Buy hydrocodone online. Buy hydrocodone online without a prescription….

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.

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?

This could be very good news for Border Agents Jose Alonso Compean and Ignacio Ramos, as well as Border Agents who are will be afraid of being arrested for doing their jobs
President George W. Bush left open the possibility of a pardon for two U.S. Bor…

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.

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.

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.

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?

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…

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.

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.

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.

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.

I’ve often wondered: does the government still have the seriousness to rule?  It appears not.  When border patrol agents are convicted for defending themselves in the line of duty, w……

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.

toodles :)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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