Border Patrol Agents

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Framptonator

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
4
Location
Tooele, UT
I'm sure some of you guys have heard about this freaking ridiculous issue, but I felt the need to spread the word around. This doesn't really have anything to do with gun laws, but it certainly shows how ill our justice system is. Anyway, in a nutshell, two border patrol agents were tried and convicted to 5-20 years in prison-- for doing their job! There's a video on Youtube that can give you the details-- and what you can do to help. There is a petition going around from grassfire.org that already has hundreds of thousands of names on it-- if you'd like to add yours, please, help these border patrol agents out.

Here's the link to the video with the story: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ftxLucV2vg
 
Both the agents ignored departmental policy when they chose to pursue the fleeing suspect.

There's no evidence that the wounded suspect shot at the agents.

There's no evidence that the suspect had a weapon.

At least one of the agents picked up the spent spent cases he fired.

Both of the agents failed to report the incident as required.

THATS OK WITH YOU? :scrutiny: :banghead:

A Texas jury heard the evidence and arguements from both sides. They convicted the pair of assault with serious bodily injury; assault with a deadly weapon; discharge of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence; and a civil rights violation.

While you were present at that trial, listening to the evidence presented, just what did you hear that causes you to disagree with the jury verdict?
 
sorry

I guess you were there carknocker?I am going by the lawyers statements on the news that i saw.
and there is evidence of everything i stated.I guess you would roll out the red carpet and welcome him and his drugs.Tell ya what ,I'll buy the next one a bus ticket to Salt Lake City and they can come live next door to ya'll.
 
Stipulating an absence of perjury on the part of U.S. citizen witnesses, what I read of court testimony would have quite possibly had me voting "Guilty".

But if you've not read any of the testimony, you're only offering uninformed opinion, which we don't need, here...

Art
 
One of these every hundred yards or so should give us pretty good border protection.:D
 

Attachments

  • ARR_PERIF.jpg
    ARR_PERIF.jpg
    8.8 KB · Views: 80
I hear ya

but the counterpoints are true. I know your frustration. I first saw a thing like this on some website and at a friends house one night. An agent had been pursuing an suspected smuggler/illegal immigrant, the II tried to run, ditched an SUV, fled over a gully, and the agent fired. The SUV was full of drugs and the guy was illegal and went back to mexico. Months later the guy sued and won against the agent. And then to top it off the same II was busted later on same year with truckload of drugs. Seems like a bad thing to send this particular officer away for the best years of his life. If that is the case, and I do not know the case, our country is failing. The BG's are winning. This may be different, and I'm not sure why this is on the forum. Seems off topic and circumstantial. Perhaps tie it into the right to shoot or something with more links and evidence. *shrug*
 
I read a smidge of the testimony, but was struck by the reactions of some of the jurors to evidence that the judge suppressed. :eek:
 
i'm odd

i've read a fair amount and do wonder how the jury convicted. and the huge time for the weapons beef is lame. i saw the one agent on tv and i tend to read folks make character assesments and he hass my vote i liked what i read in him
 
They weren't doing their job. They violated agency policy by pursuing in the first place, then shot people for no reason after getting them stopped.

We may argue that the INS pursuit policy needs to change, but their job is to follow policy not do whatever they feel like at the moment.

The use of force issue is unambiguous, they clearly shot people they had no business shooting at... and as was said above, a jury who heard both sides agreed.
 
I think it's the Civil Rights charge I have the biggest problem with. Any such charge (hate crimes included) is unConstitutional by definition, and is agenda-driven, "feel-good" PC BS at it's worst. Just like "zero-tolerance"...which is really just "zero-thought" by another name... :barf:
 
What issue do you have with civil rights?

And Jesus, we've been over this case a million times. I contend that if these guys were simply "doing their job", they wouldnt be going to prison right now. There's 1000's of Border Patrol Agents out there right now doing their job.. I dont see them getting arrested.

These guys messed up and tried to cover it up. They should have just came clean in the first place.. probably would have just got off with a stern talking to. Honestly is the best policy.

EDIT: Once again, here is the release from the Justice Dept.. http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/2006/Compean_Ramos_sent.pdf
 
"...the reactions of some of the jurors to evidence that the judge suppressed."

Expand on this?

If evidence was suppressed, how did the jurors see/hear it in order that they could react?

If exculpatory evidence was suppressed, isn't that grounds for an appeal?

I don't argue with anybody about the weirdness of some of the violent interactions between LEOs and border criminals. Our guys have been shot at, and not allowed to respond, e.g. That's wrong, seems like to me. When LEOs are threatened with firearms by apparently-soldiers from Mexico, they have the right to shoot first, seems to me. Too much politics, seems to me.

But in this one case, what I read of the testimony seemed rather clear. Just because some guys have been shafted doesn't mean that it's always the case.

Art
 
There is no such policy.
Click to expand...

Destructo6 is correct. The Assistant U.S. Attorney in this case misspoke. While there is a policy which limits (but does not forbid) VEHICLE pursuits, she was referring to a foot pursuit.
 
set them free

700 pds less pot in the country and an illegal who hopfully wont try it again. We need more like those two men on the border who are not affraid to defend our borders
 
Both the agents ignored departmental policy when they chose to pursue the fleeing suspect.
Click to expand...

So, if it is policy to NOT pursue IIs, then what is the purpose of the border patrol? If their not allowed to catch BGs what are our tax dollars actually paying for?

Josh
 
So, if it is policy to NOT pursue IIs, then what is the purpose of the border patrol?
Click to expand...
Anymore it would appear that the purpose of the border patrol is the put on a good show to give the impression that our "Leaders" actually care about our national sovereignty. This to keep the "unwashed masses" quiet and complacent while the nation is sold out from under the feet of said "unwashed masses".
 
Anymore it would appear that the purpose of the border patrol is the put on a good show to give the impression that our "Leaders" actually care about our national sovereignty. This to keep the "unwashed masses" quiet and complacent while the nation is sold out from under the feet of said "unwashed masses".
Click to expand...

Yup, that's kinda what I was thinking....just hoping I was wrong:banghead:

Josh
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top