Video: U.S. Attorney defends prosecution of Border Patrol agents
posted at 10:01 pm on January 18, 2007 by Allahpundit
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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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 Next »
I saw him on O’Reilly and while I wasn’t there, from all I heard a out the incident with the scumbag illegal drug smuggler and the two Border Patrol Agents, and my life experiences, I think he’s full of $hit.
I don’t trust his ass any further than I can throw him. I have a neice who is in the Border Ptrol and I am a disabled veteran. I think the Border patrol is getting F$$$# by our government and our President. The US governmnet has no intention of protecting our borders and is a sellout to the the mexican government.
retired on January 18, 2007 at 10:11 PM
Iraq? Pah.
Iran? Who cares?
China? Old news.
That big meanie Simon Cowell? Page one, above the fold.
Olbermann has issues.
Slublog on January 18, 2007 at 10:16 PM
Congressman Ted Poe of Texas has been rounding up
thousands a signatures to send to President Bush to
pardon the two agents. Ted Poe was a judge in Houston
and I had the privilage of serving on one of his jurys.
He’s a NO NONSENSE good guy. We need more like him.
Texyank on January 18, 2007 at 10:20 PM
Hey, Johnny, you piece of $hit Scum Bag!
You just lied to the American people.
You were taped in a live radio interview with Roger Hedgcock on KOGO AM 600 in San Diego on January 17, 2007 at 4:30PM in the afternoon, stating, and I paraphrase:
Now go back and listen to him again…….. that’s not quite the same story, is it?
By the way, Johnny, where is the blasted fence to protect our nation to keep this scum from challenging our Border Agents in the first place?
This really pisses me off!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PinkyBigglesworth on January 18, 2007 at 10:30 PM
We need a national castle doctrine. Any invader can be shot.
Doghouse on January 18, 2007 at 10:32 PM
According to the U.S. attorney who successfully prosecuted the agents, the man they were chasing didn’t actually have a gun, shooting him in the back violated his civil rights, the agents didn’t know for a fact that he was a drug smuggler, and they broke Border Patrol rules about discharging their weapons and preserving a crime scene.
Even more broadly, Assistant U.S. Attorney Debra Kanof said, Ramos and Compean had no business chasing someone in the first place.
“It is a violation of Border Patrol regulations to go after someone who is fleeing,” she said.
So, “fleeing arrest” (for trafficing in drugs across national borders) is acceptable.
WTF?
heroyalwhyness on January 18, 2007 at 10:33 PM
I like the Tom Clancy solution in “Clear and Present Danger”… He has his characters hail the illegal entrants to indentify themselves and, when they don’t, he blows them out of the sky…
Could work on the ground as well.
Babs on January 18, 2007 at 10:46 PM
Johnny Sutton is full of crap and O’Reilly simply gave him a platform to SPIN the story. Sutton makes it seem like agent Compean fell and the illegal dope smuggler simply ran and was shot at. He says nothing about THE FACT that one of the agents (Ramos) thought after the dope runner ran away that he heard shots and then thought he saw the smuggler pointing a gun at him and THAT IS WHEN HE FIRED.
Ramos kept after the dope runner because he saw Compean on the ground and thought he heard shots fired. That’s why they kept after the illegal smuggler and fired shots as he ran away.
That dope runner had a van waiting for him that he ran into. So it’s not hard to think that maybe somebody other than the agents fired a shot. The dope runner could have picked up a gun or someone with the dope runner could have fired shots.
This was a dope runner and not somebody who unknowingly crossed into US territory. To stop the dope they’ve got to get the runners and anybody else in the dope game.
Our guys have been sent to a federal prison for shooting an illegal alien dope runner in the butt. You didn’t hear Sutton say that, but that’s the bottom line and it stinks.
Agents Ramos and Compean should be getting medals, not prison jump suits.
That bastard Sutton let that illegal dope runner slither back to Mexico and then come back to tell whatever story he wanted. Sutton’s folks made sure the smuggler got a pardon for trying to run that dope into the USA. The dope runner got a pardon for his crimes that day while the agents go to prison. That’s just sick!
Given not many people actually saw what happened it was easy for Sutton to find others that might say they didn’t see the smuggler shoot. And even if he didn’t if our guys thought he had a gun they should not go to prison for shooting an illegal drug runner.
Yea Ramos picked up his shells and no they didn’t report it. Probably because they knew if they did that somebody like Sutton would find the illegal and tilt things against them, since they had nothing afterwards to prove the illegal had a gun. So they knew things could be turned against them. They should have reported it all, but should they be doing over 10 years a piece in a federal prison for not reporting it? I say no.
When that illegal trying to carry dope into America called to complain he was shot in the butt, our guys should have told him, you better be glad that’s all you got!
Ramos and Compean have no known history of shooting unarmed people in the back for sport. They made an in the field decision and they’re being treated like the bad guy when they were not the ones running dope into America.
IndependentConserv on January 18, 2007 at 10:46 PM
Do you think Mexican soldiers would get thrown in prison if they shot a Guatemalan crossing their border (which they guard but is not hypocritical in any way)?
jman on January 18, 2007 at 10:49 PM
Allah- Thanks for bringing this up..I have been torn on this until this week..BillO has done a good job and I have had many of my questions answered…
Pam on January 18, 2007 at 10:49 PM
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.
Bush has a very difficult to remedy conflict of interest problem here because the prosecutor was Bush’s top advisor on criminal issues while he was Governor of Texas and a pardon would reflect poorly on Bush himself for selecting Sutton and could be seen as disloyalty from a guy who everyone says prides himself on loyalty.
They need another trial without any Bush crony involvement and there needs to be a close look at the relationship between the smugglers and the newer Border Patrol Agents that Bush has been hiring and if there is any Mexican government involvement in the hiring process.
Perchant on January 18, 2007 at 10:56 PM
What gets me is that that dope runner is probably howling with his buddies right now over a Corona about how we prosecuted our own guys and let him walk.
jman on January 18, 2007 at 10:57 PM
And don’t forget folks, the illegal dope runner is suing for $5 Million bucks!!!
And our stupid government is letting it all happen and even gave him an immunity deal to help him do it!
IndependentConserv on January 18, 2007 at 11:05 PM
Thanks, you just made me madder.
jman on January 18, 2007 at 11:08 PM
He trips and by the time he gets up the guy is so far away he misses him 14 out of 15 times. I seem to remember Johhny Sutton fact sheet saying something along the lines of the officers being well qualified with a weapon. Good enough to miss 14 times I guess.
HAHA. What is the law when someone is fleeing? Nice dodge Johnny. The procedure is to let them go, do not apprehend a fleeing suspect! That’s the law. Lawyers are so well versed in obfuscation. “Tons of authority” doesn’t answer the question.
Will he learn this? Will he learn how Osvaldo wound up getting the bullet removed from his butt in a U.S. Army hospital? That I would love to know, it probably does make Johnny Sutton look like the poster boy for justice, probably why it wasn’t in the fact sheet.
Theworldisnotenough on January 18, 2007 at 11:17 PM
Johnny
DollarSutton helped me get 5 million dollars. That should do wonders for his career. That boomerang is a bad mofo.Theworldisnotenough on January 18, 2007 at 11:18 PM
Theworldisnotenough – Thanks for that article link. I forgot about that one, but I’ll have to update my post about this with that information in the morning and give you a hat tip.
IndependentConserv on January 18, 2007 at 11:31 PM
This process of avoiding capture was demonstrated rather effectively in Monty Pithon’s Holy Grail, wasn’t it?
Run away …. Run away …. Run away
Sorry, but the rules of engagement dumped on our Border Patrol are nothing short of laughable.
fogw on January 18, 2007 at 11:33 PM
AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!
Every time I think of this it really starts pissing me off, again , and again , and again!!!!!
Going on six years after 9/11, no secure border, Border Patrol officers are instructed not to pursuit fleeing illegal alliens (who some have been know to be Other Than Mexicans), No FBI inquiry into the assault on Federal Law Enforcement Agents, i.e. the multiple assaults on and incursions into the United States by para-military “suspects” from the beloved country of Mexico, the Republic Of…… more Americans dying at the hands of illegal aliens from Mexico each year than all of the victims of 9/11 and Iraq war casualties combined, prisons full of illegal Mexican aliens, gangs roaming our nation populated by illegal aliens, countless rapes, child sexual assaults, and other non-reported crimes as in the case if an illegal in CA hits you in a car, where they have no license or insurance, they get let go and you have to pay…. on, and On, AND ON!!!!, not to mention illegals will now be eligable for Social Security payment….. (didn’t hear about that one?)
Can we play again the swearing in of ALL our public officals when they take the oath to “Defend and Protect the Constitution of the United States, against ALL enemies, foriegn and domestis”?
GOOD GOD!!!
PinkyBigglesworth on January 18, 2007 at 11:37 PM
And with the support he is receiving from our govt and others that don’t understand the meaning of the word ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT, he’ll get the 5 mil. And that will draw more across the border. Twits…….
R D on January 18, 2007 at 11:40 PM
Well if he ges the 5 million, at least he can afford his own health care and pay for his own kid’s college tuition…Right?
Lily on January 18, 2007 at 11:46 PM
Lily, you forgot the /sarc tag. Yes, if he gets the 5 mil., we will be paying for whatever drugs he can buy.
