Andy McCarthy unloads on agents in border-patrol shooting
posted at 4:59 pm on January 29, 2007 by Allahpundit
A wise man. A man whose columns are often twice as long as they should be, ideally, but a wise man. And correct, as usual, in this case.
[U.S. Attorney Johnny] Sutton is the top federal law-enforcement officer in one of the nation’s most notorious border badlands. Day in and day out, while no one was paying much attention to the dusty Rio Grande towns outside El Paso, he has been the U.S. Border Patrol’s staunchest ally…
So why are some Border Patrol agents vilifying Sutton today? Why are they joined by a full-throated chorus of union reps, anti-immigration activists, media heavyweights, and a small but vocal cabal of mostly Republican congressmen? Because two rogues who had no business wearing badges and carrying guns have managed to entangle their gross malfeasance in the impassioned politics of immigration, that’s why…
Cops are peace officers; absent life-and-death exigencies, they are not judge, jury and executioner. Not in big cities like New York. Not in rural middle America. And not on the border. As Sutton put it when I spoke with him, a big part of what separates us from many countries in the world is that “in America, the cops are the good guys.”
Compean and Ramos are bad guys…
Instead of arresting the wounded smuggler, they put their guns away and left him behind. But not before trying to conceal the improper discharge of their firearms. Compean picked up and hid his shell-casings rather than leaving the scene intact for investigators. Both agents filed false reports, failing to record the firing of their weapons though they were well aware of regulations requiring that they do so. Because the “heroes” put covering their tracks ahead of doing their duty, Aldrete-Davila was eventually able to limp off to a waiting car and escape into Mexico.
Much, much, much more at the link, all of it a soothing salve to the demagoguery of certain dragon-slaying beastmasters whose names we shall not mention.
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 3 Next »
Tony Snow himself cautioned about howling for a pardon (my words) in this case…said the details might be pretty embarrassing (his words). I trust Tony and this cooled my automatic compassion for the two agents. Terribly regrettable.
RushBaby on January 29, 2007 at 5:07 PM
I don’t care what Andy McCarthy says. Sutton is a Bush crony slimeball who (like Nifong) has no qualms about ruining these mens’ lives to advance his own career. IMO there is a lot more to this story than has been revealed – yet, including big money connections. Citing the BP Agents’ misconduct does in no way justify the harsh sentences and the way the U.S. Attorney has thrown them under the bus. The real bad guy is the illegal alien drug smuggler. Demonizing our own agents is just another shameful example of Bush’s open borders agenda.
infidel4life on January 29, 2007 at 5:13 PM
So, basically, you want the agents to be able to do whatever they want. Shoot, stab, etc. It’s all good.
Allahpundit on January 29, 2007 at 5:14 PM
Heh, took the bait.
Here’s where I think he comes close, but ultimately misses the bigger picture and why this case has so many up in arms:
And thus, he touches on a very likely outcome – that border patrol agents have just been sent a very chilling message (whether intentional or not) that said energetic policing could end up getting them prosecuted. How can anyone reasonably deny that many border patrol agents won’t perceive things that way now – and thus look the other way instead of risking their lives and possible prison time. Even if ever other assertion made by McCarthy were indisputably true (and I don’t think all of them are), that perception would remain.
These agents very well could have been weeded out with Donald Trump’s signature phrase (no, not a slam on Rosie, but “your fired”). Instead, the letter of the law has been used to violate the spirit of the law through excessively harsh sentences. Don’t think other border patrol agents didn’t take notice.
thirteen28 on January 29, 2007 at 5:18 PM
How pathetic AP, resorting to a leftist tactic. Do you know the FACTS? Apparently McCarthy doesn’t either.
FACT:
1. Davila crossed the border illegally.
2. Davila was a drug-smuggler
3. Davila may have had a weapon
4. The agents shot at him, but when he kept running back across the border without stopping the agents most likely thought they never hit this pr**k.
5. ICE has no resources to stop illegal immigration but they have enough resources to find the Davila, bring him back, and testify against border agents. Also pathetic.
6. Even if they did violate some administrative procedure, 12 years in prison is just a little heavy handed. Doncha think?
McCarthy is a fool. What does that make you?
Andy in Agoura Hills on January 29, 2007 at 5:21 PM
Oh yeah, I forgot to add the Bush is AWOL on this issue.
Andy in Agoura Hills on January 29, 2007 at 5:23 PM
I read McCarthy’s article earlier today. I didn’t know any of the details before but kept wondering how the Jury convicted these Agents if they were so innocent.
This is an example of what bothers me about Tancredo as well. Did he know all the facts before demanding a presidential pardon? Either he leaped before looking or he has a problem with consistency in the application of law/justice. Either way, it ought to be an embarrassment to him.
.
GT on January 29, 2007 at 5:23 PM
McCarthy addressed your points, which don’t amount to much more than “he was here illegally, fire at will” in his article.
Allahpundit on January 29, 2007 at 5:27 PM
In that case, it’s time to bring out the big guns.
Border Patrol Officer…Jack Bauer.
Slublog on January 29, 2007 at 5:27 PM
McCarthyism
Now they tell us the agents should have crossed into Mexico and dragged Davila back into the US? Border Agents can cross into Mexico and drag drug smugglers back to the US to testify against other Border Agents but not to arrest them.
Who can blame them? I would have done the same thing, knowing what a protected species the Mexican drug smuggler is these days.
Perchant on January 29, 2007 at 5:29 PM
I dont think that is what Infidel4life said or meant. However, just like in another thread regarding ROE’s in Iraq, such harsh sentences will certainly cause consternation on the part of our Border Patrol officers. While is does appear that the two officers were guilty of some crimes, I for one do not feel the sentences are commensurate for the alleged crimes.
brtex on January 29, 2007 at 5:33 PM
You’re not kidding – this one clocked in at 3200 words. Not having to pay for ink has allowed some writers to let their length flag fly.
Slublog on January 29, 2007 at 5:33 PM
There’s a reason people should wait for all the details.
One Angry Christian on January 29, 2007 at 5:37 PM
The defense could NOT MENTION the drugs nor many other factors in the case. It was a slam dunk for the prosecution.
It reminds me a little of the Duke grand jury.
You said it well. This is sooooo much bigger than two border cops covering up shooting a drug smuggler in the butt, who had a weapon along with a few hundred thousands dollars (or millions?) of dope.
This treatment of the BP does harm to our borders, great harm. PERIOD! And we may never know the truth/whole story.
AllahPundit, Why are you so invested in this? Your disdain for Tancredo is very left like, and irritating. Let the Dems attack their own, we shouldn’t stoop to that behavior.
shooter on January 29, 2007 at 5:37 PM
WE CAN’T CROSS THE BORDER, not for any reason!
Even our journalists that have ventured down there (greta once) were prohibited from putting a toe across the ‘protected’ single barbed wire border line. Believe me, the OTHER side is much more protected than our side.
shooter on January 29, 2007 at 5:42 PM
“Compean and Ramos are bad guys…”
Is this all he has to label them “bad guys”? They shot a scum drug dealer and left him? Tried to cover it up? I don’t care. I see everyday how cops trying to follow outdated laws get shot or screwed over by high priced lawyers that just end up putting scum on the street.
I better see more of why they’re “bad guys” than this. All this bull does is encourage even more lawlessness and anarchy on our borders.
Yeah … some suit who never gets his ass dirty has the balls to say that.
darwin on January 29, 2007 at 5:44 PM
No. He was here illegally. He was carrying drugs and a gun. So, our border agents should just wave him through? I want our border agents to do EXACTLY what they did. You’re here illegally, you’re under arrest. If the illegal refuses, shoot to kill. That would put a definite stop to illegals coming here and f**king up our country.
Andy in Agoura Hills on January 29, 2007 at 5:45 PM
Two American Border Agents defended our border and a US Attorney made a deal with an illegal alien drug smuggler in order to generate testimony that would convict them.
Let the agents go and fire that US Attorney.
JayHaw Phrenzie on January 29, 2007 at 5:46 PM
1) Davila crossed the border illegally. Crossing the border does not justify shooting someone according to the law. The law as written does not grant the Agents the authority to fire on any suspect without being fired upon first.
2)Davila was a drug-smuggler. This was only known after the fact. Surely you don’t support the idea of shooting someone first and then asking questions later. Neither agents nor police officers nor military soldiers are authorized to shoot someone because they suspect someone might be a criminal.
3) Davila may have had a weapon. Again, you can’t shoot someone you think may have a weapon. You have to see it or something that convinces you that the suspect has one. Agents are trained to assume everyone may have a weapon. That doesn’t justify shooting them first and then verifying later.
4) The agents shot at him, but when he kept running back across the border without stopping the agents most likely thought they never hit this pr**k. Agents are not authorized to fire on a suspect who is fleeing from them and has not fired upon them.
5) ICE has no resources to stop illegal immigration but they have enough resources to find the Davila, bring him back, and testify against border agents. Also pathetic. The issue isn’t the resources. The issue is on how the laws are written and on how they are applied. The agents failed to follow protocol and tried to cover it up.
6) Even if they did violate some administrative procedure, 12 years in prison is just a little heavy handed. Doncha think? Shooting a fleeing suspect you know to be unarmed is a little more than violating administrative procedure. You need to go back and re-read the article. The suspect surrendered with both hands up. He got an attempted rifle butt in the face by the agent instead of handcuffs. It was after that he fled and was shot at.
The preponderance of the evidence established that Aldrete-Davila was unarmed. Besides Compean and Ramos, there were several other agents on the scene. None of them believed Aldrete-Davila posed a threat to their safety; none, other than the two defendants drew their weapons; and Compean and Ramos neither took cover nor alerted their fellow agents to do so.
In other reports, the agents retrieved the shell casings. They aren’t permitted to do that until after an investigation is made. They knew that. What they tried to do is obstruct what they knew would be an official investigation. That alone will put them in jail.
On the other end, I disagree with the decision that the suspect should receive any compensation.
.
GT on January 29, 2007 at 5:47 PM
Evidently, AP with your legal background, do not allow for mitigating and extenuating circumstances.
I equate the Border incident with Richard Miniter’s take on how we “will be defeated in Iraq.”
From his 1/27 blog:
So AP,if you think policing up shells and keeping mum about this incident on the border is worthy of 10 years in prison, then I think you are a dickhead.
there it is on January 29, 2007 at 5:49 PM
Exactly. I don’t think we do know the entire story, nor do I think it will ever by known by anyone other than the principals in this case, the two agents and the smuggler. We are told that we should accept the prosecution’s side at face value and completely ignore that of the defense, but that is no better than having blind faith in the defense’s side. I’ve read “fact sheets” presented by both sides, and there are enough inconsitencies and mischaracterizations in both of them that one can reasonably infer that the truth lies somewhere between the conflicting versions.
Thus, while I can believe these agents screwed up and should have very likely been given their walking papers, it still seems very excessive that they were put away for such a long amount of time. And only a fool would believe that such long sentences don’t have chilling effect on other border patrol agents – and thus does a great deal more harm to the cause of law and order than the prosecution (and its defenders) would have you believe.
thirteen28 on January 29, 2007 at 5:54 PM
Andy McCarthy examining the facts of the case.
brtex on January 29, 2007 at 5:55 PM
!!!
You know, I realize that immigration politics are heated and polarizing, but “shoot to kill” is simply not sane — never mind appropriate — law enforcement absent at least a threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or to others.
These two assclowns weren’t “defending the border”. They were taking potshots at a fleeing suspect, contrary to agency policy and good law enforcement practices. They’re an embarassment to the Border Patrol and to good cops everywhere.
Centerfire on January 29, 2007 at 5:55 PM
And they shouldn’t have. It wasn’t germane to the case. The agents didn’t know he was smuggling drugs until after they shot him. You can’t shoot someone because of what you think he might be.
.
GT on January 29, 2007 at 5:55 PM
I think that he meant “fusillade” where he wrote “fuselage.”
Good column, nevertheless.
SWLiP on January 29, 2007 at 5:55 PM
Allah – I agree that, if the facts are as the prosecutor says they are, these two border patrol agents are bad apples. I’m sure that most (if not all) of the people at HA would agree that it’s not alright to fire 15 bullets at a man (even an illegal alien drug smuggler) that is attempting to surrender.
However, I don’t think that this article (or the others you have posted) has adequately addressed the issues the defense has raised. The bullet being taken home by the prosecutor’s team before it was tested, the inconclusive ballistics report, the medical examiner saying that the entry wound was consistent with the twisting that would have been seen if someone was turning to shoot (or turning for some other reason, I suppose) while running away, the giant mound of earth that effectively blocked the ability of the other bp agents to see what happened, etc.
In general, I tend to default to the prosecutor’s side of things. That’s what makes me a good law-and-order Republican. ;) Even on this issue, I am tempted to say (despite the questions being raised by the defense), “They were found guilty by a jury of their peers.” Yet, even there, there are questions being raised. As has been mentioned before, 3 jurors have signed affidavits saying they were pressured into voting guilty when they didn’t think the agents were guilty.
Finally (and I’m not sure this has any bearing on the case, but it’s a personal turn-off for me), I don’t like the racial appeal the prosecutor made in his closing argument…basically saying, ‘Don’t let these guys get away with doing this to one of your countrymen.’ I suppose a prosecutor’s job is to win the case and, if a racial appeal is going to help, I guess he should do it. However, I’d like to think his case was convincing enough that he didn’t have to use a tactic that low.
JadeNYU on January 29, 2007 at 5:59 PM
Did anyone read the testimony of the Army doctor that pulled the bullet out? Now we have a story that the bullet has never been linked to Ramos’ gun.
Casey on January 29, 2007 at 6:04 PM
“So, basically, you want the agents to be able to do whatever they want. Shoot, stab, etc. It’s all good.”
Allahpundit on January 29, 2007 at 5:14 PM
AP That has got to be one of the more biased and simplistic analysis on this site. Frankly, it is much more appropriate for Huffpo or Daily Kos.
Why are you so harsh here (and with Tancredo/SPP/NAU)
It (your contrarian/minority view) would be much more bearable if you could rise above the juvenile. Just my 2 cents.
America1st on January 29, 2007 at 6:07 PM
For all those non-believers of the North American Union:
Here’s something to make you giddy.
Act now or forever hold your peace.
Gregor on January 29, 2007 at 6:13 PM
Andy McCarthy examining the facts of the case.
McCarthy is a fool. What does that make you?
So AP,if you think policing up shells and keeping mum about this incident on the border is worthy of 10 years in prison, then I think you are a dickhead.
Compare. Contrast.
Slublog on January 29, 2007 at 6:14 PM
Yes, it is simplistic. And it also fairly represents the thrust of most arguments on the agents’ side because those arguments are simplistic. What this boils down to for most of the agents’ supporters is that they’re the good guys and the drug smugglers are the bad guys and we’re crazy to go around prosecuting good guys when there are so many bad guys we could be prosecuting. If that’s your attitude, then you’re granting these men a de facto license to do whatever they want, laws be damned.
I’m invested in it because he’s a demagogue, and the more transparently demagogic he is, the more he tarnishes those of us who believe in strong borders by association. I appreciate some of the things he has to say — his point last week about race-based caucuses was well taken, and I said so at the time — but the NAU nuttiness and now this is making us look bad. We have to answer him when he descends into this nonsense to distance ourselves from it.
Allahpundit on January 29, 2007 at 6:19 PM
Based on your personal opinion, rather than facts or evidence which you continue to ignore, and refuse to debate.
Allah, you are worse on this issue than the AP is on producing witnesses to back up their fiction. There have been many calls for you to debate or offer you explanation on ANY of the contentions by Tancredo and all you’ve ever offered is name calling.
Gregor on January 29, 2007 at 6:36 PM
AP,
Take your buddy Andy McCarthy and establish residence at DU. Only people who really know what happened that day are the 2 BP officers and a Mexican drug smuggler. You and yours obviously have taken the side of the drug smuggler. You haven’t got a clue how difficult the job of the BP or any police agency for that matter. If you ever find yourself in a situation where someone turns and points something at you while fleeing, be sure you stand there long enough to dertmine if it is a weapon or cellphone. RIP sucka!
Chief1942 on January 29, 2007 at 6:39 PM
So hiding evidence and lying about it is OK with you. End justifies the means,eh?
.
GT on January 29, 2007 at 6:39 PM
I need to add that it is not really Tancredo that is “making us look bad.” It’s people like you who publicly label it as a nutjob conspiracy, while you offer pretty much nothing to back it up.
Gregor on January 29, 2007 at 6:39 PM
On another thread I have been taken to task for my position, and the arguements against my position have been effective.
Now I follow this thread and find myself uncertain, and confused. Perhaps Bryan, Proffessor Blather, Metro, and Shooter are right.
Although I have been to El Paso, Del Rio, Laredo, Nogales, and San Diego, and have been on the border, I have never been a Border Patrol agent. I have talked to several, but I wasn’t there when this incident took place, so I really just don’t know what happened. I mean, who do you trust?
Seriously, no sarcasm intended. I just don’t know. I wasn’t there.
Before you(all) explode in flames, lighten up a little bit, please. I can’t take the heat.
I’ll crawl back under my rock now.
Have a nice day.
rockhauler on January 29, 2007 at 6:42 PM
So the Agent must first take a bullet between the eyes before he’s allowed to fire his weapon? That’s not a policy I would have held them to if I was on the jury. Unless of course, I wasn’t made aware of the preceding high speed chase in a vehicle which would lead the Agents to reasonably suspect (from the smuggler’s determination to escape) carried some illegal cargo like drugs, WMDs, etc.
It would be important for the jury to learn that the reasonable suspicions were later validated.
Without that knowledge, I’d be less inclined to believe that some random person that the Agents found in the vicinity of the border was armed or that the Agents thought they saw a gun. Sutton should be toast if he railroaded these Agents by keeping this crucial information from the jury.
Perchant on January 29, 2007 at 6:45 PM
Suppose Compean and Ramos had dropped Davila and a weapon or something resembling a weapon was found on him. What would everyone be saying now?
The Agents (at least one of them) said he thought he saw a weapon. The response to this should be no different than in the above supposition. It was self defense, not using excessive force to enforce the law.
Set them free!
Woody
woodcdi on January 29, 2007 at 6:45 PM
Tony Snow was Pro Illegal alien invasion Before he became a Bush crony…that’s why he was chosen for the job!!!
get a load of this…..
INVASION USA
Ballistics data don’t support
charge against border agents
Investigator: U.S. attorney twisted evidence to fit case – ‘guilty of malicious prosecution’
——————————————————————————–
Posted: January 28, 2007
10:45 p.m. Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
Ballistics reports, used in the trial of Ignacio “Nacho” Ramos, one of two Border Patrol agents convicted of shooting fleeing drug dealer Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, do not support the prosecution’s claim the bullet was fired from Ramos’ gun, according to documents provided to WND from Andy Ramirez, chairman of the Friends of the Border Patrol.
Despite the conclusion of a laboratory criminalist that he could not conclusively link the bullet removed from Aldrete-Davila with Ramos’ service weapon, a Department of Homeland Security agent swore, in an affidavit of complaint filed against Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, that Aldrete-Davila was hit by a round fired by Ramos.
Andy Ramirez
“Johnny Sutton and his assistants are guilty of malicious prosecution,” Ramirez charged to WND. “The prosecutors lied to the jury and
Mellen on January 29, 2007 at 6:49 PM
We have to answer him when he descends into this nonsense to distance ourselves from it.
Allahpundit on January 29, 2007 at 6:19 PM
I can take that point just fine. I’m not into the NAU thing and don’t beleive that one has to be in order to be an advocate for strong borders.
But why not apply standards to both sides? McCarthy is engaging in some mischaracterization himself when he writes things like this:
McCarthy knows damn good and well that the agents couldn’t cross the border to continue pursuit, but he characterizes this as just leaving him (Mr. Smuggler) behind. So how does such a mischaracterization advance the argument that these guys should each be doing a decade plus of hard time, particularly when the person making it certainly knows that the agents could not have legally crossed the border to continue their pursuit. Why throw this mischaracterization in there if the case against the agents is so strong?
And can you imagine the additional charges Sutton would have thrown and these guys had they actually crossed the border? As bad as they’ve been screwed, it would have been far worse had they crossed.
The prosecution and its defenders like you have admittedly raised some good points in this case, but I’ve also seen several instances like the example above where the case is stuffed with some pretty weak points.
Bottom line, these agents weren’t criminals, they were just a couple of incompetent f–k-ups who botched an arrest and were guilty of Nuke LaLoosh-like marksmanship, and were probably just too damn lazy to file a report, hence the pick up of the shell casings. Firing them would have been sufficient to weed them out, and it wouldn’t have required giving a known drug smuggler immunity and a chance to win the lawsuit lottery. At least McCarthy had the decency to admit that the smuggler’s lawsuit was a disturbing aspect of this whole sorry affair.
Just as one need not be a believer of the NAU theory to be an advocate of strong borders, neither does one need to believe these agents are criminals that should each do a decade plus of hard time – especially when the prosecution side is at least as guilty of embellishing the facts of this case as the defense.
thirteen28 on January 29, 2007 at 6:49 PM
Also Mike McCaul says the government is refusing to send him info on the case…stonewalling….gee, wonder why???
Mellen on January 29, 2007 at 6:54 PM
Just because someone puts on a badge doesn’t make them good, honest individuals. There are a lot of police who are just as corrupt as the crooks they are supposed to stop. Look at the actions of many cops in New Orleans after Katrina. They became looters also. There is probably a lot more to this story than has been let on. How do we know the agents weren’t there as the buyers of the drugs and they started shooting after the deal went bad. They could have thought they could use the power of their office to cover for their crimes. Maybe the prosecutor has known all along that he had bad cops on his hands but couldn’t make a case against them until this incident happened. I will wait and see. I’m sure there is a lot more to this story than is known now.
P.S. I like the picture but I hope I don’t sound ignorant and ask who is the man. Is that Tom Tancredo.
marianpaul on January 29, 2007 at 6:55 PM
There is one problem with the argument that the Agents were justified because they thought the suspect had a weapon. They already knew he didn’t.
Lets reread the article please…..
…and…
And then there is this little tidbit….
And finally….
Yet some of you apparently have no problem with this and don’t think the Agents deserve jail.
.
GT on January 29, 2007 at 6:58 PM
That’s another disturbing aspect of the case. The trial concluded 10 months ago, and yet the government still hasn’t provided transcripts, ostensibly because the court reporter is sick (can’t they get another one to do it if she’s that sick … for 10 months?).
In light of the controversy, you’d think the prosecution would be eager to get the transcripts out there for public view.
thirteen28 on January 29, 2007 at 7:01 PM
I was going to say something until I read GT’s amusing (the way watching clowns is amusing) screed about what LEOs can and cannot do in the line of duty.
The funniest bit was the claim that LEOs cannot fire unless fired upon first.
Fact is: Sutton has the word of a drug smuggler with a rap sheet as long as the European “Constitution”, the defense has the word of Compean and Ramos, two Border Patrol agents.
Obviously, Mexican drug smugglers are automatically and infinitely more believable than the Border Patrol.
Pathetic, just pathetic.
Oh, and McCarthy is an assclown. Light on facts and heavy as a rusty garbage scow on actual facts. He’s entitled to his own opinion, but he’s not entitled to his own facts.
Misha I on January 29, 2007 at 7:02 PM
Just out of curiosity, has anyone spoken to the jury members? What have they had to say?
.
GT on January 29, 2007 at 7:02 PM
Something still stinks here. Why haven’t the original trial transcipts and sealed evidence been released? Why is DHS and the JD forcing a foi suit to get this information?
voiceofreason on January 29, 2007 at 7:04 PM
Er, make that last “facts” “assumptions”. D’uh. I’ll now go beat myself over the head with a stick.
Misha I on January 29, 2007 at 7:05 PM
Are you paying attention to this case? Three of them have signed sworn affidavit’s that they were pressured into rendering a guilty verdict after being told the judge would not accept a hung jury.
thirteen28 on January 29, 2007 at 7:07 PM
.
Making US look bad? what US? …you’ve never been one to hold back on much, except for Mitt, you don’t go there.
You make it sound like Tancredo’s the only one mentioning North American Union.
He’s not.
just one example there-
Maybe it’s because your attacking Tom on this sounds exactly like Lou Dobbs.
I think it’s more than that on your part, but oh well.
I dont know the whole of the NAU but its starting to make me wonder…more than a little.
shooter on January 29, 2007 at 7:07 PM
And in a related story, these agents were not the first to be prosecuted for violating the civil rights of a drug smuggler. But this one was overturned.
thirteen28 on January 29, 2007 at 7:09 PM
Well, since you find me so amusing, perhaps you can explain why the agents felt it necessary to pick up the casings and falsify their report if they believed that they had done nothing wrong?
As for Sutter taking the word of a drug smuggler, you conveniently ignore the fact that one of the agent’s own testimony corroborated the suspects details of events.
Any other personal attacks you’d like to make?
.
GT on January 29, 2007 at 7:11 PM
well, lookee here……………a similar incident
Verdict Reversal for Ex-Border Patrol Agent
Jan 29, 2007 06:28 PM EST
News more>>
Police Standoff In Harlingen
Verdict Reversal for Ex-Border Patrol Agent
High Speed Pursuit Puts Two Officers in the Hospital
Routine Traffic Stop Leads to Multiple Arrests
SWAT Team Storms House and Seizes Drugs, Weapons and More!
Millions of Dollars Wasted on Road Construction?
McAllen Mayor Speaks on the Future of the City
An Action 4 News Investigation into Poor Conditions at Kennel
A Home Raid Turns Up More Than Expected
Fire Department Receives Big Grant
David Sipe is a once convicted criminal who can honestly say he “didn’t do it.”
“Relief. Relief. After 7 years, it’s gone. It’s over.”
The ex-border patrol agent gets a 2001 guilty verdict overturned in his retrial for civil rights violations against a smuggler. The incident dates back to April of 2000 in Penitas.
“He was striking me in the side… he was very close to my weapon… and I had to do what I could to control the situation as fast as I could.”
Fearing for his life, David subdues the smuggler by hitting him with his flashlight. It results in staples to the smugglers head. A border patrol investigation is launched and deems his actions inappropriate– even illegal.
“I don’t know how they’re able to do that… but I don’t think that’s fair.”
Neither did a jury who overturns his conviction from the first trial against him.
David says the government, who he faithfully worked under for nearly 4 years, turns its back on him while rolling out the red carpet, as he puts it, for the illegals turned witnesses.
“They got to stay here and work in our country.”
The smuggler even gets a government settlement.
“80 thousand dollars… he now has his own ranch in Mexico.’
As for David– he doesn’t collect a thing. In fact, his life and family gets ripped apart.
“My house foreclosed on after having to file bankruptcy, my children having to live through this… of course my wife divorcing me.”
Through it all, he says, justice is served. And while most about David is forever changed one thing returns and it’s most important thing to him of all.
“I have my freedom back. I’m a man of honor again.”
What lead to this morning’s “not guilty” verdict reversal against the former border patrol agent? Turns out his attorney says the prosecution in the first trial supressed evidence and lied about benefits given to “Alien” witnesses.
Attorney Jack Wolfe explains.
“They with-held evidence about their witnesses who had prior convictions…they didn’t tell us… they were supposed to tell us. In fact, they told us that they had no witnesses with convictions.”
A new trial was granted and David Sipe’s conviction was thrown out. As a result, Sipe is a free man and fighting to get his job back.
Mellen on January 29, 2007 at 7:14 PM
“It was only after the surrender attempt that Ramos opened fire as the unarmed smuggler neared the border”
Obviously testimony from the drug smuggler.
“Instead of arresting the wounded smuggler, they put their guns away and left him behind.”
I do believe in the testimony at trial, the smuggler was already in Mexico when he was struck. The agents cannot use the priciple of hot pursuit to cross the border for an appregension.
“Compean picked up and hid his shell-casings rather than leaving the scene intact for investigators.”
“Both agents filed false reports”
Neither of those acts warrents 10 to 12 years in prison, while an admitted drug smuggler goes free with monetary remuneration from US Taxpayers.
Chief1942 on January 29, 2007 at 7:14 PM
If this happened in NYC then they should probably be in jail. I have a problem with even applying normal law enforcement procedures at the frontier regions of the border. People are supossed to be physically stopped and turned back there, because everytime someone crosses it is by definition a crime in progress. Holding them to the same standards as a domestic crime scene like you seee on CSI seems absurd, especially when the suspect then fled an international border, possibly with the evidence that could exonerate the agents.
Resolute on January 29, 2007 at 7:17 PM
I’ve got mixed feelings on this.
On one hand, I agree that border agents have to follow regulations.
On the other hand, I believe that the Castle Doctrine should apply to national borders as well.
Especially since I live in southern Arizona and see the horrific results of free borders every freaking day!
So, the agents are bums for not filling out the forms.
But they also get my gratitude for eradicating vermin that was trying to invade.
They should get a slap on the hand for not filling out the paperwork, and a medal for killing a bad guy.
That seems fair.
Doghouse on January 29, 2007 at 7:26 PM
According the accounts I’ve read, it was only two jurists who said they felt pressured. Yet, apparently Claudia and Bob didn’t feel strong enough about the Agents’ innocence to resist it. And according to Claudia, the other ten jurist were more concerned about missing Spring Break.
Are we really to believe that all ten jurists were more concerned about themselves and having a good time a week later that about their duty? And what does it say about Claudia and Bob who could be so easily pressured?
.
GT on January 29, 2007 at 7:30 PM
There were three jurors who signed sworn affidavits saying they did not believe the government proved its case but were told that the judge would not accept a hung jury.
It says they didn’t understand how our legal system works, which is far from unheard of among jurors. If you’ve ever sat on a jury that went all the way to a verdict then you’ve probably seen it yourself.
Now your turn to answer – what does it say about the government’s case if three jurors are signing sworn affidavits that said their initial intent was to vote not guilty and were swayed the other way not on facts of the case itself, but pressure from other jurors?
thirteen28 on January 29, 2007 at 7:45 PM
Yes. Other agents who were at the scene concurred.
If Ramos and Compean believed that the suspect was armed why didn’t they take cover and warn the other agents at the scene to do the same?
.
GT on January 29, 2007 at 7:53 PM
I certainly could, but since I (unlike the all-knowing Sutton) wasn’t there, it’d at best be an assumption. But, here goes, One hypothetical situation that might explain it:
The agents had no idea that they’d hit the bugger, since he was busy hightailing it away on the other side of the border (a fact that Assclown McCarthy conveniently forgets about, in favor of the much more theatrical, if somewhat untrue, “leaving the poor man to die”), decide that they don’t want to hassle with the paperwork over what looks like a non-event.
Does that justify breaking protocol? Does it mean that they did no wrong in failing to follow filing procedure? Of course it doesn’t, but does a failure to file a form justify 12 years behind bars? If so, and I’m not sure that I’m entirely against that philosophy, we can lock away all of Washington DC for the next thirteen decades at least.
No, I don’t conveniently ignore anything. You, on the other hand, imply that every last detail in the two’s testimony fit.
What specific parts corroborate each other? Particularly the parts relevant to the case. Unless, of course, everything fit like a glove, in which case there is no case. What we have then is commonly referred to as “a full confession.”
Misha I on January 29, 2007 at 8:01 PM
It says to me that the odds of a successful appeal are better but far from guaranteed and that we will have to spend more taxpayer money because three jurists failed in their duty.
.
GT on January 29, 2007 at 8:05 PM
If Ramos and Compean truly believed that the suspect was armed and dangerous as evidenced by firing, reloading and firing again a total of 15 bullets why turn their backs and walk away? Do you honestly believe that is part of their training.
Lets not forget that Ramos was a BP firearms instructor and a member of the evidence recovery team. He wasn’t Barney Fife. You can make all the excuses for him you’d like, but he knew what he had done wrong. Otherwise he wouldn’t have picked up the casings and falsified his report. His own training and position hold him to a higher standard, should they not?
.
GT on January 29, 2007 at 8:13 PM
Maybe we wouldn’t have had to spend any taxpayer money if the agents had simply been fired. About the only aspects of the case that are agreed upon and fully supported by all the evidence available (not a mere preponderance) is that the agents picked up some shell casings and didn’t file their report as required. Firing offense? Sure. But hardly justification for bringing them up on charges of obstructing justice or throwing them in the slammer for 11 and 12 year sentences.
And if you scroll up above to links provided in other posts, you see that these weren’t the first two border patrol agents thrown in prison on the testimony of a drug smuggler with immunity. At least the other conviction was overturned and the agent was found not guilty in a new trial. Thus, it’s not as if the government is incapable of overreaching in these types of cases.
thirteen28 on January 29, 2007 at 8:15 PM
Um, because he got in a vehicle on the other side of the border and sped away, perhaps?
thirteen28 on January 29, 2007 at 8:18 PM
GT …
It would help if you had correct info and didn’t rely on slanted and twisted information from biased sources. Let’s look at your quotes.
This quote takes two separate portions of testimony and combines it into one to make it look like they’re discussing the same moment in time.
The smuggler DID surrender with hands and palms open. Unfortunately you add the following quote to that to twist the facts:
What’s magically missing from these quotes is the entire episode that took place between the two. AFTER the DRUG SMUGGLER “surrendered”… he then allegedly took a swing or pushed the agent causing him to fall to the ground … and then he took off running, at which point the agents testified that he was pointing a weapon as he was running away.
Your quote purposely leaves all this out.
You then paste this quote:
Of course, you again leave out the testimony that he was armed. And then there are those who want to throw in the question of “if he was armed … where is the gun?
Tell me. How do you find a gun when they guy who was holding it ran across the border and vanished … and took it with him? How did ANYONE prove that there was no gun, taking into this FACT of the case? It’s impossible and that single part of the case blows everything apart. The entire prosecution’s case rests on proving that the agent was not armed and not firing at the agents while running away. NOBODY can possibly prove that, as all the witnesses have admitted that their view of the incident was blocked and they could not see it.
You add yet another misleading quote:
I really have to question your honesty after this one. It seem you are purposely attempting to mislead readers. This concept is just too obvious for me to believe you seriously don’t understand it.
Please explain to me how you “leave a guy behind” that is running away from you, crosses a border into another country in which you are not allowed to follow, and then vanishes? And with this in mind, how do you write that line … “instead of arresting him” as if they later caught up to him and simply let him go.
Finally, you top it off with the final misleading quote:
And you’re still not finished. You add:
Again, ignoring the facts and testimony, you leave out the part where the agents explained that they are only required to leave shell casings after a person has been shot because it is then a crime scene. The agents testified that they did not think they hit anyone. They guy kept running and continued on his marry way to supply drugs to our children at a later date. The agents testified that there was no reason to think there would be an investigation of an illegal who ran away and escaped.
And finally, you top it off with this dishonest and misleading comment:
That’s just dishonest. What’s being argued very clearly is that the TEN YEARS is excessive for “not following procedures.” Basically, the only thing these agents should have been punished for is NOT FOLLOWING PROPER PROCEDURES.
You might try actually reading the border patrol’s response, and other conflicting reports rather than just accepting the word of a prosecuter who is working for a President who kisses Mexico’s a$$. There’s no shortage of problems with the administration’s account of what happened.
Gregor on January 29, 2007 at 8:19 PM
You’d have to ask Congress since they are the ones who wrote the law. Discharging a firearm during a crime of violence at a mandatory minimum of ten years. Firing at an unarmed suspect while he is fleeing fits that description. Last time I checked, BP agents were not exempt. I have no idea what the penalty is for obstructing in investigation and falsifying a report is.
.
GT on January 29, 2007 at 8:21 PM
Because HE, by this time, was running away and was already on the Mexican side of the border? I mean, I suppose they COULD have staged an impromptu invasion of a foreign country, that would be bound to go down REAL well with the likes of Sutton, but let’s be realistic here.
So now you read minds too? Sutton, is that you?
I already presented you with a hypothetical scenario where somebody who didn’t feel he had done anything wrong might do just that.
Of course, I don’t claim that that was what happened, but that’s because I don’t play a mind reader. Not even on blogs.
Yes. As a matter of fact, he should be judged the same way British officers were judged in similar cases during the Raj. He should’ve been given a slap on the wrist for needlessly discharging a weapon and twelve years for missing the target. Hey, maybe THAT’S what happened.
Seriously though. What does THAT have to do with anything?
Are you saying that, because of his superior training, it’s perfectly reasonable to send him up the river for 12 years for failing to file a form correctly?
Please tell me that’s not what you’re saying.
Misha I on January 29, 2007 at 8:22 PM
Wrong. Please read my post above to Misha.
.
GT on January 29, 2007 at 8:23 PM
Wow. So many assumptions.
So you’re now stating as fact, in spite of not a shred of evidence supporting it, that the two officers fired at a suspect that they KNEW to be unarmed while fleeing?
Amazing, Miss Cleo.
Misha I on January 29, 2007 at 8:24 PM
Take cover behind WHAT? What would you suggest? A bush? A tumbleweed?
Ignoring this bit of stupidity, your question indicates your belief that law enforcement officers should immediately stop pursuit and run away from anyone who should dare turn and point a weapon at them.
As for the other agents … they were not there! You obviously haven’t read anything other than accounts by people like Allah. The other agents were over a hill unable to even see what was going on.
Gregor on January 29, 2007 at 8:25 PM
Damned right I do. You cross the border of this country illegally, you should be introduced to a bullet.
Wade on January 29, 2007 at 8:26 PM
Misha demonstrates his incandescent ignorance of USDOJ SOP. Ramos and Compean refused any kind of plea-bargain that might have knocked their sentences down to a relative slap on the wrist for the administrative offenses and the obstruction. In such circumstances DOJ policy is to charge and prosecute the gravest offense that can be proven from the facts — here, using a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence. And quite frankly, these two bozos should count themselves lucky that this is the worst they were charged with. A prosecutor who really wanted to bury them almost certainly could have made out a prima facie case for conspiracy and attempted murder.
In any case, the crime has a ten-year mandatory minimum in addition to any sentence from the underlying offense. Federal judges have absolutely no sentencing discretion. So, want to be pissed off that these two retards got a dozen years in the can? Blame Congress, which established the mandatory minimum and removed sentencing discretion from the judges.
Centerfire on January 29, 2007 at 8:26 PM
Okay GT. Your comments have now crossed over into dishonesty. There is absolutely ZERO proof or even EVIDENCE that the suspect was not armed. Yet you continue to post incorrect facts.
What is your agenda?
Gregor on January 29, 2007 at 8:27 PM
No. He’s stating as fact that officers are not entitled to use lethal force to apprehend suspects who do not present an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officers or to the public.
One officer claimed that he thought he saw a gun in the suspect’s hand as the suspect was fleeing, but you don’t get to pop 15 rounds at a fleeing suspect just because you think he might have a gun.
Centerfire on January 29, 2007 at 8:30 PM
Thanks for shooting down your own point for me.
Now, perhaps you’ll enlighten me in my ignorance of the maximum number of rounds you are allowed to fire at a suspect holding a gun? Given your absolute certainty in stating that 15 are too many, I’m sure you must know the exact number and that it’s written down somewhere.
3?
6?
11?
Does it include warning shots?
Misha I on January 29, 2007 at 8:33 PM
Except for yet ANOTHER FACT getting in the way of your argument.
The ten year mandatory minimum applies to the WRONG LAW. Again, we see those who refuse to read links provided. How do you argue without bothing to read the facts?
Gregor on January 29, 2007 at 8:34 PM
Yet another misleading, dishonest quote.
That’s not what the testimony said. The agent testified that the suspect was POINTING A WEAPON. You take it upon yourself to change the wording to support your cause?
Gregor on January 29, 2007 at 8:36 PM
Here’s an interesting dillema; Who has the job of defending the United States against the dope smuggler’s 5 million dollar lawsuit? Could it be…Johnny Sutton?
Will Johnny, or whoever, let this new jury ponder the information they withheld from the first jury during the Agents’ trial when that information could have saved them from a long prison term?
Can the United States plead “no contest” and just give this guy all the(my) money Davila wants to spare Johnny this dillema?
Will Johnny be summoned to testify on Davila’s behalf and would any of Bush’s US Attorneys challenge long time Bush crony Johnny’s testimony in order to save my 5 million?
Would any prospective jurist be dismissed if they have seen Sutton on TV crying about how this poor drug smuggler had his civil rights violated?
Perchant on January 29, 2007 at 8:53 PM
No wonder this fukcing country is DOOMED. We cant even agree on whos’ righ tin THIS fuckin case.
Let me say this. You fucking conservatives can’t compromise. You can’t have a calm debate. Youre as stick-inthe-fuckin-mud BAD as those TWATS over at Daily Kos and now youre starting to sound like em too.
To think i ever truly beleived I was one of you makes me SICK!
GFY Everybody, I’m goin to bed sleep this off.
Cunts.
mikeomatic on January 29, 2007 at 8:56 PM
F__K this, Im going to bed. Wake up with a hangover tomorow, but I need sleep.
mikeomatic on January 29, 2007 at 8:58 PM
Enjoy mikeomatic’s comments, everyone. They’re the last you’ll see of him around here.
Allahpundit on January 29, 2007 at 8:59 PM
Awwww … but he was having such a “calm debate.”
LMAO!
Gregor on January 29, 2007 at 9:11 PM
Well this is fun. ;) I bet AP is getting a good chuckle.
Lets see if I can answer a few salient points. I apologize for not responding in order.
Misha….
If you honestly believe that the suspect was armed and even though he was across the border, would you as a trained officer not warn the other agents in the area and turn your back?
No, just your posts.
As I said before, Ramos was a BP firearms instructor and a member of the evidence recovery team. He wasn’t Barney Fife. You still don’t falsify a report. Thats a big no-no especially when you discharge a weapon at a suspect.
I’m sure Bill Clinton felt the same way when he was disbarred.
If only that was all they did. (/sarcasm)
*****
Thirteen28….
So, the Agents shouldn’t be held to the same standards as the rest of us.
As stated before, Ramos was a BP firearms instructor and a member of the evidence recovery team. Do you really believe that picking up 15 casings after shooting at a fleeing suspect whether you believed him to be armed or not and not mentioning it in your report is nothing more than failing to “file their report as required“? Surely you jest.
Agreed. If only that is all that they did.
*****
Gregor…
If you believed that he was armed and dangerous, would you not take cover and warn the other agents in the area to do the same?
The suspect tried to surrender. The suspect fled after the Agent decided not to handcuff the suspect and bungled his attempt to strike the suspect with the butt of his rifle.
The agent made no attempt to take cover nor did he warn any of the other agents in the area.
He shot at the suspect 14 times as the suspect fled.
Yep. Ramos and Compean deserve a medal.
Once again, Ramos was a BP firearms instructor and a member of the evidence recovery team. He knew what the policy was. How he said he felt is irrelevant. What gives him the authority to ignore BP policies?
What is magically missing is that the Agent didn’t first try to handcuff and secure him. Instead, he elected to take a swing at him with a rifle butt. And because of that, the Agent enabled the suspect to take control of the situation. A potentially fatal mistake would you not agree?
Also, the agent testified that he thought he saw a gun in the suspect’s hand as the suspect was running away. If the Agent honestly believed that, why did he not take cover and warn the other agents in the area as per his training? Instead, he stood out in the open and said nothing.
No, that is an opinion.
Now you are being dishonest. They fired on a suspect who was running away from them while not in fear for their own lives as evidenced by the fact that they did not take cover nor warn the other agents in the area. The Agents, one of whom is a trained BP firearms instructor and a member of the evidence recovery team, tried to cover it up by picking up the casings and purposely failing to report the incident.
*****
OK…take your shots now. I’m going to go get some dinner. ;)
.
GT on January 29, 2007 at 9:11 PM
>he knew what he had done wrong
Or, did he know that he had done what all border agents should be doing (shooting invaders on sight), but knew that in our politically correct and morally corrupt society he would be condemned for it?
Black is white and white is black these days.
Doghouse on January 29, 2007 at 9:21 PM
GT …
It’s no use. You simply re-posted your previous comments while completely ignoring that other members had shown your comments to be incorrect, misleading, or downright lies. Every point you just made has already been shown to be false.
You aren’t interested in the truth. You’re purposely attempting to mislead the readers on this board and if you’re paying attention … you’re failing.
Gregor on January 29, 2007 at 9:33 PM
It’s too bad we’ll never know all the details.
However, I do think it is highly unlikely that a Mexican drug dealer would ever, ever be unarmed.
One of these guys had some priors, right? Domestic abuse? My guess is that these two were not exemplary agents, they probably had some other incidents in the past, so they were thrown to the wolves. Like everyone else, I’m just guessing based on the limited info presented.
I’m surprised more people are ticked off that a couple of agents would tarnish the border agents’ reputation. Everytime something like this happens, you just know more stupid rules and regulations will come down, more attention is given to these guys and the job gets harder for all of them.
reaganaut on January 29, 2007 at 9:36 PM
err, that should be …aren’t ticket off…
reaganaut on January 29, 2007 at 9:41 PM
Only in your dreams. ;)
I hope this isn’t the best retort you can come up with. Come on. Show some imagination for Pete’s Sake.
.
GT on January 29, 2007 at 9:49 PM
National Border Control Council
American Federation of Government Employees
Rebuttal to Sutton.
PDF file
http://rohrabacher.house.gov/UploadedFiles/NBPC%20rebuttal_to_sutton.pdf
Speakup on January 29, 2007 at 9:57 PM
This discussion kinda makes me wish this were on a phpBB or something.
Gregor on January 29, 2007 at 8:25 PM ……
Yep. Hitting the ground might not be a bad idea either. Anything is better than just standing out in the open don’tcha think?
Nothing of the kind. I’d like a fire arms instructor to hit what he’s shooting at instead of missing 14 times only to see his partner hit the suspect in the butt with his first and only shot.
And you were there I presume. BTW, ever heard of a wonderful device called a radio? You know, the same kind every other border agent uses? Since the calls are recorded, it might have helped in the Agents’ defence.
GT on January 29, 2007 at 10:05 PM
I have to say I threw up a little bit in my mouth when I read the title to this thread. It seems Allah is turning to the global warming manifesto to prove his points, only posting article that agree with his viewpoint, awesome.
And this…
You know what I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is continuous trolling. Only posting your own viewpoint makes this less of a place that can look at the facts and discuss them when our honored host refuses to do so.
There is plenty to talk about in this case.
1) The ten year mandatory sentence. For a charge that only applies to a person that uses a firearm while commiting a felony. What felony were the agents commiting? To discharge they firearm they only need to believe that the suspect may be armed. It does not even require that they see a weapon. But of course tthat is only incidental and not worth mentioning.
Wrong law used to convict Border agents
2) Did the agents make false statements? Did they fail to fire a report? Um, no! Border Patrol SOP only requires an oral report not a written one. I seem to remember Johnny Sutton saying that they failed to file a report, hmm sounds like he’s selling the prosecution. Wonder why? Since the case is more solid than tank armor, why aren’t they releasing the facts? Why did Ted Poe U.S. Congressman have to file under the freedom of information act to get the facts in the case? No courtroom transcripts yet either. A relevant question you’ll completely ignore.
3) Other Border Patrol agents were on the scene. Were they charged? Obstruction of justice maybe? Nope. Not so much as a parking ticket for any of the other officers. When Johnny Sutton was asked if the other agents were charged, his answer? “I don’t know” I am flabbergasted by the tone of his voice when he answered the question. “I don’t know”. C’mon Allah. These guys were “rogues” and the guys that “aided and abetted” them are not even charged?
4) Would jurors leaning toward not guilty being told the judge “wouldn’t accept a hung jury” interest you? Probably not.
Who’s saying that? The agents need to be punished but I’m suprised you have no opinion on the method of their prosecution and the inevitable results their of. Between this and the NAU threads you do a real good job of demogoging all arguemnts, completely ignoring any that have merit as if they do not exist, an AP style Jamilgate response, nice…
Theworldisnotenough on January 29, 2007 at 10:18 PM
HAHA. Have you ever fired a handgun in the prone? Me neither.
Are Border Patrol agents trained to get into the prone position to fire their weapon? I’m guessing no.
Theworldisnotenough on January 29, 2007 at 10:29 PM
http://rohrabacher.house.gov/UploadedFiles/NBPC%20rebuttal_to_sutton.pdf
Speakup, be quiet no one wants to hear this!
Theworldisnotenough on January 29, 2007 at 10:38 PM
And that’s just the tip of the ugly government iceberg. This whole case stinks. Prosecutorial misconduct. Evidence withheld from the jury, lying to the jury about whether being hung was allowed. Not to mention that the defense team was totally incompetent and handcuffed in what they could present in court. Sutton’s crony connections to Bush go all the way back to when he was Governor of Texas. The jurors were not told, had absolutely no clue, as to the harshness of the sentence that would be imposed. WorldNetDaily is all over this story, and they have uncovered some really stinky facts about this prosecution. I’d recommend to anyone interested to follow their coverage to get the facts the government doesn’t want exposed.
infidel4life on January 29, 2007 at 10:55 PM
My problem is not with the officers, they broke their rules and should be punished for breaking rules. My problem is allowing a foreign government to manipulate us into prosecuting our citizens. If Mexico prosecutes their man as a drug smuggler and a person who left their country illegally it would show that they are intent on preserving the law. However, they have showcased this guy on TV and made him a national hero. They are thumbing their nose at us and we are paying a huge price. Mexico, the offended country, does not consider this a serious crime or they would prosecute their half. It goes beyond the comment that the officers did wrong, it goes to the heart of should another country set up a program that will eventually cause our good citizens to make a mistake in judgement, and then be punished for this misjudgement. The real fault is Mexico. Negligence is a defense. What Mexico allows is so negligent, that it is a matter of time that something “wrong” will happen. It is the law of averages. If it wasn’t these two, it would eventually be two others. It was inevitable. They have become the scapegoats of a broken system.
right2bright on January 29, 2007 at 10:57 PM
Classic. How stupid do you think the readers of this blog are? The above posts are filled with detailed responses to each and every one of your comments, pointing out very specifically how each and every one of them are incorrect. Many of them are from me. But you chose the ironic line of you “hope this isn’t the best retort” I can come up with. Right back at you bud.
Here you go. Just for you GT. Maybe this time you’ll actually read it.
And maybe this time … you won’t answer it by simply pasting the same exact incorrect info that I just got done debunking. How about actually answering the questions?
————————————————–
GT …
It would help if you had correct info and didn’t rely on slanted and twisted information from biased sources. Let’s look at your quotes.
This quote takes two separate portions of testimony and combines it into one to make it look like they’re discussing the same moment in time.
The smuggler DID surrender with hands and palms open. Unfortunately you add the following quote to that to twist the facts:
It was only after the surrender attempt that Ramos opened fire as the unarmed smuggler neared the border.
What’s magically missing from these quotes is the entire episode that took place between the two. AFTER the DRUG SMUGGLER “surrendered”… he then allegedly took a swing or pushed the agent causing him to fall to the ground … and then he took off running, at which point the agents testified that he was pointing a weapon as he was running away.
Your quote purposely leaves all this out.
You then paste this quote:
Of course, you again leave out the testimony that he was armed. And then there are those who want to throw in the question of “if he was armed … where is the gun?
Tell me. How do you find a gun when they guy who was holding it ran across the border and vanished … and took it with him? How did ANYONE prove that there was no gun, taking into this FACT of the case? It’s impossible and that single part of the case blows everything apart. The entire prosecution’s case rests on proving that the agent was not armed and not firing at the agents while running away. NOBODY can possibly prove that, as all the witnesses have admitted that their view of the incident was blocked and they could not see it.
You add yet another misleading quote:
I really have to question your honesty after this one. It seem you are purposely attempting to mislead readers. This concept is just too obvious for me to believe you seriously don’t understand it.
Please explain to me how you “leave a guy behind” that is running away from you, crosses a border into another country in which you are not allowed to follow, and then vanishes? And with this in mind, how do you write that line … “instead of arresting him” as if they later caught up to him and simply let him go.
Finally, you top it off with the final misleading quote:
And you’re still not finished. You add:
Again, ignoring the facts and testimony, you leave out the part where the agents explained that they are only required to leave shell casings after a person has been shot because it is then a crime scene. The agents testified that they did not think they hit anyone. They guy kept running and continued on his marry way to supply drugs to our children at a later date. The agents testified that there was no reason to think there would be an investigation of an illegal who ran away and escaped.
And finally, you top it off with this dishonest and misleading comment:
That’s just dishonest. What’s being argued very clearly is that the TEN YEARS is excessive for “not following procedures.” Basically, the only thing these agents should have been punished for is NOT FOLLOWING PROPER PROCEDURES.
You might try actually reading the border patrol’s response, and other conflicting reports rather than just accepting the word of a prosecuter who is working for a President who kisses Mexico’s a$$. There’s no shortage of problems with the administration’s account of what happened.
Gregor on January 29, 2007 at 8:19 PM
Gregor on January 29, 2007 at 11:03 PM
Why do you even ask that question, when I have already stated and you have already acknowledged that I said doing so was clearly a firing offense, but does not merit 11 and 12 years in a maximum security prison? Please tell me which part of that is so difficult for you to understand so that I may illuminate it better for you.
Ok, maybe if I break it down for you you’ll understand my position:
1) Border patrol agent failing to follow proper administrative procedures regarding bullet casings and properly reporting an incident? Bad. Naughty. Ungood. A major league no-no that merits disciplinary action.
With me so far?
2) Does #1 merit a sentence of 11 or 12 years? No freakin’ way.
Simple, really.
thirteen28 on January 29, 2007 at 11:07 PM
I find it ironic that whe the government finally nailed Al Capone for tax evasion, his sentence was 11 years. Treating our own agents like gangsters is one of the most shameful things this administration has done.
infidel4life on January 29, 2007 at 11:22 PM
Theworldisnotenough
Do not go there they are trained in the prone position. I know, I used to train with them out at the range. Most of them use 40cal although some of them were still using their Berettas.
Although GT and Allahs comments are laughable.
What ever happened to reasonable suspicion the suspect was armed. I guess we can just throw out all the legal precedence for Prosecutor Sutton to make his case and ignore all the case law on probable cause too.
What I want to know is why the two supervisors that were present at the scene have not been charged and convicted for failing to file reports? And what about the other 4 agents?
We know the other Border Patrol agent was given a plea agreement to keep his job then he lied (I mean testified) against his fellow Agents after lying to Suttons investigators about the case 3 times.
GT-How do you leave a fleeing suspect to die when he is hot footing into Mexico and gets into a van?
Indeed, what is your agenda GT?
ScottyDog on January 29, 2007 at 11:24 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »