it. But it's not indicative of it. It doesn't deduce that the object is an apple, or offer anything remotely close to proof or evidence that it is such. It's just wordplay like that in the biased article, intended to sway morons with poor reading comprehension.


Just about as ridiculous as sentencing 2 agents with STELLAR records solely on the basis of a traffickers word.

For the 3rd time, the border agent says he looked in the guys hands and didn't see any weapon before he fired. The only way you can defend the agents actions is by calling the agent a liar when he said that! He confessed, but you're so delusional you're refusing to acknowledge even a confession on the part of the guilty party!

But that's it. You can go on ignoring the agent's own testimony, sitting in your shack, mumbling to yourself about those evil Mexicans how there must be some kind of trick behind it, maybe a mexican radar mind-controlled him... I really will summon the self-will... others here have refrained from posting against the ignorant... you all get dirty and the pig likes it.

Biker
January 26, 2007, 12:20 AM
You really ought to bag that "feeble mind" crap. It doesn't help your argument much.

Biker

nemoaz
January 26, 2007, 12:41 AM
Razorburn, you are a piece of work. No matter how many times you say it, even if you say it for the third time, and try to play dime store lawyer yourself, the agents testified the shytbag was armed at the time the shot him. It's even in one of your freakin quotes! You believe the shytbag if you want. Yes, the prosecutor kept making the argument. Now a couple hundred Congressman will be sponsoring a congressional pardon, whatever the hell that is. (Sounds useless to me. Only the President can pardon as far as I know. And we know AG Gonzalez will never support that.) I fully expect and hope that the prosecutor who made the mistatement/lie will get disbarred. Then most of us will clap once justice is done. Unfortunately the career felon drug dealer gets to continue his work because of the immunity they gave him to get his bullshyt story.

STAGE 2
January 26, 2007, 12:54 AM
No, he didn't. He said that the angle at a bladed angle. The article then says that would be consistent with that of a person who had been facing backwards and pointing.

No. The doctors testimony included the following... "consistent with the motion of a left handed person running away while pointing backwards, causing the body to twist. "

You may not like it, but there is not other reason for the defense to put the doctor on the stand other than to indicate the reason for the wound.

And once again, both agents testified that they through he had a weapon.

As a result, it still comes down to who is being more honest.

longeyes
January 26, 2007, 01:06 AM
The affair of Compean and Ramos is a flea on the butt of a huge mangy dog. It pays in a situation like this to look beyond the "facts of the case."

We have a U.S.-Mexico drug trade estimated by one source at $250 billion a year. We have an inundation of illegal aliens. We have over three thousand Mexican nationals who have escaped felony charges in the U.S. by fleeing back to the motherland. We have a slowly unfolding North American Union. We have a President who thinks "family values" trump both the law and citizenship. And we have two Border Patrol agents who, even if their guilt is conceded, are clearly a) having the book thrown at them and b) being made a example.

The question is: an example of what and for whom?

I think author Jerome Corsi, whom I heard today on a local radio talk station, has it nailed. Compean and Ramos are the poster-children of the North American Union. What is happening to them is a clear signal to the Border Patrol agents to back off from serious enforcement of our immigration laws. It is also a clear signal to the powers that be in Mexico that American law enforcement is going to be neutered so not to worry, business as usual.

Trouble is, this story is far from over, and a lot of very ugly truths are going to emerge before it's done. If this is really being orchestrated from Pennsylvania Avenue it will be one more nail in the coffin of the Bush Administration.

wingman
January 26, 2007, 10:30 AM
Once again Longeyes nails it,or as Paul Harvey said now to the rest of the story, with any outcome America will lose because we have lost the will to do battle for our country.:(

Biker
January 26, 2007, 10:49 AM
One of the jailed BP's agent's wives, Monica Ramos, attended Bush's SOTU speech the other night and this is what she had to say about the matter.

http://www.blacklistednews.com/view.asp?ID=2068

Biker

cassandrasdaddy
January 26, 2007, 12:10 PM
and since we know that the agents lied and engaged in a coverup. even going so far as to send anothet agenty to scene to find 5 missing cases and dispose of em the agents own behavior sinks their ship. and its the testimony of other agents that reels em in

longeyes
January 26, 2007, 12:21 PM
I'm not endorsing lawless behavior. Or dishonesty.

Not with the agents.

Not with the White House, our politicians, or our greedy, disloyal business community.

This was a political trial, pure and simple. There is always a lot of prosecutorial discretion involved in matters like these. When the word comes down from On High you can bet this is more than about enforcing the law. Eleven and twelve years in prison? Every day this looks more like the Soviet Union with a smiley face.

cassandrasdaddy
January 26, 2007, 12:54 PM
that the real time comes from the weapons beef.

Powderman
January 26, 2007, 01:05 PM
Time to kick over the apple cart once again.....

I am 1000% against illegal immigration.

I am foursquare behind closing and sealing our borders. If I could do it, I would deploy at least two complete Infantry Divisions along our southern border, with instructions to detain everyone trying to sneak across the border--with the ultimate goal to send them back home.

I believe in draconian penalties for ANY employer knowingly employing illegal immigrants. Severe fines and closing of businesses, and seizure of assets. If there are no jobs available, they won't come over.

I am especially in favor of the swift prosecution of anyone caught committing crime on American soil.

And, heaven forbid, should someone fire a shot toward our border, we should immediately respond with crushing and overwhelming force.

But....

Let's not forget one thing...

In combat with an opposing force, if the enemy is shooting at you and has the means to shoot at you, they are the ENEMY. Close with them, and destroy them utterly by means of fire, maneuver and shock effect.

The INSTANT that they drop their weapon and surrender, they become a NONCOMBATANT. Shooting them in this case is MURDER.

If a drug smuggler is crossing the border with a load, give them a warning. If they still attempt to cross the border with their load, and do not surrender IMMEDIATELY, blow them to pieces. No quarter.

If, on the other hand, they SURRENDER, AND ARE IN YOUR CUSTODY, SHOOTING AT THEM OR HARMING THEM IN ANY WAY IS ASSAULT. KILLING THEM IS MURDER.

Those of us who wear the badge are NOT judges, juries and/or executioners. It is only by strict adherence to the law that we uphold the law. And that includes the prompt and HUMANE treatment of prisoners, according to OUR law, and the guarantees of the Constitution of the United States.

I DON'T CARE WHAT NATIONALITY THEY ARE, YOU DO NOT SHOOT AN UNARMED, FLEEING SUSPECT WHO HAS NO CAPACITY TO HARM YOU OR ANYONE ELSE.

Remember the soldiers who captured Saddam Hussein? They did NOT shoot him--he faced trial and swung at the end of a rope. How is this man any different?

If we allow this, where does it stop? Do we start shooting fleeing criminals in the United States because we WANT to? For what offense? Murder? Robbery? Shoplifting? Jaywalking? Where would it stop?

From what I see here--and what has been presented--these two men are guilty of aggravated assault. Even worse, they did it under color of law.

Unless someone can prove differently, they deserve every second that they get--in prison.

You can NOT enforce the law by BREAKING the law. No, sir.

mdao
January 26, 2007, 01:58 PM
No. The doctors testimony included the following... "consistent with the motion of a left handed person running away while pointing backwards, causing the body to twist. "

You may not like it, but there is not other reason for the defense to put the doctor on the stand other than to indicate the reason for the wound.

(Bolding was added by me for emphasis)

Not reason. Possibility.

The defense put the doc on the stand to raise the possibility that the smuggler was shooting back and have the doc verify that the wound could have happened if their theory was true.

It does not indicate that the situation really did happen that way, just that it was possible.

longeyes
January 26, 2007, 02:08 PM
Powderman,

I respect argument; in fact I agree with it.

My point is that looking only at the specifics of this case ignores the context of general lawlessness in which it is taking place. And that is a far more worrisome matter than the dereliction of duty of two BP agents. Respect for the law dictates giving them a fair punishment consistent with their offense and taking into consideration their service and previous record. For me that does not merit a crucifixion. From what I hear some of the evidence that should have been presented to their juries was sealed. Sealed why? And by whom?

When our President and Attorney General appear to be playing fast and loose with not only the law but the security and integrity of the United States, we are in serious straits.

STAGE 2
January 26, 2007, 03:04 PM
and since we know that the agents lied and engaged in a coverup. even going so far as to send anothet agenty to scene to find 5 missing cases and dispose of em the agents own behavior sinks their ship. and its the testimony of other agents that reels em in

And how does this prove that this was a bad shoot any more than it does that they didn't want to go through the mountains of paperwork and other hoops that officers have to do post shooting?

STAGE 2
January 26, 2007, 03:07 PM
It does not indicate that the situation really did happen that way, just that it was possible.

While it does not prove that the smuggler was pointing a gun back at them, the wound channel and location of the bullet makes it pretty clear the position of the victim at the time he was shot.

We don't know whether he was pointing anything while he was running away, but we do know he was pointing while running away.

STAGE 2
January 26, 2007, 03:11 PM
If, on the other hand, they SURRENDER, AND ARE IN YOUR CUSTODY, SHOOTING AT THEM OR HARMING THEM IN ANY WAY IS ASSAULT. KILLING THEM IS MURDER.

Powderman, I don't disagree with anything you said. What I'm not understanding is where you are getting the facts that this smuggler was shot while in custody. He wasn't cuffed or restrained on the ground. The officers were approaching him, but that hardly constitutes custody. From what I have read/heard on the news, one of the officers slipped while trying to climb down into a gulley and thats wher this whole thing started. Again, thats not custody. If he was in custody, he couldn't have run.

Sure the US attorney said it, but both the agents said otherwise. The US attorney wasn't there and the agents were.

cassandrasdaddy
January 26, 2007, 03:18 PM
Quote:
and since we know that the agents lied and engaged in a coverup. even going so far as to send anothet agenty to scene to find 5 missing cases and dispose of em the agents own behavior sinks their ship. and its the testimony of other agents that reels em in

And how does this prove that this was a bad shoot any more than it does that they didn't want to go through the mountains of paperwork and other hoops that officers have to do post shooting?

it demonstrates that the bp agents were liars at best criminals at worst. we know for a fact that they lack credibility. we can speculate about the others character but the 2 agents is indisputably lacking

Powderman
January 26, 2007, 05:39 PM
What I'm not understanding is where you are getting the facts that this smuggler was shot while in custody. He wasn't cuffed or restrained on the ground.

IIRC, they were close enough to buttstroke the guy with the stock of a shotgun. If they were close enough to do that, they were definitely close enough to restrain the guy, put handcuffs on him and arrest him. Done deal.

STAGE 2
January 26, 2007, 06:03 PM
it demonstrates that the bp agents were liars at best criminals at worst. we know for a fact that they lack credibility. we can speculate about the others character but the 2 agents is indisputably lacking

Alright. So assuming you are correct, we now have 2 parties who have no credibility. That still leaves us at a stalemate.

cassandrasdaddy
January 26, 2007, 06:41 PM
if we believe the agents own defense that is what happened

Quote:
it demonstrates that the bp agents were liars at best criminals at worst. we know for a fact that they lack credibility. we can speculate about the others character but the 2 agents is indisputably lacking

Alright. So assuming you are correct, we now have 2 parties who have no credibility. That still leaves us at a stalemate."

no stalemate the agents violated the public strust when they first lied the engaged in a larger effort to cover up.
and the key testimony came from other agents as well as the 2 convicted statemernts. is their punishment too harsh? absolutely! were they guilty? absolutely
"

nemoaz
January 26, 2007, 10:17 PM
IIRC, they were close enough to buttstroke the guy with the stock of a shotgun

That's the dirtbag's story. He needed a reason for why he was running. "Normally I am a law abiding citizen but they called me a Mexicano de mierda and were going to butt stroke me so I ran. I wasn't turning to shoot them, I was raising my hands to surrender and beg la migra not to hurt me."

nemoaz
January 26, 2007, 10:19 PM
The outright fantasy connected with this is astounding.

cassandrasdaddy
January 26, 2007, 10:48 PM
we know about powderman how many folks you wrassled into cuffs? i fear you mighta over looked this
"After Ramos told Aldrete-Davila to stop, Ramos drew his service revolver and pointed it at Aldrete-Davila. Aldrete-Davila jumped into a steep ditch filled with dirty water and when he tried to climb the steep incline out of the ditch, he was confronted by defendant Compean, waiting for him with a shotgun pointed directly at him. During his testimony, Compean acknowledged that at that time Aldrete-Davila held his hands up, as if to surrender, with his palms open, and no weapon was in either hand, or evident on his person. Another agent, who had arrived by this time and observed the scene, heard someone yell “hit him.” Aldrete-Davila, who was at one time a legal resident alien of the United States and speaks some English, also heard someone yell “hit him, hit him,” and specifically heard Compean yell: “Parate, parate, Mexicano de mierda.” (“Stop, stop you Mexican ****.”) According to testimony, Compean swung his shotgun around in an attempt to hit Aldrete-Davila with the butt of his weapon, but lost his footing and fell face down into the dirt and brush. Aldrete-Davila began to run to the river and did not look back. Agent Ramos also testified that when he saw Aldrete-Davila in the ditch, he had an opportunity to look at Aldrete-Davila’s hands, which he is trained to do for self defense and defense of another, and did not see any weapons in either of Aldrete-Davila’s hands. When Aldrete-Davila almost reached the river, but while he was still out in the open vega area, he heard numerous gun shots. Compean fired at Aldrete-Davila at least fourteen times and Ramos fired at Aldrete-Davila once. Aldrete-Davila felt a sting in his left buttock and fell to the ground. When he reached for the location of the pain, his hand came away bloody. Fearing the shooters were about to reach his location and kill him, he turned his head and saw the two defendants holster their weapons, turn away from him and walk back north.
– more –

particularly the part about agent ramos's testimony?and compean swinging around with his shot gun? i started out as a supporter of the agents reallity forced me to revise my initial opinion

Powderman
January 26, 2007, 11:35 PM
I don't know what to say other than you obviously have tried wrestling many criminals into submission.

Nope. That's why the good Lord invented Tazers.

BTW this is when most LEO's are killed, transitioning from gunpoint to handcuffs, usually with their own gun.

That's why if I have the occasion or reason to put someone at gunpoint, I will radio dispatch and state, "I have one at gunpoint, request priority backup."

However, this was unnecessary in this case; there were two officers already there.

nemoaz
January 27, 2007, 02:01 AM
deleted

cassandrasdaddy
January 27, 2007, 09:12 PM
find the video? i can't

If you enjoyed reading about "Update: Border Patrol, 20 Years" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!