Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


Video: U.S. Attorney defends prosecution of Border Patrol agents

posted at 10:01 pm on January 18, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend | Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

Nice job by O’R in trying to bring out the facts about this case. If he really was the full-bore populist demagogue Colbert paints him as, he’d be pounding the table with Tancredo and Rohrabacher about pardoning these guys post haste. Instead, he invited Johnny Sutton on to explain the facts. Well done. And well done as well by my pal Counselor Frey, who appears to have caught Deb Saunders bowdlerizing a quote to make it fit her argument.

The president told reporters today that he’s open to a pardon, but he seems lukewarm to the idea. As well he should be.

Bush said, “There’s a process for pardons. It’s got to work its way through a system here in the government. I just want people to take a sober look at the case.”

Bush said a White House review will take place. “People need to take a tough look at the facts, the evidence a jury looked at, as well as (the) judge. And I will do the same thing,” Bush said.

Here’s what he’ll learn when he does.


Across the dial, while O’R was covering this, a real demagogue was busy doing some bowdlerizing of his own. His victim? Simon Cowell, if you can believe it.

Update: Patterico considers the defense’s arguments.


Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: « 1 [2]

It all makes sense to you, doesn’t it?

Gregor on January 19, 2007 at 2:06 PM

Yes, but then I know why the goddess of justice wears a blindfold.

honora on January 19, 2007 at 2:14 PM

thirteen28, I read the rebuttal and it is quite interesting. It still doesn’t change my mind that the agents were wrong to shoot the guy as he was fleeing. Also, if the illegal alien had a weapon, where is it? And, why did a trained federal agent pick up his shell casings? I don’t buy the “post traumatic stress disorder” arguement. PTSD after 30 minutes???? Also, Agent Juarez’ testimony is disputed as to whether or not he saw the incident. I agree with you that the truth is somewhere in between. but a jury found both agents guilty. If the jury was wrong, then let the courts figure it out. the good news is that Texas isn’t in the 9th circus.

pullingmyhairout on January 19, 2007 at 2:16 PM

Here you go Honora …

Here’s what happens when Border Patrol agents should dare cross the border in pursuit of a drugrunner, instead of “abandoning him.”

EL PASO (AP) - U.S. Border Patrol agents crossed the Rio Grande into Mexico last week while chasing a drug smuggling suspect, Border Patrol officials said Monday.

A Mexican police officer in Guadalupe, about 25 miles southeast of El Paso reported last week that Thursday’s pursuit ended with a brief standoff between local officers and several Border Patrol agents. Jose Luis Delgado, the Mexican officer, said officials from both countries drew their weapons, but no shots were fired.

You asked a question and the question is answered. But that won’t stop you from ignoring reality, will it?

Gregor on January 19, 2007 at 2:17 PM

There you go again. But buying into this notion that these guys did nothing wrong you are showing a real lack of respect for the job that the other 99% of Border Patrol agents do every day. It’s a dreadfully difficult job. But law enforcement agents have to be held to a very strict standard of behavior. I’m not willing to slacken it.

BTW, you have your report, I have my report. The only report that matters is the one from those 12 folks on the jury. Apparently they elected to take the prosecutor’s word at face value after hearing from both sides. That’s the ballgame.

honora on January 19, 2007 at 2:10 PM

honora, two things:

1) Read the f–king report I linked, if you have the guts. I listened to Sutton’s case, if you are so open minded and interested in the truth then you should at least read the other side. Or do you not believe there are two sides to every story.

2) Read my posts above - I have already acknowledged that the agents made willfull mistakes and should probably have been fired. My anger at this case is that the federal government was exceptionally jealous in going after these agents to the point of tracking down a known drug smuggler, granting him immunity, and using his testimony to put these agents away for what are extremely disproportionate sentences.

3) As far as your comments on the jury, even that is in dispute, as 3 jurors have signed sworn affidavits that they were coerced by the other 9 into voting guilty after the foreman convinced them that a hung jury was not an option. As was noted by someone else, while they may have been ignorant of the law regarding hanging a jury, it certainly means they didn’t fully buy the prosecutor’s case.

thirteen28 on January 19, 2007 at 2:17 PM

The only report that matters is the one from those 12 folks on the jury. Apparently they elected to take the prosecutor’s word at face value after hearing from both sides. That’s the ballgame.

honora on January 19, 2007 at 2:10 PM

Yep. The 12 incompetents who didn’t care and were anxious to get back to their lives. Ever hear of the OJ Simpson trial? Juries are filled with amoral idiots these days.

PRCalDude on January 19, 2007 at 2:18 PM

I hope I never have to go to trial and have as my accuser and the prosecution’s sole witness, a drug-smuggler who’s been granted immunity.

What’s that flushing sound I here?

fogw on January 19, 2007 at 2:25 PM

Honora …

The only report that matters is the one from those 12 folks on the jury. Apparently they elected to take the prosecutor’s word at face value after hearing from both sides. That’s the ballgame.

honora on January 19, 2007 at 2:10 PM

Yes, but then I know why the goddess of justice wears a blindfold.

honora on January 19, 2007 at 2:14 PM

Oh yes, and about that jury verdict and “justice wears blindfold” comment …

As thirteen28 pointed out on January 19, 2007 at 12:21 PM:

And “the jury has spoken” assertion, which a Republican congressman I respect made to me this week, is somewhat mitigated by the fact that three of the jurors subsequently said they were coerced into voting for a conviction — they may be idiots for believing that a hung jury was not permitted, but they clearly didn’t buy the prosecution’s case.

And John: A reporter who covered the trial confirms to me that not only did the prosecutor say something to the effect that the two agents “turned on one of your own people,” i.e. Mexicans (even though, of course, they’re not Mexicans but Americans of Mexican descent), but she said the same thing to the reporter during a phone interview. The reporter tells me that US Attorney’s office has been delaying the release of the transcripts, but that they’re supposed to be ready next week.

Gregor on January 19, 2007 at 2:26 PM

thirteen28, I read the rebuttal and it is quite interesting. It still doesn’t change my mind that the agents were wrong to shoot the guy as he was fleeing. Also, if the illegal alien had a weapon, where is it? And, why did a trained federal agent pick up his shell casings? I don’t buy the “post traumatic stress disorder” arguement. PTSD after 30 minutes???? Also, Agent Juarez’ testimony is disputed as to whether or not he saw the incident. I agree with you that the truth is somewhere in between. but a jury found both agents guilty. If the jury was wrong, then let the courts figure it out. the good news is that Texas isn’t in the 9th circus.

pullingmyhairout on January 19, 2007 at 2:16 PM

I don’t know whether he had a weapon or not. But there are a couple of things to consider:

1) After he crossed back into Mexico, he was there for over a month before there was any contact between himself and the U.S. regarding the incident. That’s more than plenty of time to dispose of it. In fact, he could have simply dropped it as soon as he crossed back onto the Mexican side of the border an the U.S. would have never been able to do a damn thing about it.

2) According to the rebuttal, the forensic evidence of the bullet wound is consistent with the suspect twisting his body in a manner consistent with pointing a gun at the agents.

Assuming that those two things were presented during the trial, then you have reasonable doubt right there, and combined with the presumption of innocence that the accused are supposed to be given, then a case can be made for acquittal.

Furthermore, if the rebuttal is correct, I find it quite disturbing that the chain of custody was broken re: the bullet allegedly removed from the drug runner. If that’s the case, then that evidence should not have been admissible. So if this is the case, shouldn’t the prosecution and the judge be held to the same standards of upholding the law that they were accusing the agents of failing to do?

thirteen28 on January 19, 2007 at 2:29 PM

Also, if the illegal alien had a weapon, where is it?

pullingmyhairout on January 19, 2007 at 2:16 PM

Either you didn’t read the rebuttal like you said you did, or you didn’t read it very well. I’ll give you the benefit of doubt and assume you just missed this …

Fact: The U.S. Attorney’s version of what happened at the border on February 17th, 2005 relies almost exclusively on the testimony of an admitted drug smuggler, hardly a trustworthy source. Moreover, as previously noted, it is directly contradicted by compelling physical evidence – the angle of the bullet that struck the drug smuggler. It is clear that the drug smuggler was pointing at something at the agents as he ran away, and it was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances for them to assume that the object was a firearm. Since the drug smuggler absconded into Mexico, there was no way that the agents could have recovered his weapon – he took it with him.

Gregor on January 19, 2007 at 2:48 PM

Assuming that those two things were presented during the trial, then you have reasonable doubt right there, and combined with the presumption of innocence that the accused are supposed to be given, then a case can be made for acquittal.

were they presented during the trial?

So if this is the case, shouldn’t the prosecution and the judge be held to the same standards of upholding the law that they were accusing the agents of failing to do?

Absolutely. But since we weren’t sitting in that courtroom and don’t have the official transcript of the trial to study, I think that the appeals court will work it out. I have faith in the 5th circuit here. Like I said earlier, at least it’s not the 9th circus in San Fran.!!

I always want to give law enforcement the benefit of the doubt. But, there are sometimes a few bad apples in the barrel. I believe in our court system and the rule of law.

pullingmyhairout on January 19, 2007 at 2:51 PM

Interesting how he was shot in the a$$, non-emergency, obviously if the agents wanted to kill him they had the opportunity. Yet people keep saying…this is the trigger words…he was “shot in the back”. Just like the old west, he was “shot in the back”. He was shot while escaping custody. By definition, when someone is running from you his back is towards you. If he was shot in the leg, they would say he was “shot in the back”. He had a non serious wound in his rear end. That is more accurate, why not use those words? Because “shot in the back” is dramatic, and drama can convict.

Oh, the poor boy was “shot in the back”, by murderous border patrol vigilantes, bent on killing as many Mexicans as they can. Trained by Karl Rove.

right2bright on January 19, 2007 at 2:57 PM

were they presented during the trial?

I don’t know. The federal government hasn’t as of yet released the transcripts thereof. I have read elsewhere that the defense was not allowed to present any information regarding the fact that the drug runner was in the U.S. doing just that - running drugs across the border. If so, that’s also bothersome, and in my opinion, very prejudicial against the defense.

Absolutely. But since we weren’t sitting in that courtroom and don’t have the official transcript of the trial to study, I think that the appeals court will work it out. I have faith in the 5th circuit here. Like I said earlier, at least it’s not the 9th circus in San Fran.!!

I always want to give law enforcement the benefit of the doubt. But, there are sometimes a few bad apples in the barrel. I believe in our court system and the rule of law.

pullingmyhairout on January 19, 2007 at 2:51 PM

Next question:

Do you believe in enforcing all laws equally, or selective enforcement?

This was definitely a case of selective enforcement, where a government that absolutely refuses to enforce it’s immigration laws with any effectiveness sent a rather zealous prosecutor after two border patrol agents and essentially turned some failures to follow proper protocols into felonies that merited sentences of 11 and 12 years. That explains why some of us are so pissed off about this.

thirteen28 on January 19, 2007 at 3:04 PM

Well just keep in mind that the guy who was attempting to blow up LAX got just 10 years more than these border patrol agents.

Justice weeps…

Funny that those who claim anti-illegal immigration people are just racists aren’t chiming in on this one.

Nooooo… the only racism claims seem to be coming from the prosecutor:

A reporter who covered the trial confirms to me that not only did the prosecutor say something to the effect that the two agents “turned on one of your own people,” i.e. Mexicans (even though, of course, they’re not Mexicans but Americans of Mexican descent), but she said the same thing to the reporter during a phone interview. The reporter tells me that US Attorney’s office has been delaying the release of the transcripts, but that they’re supposed to be ready next week.

If Bush were to pardon these agents prior to leaving office they would have spent about 2 years in prison. Still unfair in my opinion, but a much more deserving sentence for “violating policy” than 12 EFFFING YEARS!

NTWR on January 19, 2007 at 3:08 PM

Allah, your reporting on this is shameful.

Cary on January 19, 2007 at 3:26 PM

’ll give you the benefit of doubt and assume you just missed this …

I missed it. Hard to read with kids nipping at your ankles…

Do you believe in enforcing all laws equally, or selective enforcement?

of course I believe in enforcing all laws equally. If the prosecutor has shown misconduct (i.e. Nifong, Fitzgerald) then he should be disbarred. But as of right now, that hasn’t been shown.

Look, I’m all for securing the border. I live in south texas. I see the results of an open border daily. I also agree that Bush & Co. has done nothing to enforce our existing laws. it is a shame that this event even happened. nevertheless, the agents were tried and convicted in what we assume (hope) was a fair trial. I firmly believe that we should allow the appeals system to do its job before we all jump to conclusions. We have some of the facts, but not all of the facts. A three-page synopsis truth/myth/fact thingy is fine, but it’s not the official trial transcript, and therefore, is incomplete IMHO. So, from this time on, I will reserve judgement until a trial transcript is released.

pullingmyhairout on January 19, 2007 at 3:34 PM

“It is a violation of Border Patrol regulations to go after someone who is fleeing,” she said.

If this is the case, then this nitwit should explain why over the past few years, there have been quite a number of van/pickup/car loads of illegals whose vehile rolls over killing several.

In many instances, they are fleeing authorities, often Border Patrol agents.

91Veteran on January 19, 2007 at 4:10 PM

Wait, wait I know…it’s because of the MSM and liberals and Nancy Pelosi, right?

I am constantly amazed at the level of understanding of the concept of “law”. As opposed to personal desires and bents. Yikes.

honora on January 19, 2007 at 1:48 PM

Ditto that — the howling about a very small but vocal minority of Democrats believing in black helicopters, U.S. Shadow governments, etc. is beginning to look very similar (in tone) to what is being said by a small but vocal minority

of the Republicans.

IMHO this continued type of carping (Bush is not conservative enough, etc.- geez what a hoot) is going to lead to another Ross Perot adventure that almost guarantees anyone that gets the Dem nomination will waltz into the win column. And of course afterwards the small but vocal minority will cry and cry that the majority are too ignorant to realize who they should

have voted for.

Good for the Democrats but bad for the country since the best way to get the issues of the day on the table is to have two major candidates framing those debates so the voters have a clear choice. Any third party candidate can hurt one party or the other. Had it not been for Nader Gore would have won Florida in 2000 and but for Perot Bush 41 would have been reelected.

Bradky on January 19, 2007 at 4:12 PM

Sorry about the messed up use of quotes above - my software I use to run DU and KOS allows me to telepathically make it look like I want.

Bradky on January 19, 2007 at 4:13 PM

I cannot believe the misconceptions about this case that I am reading here especially by AllahPundit and Patterico.

I used to work in law enforcement and it is astounding that only evidence that Jim Sutton has that the Border Patrol officers shot a known drug dealer in the back while fleeing is the plea bargained testimony from a drug dealer and a Border Patrol officer that was given immunity for testifying against Compean and Ramos after lying repeatedly to the Prosecutors office.

What you left out of your discussions is that the Border Patrol Agent that initially reported Compean and Ramos was a long time friend of the Drug Smuggler. It is against every regulation I have ever seen to have an ongoing friendship with a known felon while serving as a sworn member of a law enforcement agency.

That being the case why is this BP agent still on duty and not being prosecuted or terminated for violating Policy and Procedures. Why would investigators ignore this serious violation in order to go after Compean and Ramos unless maybe they were on the take.

Here some more facts that stink. Compean and Ramos immediate supervisor, Jonathan Richards, did not order a FBI investigation and was on the scene after the shooting. Why was he not prosecuted for violating policy? If they picked up the spent shells in the presence of Johnathan Richards how come it only became an issue when Compean and Ramos refuse to agree to a plea bargain

There was a third BP Agent that was given a plea bargain for testifying against the agents. He lied to investigators about the shooting.

The drug smuggler was caught again while waiting for the trial and after the trial was caught yet a third time for smuggling drugs. The second time he was arrested should have nullified his plea agreement.

3 of the Jurors, Gourley, Torres and Woods said they would have voted not guilty but were pressured by the Jury Foreman into voting guilty. It turns out they did vote not guilty but changed their votes after the jury Foreman lied to them about jury instructions from the Judge. Jury tampering anyone?

I could go on and on but one thing about this case bothers me from my perspective of a retired L.E officer. Due to the nature of drug trafficking is because of the huge amounts of money involved, many people are corrupted in the criminal justice system. It seems to me that this case screams corruption at the highest levels of the Justice Department.

I think Compean and Ramos are being prosecuted for getting in the middle of a drug operation that had paid off Government officials for protection. Unfortunately, I saw many cops and Prosecutors corrupted by the war on drugs including Judges during my career.

The only other logical alternative is that GWB ordered this because in my all years of law enforcement, I have never seen such a miscarriage of justice by a Prosecuting Attorney, ever.

They had every right to fire their weapons based on a reasonable belief the suspect was armed. The prosecutor took the word of a criminal over sworn law enforcement officers and made another plea bargain with a lying BP Agent in exchange for his “plea bargained based” Testimony to avoid being fired for lying.

I urge all to read the letter by the father of Ignacio Ramos to Congressman Walter Jones.

http://www.americanfreedomriders.com/JoeLoyaLetter.html

ScottyDog on January 19, 2007 at 4:15 PM

I was totally amazed at how the Homeland Security investigators found this drug smuggler so easily even though he never filed any complaint or report on the incident.

I’m also surprised that Homeland Security was able to find this drug smuggler so easily to offer him immunity to screw over these agents.

From other articles I have read on this, the dope smuggler ran back to Mexico. It was his mother who knew the wife of a US Border Patrol agent. She called this border agents wife and whined to her about little Jose getting shot in the ass.

That whole angle should have been more thoroughly investigated.

The wife of a border agent knowing someone in Mexico enough that they trade phone numbers? and the one in Mexico has ties to drug smugglers?

91Veteran on January 19, 2007 at 4:27 PM

Sorry about the messed up use of quotes above - my software I use to run DU and KOS allows me to telepathically make it look like I want.

Bradky on January 19, 2007 at 4:13 PM

That’s funny. Telepathic software for DU and Kos. You must own the super deluxe tin foil hat!

fogw on January 19, 2007 at 4:36 PM

Sorry about the messed up use of quotes above - my software I use to run DU and KOS allows me to telepathically make it look like I want.

Bradky on January 19, 2007 at 4:13 PM

I told you that several posts ago. Various methods that you use at your Daily Kos and DU home don’t work in the real world. Only in fantasy land where you folks spend all of your waking hours.

Gregor on January 19, 2007 at 4:41 PM

It was very stupid of the BP agents to do a cover-up. It strikes me as even stupider on the part of the D.A. to give immunity to the drug runner to get these agents. Why not give immunity to the agents to get the drug dealer?

Of course, our politicians are doing so little about the border, it is no wonder that common citizens automatically assume that the agents are right and the prosecutors are wrong.

Natrium on January 19, 2007 at 4:42 PM

I told you that several posts ago. Various methods that you use at your Daily Kos and DU home don’t work in the real world. Only in fantasy land where you folks spend all of your waking hours.

Gregor on January 19, 2007 at 4:41 PM

Psst Greg - Look over your right shoulder at midnight. You’ll get a chance to see one of those helicopters with the Deaniac logo on the tail - I’ve arranged it.

BTW if you or Fogw would like to order my software I use at my sites call 1-800-HILL-ROX

Bradky on January 19, 2007 at 5:42 PM

BTW if you or Fogw would like to order my software I use at my sites …

Bradky on January 19, 2007 at 5:42 PM

You mean THIS software Bradky?

Gregor on January 19, 2007 at 5:52 PM

I don’t give a rat’s @ss that a drug runner was shot in the back. Personally, I wish the agents had had better aim. What disturbs me, is how they tried to cover their tracks, by picking up the shells & not reporting the incident. It makes me wonder if they’re really any better than the scum they shot. I don’t want people like that walking around with a badge and a gun. However, I think their sentences are ridiculously long, especially with the drug runner being treated like a prince. It’s just one big mess. Don’t these prosecutors & judges have a lick of common sense?

BeachBaby on January 19, 2007 at 7:58 AM

You are missing a key feature. A number of agents came over after the shooting. They even helped pick up the spent shells. Since there was no one hit, none of them thought it needed to be reported. They felt it would create too much paperwork for nothing (see my above post).

Picking up spend shells is the law when you shoot. Now, if it is a crime scene, you do need to leave them till they investigate it. Since it was not believed that a crime occurred, the BP (including other agents) decided to not litter and pick up the shells.

It is a illogical leap to say they were “covering their tracks”. If that was the case, they would have disposed of the gun and denied firing.

Tim Burton on January 19, 2007 at 7:24 PM

The comments here are just so predictable I don’t even know why I bother reading them. The thinking boils down to this:

Illegal alien- bad
Border Patrol- good
Facts - irrelevent

You don’t care what happened, why it happened, or how it happened; an illegal got shot and that means he deserved it and these guys are heroes. It must be easy to live in a world where things are so black and white, where facts and reality don’t matter and where you know who’s right and who’s wrong based simply on who was involved.

JaHerer22 on January 19, 2007 at 9:10 AM

Facts? You’re the one who isn’t listing facts. See my posts about what is rotten in Denmark the US AG Office.

Tim Burton on January 19, 2007 at 7:27 PM

I hate to open up a can of whoop ass on myself, but I have to agree that it was wrong for the agents to open fire on an unarmed man, fleeing, in the back. take the illegal alien issue out of it for a minute and think about that. is the reason why ya’ll are all so pissed that these agents are going to jail just because the guy they shot is an illegal alien and you feel he is getting off scot free? would you feel the same if they shot an unarmed U.S. citizen?

pullingmyhairout on January 19, 2007 at 9:53 AM

Absolutely, if the guy was running away from a van full of drugs (I want to protect the children from them) had just assaulted the officers (What makes more sense, the BP agent tripping or being shoved to the ground?) and then tried to flee.

I want the SOB shot. In fact, I want people who do high speed chases to killed before they get in a wreck and kill a baby or a mother.

Tim Burton on January 19, 2007 at 7:32 PM

So your arugment is basically that illegals have no rights, including the right to live. They are fair game and anyone who pleases should be able to shoot them on the spot just because they are here illegally. They are like rabbits trying to get into the carrot patch and anyone with a gun should be allowed to shoot them, no questions asked.

More like someone trying to break into your house. Your analogy is flawed in that you rabbits != humans. In a home invasion, you are allowed to shoot no questions asked. This is a larger scale version of your neighbor breaking into your house.

Tim Burton on January 19, 2007 at 7:35 PM

Interesting how there are 2 sides to every story. Shot an unarmed man in the back, picked up the shell casings and filed a lie-filled report to cover themselves. Yeah, real heroes. (BTW fogw, procedure dictates that a fleeing suspect who presents no danger to the patrol or others is pursued, not shot. The “not shot” part is spelled out. They’re real specific about stuff like that. Care to guess how many times they shot this guy?).

honora on January 19, 2007 at 12:55 PM

Gregor, what was factually inaccurate about what Honora said?

pullingmyhairout on January 19, 2007 at 1:22 PM

Lie #1 There is debate about if he was armed. If you believe the BP, he was armed. If you believe the Drug Runner, he was unarmed. Seeing how he had 4 million in drugs, it is highly unlikely he was unarmed. I have drug dealers in my neighborhood who are armed with less drugs.

Lie #2 They didn’t file a false report. It just wasn’t reported. Not only did they not, but none of the other agents who came to the scene actually thought it was worth reporting either.

Lie #3 Him posing a threat is debatable. Unless you believe that drugs are harmless and assaulting a BP agent to get away is harmless.

Tim Burton on January 19, 2007 at 7:50 PM

Read the prosecutor’s report. The guy had surrendered with his hands up, when the agent went to cuff him, he (the agent tripped) and the suspect bolted. Shooting someone in the back pretty much speaks for itself.

honora on January 19, 2007 at 1:53 PM

The fact that he escaped to Mexico for a month proves he didn’t surender. There is no logical reasoning around that simple fact. Therefore law enforcement was shooting at someone who wouldn’t surrender. Im not an expert on what police procedures are, but i know you dont put them in jail for shooting at criminals who dont surrender.

The only logical alternative is that he did surrender. Then the agents, with him in custody, decided to shoot him. but they were such a bad shot he still escaped into Mexico. Yes this makes sense.

Resolute on January 19, 2007 at 8:17 PM

ok, one last question and then I have to watch a movie with the kiddies: WHEN did the BP find out about the van full of drugs - before or AFTER the fleeing and shooting occurred? Was the van stopped on suspicion only, or did they actually KNOW the drugs were in there? If they didn’t know about the drugs until after the fact, it doesn’t bode well for the BP agents. if they were certain that the van contained these drugs and THEN the illegals fled, I’m more inclined to believe the agents and not the prosecutor. Who can answer this question?

toodles :)

pullingmyhairout on January 19, 2007 at 8:19 PM

WHEN did the BP find out about the van full of drugs - before or AFTER the fleeing and shooting occurred?
pullingmyhairout on January 19, 2007 at 8:19 PM

That really isnt the interesting part because the fact is there is no one to testify against the motive for the actual shooting except the drug smuggler himself who got immunity. They are convicted largely based on thier coverup not known facts of the shooting so think about that for a minute. These are the facts I’m trying to piece together, but none of the reports focus on this they focus on the shooting, which nobody saw.

Thier supervisor and other agents came on scene after the shooting and discovered they chased a suspect and fired thier weapons. Then the group searched the van, discovering the drugs. So thier natural reaction was to convince the 2 to break procedure and to cover up the incident. Then immunity was somehow granted to the drug smugler despite that he was “escaped” to Mexico and he testifies the shooting was not justified. One of the other agents, who was an aquaintence of the drug smugler, seems to have perjured himself testifying against the 2.

As far as I can tell everything I just said are facts.
In summary:
A) the details of the actual shooting are shrouded in mystery and disagreed apon
B) they are convicted based on the coverup
C) others besides the 2 convicted were involved in the coverup which later got them convicted

and the prosecutor is all over the media focusing on the details of A without even worring about B or C. The whole thing is fishy.

Resolute on January 19, 2007 at 9:04 PM

All these gov’t points and the “fact sheet” assume the drug smuglers account of events is true and ignore that they were convicted based on the coverup more then actual facts about the shooting.

Resolute on January 19, 2007 at 9:09 PM

If these agents thought this guy was a threat, had a gun–why did they abandon him after they shot him? And why file a false report?

1. They didn’t abandon him, he continued to run away and got away.

2. See above post, they didn’t file a false report. No report was filed, not by them or the other agents that came to assist them, even though they all knew they shot at someone.

3. The agents didn’t even know that they hit the guy since he continued to flee. So how can someone lie about shooting someone if they didn’t know they shot him? Answer: They can’t.

Tim Burton on January 19, 2007 at 11:45 PM

Read the prosecutor’s report. The guy had surrendered with his hands up, when the agent went to cuff him, he (the agent tripped) and the suspect bolted. Shooting someone in the back pretty much speaks for itself.

honora on January 19, 2007 at 1:53 PM

He did not trip. He was assaulted. It is two BP agents saying it was assault, it is a DRUG RUNNING CRIMINAL saying he tripped.

Of course, they are Americans, so in your world they are lying by default.

Tim Burton on January 19, 2007 at 11:48 PM

thirteen28, I read the rebuttal and it is quite interesting. It still doesn’t change my mind that the agents were wrong to shoot the guy as he was fleeing. Also, if the illegal alien had a weapon, where is it?

Well, seeing how the illegal managed to escape, it is safe to say that the weapon is in Mexico. Of course I pointed out in earlier posts that he escaped, I guess you just chose not to read that before you opened your mouth.

nd, why did a trained federal agent pick up his shell casings?

Again, have you actually read the comments?

1. They didn’t know anyone was hit, therefore felt that there was no crime or even anything to report.

2. Since there was no crime or anything to report, they felt they needed to follow the law and pick up the shells, since littering is against the law.

3. Other agents knew about the shooting and helped to pick up the rounds. No where did they think a crime was committed or anything was needed to be reported about.

I agree with you that the truth is somewhere in between. but a jury found both agents guilty.

But three of them already said that they were told they could not hang the jury and were pressured into voting guilty. Also, one of them said that had more of the facts came out about the illegal running drugs, he would have voted not guilty.

Tim Burton on January 19, 2007 at 11:56 PM

It was very stupid of the BP agents to do a cover-up. It strikes me as even stupider on the part of the D.A. to give immunity to the drug runner to get these agents. Why not give immunity to the agents to get the drug dealer?

Natrium on January 19, 2007 at 4:42 PM

Geez, how many times does it need to be said. They didn’t cover it up. They just DID NOT report it. Even other agents who came on the scene after didn’t believe it was an issue to report. In fact one helped pick the shells up in order to NOT violate littering laws.

Tim Burton on January 20, 2007 at 12:04 AM

Shooting someone in the back pretty much speaks for itself.

honora on January 19, 2007 at 1:53 PM

Usually when I see someone whining about shooting someone “in the back”, it’s generally a liberal who wouldn’t know which end of the tube the round comes out of anyway.

Now, this dope smuggler was certainly older than the teenager John eFing Kerry shot in the back.

Ya think that speaks for itself?

the prosecutor is all over the media focusing on the details of A without even worring about B or C. The whole thing is fishy.

Resolute on January 19, 2007 at 9:04 PM

Is Niphong moonlighting? I know it’s a commute but…

91Veteran on January 20, 2007 at 12:05 AM

You mean THIS software Bradky?

Gregor on January 19, 2007 at 5:52 PM

Wow Gregor nice photo shop. How did you convince your companion to take that shot of you?

Bradky on January 20, 2007 at 12:40 AM

Well, seeing how the illegal managed to escape, it is safe to say that the weapon is in Mexico. Of course I pointed out in earlier posts that he escaped, I guess you just chose not to read that before you opened your mouth.

Tim Burton, please read my post from 3:34 p.m. this afternoon. I expect an apology when I log on in the morning. you were just plain rude. Just like everyone else, i’m trying to figure out the facts and if you have been reading the comment section on HotAir since its inception, you would know that. I’m willing to give all sides their fair shake and there are plenty of commenters here who will vouch for me on that one. If I’m proven wrong, I’ll say I’m wrong. But until then, you owe me an apology, sir.

pullingmyhairout on January 20, 2007 at 12:41 AM

I want the SOB shot. In fact, I want people who do high speed chases to killed before they get in a wreck and kill a baby or a mother.

Tim Burton on January 19, 2007 at 7:32 PM

Sooo you have never sped in your life - if you have then you are wishing for your own demise. Doesn’t matter if the cops chased you or not, you put others in danger - you sped and deserve the ultimate punishment. The Taliban would like your style.

Bradky on January 20, 2007 at 12:48 AM

Sooo you have never sped in your life - if you have then you are wishing for your own demise.

Bradky,

You obviously have an issue with hermeneutic and logic. They seem to slip your grasp.

Re-read my comments. There is a difference between speeding and a high speed chase. So try the Law of Identity and mix it in with a bit of the Law of Non-Contradition.

High Speed Chase = High Speed Chase
High Speed Chase != Speeding

One involves criminal endangerment which ends in a death, usually an innocent is the one killed(I’ve read that HSC involve a fatality about 1.3 times out of ten), the other is a civil violation.

Tim Burton on January 20, 2007 at 1:53 AM

If they didn’t know about the drugs until after the fact, it doesn’t bode well for the BP agents. if they were certain that the van contained these drugs and THEN the illegals fled, I’m more inclined to believe the agents and not the prosecutor. Who can answer this question?

toodles :)

pullingmyhairout on January 19, 2007 at 8:19 PM

They did suspect either drug smuggling or Illegal Alien Smuggling. Officer Ramos sighted the van coming from Mexico and when Mr Drug runner realized the BP was on to him, he made a u-turn back to Mexico. (BTW crossing the border without crossing at an official entry point is a felony.)

The is called probable cause in most court rooms unless you are Johnny Sutton or Debra Kanof. You can get a sense of their mindset by reading what she said to the jury during the trial:

“At sentencing in October, Debra Kanof, the prosecutor told the judge that all Mr. Davila wanted to do was go back home to Mexico. “Why didn’t they let him go?” she asked. For a year and a half before sentencing, the same prosecutor kept saying that all the smuggler wanted to do was surrender. They told the judge that the agents should have let him go because they did no know what was in the van and that it is not their duty to go after drug smugglers.”
http://www.americanfreedomriders.com

Following their logic, the BP should allow smugglers the chance to go back to Mexico if they are spotted violating our laws and probable cause would be rendered meaningless. I wonder what SCOTUS would have to say about this?

ScottyDog on January 20, 2007 at 3:13 PM

When you don’t have the facts you argue the law, and I’m disappointed to hear people argue that the law should allow police to shoot unarmed suspects.

The fact is, the BP agents returned to the scene of their crime after the shooting to destroy evidence. These men are thugs. Saying cops should shoot fleeing illegals running back over the border because the BP believed human/drug smuggling was occuring makes no more sense than say … … Janet Reno justifying setting buildings on fire in Waco and ultimately burning people alive because she suspected child abuse had been committed by a couple religious nuts inside.

And yes, of course we should build the fence, three layers deep, several feet under the ground, and supported by BP armed to protect themselves.

doufree on January 26, 2007 at 10:30 AM

Comment pages: « 1 [2]


You must be logged in to post a comment.