R D on January 18, 2007 at 11:51 PM
Trying to sort out the information from all sides…
This is the Roger Hedgecock site, where Johnny Sutton spent much time yesterday. Click on the upper right side link, on Johnny Sutton 1 17 07.mp3
If you don’t have time for the entire interview, which is fairly comprehensive and revealing on many accounts, listen to the very end where Mr. Sutton compares Mr. Ramos to Tookie Williams.
Entelechy on January 18, 2007 at 11:56 PM
Wow. Three of the jurors were led to believe, by the jury foreman, that a hung jury wouldn’t be accepted by the judge, and those voting guilty wanted to hurry up and get back to their lives.
Those jurors thought the sentencing was grossly disproportionate to the crime. I heartily agree.
Those agents screwed up by not following procedure, but no way did they screw up enough to cost them 11 and 12 years of their lives. Especially while the repeat offender drug smuggler skated away scott free and will now be suing for $5 million.
After watching that O’R spot, I was about to go request that my name be removed from the grassfire.org petition to get them pardoned. But after digging a little deeper, I’ve changed my mind. Their punishment does not fit their crime.
techno_barbarian on January 18, 2007 at 11:59 PM
A 10+ years in Federal prison size mistake? When child molesters and violent repeat criminals are doing just a fraction of that? Kiss my ass Sutton. You can’t even dream of being the kind of men Ramos and Campion are.
infidel4life on January 19, 2007 at 12:03 AM
tecno_barbarian
What I gather from the video up top from Johnny Sutton, they are charged with covering up a crime, and lying. I guess their not registered Democrats. Clinton made that a laughable offense years ago. Hell, he even got cheered for it.
R D on January 19, 2007 at 12:10 AM
What really gets me is how those who look at this case with a lawyerly view completely miss what a horrendously bad precedent this incident sets.
First of all, if you are a border patrol agent, are you going to do this job more or less vigorously after this incident? Why risk prosecution if something goes wrong with an apprehension when it is far, far easier to turn your head and pretend you never saw anything?
Second, if you are a Mexican drug runner, coyote, or planning on illegally crossing for other purposes, are you going to be more or less enboldened after witnessing what just happened? Knowing the border patrol agents have to worry about prosecution if mistakes are made in the apprehension, knowing that they will not be able to pursue you if you run, and knowing what a complete mockery of the Border Patrol that has resulted from this incident, those planning on coming across the border illegally cannot have been discouraged in even the slightest by this incident. No, they’ve probably been greatly encouraged by what just transpired.
It certainly doesn’t help that the prosecution more or less sought out this drug runner so that they could make a case against these guys. Given the prosecutor’s association and W’s view on border control, it’s hardly out of bounds to wonder if politics and “sending a message” weren’t behind these prosecutions – particularly when they are so eager to use a drug runner’s testimony to convict these agents.
The drug runners, the coyotes and the Mexican government are all laughing right now, and planning their next move.
Even if you accept at face value Sutton’s explanation (which I don’t – certainly not in the absence of a rebuttal from the defense), it’s still hard to see how justice was truly done in this case. The aggressiveness of the prosecution in going after these agents and the harshness of the sentence certainly don’t seem proportional to the “crime” that was committed here. So even if you grant that everything in the prosecution was in accordance with what the law prescribed, it’s pretty difficult to believe that actual justice was done in this case. And it’s impossible to believe (if you are someone that actually believes in secure borders) that a bad precedent has not been set.
But some would rather miss the forest for the trees.
thirteen28 on January 19, 2007 at 12:15 AM
How does he know he didn’t have a gun? He had a metalic object and just tried to run them over. You don’t carry 4 million in drugs and NOT carry a gun, you just don’t. I have drug dealers in my neighborhood with less on them and they carry a gun.
Civil Rights? You have to be an American Citizen to have those, unless of course you are a POS ACLU type Prosecutor.
Who is this lawyer telling them that they shouldn’t have shot? You just get attacked and your adrenaline is going, a crappy gutless lawyer has no right to judge that action.
Next, the only reason they picked the rounds up, is because it is REQUIRED! Yes, they are to preserve the desert and this includes discharging rounds. You claim it was a crime scene is funny, because it wasn’t a crime at that point. I know I have been warned by wardens to pick my rounds up when shooting in the desert.
They didn’t mention the shooting in the reports, because they truly didn’t think they hit anyone. They thought, no harm, no foul. They believed that it would have created too much paperwork for a non-issue. Reminds me of the time my brother did the honest thing and reported that his magazine was 1 round short when he was an MP. Guess what, they were investigating him for an Art. 15, the supply officer blamed him. It was nasty nasty nasty. His officer finally dropped the issue, because he didn’t want the Soldier of the Year for the State of AZ to get an Art 15. The officer said, “if someone screws up like that next time, don’t report it.” Basically, no harm…no foul.
Tim Burton on January 19, 2007 at 12:17 AM
Yea, what kiind of bastard gives total immunity to a drug dealer?
Do you think I can get total immunity for running drugs from Mexico? I could use the money to start a business.
Tim Burton on January 19, 2007 at 12:19 AM
Bingo! They rape, assault and even kill Guatemalans claiming they are rebels and yet we aren’t allowed to do half of this, because they have “civil rights.”
I guess MLK talked about civil rights for illegals and terrorists in one of his speeches. I guess I’ll have to go look it up. /sarcasm
Tim Burton on January 19, 2007 at 12:22 AM
Tim Burton on January 19, 2007 at 12:24 AM
See, this is where the appeal is going. It is unfortunate that it is going to take a year.
Tim Burton on January 19, 2007 at 12:26 AM
Embolden. You just run past them, and if they shoot you or tackle you, and claim they a$$aulted you.
Tim Burton on January 19, 2007 at 12:28 AM
Too true – for that matter, you don’t even have to be a Democrat – you can be from any party as long as you’re a corporately bought and paid for politician who does as they’re told.
These agents did far less than the minions of government do daily here and abroad and are getting stroked far in excess of what they should have been.
Keep in mind that folks like O’Reilly have their uses during times like this. What makes humor funny sometimes is that you can get away with telling the truth or a portion of it and nobody will be the wiser. Which makes the segment with Colbert more relevant to this.
Keeping with the Nietzcheian transvaluation of values, think about the overall situation – the Border Patrol gets two agents imprisoned while a drug smuggler gets paid when it should be the agents getting a commendation while the smugglers get time.
Now the Patrol has been sent a clear message by their government to toe the line while drug and other smugglers have received the same clear message that they can cross with something bordering on impunity.
Can anyone else connect dots?
Emmett J. on January 19, 2007 at 12:32 AM
Better one year than more than a decade.
techno_barbarian on January 19, 2007 at 12:33 AM
I know it’s been said before but: If you are here illegally doing illegal things, You Have NO Civil Rights!
R D on January 19, 2007 at 12:33 AM
Question #1 – The sort who is a good corporate lackey for a corporate government. Keep in mind that the illegal would have been an illegal alien having crossed the border.
Question #2 – No, unless you cut in the government at some level. Of course what is good for business is good for everyone else.
Keep in mind that our country is the only one that would even contemplate giving this sort of leniency to criminals while punishing their own.
Emmett J. on January 19, 2007 at 12:38 AM
This nauseates me to the point where thinking or even writing about it has my blood pressure raised to a near pounding migraine/borderline stroke.
Some time ago I received an email from Townhall.com concerning a similar account involving a female BP agent who is now serving twelve years (???) for violating another filthy drug smuggler/crimalien’s “constitutional” rights after releasing her K9 on his filthy fleeing arse.
I was pissed then and am even more pissed off now; this is getting out of hand.
In a world where bad characters from every corner of the world seem bent on our destruction; our government seems practically complicit in their nefarious plot(s).
In a world where anyone can traipse across the border virtually unimpeded carrying any form of deadly disease (from Ebola to the resurgent Malaria) or worse a deadly weapon (Bio, Chem or Nuke) those who are charged with stopping the endless devastating possibilities are more apt to protect the “rights” of the facilitators than prosecute them.
Around every corner our government ties the hands of our Intelligence agencies, Military, National Guard, Border Patrol and Police. I cannot believe those who protect us are at greater risk for punishment than those that seek to do us harm; it is simply unfathomable.
kiakjones on January 19, 2007 at 12:55 AM
This must reach crital mass on this issue…..
No more nuance…..
No more appeasement…..
No more ACLU defending invaders of this country without reprimand….
No more bending over and getting a “filthy sanchez”, day in and day out, from our beloved bretheren form Mexico, the Repulic of…
I asked the question in another post:
“What is the exist strategy of Iran from Iraq?”
Better yet to ask:
“What is the exit strategy of Mexico from the United States of America?”
Answer that, then vote…….. just choose the language of you ballot, no need to be a citizen!
PinkyBigglesworth on January 19, 2007 at 1:34 AM
I can’t sleep………..
Please, listen to this Michael Foxtrot again, and again… (not Roger, Johnny……)
Roger Hedgecock site,
You wonder why we are being invaded???????
Johnny is their Man!!!
Cross the border Jonny, one time. Just one time, visit Tijuana, where the corrupt Mexican Military had to disarm the local Policia.. and you think they are any better? Do you really know what they teach their kids in school about the Spanish/American War? By the time they are 19 and have two kids, they are pushed north with instructions (didn’t hear about that?), what about Juarez???, Mexicali?, etc, etc, EVERY BORDER TOWN!!!
Tonight, another American girl got raped by an illegal Mexican, Tonight, another American got killed by an illegal Mexican, and it goes on, and on , and on, but as long as Hillary and Osama (what ever), Rosie, our friend Johnny, and “Hate Bush” are in the news……… they have the votes.
In listening, (to the clip from Roger’s web page) notice how he does not even mention how invading this country and smuggling drugs is a crime that he will prosecute, or he is even tyring to prosecute, but if he had the chance…….. too bad the Border Patrol got in the way by trying to defend this country!
I think Johnny needs a year in a Federal/State/County prison to determine his tampon size!
Better yet, a weekend, unarmed, in Tijuana.
I’ll pay for the trip!
PinkyBigglesworth on January 19, 2007 at 2:18 AM
Does this law protecting unarmed drug smugglers from being shot in the back also apply to unarmed terrorists?
Halley on January 19, 2007 at 2:20 AM
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.
Things will work out though, Bush now has reason to make the Border Patrol work with empty pistols just like our National Guard on the border.
Bush and his entire administration should be deeply ashamed of themselves.
Buzzy on January 19, 2007 at 3:05 AM
That’s why I am against “shoot to wound” or “apprehend only”…if they had wasted this POS we would not be having this problem…maybe next time.
DoctorDentons on January 19, 2007 at 6:52 AM
Like Patterico points out, there is oddness on the parts of both the smuggler and the agents. Makes one wonder if they were competitors in business.
- The Cat
MirCat on January 19, 2007 at 7:05 AM
Is it legal for a suspect to run away from the border patrol? I thought the rule was, obey or receive lead. If it’s not the law, it should be. After listening to that man on O’Reilly, I’m still all for pardoning these men and putting them back to work.
Kevin M on January 19, 2007 at 7:31 AM
Ditto, techno.
BacaDog on January 19, 2007 at 7:41 AM
Maybe the 9th Circuit will swoop in and vacate their sentences. Ack.
Valiant on January 19, 2007 at 7:55 AM
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
Anyone seen the movie “The three burials of Melquiades Estrada”?
These two Border Patrol agents are of no danger to US citizens, so what’s the point in imprisoning them? They are a danger to illegals crossing the border with drugs.
There is something seriously wrong with that picyure.
csdeven on January 19, 2007 at 8:23 AM
Shooting someone in the back is just wrong; shooting someone that is unarmed is just wrong, shooting at someone 15 times is wrong… hope these two ex-Border Patrol agents and now convicted felons die in prison but before they do I hope they finally realize that they did was wrong.
IntheNet on January 19, 2007 at 8:50 AM
Johnny Sutton’s a dork. Not a hell of a lot different than Nifong.
Certainly the JAG’s office in Iraq is staffed with other dipshits like Johnny. These types are the main reason we haven’t successfully concluded our mission there.
And Patterico,defending the prosecution with quotes like the following:
“and this U.S. Attorney is sure opening himself up to some major embarrassment if it’s false.”
“Don’t tell me that they picked up the shells just to avoid filling out some paperwork. I don’t think there’s a cop alive who would buy that explanation.”
What alternate freaking Universe does he live in? Sounds like a little girl.
It’s obvious that these agents are being sacrificed to further an agenda.
there it is on January 19, 2007 at 9:07 AM
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
As for JaHerer22’s idiotic post… buddy, you’re doing the same thing you are condemning, I’ve seen a wide variety of comments, only a few of which fit your mold, simpleton. Maybe you should read them, then you won’t make such an ass out of yourself… But then again maybe you enjoy it.
and to IntheNet, what kind of a sick, twisted scumbag would wish death upon someone? Go back to DU, with the rest of the slime of society. Honestly, what an unfortunate excuse for a person you are, utter scum…
reaganaut on January 19, 2007 at 9:17 AM
Before the troll-brothers briefly sidetracked me, this whole thing reminds me of an old Kids in The Hall sketch, where the cops were pursuing the bad guys….
aha I found it on Youtube, enjoy:
The Chase
reaganaut on January 19, 2007 at 9:22 AM
JaHerer22 – what a pompous ass you are! READ your own statement -
He was illegal by your own screwed up standards. That’s a fact you and your kind overlook with impunity. Legal – illegal . ..yes, things are so Black and White.
heroyalwhyness on January 19, 2007 at 9:26 AM
Here we go again. Deja vu …
How many years will this agent get? How long until the Border Patrol is ordered to stop carrying loaded weapons.
Now’s the time to come out of that deep sleep your in people!
Gregor on January 19, 2007 at 9:37 AM
This country wants to die. That’s the only explanation. We want to die.
dhimwit on January 19, 2007 at 9:39 AM
Friday relaxation.
I’m pretty sure this is from MadTV and it’s completely SFW.
Gave me a chuckle, anyway.
Slublog on January 19, 2007 at 9:40 AM
I should add – it’s related to the current discussion.
Slublog on January 19, 2007 at 9:42 AM
Of course by these standards, if an Al Qaida terrorist like Obama runs away when he is about to be captured and our troops drop him under a hail of gunfire, our soldiers will be imprisoned and Obama will be rewarded.
Guardian on January 19, 2007 at 9:42 AM
Take a good look at Johnny Sutton. You are looking upon the face of the enemy.
Wade on January 19, 2007 at 9:46 AM
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? see, that’s the thing about living in a border state – you can’t tell who is illegal or not just by “looking” at them. making assumptions like that is dangerous. Now, I know that most of you are going to start calling me a liberal troll, go back to DU, whatever. But I think you are wrong in this case. Whenever a federal agent shoots an unarmed person, something is wrong. the agents even admitted in testimony that they knew the guy was unarmed and they shot anyway.
That being said, it’s quite dangerous on the border (I live close enough in Texas to it to worry about the matter) and the agents should be able to protect themselves and our borders. but this guy was unarmed and was posing no immediate threat to the agents. That’s why the agents got in trouble. Had the illegal fired upon them, or had a weapon, then of course it would have been o.k. for the agents to use deadly force.
ok, spank me now.
pullingmyhairout on January 19, 2007 at 9:53 AM
You’re rational is not lost on most of us. Yes it is wrong to shoot someone in the back and then attempt to cover it up. But it is not wrong to protect this country’s borders from people who are weakening it. It is double wrong to give immunity to an illegal who had every intention to engage in criminal acts in this country. It also borders on treason to create a situation that will encourage other illegals to attempt to duplicate the same situation that weakens our ability to protect our borders.
The fair way to handle that would have been to NOT give the illegal immunity and if he choose to testify against the officers then he opens himself up to prosecution for HIS crimes. Remember, these officers are of no danger to law abiding american citizens and they are serving this country’s best interests by securing our borders against people who come here to do us wrong.
Why should their crime be fully prosecuted and the other criminal be let off scott free and open this country up to paying a known criminal a multi-million dollar settlement?
THAT is screwed up!
csdeven on January 19, 2007 at 9:59 AM
I agree with you. the fact that the illegal alien is suing is proof as to how screwed up we are – that a non-citizen can file a civil complaint in our country is totally twisted. try living where I live in texas – our county is littered with trial attorneys. it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if this guy filed his lawsuit here.
pullingmyhairout on January 19, 2007 at 10:04 AM
Well then I hope you will contact your elected officials and demand that they start using some common sense when writing law.
PS How many trips has that guy made in the past? How many will he make in the future? How much damage has that illegals activity caused in this country and just how does it compare to being shot in the butt?
I think the President should pardon these officers because a known criminal was given immunity from prosecution. That would send a message to other illegals that they cannot use our laws against us.
csdeven on January 19, 2007 at 10:16 AM
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.
Excuse me for believing that human beings, regardless of their ethnicity, country of orgin, or legal status, have the right not to be shot in the back. I’m not excusing him for being here illegally, that is something that should be addressed, but last time I checked we don’t issue hunting permits on illegals.
JaHerer22 on January 19, 2007 at 10:16 AM
Heh. they are all liberal. what can I say… people who think Austin is liberal need to visit where i live.
pullingmyhairout on January 19, 2007 at 10:31 AM
Worth re-posting again.
We want to git rid of the illegal scum-bags, but we do not want vigilante, liars doing it. But treating this drug runner as some savior is insulting. A severe reprimand to the officers, for lying and covering up. No one was killed, no one was seriously injured.
I disagree with AP, if the Mexican government does not see fit to punish their lawbreaker (for drug smuggling), than the offense can’t be that severe. If they don’t prosecute, we don’t prosecute. I feel uneasy for imprisoning people for political reasons (they broke the law under Stalin also and many were thrown in prison and death after sentencing). They only want to punish us and weaken us, using drug-smuggling as the weapon.
I say pardon, because the Mexican government has shown, through inaction, that they are using these incidents as political levearage. And we should not intern our officers for political reasons. Reprimand them for breaking the rules, not for for offending Mexico.
right2bright on January 19, 2007 at 10:32 AM
Rules of engagement in IRAQ, rules of engagement on our border, blah, blah, blah…
Why don’t we just send dozens of ACLU lawyers to the border and Iraq and put out the WELCOME mat. If our soldiers or immigration officials look at you the wrong way, ACLU lawyers will sue for “damaging their self-esteem” and “oofffeeenndiinnnggg” them.
And so as not to ooofffeeennnnndddd anyone, from now on, let’s be sure to call them “freedom fighters” (insurgents isn’t nice enough) and “undocumented workers”.
mountainmanbob on January 19, 2007 at 10:39 AM
The only way an illegal ends up getting shot in the back is by turning and running away, and ignoring demands to halt from the Border Patrol agents. The illegal obviously had something to hide and chose to run rather than get caught smuggling drugs and end up in the slammer.
The illegal made the wrong choice, and ran. Our government made the wrong choice and granted the drug runner immunity. The Border Patrol agents were doing their job, securing the border and protecting U.S. citizens from slimeballs who illegaly come to our country peddling blow, because their country is immersed in poverty and run by leaders who are sympathetic to their illegal activities.
Now we know who’s side you’re on Jaherer.
fogw on January 19, 2007 at 11:23 AM
Look who’s defending the prosecutor here: Allahpundit and Patterico – two lawyers! Both need to get a clue.
PRCalDude on January 19, 2007 at 11:56 AM
Yes, and they both seem to be missing the bigger picture.
While it is pretty easy for them to show that the agents did make some willful mistakes, Allah at least, through this statement:
seems to believe the excessive sentence of these two agents is somehow justified. One could easily and reasonably make a case for reprimanding or firing these agents based on willful procedural errors and the discharge of their weapons. But 11 and 12 year sentences?
These guys should have simply been fired for what they did and then the case dropped. Instead, the prosecutor went and actually sought out a person after he had knowledge that the person was attempting to smuggle 750 lbs. of marijuana into the country. And apparently, that doesn’t leave a bad taste in their mouth at all. Nor does the precedent that has been set, wherein our government has shown far more zeal in prosecuting those who protect our border than stopping those who illegally cross it.
If our government protected our borders with the same aggressiveness that they went after these agents, incidents like this would be rare or non-existent.
thirteen28 on January 19, 2007 at 12:12 PM
BTW, this entry from The Corner is presented without comment:
thirteen28 on January 19, 2007 at 12:21 PM
They pick apart this case, like vultures on carrion. The totality of the case shows to me that it is political. We do not put people away in this country for politcal expediency. They broke policy, a criminal was running away. I would bet the democrats could find you broke some obscure tax law AP, and sentence you 10 to 12 years (remember Billy Dale?) and shut you up.
right2bright on January 19, 2007 at 12:23 PM
But yet …
Illegal aliens who molest 4 year old girls are DEPORTED instead of facing procecution for their crime.
At least, if the Federal Government gets their way.
Gregor on January 19, 2007 at 12:35 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
Wrong. Border Patrol is not allowed to pursue an illegal into Mexico. The agents had to make a choice:
Let an illegal alien carrying 700 lbs of drugs get away and continue to move drugs into this country in the future …
or …
Shoot him.
I say shoot him EVERY TIME. Only mistake was that they hit him in the a$$ and not in the head.
No need to guess. They shot him ONCE in the a$$. If you are asking how many times they shot AT him, that’s a different story, but last I checked … the number of missed shots is meaningless, other than to indicate your skill level with a firearm.
Gregor on January 19, 2007 at 1:01 PM
Good observations Honora. We need our military and law enforcement people to be absolutely disciplined as well as honest. Anything less invites a measure of anarchy.
Their sentence was stiff because they opted to go to trial. Had they pled guilty it would have been considerably less and the government wouldn’t have felt it needed to deal with the dealer like it did. In my opinion they felt they could play the illegal immigration issues to be acquitted. They gambled and lost and helped embarass their government in the process.
Bradky on January 19, 2007 at 1:07 PM
LOL! Yeah, that’s it Bradky. Completely ignore the fact that her observations were factually inaccurate. Just keep saying it over and over until even you believe it.
Go back to sleep.
Gregor on January 19, 2007 at 1:10 PM
This is exactly why private militias are never a good idea. Too much bloodlust.
Bradky on January 19, 2007 at 1:11 PM
No, it’s exactly why drugrunning across a foreign border is never a good idea. You could (and should) be shot.
Gregor on January 19, 2007 at 1:17 PM
Gregor, what was factually inaccurate about what Honora said?
pullingmyhairout on January 19, 2007 at 1:22 PM
Sooooooo the great Karnak works for the border patrol and can tell its agents “suspicious guy crossing the border – must have drugs, General Gregor permission to engage the Borg?”
Like I said Gregor bloodlust – it seems that in your mind to “Kill em all as long as they are illegal” doesn’t undermine the American principles you profess to absolutely support.
Bradky on January 19, 2007 at 1:26 PM
BTW, a rebuttal to Sutton’s statements can be found here.
thirteen28 on January 19, 2007 at 1:40 PM
Read my comment after hers.
Nice try Bradky. Misquoting, taking out of context, and otherwise lying only works on your DailyKos and DU boards. How about copying and pasting any post of mine, on any board, or on any venue where I’ve suggested this? Ever!
I don’t advocate shooting people because they are illegal. I do however support law enforcement in shooting people who refuse to follow instructions and attempt to escape while being told to stop. And contrary to what Honora would have you believe … unlike a city cop chasing down a purse snatcher … a Border Patrol agent is not instructed to pursue an illegal alien across the border and apprehend him in Mexico. If this was the case … this drug dealer would have undoubtedly been apprehended after being shot in the a$$ instead of George Bush sending a team over there to rescue him and give him legal advice.
Gregor on January 19, 2007 at 1:48 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?
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
If the suspect is fleeing, runs rather than allowing our agents to search and interrogate the suspect, just how the hell do the agents know if the illegal is a danger or not? Should they consult their magic 8-ball?
Here’s my way of thinking …..
Illegal heeds warnings of agents, remains stationary, answers any and all questions and allows body search:
PRESENTS NO DANGER
Illegal runs for the hills, fleeing agents:
PROBABLE DANGER, POTENTIAL DRUG SMUGGLER, COULD BE ARMED
Question for you honora …..
If Border Agents spot someone crossing the border wearing a turban who appears to be sporting a rather bulky jacket in mid summer, and the intruder turns and runs as soon as he is seen or approached by the agents, should they fire on the intruder or let him run to return another day?
Just interested in knowing who’s side you’re on. And as you ponder your answer just remember my hypothetical isn’t really a hypothetical anymore.
The problem is the rules don’t allow our Border Patrol to do their job. I’m wondering if our current laws will allow law enforcement to take out these bad guys when they’re concealing they’re weapons while strolling around Times Square. Will we shoot first, or read them their rights and grant them an attorney. Shooting first eliminates the threat entirely, but I’m sure you would complain that their human rights were violated.
fogw on January 19, 2007 at 1:49 PM
They made the wrong–as in criminal–choice. There is a cost associated with that.
honora on January 19, 2007 at 1:50 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
F*ck that sniveling little queer Sutton. He thinks this prosecution is going to get him some props in D.C. with the open borders administration.
I hope it gets him a demotion from the armpit of Texas to the armpit of…New Mexico. Buttlicker.
Jaibones on January 19, 2007 at 1:53 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?
honora on January 19, 2007 at 1:48 PM
Honora, are you even attempting to understand what actually happened? Have you even bothered to read a single account of the incident? Or are you just arguing because it’s the liberal thing to do?
Which report have you read where the agents “abandoned him?”
How does an agent “abandon” an illegal alien who runs across the border into another country of which the agents are not allowed to travel?
How ironic is this statement, as you clearly have no knowledge of the law of what a border agent is allowed to do while chasing an illegal who crosses the border back to Mexico.
Gregor on January 19, 2007 at 1:54 PM
Yeah, bet the jury was bought off too….
honora on January 19, 2007 at 1:55 PM
The prosecutor’s report.
Please educate me. Show me where the SOP is to shoot them?
honora on January 19, 2007 at 1:57 PM
Just to repeat from the last post I made, a rebuttal to Sutton can be found here.
I strongly urge everyone to read it, especially those that are accepting the Sutton’s words at face value. Feel free to ponder with the same skepticism that I reserved for Sutton’s defense of his own actions. That being said, the truth probably lies somewhere in between, and if that’s so, then the case for the against these agents is not nearly as cut and dry as the prosecutor would have you believe.
That being said, I still doubt this will convince those that believe the biggest problem with our borders is out of control Border Patrol agents.
thirteen28 on January 19, 2007 at 2:04 PM
Honora, read the rebuttal to the prosecutor I’ve linked in two posts above. Then come back and comment on it instead of taking the prosecutor’s word at face value.
thirteen28 on January 19, 2007 at 2:05 PM
Actually, that is incorrect. The shooting of a suspect who is disobeying orders to stop and fleeing toward another country’s border being a criminal offense is highly debated. The only facts that are not debated is that they violated policy in picking up their shell casing, the guy was illegally crossing our border, and they guy was carrying 700 lbs of drugs. And I think picking up your shell casings justifies an 11 year sentence, right? Oh right, we can’t forget that they lied in their report. So that’s worth at least 7 years.
And of course, the guy who was transporting 700lbs of drugs doesn’t get a day in jail and in fact … will most likely be given several million $$$ with which he can purchase more drugs to sell in our country in the future.
It all makes sense to you, doesn’t it?
Gregor on January 19, 2007 at 2:06 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
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »