Andy McCarthy unloads on agents in border-patrol shooting
posted at 4:59 pm on January 29, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
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.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
thirteen28
Border Patrol Policy and Procefures call for a 5 day suspension for failing to police the brass or filing a timely report.
It is even on their own website if any cares to look it up.
ScottyDog on January 29, 2007 at 11:27 PM
My personal opinion after reading the agents statements (which I couldn’t find again to link here) , the prosecutors statement and the law they were prosecuted under is that these guys deserve another trial.
They should also be out on bail awaiting appeal, that they are not speaks volumes about higher powers influence in this case and that is a miscarriage.
Somewhere in the middle between those who demand hard time and those who demand pardon is the blindfolded lady holding the balance scales.
Speakup on January 29, 2007 at 11:37 PM
GT have you ever fired a gun? Do you know anything about firearms and marksmanship?
Hitting a moving target with a pistol is EXTREMELY HARD TO DO. That is why they make rifles for that sort of thing. Even then, currently in Iraq, it takes a couple thousand rifle rounds shot per hit/kill. Hitting a moving target, at night, at distance, while under the stress of a “firefight” is damn near impossible (especially with a handgun.)
Police, in firefight/shoot-outs routinely empty their guns and never hit the perpetrator. These situations are incredibly quick. You can shoot 15 rounds out of a pistol in under 5 seconds. Even less in a stress situation. There are all kinds of accounts of police firing hundreds of rounds in such circumstances. Guess what, that is not excessive. That is normal in those situations. To try to make a damaging point based on this is simply betraying a gross ignorance of the subject matter.
P.S. AP I think you do a grave disservice to all your readers when you characterize all of us with a different opinion than yours as believing that the border patrol agents should go free regardless. Almost all of the posts I have read say exactly the opposite. The agents were wrong, they tried to cover up a prohibited action and should be punished accordingly. 10 to 12 years for such however is excessive and wrong.
I say give our border patrol agents the benefit of the doubt. If they say they thought at the time that their lives were in danger, then believe them. Why are you and others so eager to make these guys out be evil doers bent on homicide. Especially when there is nothing in their backgrounds to indicate that they have ever had any problems, ever, in their entire period of service.
America1st on January 29, 2007 at 11:38 PM
As long as they’re shooting ILLEGAL ALIEN THIEVING BASTARDS trying to bankrupt this country and make it their own, I’m hard pressed to see a problem. It’s a good bet that anyone skulking about the desert in the middle of the G*d damned night, isn’t their to solicit donations. Their very presence is all the “probable cause” I’d need, no different than a “Free Fire Zone” in a war theatre where the very presenceof a person is taken as evidence of complicity with the enemey and they are summarily SHOT.
Soothsayer on January 29, 2007 at 11:41 PM
Couldn’t agree more Andy, I think our esteemed host is a closet liberal as well as being an atheist yuk, this might explain all the Guiliani bandwagoning, Rudy’s social liberalism seems to strike a chord of affinity within old AP. We’d best feed him with a long handle spoon and digest all of his posts accordingly …. Perhaps Michele could look for a replacement?
Soothsayer on January 29, 2007 at 11:45 PM
Interesting, thanks for the info.
thirteen28 on January 29, 2007 at 11:47 PM
Mexico just extradited some drug lords to the US. Apparently they do this when they catch some freelancer moving in on the government’s turf.
It’s not enough that we have to pay out the nose to incarcerate Mexico’s criminals who were caught on our soil, now we are importing Mexican criminals for the sole purpose of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to prosecute and incarcerate them. I doubt Bush will demand reimbursement from Mexico.
Perchant on January 29, 2007 at 11:56 PM
GT = Juan Hernandez sockpuppet
Gregor on January 29, 2007 at 11:57 PM
You are right AP, about half of the column was unnecessary, and much of it seemed to be a recitation of Suttons position.
Sorry, McCarthy uses some of the same tactics in presenting his story as he blames supporters of the agents for using.
Unless some of the very important questions are addressed, I will continue to take the word of the agents, and completely disregard the word of a drug smuggler.
In one point of McCarthy’s article, he states “several other agents” were present. Further into the article, he then states Compean went about the business of covering up after the dope peddler was down.
If the drug smuggler was down, or even running, why would the other agents just stand by and allow Ramos and Compean to cover up their misdeeds, and allow the dope peddler to escape back to Mexico?
According to the doctor who treated the wounded dope peddler, the bullet went from his left buttock, cut his urethra and hit a bone. How was this guy able to run back to Mexico?
If the bullet hit bone, why was it not misshapen according to the ballistics report performed by the Texas Department of Public Safety?
Why did the Texas DPS perform the ballistics test and not the FBI who normally handle ALL ballistics investigations involving federal law enforcement?
How sure is Sutton that the bullet came from Ramos’ gun considering the ballistics report said they could not determine exactly what make of gun the bullet came from.
If Ramos and Compean screwed up in some manner by collecting their brass, Sutton screwed up worse in how he handled this case.
91Veteran on January 30, 2007 at 12:01 AM
but the NAU nuttiness and now this is making us look bad.
Soothsayer on January 30, 2007 at 12:03 AM
In addition to the questions above, one must ask, if this case is as cut and dried as McCarthy thinks it is, then it should withstand public scrutiny of the evidence, not just what some prosecutor wants to present to the media.
Why have a number of members of Congress been stiffed on the transcript of the trial? It has been two years, the transcript was requested by several members, and so far it has not been released.
DoJ officials have made statements about the evidence of this case, and members of Congress have requested those reports DoJ claims supports those statements. Why have those reports not yet been released?
91Veteran on January 30, 2007 at 12:24 AM
If it means stopping this guy from getting into my town and hurting my kids, yes. I got news for you, if he was a legal citizen, broke into my house, and it appeared to me he had a weapon and was going to use it, he wouldn’t have been available to testify.
Even if you are going to say they violated policies, 12 years in prison? That’s a just sentence while the drug smuggling, illegal gets monetary compensation from my taxes, and is granted immunity from prosecution? Not even some time off, but complete immunity.
amerpundit on January 30, 2007 at 12:25 AM
Until proven otherwise (we know how rock solid our criminal justice system is, I plan to believe the people who are sworn to protect our borders, and put their lives on the line everyday, over testimony from a drug smuggler, and a prosecution that would give a drug smuggler complete immunity.
amerpundit on January 30, 2007 at 12:30 AM
AP:
I was unable to read more than half-way through the comments on this point before coming to the conclusion that overall, on hot-button issues, the commenters (not the posts) have degenerated to the point of self-parody.
Whatever the BP agents did before they tried to cover their tracks is subject to a right/wrong debate, as those facts are still potentially obscure. When they started destroying evidence, however, it became clear what THEY though the evidence was going to show, and that’s why Sutton was able to get a conviction.
There are humane limits we, as a society, impose on law enforcement, and shooting a retreating illegal is clearly outside the ROE for border patrol agents.
Those who think these agents, in their failed attempt at hiding their actions, deserve something less than jail time are willingly deluded by the immigration demagogues, and they embarrass themselves and the site while trying to make their points.
I’m all for fixing the immigration mess properly, but rewarding dirty cops isn’t part of the solution.
Patton on January 30, 2007 at 12:44 AM
Ban me if you want A.P., but you’re wrong on this account. You seem to have more sympathy for the drug smuggler than the agents who are defending our borders. Yea, so they shot him in the ass. So what.
Their story is that they thought the drug smuggler had a gun. He was running back to Mexico with what appeared to be a gun. They shot. They stated that they did not think they had shot him, only at him. He continues to run back to Mexico, crosses the river, gets in a car and leaves. What are they suppose to think? Oh, F**K, we shot him?
Story is that they were thrown under the wheels of justice. They say the told their supervisor. Story is they told their supervisor via radio. On direct (local) and not through the repeater. Therefore, luckily for the supervisor it was not recorded. They say that the supervisor told them to pick up the brass. If they had known that they shot the drug smuggler in the ass they would have told their supervisor they shot him in the ass. Things would have been different. The equation is: Since they didn’t know they had shot him in the ass–no arm, no foul.
Sure they shouldn’t have picked up the brass. Is that worth 10-12 years in prison, oh grear pundit allah??? Your boss doesn’t like another outfit with the initials AP.
LurP on January 30, 2007 at 12:54 AM
You’re projecting. I never said anything about firing from a prone position. I was talking about taking cover. If the agents believed the suspect was armed and dangerous, why didn’t they take any protective measures as per their training or am I to assume that you believe that standing out in the open is part of their training?
………
Now on to Gregor on January 29, 2007 at 11:03 PM…..
Are you claiming victimhood?
Well bless my soul. If that is what you want to believe, be my guest.
Yawn.
Welcome to fantasyland.
Go for it.
The problem is that you seem to suffer from a reading comprehension disorder by the way you are mischaracterizing my comment & point , but I’ll be glad to help.
Perhaps to you. You may not understand the context of the comment, but that’s OK.
And yet you seem to gloss over the fact that the Agent chose to attempt to smack him in the head with his rifle butt. You’ve yet to explain why the Agent didn’t attempt to secure and handcuff the suspect.
What do you know about Agent Juarez? Are you aware that he was there to witness the suspect attempting to surrender? Are you aware that he was a witness to what proceeded afterward?
And you purposely leave out the fact that the Agent tried to introduce the suspect to a rifle butt to the head. Why is that? And why do you ignore the fact that the events that happened were witnessed by a third agent on the scene, Agent Juarez? What is your agenda, Gregor? (/wink)
The problem with your argument is that the Agent admitted stumbling when he took a swing at the suspect who the Agent admitted had his hands up and palms open. What does BP procedure in this situation? Can you show where a rifle butt to the head is part of the SOP?
I would really like for you to answer these questions. If you can’t, I’ll understand and accept your apology.
No. That is what the Agent claimed after the investigation so as to justify his actions. Again, I ask you, if you as a highly trained officer think the suspect is armed what are you trained to do?
A) Stand out in the open and start firing?
B) Attempt to reduce your body profile and/or seek protection and warn other Agents in the area via the radio on your person and then fire on the suspect?
You’re the expert on officer training. Please enlighten us.
And while I’m thinking about it, can you explain how you are able to empty your gun at the suspect, reload and fire again before your partner fires off his first and only shot?Not only that, but that a third Agent on the scene never fired a shot?
Then lets look at surroundings. According to reports, the suspect had surrendered in the bottom of a steep ditch filled with water. Once the suspect was down in the ditch, Agent Compean had him at gun point. The suspect came out of the ditch with his hands up and palms open, with no weapon in his hands. Even agents Compean and Ramos testified to that as well as Davila and Agent Juarez.
According to testimony, the suspect never made a motion as if he had a weapon. And according to testimony, it wasn’t until Agent Compean tried to hit the suspect with his rifle butt, and when Agent Compean tripped and fell face-first into the dirt, that the suspect took off running.
These are undeniable facts as witnessed by Agent Juarez.
Would you like to call Juarez a liar?
Please don’t ignore my questions. I want you to answer them directly if you can. If you can’t, just say so.
Think about what you are asking. Seriously. I want you to THINK. Based on your argument, any officer can shoot at you and simply say that he thought you had a gun and is therefore justified in a court of law. Is that really what you want?
Why did a highly trained BP Agent fire 14 rounds at a fleeing suspect claiming he thought had a gun yet didn’t feel it necessary to report it even though it was clearly against SOP? Can you answer that for me please?
The problem with that argument is that it isn’t true. Every officer, every agent who fires his weapon in the performance of his duty is required to report it. Even the WND said, “He also did not follow agency procedure and report that he had fired his weapon.”
To suggest that they only had to file a report if someone had been shot is asinine.
Hmmmm….shot at a fleeing unarmed man 15 times. Lied about it. Covered it up. Destroyed the evidence. Destroyed the crime scene and filed false reports.
Nah, they just deserve a slap on the wrist. Riiiiight.
……
thirteen28 on January 29, 2007 at 11:07 PM…..
Because there is far more to it than just that.
…..
ScottyDog on January 29, 2007 at 11:24 PM….
When is it reasonable to rifle-butt a suspect when he is standing in a steep ditch with hands up and palms open and you have your weapon trained on him?
You also forget Agent Juarez’s testimony that the suspect was attempting to surrender.
You don’t. You keep your eyes open and you report over the radio as per SOP. Something the two agents chose not to do.
Truth based on actual facts. What’s yours?
.
GT on January 30, 2007 at 12:56 AM
I’m glad someone gets it. Well said.
.
GT on January 30, 2007 at 12:58 AM
Prior to the trial, Ramos accepted that it was his bullet.
.
GT on January 30, 2007 at 1:09 AM
So, Border Patrol Agents are suppose to wait UNTIL until they are shot at before shooting back. Who gives a flying F*** if the agent gets shot, he can’t shoot until he is shot at.
LurP on January 30, 2007 at 1:10 AM
If the agents had said in the beginning that they thought they saw a gun, that would pretty much have been the end of it. But they didn’t. Instead, they chose to destroy evidence and then lie about it.
These are trained and experienced men. Why do you think they did that?
.
GT on January 30, 2007 at 1:13 AM
Why did he do so? Is it possible he admitted it based on shots fired? not knowing for sure if he actually hit him?
Again, if the evidence can withstand public scrutiny then it should be released. I cannot understand why it has been held.
If Ramos and Compean were so intent at covering up what happened, why did they admit to stuff like this?
91Veteran on January 30, 2007 at 1:14 AM
I have no idea. But I would think he discussed it with his attorney before doing so. That suggest to me that there is more to the story that we don’t know about yet.
Dunno. That would be a good question to pose to Assistant US Attorney Debra Kanof.
Admit to it when?
.
GT on January 30, 2007 at 1:25 AM
It just occurred to me. Why aren’t the anti-NAU people screaming about this exradition? The US and Mexico have just merged their criminal justice systems together. Mexico is sending their criminals to the US to be tried by our justice system and incarcerated on our dime.
That is an amazing thing, when you think about it. There are predictions by the anti-NAU folks that are far less insidious than this that get dismissed as “black Helicopter” talk. I don’t see how Jerome Corsi can ignore this one.
Perchant on January 30, 2007 at 1:30 AM
I did a little digging and found this….
Source
Can any attorneys here confirm this?
.
GT on January 30, 2007 at 1:32 AM
>Hitting a moving target with a pistol is EXTREMELY HARD TO DO.
If you suck, or the bad guy is 500 yards away.
Doghouse on January 30, 2007 at 1:44 AM
Thanks for the extras GT. It seems rather difficult to get to the facts of this since much of the reporting leaves out pertinent details. I saw previous articles about Juarez being present, and others that didn’t mention him, or still others that didn’t paint him in a good light.
I’ve seen other articles like McCarthy’s which seem so sure of their guilt, and others that raise a lot of questions such as the one concerning the ballistics report.
I can’t imagine so many politicians would risk looking so stupid by demanding to see more evidence in the case, or suggesting it’s a miscarriage of justice. Obviously there are still plenty of questions.
Considering the number of questions, I still would take their word over that of the dope peddler.
The situation seems similar to some incidents in Iraq. Why not give them the benefit of the doubt?
91Veteran on January 30, 2007 at 2:03 AM
GT …
Oh really? I didn’t? Maybe you just missed where I (along with at least four others on this thread) pointed out that the smuggler allegedly took a swing or shoved the agent causing him to fall to the ground while attempting to handcuff him. Or did you just ignore that for convenience?
It would also be more honest for you to add that the only person stating that the agent tried to “smack him in the head with his rifle butt … was the slimy, drug dealing, illegal alien. But you choose to automatically accept his testimony as fact and ignore the testimony of two border patrol agents.
See above. Only one witness has claimed this happened and he happens to be a drug smuggling, illegal alien who stands to make several million dollars off in a lawsuit.
I’ll let the Border Patrol speak for that, even though I previously pointed out that your info is incorrect …
And it’s not like you’ll actually click the link and read it, or that you even care to know the true facts. You have personal reasons for posting your misrepresentations in this forum. Personal reasons which cause you to ignore information such as this, and information such as this:
Wrong! There is absolutely no testimony which states that either agent admitted this.
Wrong. That is what they testified all along. ONLY ONE “WITNESS” has said otherwise and that’s the drug smuggler himself. The only other agent who has suggested this has been shown to have lied and unable to have viewed the incident from where he said he was located at the time.
Again … read the links provided. It’s really not that hard.
I’d like you to give me an example of any police training where it states that upon having a weapon drawn against you … you shall pull out your radio and radio for help. ANY cop who has a suspect turn and point a gun at them, when the chance is available is going to take the suspect out. You don’t see cops falling to the ground and putting their hands over their heads. You also fail to acknowledge that the testimony says that the suspect was turned and pointing the weapon as he was running away, and when you’re standing at the border of another country and the suspect is going to be gone in a matter of seconds … it would be a complete waste of time to get on the radio. The only thing that would accomplish is to assure the suspect escapes. You’re just being completely ignorant. It’s extremely easy to rewrite the situation to fit your desired agenda by leaving out important details.
I’m not sure what exactly this proves. Does the fact that one agent fired more shots than the other PROVE they were guilty? Only in your world.
There WAS no third agent at the scene. Where do you get that from? Juan Hernandez?
Agent Juarez, again … has been shown to have lied, and the rest of this is all meaningless up until the point where the smuggler allegedly swung or shoved at the agent and took off. So what’s the point?
According to only one witness, who happens to be the drug smuggler himself.
According to the drug smuggler …
No need to. Agent Juarez has already been proved to be a liar, as has the prosecutor in the case. According to Agent Juarez’ OWN TESTIMONY as to where he was standing at the time this took place … it was physically impossible for him to view the event as it happened. But yet, you just continue to ignore that and post his testimony as the gospel.
I believe I just did.
So, based on what your saying …
Any suspect can claim that the officers tried to hit him, causing him to run, and then we’re obligated to take his word and automatically ignore all the other facts in the case. That’s exactly what you’re doing. The only information you’re accepting is that of the drug smuggler.
I already did, and so did they. They did not think they hit him, therefore it was just another routine escaped illegal alien which we happen to have every single day. Yes, they should have reported it. Definitely! So what? What does that prove? Does that prove that they tried to murder the guy? Does not reporting it get you 12 years in prison. Get real! There is absolutely ZERO proof of any of these charges. The fact that they should have reported the shooting has absolutely nothing to do with the charges which resulted in excessive sentence.
I didn’t say they only had to report if someone had been shot. I said THAT WAS THEIR TESTIMONY as to why they didn’t report it, because they missed and nobody had been shot, and they thought the guy just escaped. They didn’t want to report it and do all the paperwork. I can accept that. I wouldn’t either, especially knowing what a friggin joke the Bush administration is in regards to the border security. Why waste your time. It’s the same reason cops don’t investigate car thefts, home burglaries, and other crimes. Because they DON’T FEEL LIKE WASTING THEIR TIME doing paper work all day knowing full well the loser will be back on the streets in an hour. It’s a joke and they know it. But again … not doing paperwork does not equal attempted murder and of course … you know that. Don’t you Juan?
LIE
If you take the word of the drug smuggler, I guess so.
No, they deserve a suspension for improper procedure and awards for shooting a disgusting low life worthless piece of crap.
Sorry. No apology needed or offered Juan. Good luck on your next appearance on O’Reilly.
Gregor on January 30, 2007 at 2:33 AM
Doghouse, Have you ever shot a pistol at 50 yards? How about 100? If you think that is a distance that is capable of accurate shooting with a pistol then I seriously doubt that you have. Much less everything else out to 500.
Match Grade, Competition pistols are capable of being accurate at that distance but that is less than half the equation. It is really all about the shooter and at that distance, unless you practice shooting long distance a lot, most people are lucky to be on paper.
Hitting moving targets at that range with a pistol is ridiculous. Hitting moving targets while you are moving is incredibly difficult at any range. Your comments (Like GT’s and others) betray your ignorance of the subject matter.
Real life is not like Hollywood. Good shots don’t hit every shot they take. It doesn’t require just one bullet to end a confrontation, and more bullets than that are not evidence of a murderous intent.
America1st on January 30, 2007 at 3:11 AM
The medical report on the criminal illegal dirtbag drug smuggler indicates that the one bullet which struck him entered his left buttock FROM THE SIDE, and lodged in his right groin area. The forensics strongly suggested that he was mid-stride when impacted, and that his body was twisted to the left and stretched, based on the path the bullet travelled through his flesh.
The forensic analyst was forbidden from stating in testimony his opinion that the smuggler, while running away, was facing the agents with his arm extended toward them. Now what would cause a person to be in such a position while running, if he wasn’t posing as the Heismann trophy? Oh, and before you ask, the smuggler is left-handed.
The prosecution repeatedly used the term “unarmed” to refer to the smuggler, but there isn’t a soul on Earth who can prove that.
The border patrol agents did a bad thing by attempting to cover up the weapon discharges, and should have been punished for THAT ONLY.
Feds ‘knew smuggler’ in Border Patrol case
Ballistics data don’t support charge against border agents
Wrong law used to convict Border agents
Something stinks.
Freelancer on January 30, 2007 at 3:15 AM
I’m trained to use a Glock 17.
Yes, the adrenaline gets pumping and the emotions get going making it harder to hit a moving target. I’m sure that explains why Ramos was able to get him on the first shot. Ya boy. Ya got me there.
.
GT on January 30, 2007 at 7:16 AM
I can. I’ve met Walter Jones. A family-owned business in 1999 lost everything to flooding caused by Hurricane Floyd. And because of a clerical error made by Bank of America, their flood insurance coverage was denied even though they had been making payments. When asked for help with the matter, Jones’ response was that he couldn’t. He “worked for the Government.” I have a copy of that letter.
The problem is the two Agent’s own testimony, the testimony of Agent Juarez and the evidence in the matter.
Don’t get me wrong. Emotionally, I want these guys to be innocent. But, you have to look at the evidence and the way these two conducted themselves. These guys weren’t rookies. In fact, their field experience and areas of expertise makes it harder to find them innocent.
.
GT on January 30, 2007 at 7:28 AM
Wow, I’m amazed by Allah fairly often, but to suggest that ‘Compean and Ramos are bad guys…’ is reprehensible. True, they should not have covered up what they did. But that’s forgivable. What would NOT forgivable would be to have let the guy get away without a lethal attempt to catch him. He was breaking our border laws, he was resisting arrest, he was fleeing the scene of a crime. Not shooting the guy would send a clear message that we won’t fight if invaded. I would have shot the guy in a Louisiana second (which is roughly equivalent to 10 seconds, standard time).
It’s posts like these that make me slightly ashamed that you are one of our ‘conservative and libertarian’ pundits. “Cops are peace officers.” What a load of crap. Cops are law enforcers. The Justice of the Peace are peace officers. Obey the cops. If they mistreat you, sue ‘em. But if you try to run away, expect a bullet.
Man, way to ruin my morning, AP.
Kevin M on January 30, 2007 at 8:12 AM
Ouch, did I get moderated?
Kevin M on January 30, 2007 at 8:19 AM
From what I’ve read, other agents and a supervisor showed up at the scene right after the incident. At the time of the incident, Ramos and Compean nor the other agents and supervisor thought the smuggler was hit by any of the shots. And perhaps he wasn’t as the ballistics aren’t definitive in identifying what gun it came from.
From this reading, and I have read so much on this I can’t remember exactly where I read it, there was a discussion among Ramos and Compean and the supervisor. They were debating on whether to fill out a report because it was toward the end of their shift and it would take hours for the FBI to show up and complete an investigation.
If the agents didn’t think they hit the smuggler with their shots, in their mind, what crime were they covering up by picking up casings?
At the time of the incident, no one including the other agents and the supervisor knew Davila was hit. Thus nothing happened to report other than the bad guy got away. This is credible to me. If the account I read was accurate, there was no coverup of Davila getting shot because it wasn’t known that he was hit. They are accused of covering up a crime that, at that point in time, they didn’t know existed.
With regard to Davila not having a gun, I don’t feel the evidence is conclusive there either. It’s been written that Davila raised his hands, with palms showing when initially apprehended.
First the raising of hands can be interpreted as surrender or as a an act of aggresion. I don’t know, I wasn’t there to judge. However, when the agent went to hit him with the gun and failed, Davila took off. Is it totally inconceivable that Davila had a gun on his person? He showed his hands but was never searched. He could have very well had the gun in his shirt, pants or what have you.
I support the agents, but I don’t have enough information either way to stake my life on it.
voiceofreason on January 30, 2007 at 8:33 AM
What a weird story.
First, I don’t hear a lot of people stating that the agents’ conduct was proper and within guidelines; what I hear is people saying that the government gave immunity to an illegal alien drug dealer to prosecute two border agents, and that he was not prosecuted, and they were given 10-11 year jail terms. On this point, f/u Sutton and McCarthy.
Second: “The propaganda version holds that Aldrete-Davila got off scot-free, while our brave ‘heroes,’ agents Jose Alonso Compean and Ignacio Ramos, are serving heavy-duty jail-time for just doing their jobs. That’s just not the truth.” Take out the “just doing their jobs” rhetoric and that is, of course, the exact truth. See point one, and f/u Sutton and McCarthy.
Third: I once defended McCarthy’s writing against a public editor at the Chicago Tribune, who called him a “propagandist” by comparison to the great “journalist” Molly Ivins. Because I am how I am, I referred to the editor as an addled, affirmative action token with the judgement of a cowboy in a whorehouse on payday. I hereby retract the cowboy part.
Fourth: f/u McCarthy and Sutton. If the border patrol doesn’t trust these guys, they should fire them. I still do not understand why Sutton chose to prosecute them.
Jaibones on January 30, 2007 at 9:32 AM
On balance, he’s great. But it’s a real mixed bag here…
Jaibones on January 30, 2007 at 9:35 AM
Problem – the very article you linked to support this claim says the following:
“Agents and supervisors are required to file a written report if they participate in or know of an incident, according to TJ Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, which represents nearly 11,000 Border Patrol agents.”
Again, from the article you linked to support your previous claim -
“No other agents at the scene that day were prosecuted, and some were given immunity to testify against Ramos and Compean.”
Please read the articles next time. People do actually check your references, you know.
MKR on January 30, 2007 at 10:02 AM
Seriously? That is a new one on me. Are they trained to get into the prone before shooting. I.E. while firing at a suspect they believed is arm, and they are in the open they are trained to get into the prone?
*shrug* I guess I’m wrong.
Theworldisnotenough on January 30, 2007 at 10:34 AM
First this…
And then this…
Honest question – Is the complaint that it would “take hours for the FBI to show up and complete an investigation” particularly valid when the two Border Patrolmen have, by virtue of the nature of this defence, removed evidence from a crime scene that gives an indication of thier own actions?
MKR on January 30, 2007 at 10:39 AM
Most of the facts in McCarthy’s article are wrong or spun according to Sutton’s myth/fact sheet.
1. The agents knew that Davila was a drug smuggler because he had been driving a vehicle filled with almost $1 million in drugs.
2. During the chase, when Ramos saw Davila, he had already heard shots and saw his partner on the ground. He testified that he saw a shiny, nickel-plated gun in Davila’s hand, and he was turned to shoot back at the agents.
3. Ramos shot at Davila but did not know that he was hit because he kept running and jumped into a waiting escape vehicle.
4. It was not until almost a month later that Davila has a small fragment of bullet removed from his ass at a military hospital. It obviously was a small flesh wound, because he walked around with that fragment in his butt for quite awhile – and that supports the agents’ statement that it did not seem like Davila was hit at all.
5. As well, the forensics support the testimony that Davila was turned to shoot at the agents because the bullet fragment entered his butt on an angle consistent with turning to his right to fire with his right hand.
6. Two of Davila’s family members have made statements that he has been smuggling drugs since he was 14 and that he never ran drugs without a gun. It would be a stretch to believe that conveniently, on this one particular occasion, Davila was mysteriously unarmed.
7. Davila violated his immunity by continuing to smuggle drugs into the US, using a taxpayer funded car given to him by Sutton’s office. He was caught with almost 800 pounds of drugs a second time! His second arrest was expunged from the records and his indictment was sealed and gag order issued. Although his original immunity was specifically limited to the incident on the border wherein he abandoned a vehicle full of drugs to escape the BP agents, he was extended a SECOND immunity. Why?
8. Why was Davila presented to the jury as an illegal immigrant, rather than a drug smuggler?
9. Three jurors have complained that they were under severe pressure to find the BP agents guilty. They did not hear any the evidence against the drug smuggler.
10. According to 25 year criminal courts judge and current Congressman Ted Poe, most law enforcement agents are not considered a flight risk, and are allowed to remain out of prison on bond while their appeals are being heard. Why did the court deny that to these BP agents?
11. Sutton has an agenda, and he has prosecuted a sheriff’s deputy in Rock Springs, TX for shooting at a coyote’s car that was trying to run him over.
12. Why is it so easy to deride “dirty cops” but no one pays attention to “dirty politicians”? Sutton is filthy, and everyone in TX knows it.
13. Why has the court failed to complete the court transcripts? It’s been half a year, and court transcripts are usually finished immediately. The court has said that the transcriptionist has been “sick”. For half a year?!
14. Sutton’s office lied to a committee of Congressmen about having sworn statements that Compean & Ramos knew the drug smuggler was unarmed and had said they were “gonna shoot me some Mexicans” that morning? Since Sept. 29, 2006, Sutton’s office has stalled and obfuscated, ultimately refusing to release any documents whatsoever. Why did Sutton’s office lie? No such statements exist.
15. Congressman Mike McCaul, has made public statements he made a mistake to trust Republican administration officials (including DHS chief Michael Chertoff and DHS Inspector General Richard Skinner when they assured him that as Chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Investigations, he would be provided with the trial documentation. Now that the Dems are in charge, it’s too late, and Skinner recently told him to pack sand – and file an FOIA if he wanted the info.
16. Why have the DHS and the prosecution and the court failed to produce ANY of the documentation surrounding the trial to 40+ Congressmen and Senators that are investigating this incident?
The whole thing doesn’t pass the smell test for anyone with a reasonable sense of moral judgment. And by that I mean anyone who would find it more reasonable to believe two American LEOs over a foreign hardened criminal any day of the week.
Respected Congressmen and Senators (Poe, McCaul, Rohrbacher, Culberson, and 40 others) are being stonewalled on their investigations. If everything was on the up-and-up, why are they not being allowed to review the case? Why are they being lied to? Are they ALL to be dismissed, as Tancredo has been dismissed, as “demagogues”? All of them?
Ted Poe was a tough judge for 25 years – he knows when a case stinks to high heaven. What label would you like to smear him with in order to justify your position in favor of the drug smuggler?
Redhead Infidel on January 30, 2007 at 10:53 AM
How could they cover up a crime they didn’t know they commited at the time? Remember at that point, no one knew he was hit. What were they covering up? Persuit, shooting at and not capturing the guy?
voiceofreason on January 30, 2007 at 10:54 AM
Oh – and about that last question: why would the BP agents remove the shell casings from the scene?
They told their chain of command about the shootings – they weren’t sneaking around, contraryt o how GT is trying to make it look. They removed the brass to avoid making a report which is a huge administrative pain in the ass. At worst, the 2 BP agents AND the other AND their supervisor could be found guilty of bureaucratic aversion.
Redhead Infidel on January 30, 2007 at 10:59 AM
BTW, all the dirty backroom politics are laid out here.
Redhead Infidel on January 30, 2007 at 11:01 AM
Almost everyone is in agreement that the agents should not have picked up the shell casings, and (if true) failed to report the shooting according to procedures. But this is really a mute point in this debate, because people are not sentenced to 10-12 years for “not following procedures.
THAT … is what this debate is all about. And that is really the ONLY thing in this entire incident which is backed by any actual evidence.
Again … not following proper procedure does not make you guilty of attempted murder. There is only ONE witness other than the two convicted agents who testified that he actually SAW what happened, and that’s the drug smuggler himself.
That there’s even a need to debate this situation is just pathetic.
Gregor on January 30, 2007 at 11:12 AM
Thank you. Perfectly written. Unfortunately, Allah and GT will simply ignore it all.
Makes you wonder. Doesn’t it?
Gregor on January 30, 2007 at 11:15 AM
I didn’t say they were the ones who had committed a crime.
The *illegal border crosser* *resisted arrest*, allegedly *brandished a firearm in a threatening manner* authorising the use of deadly force, *fled the scene of a crime* leaving behind *700 odd pounds of contraband in his car*, all during which Border Patrolmen fired 15 shots in self-defense, and that’s not a crime scene?
MKR on January 30, 2007 at 11:19 AM
That’s ok, Gregor. It’ll be interesting to see how you spin things when transcripts of the trial are released.
I’m still waiting for you to answer my questions, BTW.
.
GT on January 30, 2007 at 11:31 AM
Precisely.
.
GT on January 30, 2007 at 11:32 AM
Not according to George Bush. Illegal alien drug smuggling losers do this EVERY DAY, EVERY HOUR … and Bush does nothing. See Redhead’s comment above on Bush’s response to this sort of thing. It’s an ongoing agenda.
Blinders are best left for horses.
Gregor on January 30, 2007 at 11:35 AM
I don’t care what George W. Bush thinks.
Was it a crime scene or not?
MKR on January 30, 2007 at 11:39 AM
I usually avoid this sort of thing, as I said earlier … and Allah can do as he pleases in response, but GT … you’re a lying, dishonest, piece of cr$p.
You gave me questions and I answered each and every one of them on this thread. In fact, I posted them twice after the first time you claimed I hadn’t answered you.
Every comment you’ve made on this thread is purposely dishonest, rather than simply your opinion. You’ve repeatedly misrepresented the facts and misrepresented the comments by readers.
Gregor on January 30, 2007 at 11:43 AM
As I stated before … not according to the President of the United States. NO! Illegals are doing this every day and we do not prosecute them. We ignore them. We watch them travel back and forth. When we catch them, we release them.
The current administration does not feel that foreignors running back and forth across our border, breaking laws, and dealing drugs is a crime.
But let a Border Patrol agent actually INTERFERE with these actions … and you’ve got an instant crime scene.
Gregor on January 30, 2007 at 11:46 AM
Redhead,
I would strongly suggest you and Gregor check your facts. For example…
Gregor sez…..
That isn’t what Agent Juarez testified to. Now who are we to believe – you or Agent Juarez?
Redhead sez….
Uh, no. Davila was hit with a .40 cal. bullet. It penetrated his buttocks and shattered his urethra. I’m no doctor, but I don’t think that qualifies as “a small flesh wound.”
.
GT on January 30, 2007 at 11:50 AM
Hmmmm….so emotional. Not surprising.
.
GT on January 30, 2007 at 11:54 AM
Gregor, I asked an honest question trying to rationalise a particular pair of points raised by voiceofreason.
Whilst I appreciate the fact that this forum provides you with the ability to respond to whomever you choose, you are providing a partisan political response to a technical question.
Please feel free to respond when you are prepared to answer the question that is asked, otherwise leave the conversation to voiceofreason and myself, ok?
MKR on January 30, 2007 at 11:55 AM
Nice GT.
You claim you’re still waiting for me to answer your questions, and then your very next comment includes one of my answers to the very same question. LMAO! Good work!
As several readers have already pointed out repeatedly … Agent Juarez has proved to be a liar. His very own testimony of where he was at the time of the incident made it physically impossible for him to witness the event.
But once again … you pretend nobody informed you of this. You just keep on going. How much is Juan paying you? Or are you really Juan?
You’re no doctor, yet you feel qualified to argue with the findings of a forensics expert.
Gregor on January 30, 2007 at 11:56 AM
ROFL! I answered your question, and you simply don’t agree with it. You not agreeing with it does not mean that I didn’t answer your question. Obviously, the only answer you would accept is a “yes.”
If you don’t think this entire incident is guided by “political politics” you’re not paying attention to what’s going on with the immigration issue.
But off you go.
Gregor on January 30, 2007 at 12:00 PM
Really? Who was able to impeach his testimony during the trial? Names please.
Are you saying that his urethra wasn’t shattered? And while you’re at it, who is this forensics expert who says such a thing is just a “small flesh wound”? How about providing an actual quote and source to back this up.
.
GT on January 30, 2007 at 12:04 PM
I already provided you with those links, but you refuse to follow them. Or, you simply ignore the info. I tend to believe you are purposely ignoring the info.
Keep playing stupid. The links are posted right in front of your face, many times.
Gregor on January 30, 2007 at 12:09 PM
This is where normal conservative folks have to decide;
1) are we in favor of the rule of law?
2) do we trust and believe in the system of justice in the US?
3) when 12 carefully selected citizens decide the facts can we accept that?
4) are we “pro-police” or “pro law enforcement”?
Unfortunately many are failing this test. For myself, I am pro law-enforcement. I am not in favor of criminals acting under the color of authority.
And I am old enough, and experienced enough, to understand the difference between law enforcement behavior and criminal behavior.
/shrug
Rant on guys. You are becoming a parody of what you despise.
Dwilkers on January 30, 2007 at 12:12 PM
>Doghouse, Have you ever shot a pistol at 50 yards?
No, but I’ve fired a pistol from that distance. :)
>How about 100?
See above.
>If you think that is a distance that is capable of accurate shooting with a pistol then I seriously doubt that you have.
Well, I don’t think that any distance is capable of accurate shooting, but I do think that some people are capable of accurate shooting at that distance. If somebody thinks that a distance–which is really nothing more than a certain amount of space–can shoot at all, I would question his sanity. Amounts of space have no fingers, and are therefore incapable of pulling a trigger.
Now, I think the problem here is first that you think that my big number–500 yards–literally meant “500 yards.” Obviously that’s not a pistol distance. That’s why I wrote it. If the bad guy is waaaaay out there, and running like a scalded buffoon, then it’s going to be nearly impossible to hit him. I could just as well have written “5 million yards.” I meant “way out there, outside an appropriate pistol distance, a distance that any person that has the faintest clue about pistol shooting is not going to mistake for a distance that would allow a reasonable probability of success.” I’ll be more specific next time.
>Hitting moving targets at that range with a pistol is ridiculous.
Yes, and I counted on everybody’s common sense to understand that. Glad to see that you did!
>Hitting moving targets while you are moving is incredibly difficult at any range.
Unless it’s an appropriate pistol distance, and you have had sufficient training and experience. If your job is to chase and shoot bad guys, but you can’t do it at appropriate pistol distances, you need to give back your buzzer and your heater and try standup comedy. I’m not saying that the border agents in question did or didn’t have that skill/knowledge/wisdom. My comment was unrelated to them, but was rather a light jab at people who can’t do the old run ‘n shoot.
>Your comments (Like GT’s and others) betray your ignorance of the subject matter.
And yours betray a tendency to jump to conclusions.:) Or maybe a lack of confidence in your combat shooting skills? (Again, I’m just kidding around with you, so you don’t need to come back and tell me about the trophies you’ve won for shooting stuff, or anything like that. You could be lying, for all I know. For that matter, I could be lying. Maybe I’m a 13-year old girl who is simply taking a break from MySpace to come tease you a little bit. You’ll never know, big boy! It’s not likely, though, since I’m not writing “UR” or “lol” or “pwnded” or anything like that.)
>Real life is not like Hollywood.
Nor is it like the movies that are made in Hollywood. Though, I would have to say that real life is closer to Hollywood, since movies are just images of people pretending, but Hollywood is a real place. So that puts it a bit closer to real life.
>Good shots don’t hit every shot they take.
But they hit most of them because they know when to shoot and when not to shoot.
>It doesn’t require just one bullet to end a confrontation
You’re right. Personally, I favor the “two to the chest, one to the head” rule. That would make three. Four if you choose to do a behind-the-back shot to impress your friends, and it only hits the guy in the leg. That’s still okay, though, since everyone gets a good chuckle out of it.
>and more bullets than that are not evidence of a murderous intent.
You are right again. I’m not sure that it has anything to do with what I wrote (that if you can’t hit a moving target at appropriate pistol distances then you suck), but you’re right! A black cape, a fiendish grin, a maniacal laugh, and scary music played in a minor key are evidence of a murderous intent.
So, now that we’ve got that cleared up, it’s time for me to go practice shooting at gazelle bounding away at 500 yards. I think I’ll use the Saturday Night Special I keep in my boot.
Doghouse on January 30, 2007 at 12:17 PM
AP,
You are to be commended for your thick skin. There are some obviously very passionate opinions surrounding this debate. Thanks for letting it play out in spite of the personal affronts, mine included, that are being hurled. My apologies for my lack of tact and self composure.
Chief1942 on January 30, 2007 at 12:22 PM
I do agree with you Dwilkers, but there’s not many on here claiming that they don’t care that the agents did what they are accused. The argument is that the facts do not match the accusations.
For me, if I believe a cop is dirty … I’m all for hanging the guy. If the evidence supports the accusations, then I would support harsh punishment. But that’s not the case here.
Your argument simply accepts the accusation of the prosecutor.
What would happen if we followed that path in the Duke rape case? How many of you arguing for Sutton and claiming we should just accept the outcome … believe OJ Simpson is actually guilty?
IF these agents actually attempted to murder this guy, basically for fun … then I would most definitely back the charges. But tell me this …
Why were they not charged with attempted murder? Isn’t that what they must have been trying to do, if what Sutton’s claims are correct? Why are they being sentenced to over ten years for “violating procedures?”
The answers to your questions, in order, are:
1. Yes, definitely. And that includes holding the government to that rule of law.
2. No. Not always. Everyone can agree that the courts and various agencies are laced with corruption.
3. Was OJ guilty? Do you accept that verdict?
4. Both. Just like most of us are pro soldier, and pro national defense.
Gregor on January 30, 2007 at 12:23 PM
I agree with Gregor. OJ was found innocent in a court of law, and the case was closed. Was he innocent?
amerpundit on January 30, 2007 at 12:36 PM
I say we wait for the court room transripts to come out, before we all claim that we know exactly what was said, and who testified to what.
amerpundit on January 30, 2007 at 12:37 PM
Yes that is a crime scene but of a different nature than the one they were prosecuted for. One in which the smuggler was actually struck with a bullet.
You make it sound as though they knew they hit the smuggler. At that time they didn’t. So it wasn’t like they were covering up the fact that they shot at and hit the smuggler with a bullet.
My contention is that after discussing whether or not to submit a report, they then cleaned up the scene. To avoid a report and FBI investigation, not because they successfully shot at a smuggler and tried to cover that up. Which I believe is the prosecutions position.
voiceofreason on January 30, 2007 at 12:41 PM
Rule of law includes matching the severity of the punishment to the severity of the crime. The debate here centers on whether the punishment meted out to these two agents is proportionate to what they did.
Rule of law also includes equal enforcement – not harshly punishing border agents for what is more likely incompetence than malice while thousands upon thousands illegally cross our borders while never having to worry about prosecution for their crimes.
Not blindly. It’s not a perfect system, nor should it be above skeptical inquiry as to whether it’s working for a particular case.
Two words: Mike Nifong.
Before we answer that question, there are others we have to ask (and answer). Were the 12 carefully selected citizens given all of the facts? Were the 12 carefully selected citizens given adequate instructions from the judge? Were the 12 carefully selected citizens aware of not only their duties as jurors, but also their rights in determining how they would vote? All of those questions are open in this case, and if you can’t answer those, then you can’t answer your question either.
Speaking for myself, I’m pro-justice. I’m also pro-enforcement on our borders. And many rational minds have good reason to believe that both of those causes were severely undermined in this case.
Look in the mirror. You won’t even consider any of the questions raised by the defense, nor have you demonstrated any willingness in this thread to consider whether the punishment is fitting for the crime. You are simply taking the prosecution side at face value, assuming these guys are common criminals who had a badge, and are willing to throw them in the slammer for 11+ years each without even asking the tough questions that cannot be easily answered.
If that’s what you call “pro-law enforcement”, then count me out.
… and apparently tired enough to avoid asking the tough questions that are still in dispute in this case. Instead, you appear to just latch on to one side of the argument, taking it on blind faith while ignoring the other side or even acknowledging that there might be some issues with the prosecution of these agents. In other words, until it’s demonstrated otherwise, you look like your are simply taking the easy way out.
Your “parody” admonishment notwithstanding, reasonable minds can disagree over the issues here. If anyone is a parody here it’s you because you won’t even acknowledge the possibility that there are two sides to this story, even in a thread where numerous solid points to that effect have been raised.
thirteen28 on January 30, 2007 at 12:59 PM
Theworldisnotenough
Of course not, I was trying to explain you that Agents are trained to fire their weapons in the prone position not that they are trained to drop into the prone position to fire, which is not what you said in you original comments.
It was in response to this comment that you made:
I was trying to inform you that agents are trained to fire in all situations and the prone position is one of them.
Do you actually believe Agents cannot fire their weapon in the prone position?
ScottyDog on January 30, 2007 at 1:22 PM
More immigration nonsense.
But don’t worry. It’s all just a coincidence.
Either that, or nothing more than the fantasies of conspiracy theory nutjobs.
Gregor on January 30, 2007 at 1:30 PM
Sorry, but blogs/opinion pieces are a poor substitute for actual news articles, court transcripts, actual testimony and DOJ reports. Think you can come up with one of those?
I think Patton said it best on this thread. I encourage you to scroll back up and read what he said.
.
GT on January 30, 2007 at 1:46 PM
Exactly. Which is why every one of your posts are so pathetic. It’s okay Juan. There’s at least two people who agree with you.
Yes. Except for the court transcripts, which nobody has, I’ve produced every one of those. Still playing stupid?
Gregor on January 30, 2007 at 1:55 PM
The government thus far has not released the transcripts of the trial. Several congressmen (including my own rep) have requested it and have now been told they will have to file a request for the transcripts under the Freedom of Information Act.
Why all the hoops if the government’s case is so strong? Why not get it out there for everybody to see?
It’s quite disingenuous of you to call on someone to use the transcripts to argue against the government’s case when the government itself won’t release them. But then again, that type of disingenuousness is what I’ve seen from virtually everyone that wants to send these agents up the river.
thirteen28 on January 30, 2007 at 2:02 PM
Yes AP, We need to do whatever it takes to stop someone from entering illegally. The Border Patrol Agents aren’t police officers. They aren’t there to write tickets, or serve warrants, or investigate crime. They are there to stop illegal entry into our country, if that means shooting violators then so be it. We will see border crossings drop to none in short order. The sooner we stop pretending we are the bad guys, and stand up for our country the better.
You better believe I won’t wait to see what someone is up to in my house before I shoot them. I’m not going to wait until more than one offence is committed, while my wife or daughter gets raped before doing anything. I’m going to stop them at the entry point.
Gooch on January 30, 2007 at 2:22 PM
Oh for heaven’s sake.
“You won’t even consider any of the questions raised by the defense”
or
“Your argument simply accepts the accusation of the prosecutor”
What I am saying is that;
I, as a born and bred ex-Marine and life long Texan, respect the verdict of twelve carefully selected West Texas jurors, after having experienced first hand the ultimate expression of justice: a trial in federal court before a federal judge.
I would be much more concerned if this happened in Berkeley. It did not. It happened in a place with which I am well familiar, West Texas, and if you think there are a bunch of liberal-lefty jurists in West Texas I have some beach property out there I think you’d be interested in.
———
Look guys, when you have a group – a big group mind you – of citizens in west Texas unanimously saying you got a couple of rogue cops that are guilty then you should sit back and think.
When you look around and the people you see are all holding “Free Mumia” signs that should set you back a few steps.
Dwilkers on January 30, 2007 at 2:31 PM
Not according to the immediate supervisor of Compean and Ramos,Field Operations Supervisor Jonathan Richards. He told them not to file a report and he did not contact the FBI to investigate the shooting which is required if a suspect is shot.
I suggest you read the Policies and Procedures of the Border Patrol, which are online by the way.
The penalty at this point for non-reporting is very simple, as mandated in the DHS, Customs and Border Protection penalty table, five days administrative suspension. That’s it, no termination of employment, and certainly not prison time.
Johnny Sutton completely ignored the DHS regulations when he charged Ramos and Compean for a crime they did not commit under regulations that are supposed to be adhered to by the Border Patrol.
To this day, three agents remain on administrative duty with pay by the Border Patrol while Field Operations Supervisor Jonathan Richards, who was on scene after the incident and saw the cut on Agent Compean, though not reporting the assault as required to the FBI, has since been promoted in rank to Special Operations Supervisor. I submit he was rewarded with a promotion for lying for the prosecution.
So, in addition to the immunity given to a known drug dealer, we now know that their supervisor who should have filed a report with the FBI was promoted instead of disciplined and another Agent is given a plea deal after to lying repeatedly to the Homeland Security investigator, Christopher Sanchez, for testifying against Ramos and Compean.
All the testimony and evidence against these brave heroes is tainted by grants of immunity, plea bargains, and back room deals granted by the Prosecutor, Johnny Sutton.
One other stunning revelation in this case is how it all began. As a former law enforcement officer, I can tell you that you are not allowed to associate with known felons or former felons when you take the oath of office,
Rene Sanchez is the Arizona Border Patrol Agent that initiated the investigation of Compean and Ramos. One has to ask, how a sworn law enforcement officer can maintain his job after officials learned that he had a life long friend that is a known drug dealer, let alone be allowed to coach the drug dealer Aldrete-Davila before he turned himself in to authorities and during the trial.
Here are some critical elements that came during the trial when the smuggler and other
witnesses testified. The smuggler testified that he had turned himself in to the American
Consulate in Juarez, MX on the advise of his hometown friend, Rene Sanchez who is a
border patrol agent working in Wilcox, AZ.
Aldrete-Davila was instructed by Rene Sanchez to not testify without requesting
immunity first. He further testified that Rene Sanchez instructed him as to what to say including denial of having a gun when he assaulted the two Border Patrol agents.
Rene Sanchez told the smuggler to say that he had nothing to do with the van loaded with
the 743 lbs of marijuana. Rene Sanchez also told the smuggler to say that he had run
because the agents were trying to beat him up. Rene Sanchez further instructed the
smuggler to say that he had been shot in the back, never mentioning where he was
actually shot. The smuggler also said in his original statement that he was shot while
entering the U.S. illegally, which was not the case, and made no mention of the vehicle
loaded with 743 lbs of marijuana.
I could go on and on with the disgusting revelations about Rene Sanchez, the star witness of the prosecution. Everything he did was either illegal or against departmental regulations yet Johnny Sutton has not arrested this scum bag for aiding and abetting a criminal or for having associating with a known felon.
…and you think Compean and Ramos are criminals that deserved their punishment? Seems to me the Prosecutors office, Rene Sanchez and many others within the Border Patrol should be brought up on charges of a malicious prosecution at the very least and for aiding and abetting an ongoing criminal enterprise.
Johnny Sutton should be disbarred for this bizarre behavior and prosecuted for his crimes.
ScottyDog on January 30, 2007 at 2:33 PM
ScottyDog, that is an outstanding post and one that will no doubt be completely ignored by the likes of
Juan HernandezGT.Gregor on January 30, 2007 at 2:38 PM
Sorry about the jumbled formatting in the paragaphs. When I clicked on submit, they were not jumbled.
I composed my comments in Word so I do not know what happened.
Wish we had an edit or preview button.
ScottyDog on January 30, 2007 at 2:39 PM
Of which at least three have signed sworn affidavits stating that they were pressured into the guilty verdict. Why is this simply ignored by those such as yourself?
Also ignored, and repeatedly pointed out, is that the jury was NOT ALLOWED TO HEAR important facts, such as the “illegal alien” being a drug runner who made a habit of carrying a weapon.
But yet, you just ignore it and bless the jury’s verdict as fair and just.
It might also be helpful to point out that you have a group – a big group mind you – of very powerful people in Texas who happen to be 100% in favor of open borders and who have business dealings with the Mexican government.
But maybe you just haven’t noticed that.
And when you look around and see illegal aliens doing your roofing job, working at Wendy’s, sitting in school next to your daughter, burning US flags and hoisting Mexican flags up post office flag poles, and claiming this is their country, all while those very important people in Texas sit and tell you they are our friends …
It might set you back a few steps. But it doesn’t, does it. It doesn’t even register.
Gregor on January 30, 2007 at 2:48 PM
I think this was address earlier (up the thread). There is still an ongoing investigation with 7 other agents. As such, a report cannot be released.
I’ve asked if any attorneys here can confirm this. No response yet.
*****
Gregor, if the best you can come up with is personal attacks and insults you are obviously just a waste of bandwidth. You’ll have to excuse me while I treat you as such.
GT on January 30, 2007 at 2:51 PM
Why should I simply accept that when the government that prosecuted the agents won’t even let me see what evidence was presented to said citizens and what was denied? By including or excluding certain pieces of evidence you can make the case look markedly different than what actually happened?
Were the jurors presented information regarding the alleged break in the chain of custody with the bullet that was (again, allegedly) extracted from the suspect? This is an area of dispute, and without seeing the trial transcripts, we cannot ascertain whether or not the jurors knew of the dispute, much less whether or not testimony resolved it.
Same with the dispute over whether the ballistics of the bullet match that of the agent’s guns. Another area of dispute, and no trial transcript is available to determine what testimony, if any, was presented.
Anoother issue at stake (related to the chain of custody) is whether or not DNA of the suspect was found on the bullet. No transcripts … no way to determine what testimony, if any, was presented over that disputed piece of evidence.
And those are only a few of the issues in dispute here.
If all those questions could be answered in the way the prosecution presents them in public, then we would know. But you would rather not even ask them, but would simply accept that there are no disputed facts in the case and that all pertinent and relevant evidence was presented to the jury.
You are doing exactly what I previously stated – accepting the prosecutor’s word at face value, because you refuse to even acknowledge that there are a significant number of facts in dispute, much less address the questions as to why.
Instead you hide behind the jury. Guess what – juries have been wrong before. And one of the reasons they are is because of closed-minded people who hold the defense to a higher standard than the prosecution.
thirteen28 on January 30, 2007 at 2:51 PM
No, it wasn’t addressed, and it’s not a report we are talking about – it’s transcripts of the trial. The government’s stated reason for not releasing said transcripts is becuase of illness of the court reporter. You’d think if they had the resources to track down a drug smuggler in Mexico, bring him back to the U.S., grant him immunity and provide him food and lodging so that he could testify at trial, and prosecute the agents, then they could come up with another court reporter instead of using a lame excuse like they are using now.
thirteen28 on January 30, 2007 at 2:55 PM
Is GT
Juan Hernandezthe former spokes hole for El Presidente Fox that we see on TV all the time?Thanks for the Kudos Gregor, I have been reading the debate and as usual you are fighting the good fight
What amazes me is that anyone can believe Johnny Sutton. The case against the agents is full of holes yet people blindly take the word of a Bush Appointee who has an agenda.
ScottyDog on January 30, 2007 at 2:56 PM
I think this was address earlier (up the thread). There is still an ongoing investigation with 7 other agents. As such, a report cannot be released.
GT … again, you have reading comprehension problem. The point was that YOU were the person demanding these reports, even as you yourself are not able to produce them.
But you knew that, didn’t you?
Once again, just ignore all the links, quotes from witnesses, actual facts, and answers to your questions that I’ve posted. Just keep repeating that all we do is insult you. Maybe the other two people working with you will believe you. But highly doubtful being that all of my comments are posted right on this thread for anyone to read.
Gregor on January 30, 2007 at 2:57 PM
If you want to know dwilkers feelings on that subject, perhaps you might want to see some of his comments in this thread over at Patterico’s.
thirteen28 on January 30, 2007 at 2:59 PM
Really? Duncan Hunter doesn’t seem to have that problem.
From Duncan Hunter at NewsMax…
.
GT on January 30, 2007 at 3:03 PM
Exactly. I don’t believe they actually believe him. It’s far more likely they have a personal agenda causing them to ignore the obvious. In
GTJuan Hernandez’ case … there’s no doubt about it. He’ll ask a question, the question is answered immediately, and a few posts later he’ll post something to the effect of “why aren’t you able to answer my question” or “why do you respond to my questions with nothing but insults?”He’s a fraud.
Gregor on January 30, 2007 at 3:05 PM
Exactly as GT’s above post indicates …
He again ignores links to information indicating his favorite buddy Agent Juarez’s story was full of lies and impossible claims.
Just keep smiling Juan.
Gregor on January 30, 2007 at 3:12 PM
It’s interesting that NewsMax can speak so authoritatively of the transcript’s contents when they make this admission in the same story:
thirteen28 on January 30, 2007 at 3:12 PM
Regardless of guilt or lack of guilt on the part of the fellows that did what needed to be done, I’m still glad that an invader is dead. That’s something that we should all be able to celebrate. I like it when the bad guys are gone, but then, I’m kind of old fashioned and addicted to common sense. There may be some people out there that are more progressive, and like it when bad guys are around.
Doghouse on January 30, 2007 at 3:31 PM
He’s not dead. He was shot in the a$$ and ran around for a month before the bullet was removed. This is one of the reasons why the 10-12 year sentence is such nonsense.
Gregor on January 30, 2007 at 3:35 PM
I’ll direct you to my exact words from earlier to which you called “disingenuous”….
Please note the plural. I am fully aware that the final transcript has not been released. That does not mean court transcripts have not been released. No disrespect intended toward you personally but I do wish some would make a greater effort toward reading comprehension that has been demonstrated thus far and intentionally mischaracterized.
.
GT on January 30, 2007 at 3:36 PM
>He’s not dead. He was shot in the a$$ and ran around for a month before the bullet was removed.
Ah, I see. For some reason I thought he was dead.
In that case, the agents should be reprimanded for not following through with their jobs. But they shouldn’t be going to jail.
Doghouse on January 30, 2007 at 3:42 PM
Yes, but until the final transcripts are released, we don’t have the whole story – only those parts that the prosecution wants you to see. If you read the bullets in the article you linked, almost every point raised is in dispute by the defense. Without the final transcript, how can we determine how much weight to give to their side of the story?
Cappice?
thirteen28 on January 30, 2007 at 3:42 PM
That right. Now apply that argument to your defense of the Agents. Cappice? ;)
Its fun playing armchair-lawyer, isn’t it.
.
GT on January 30, 2007 at 3:51 PM
No trial transcript has been released, so it’s not clear what Duncan Hunter is sourcing from. Considering the spin, I’d say it was Sutton’s heinous “fact sheet”, which has been debunked many times over.
After everything I posted above, GT, all you come back with is this:
Huh – I WISH. And yes, I mean that. I wish Davila were dead – he’s scum. But no – he’s free and suing the BP for $5 million bucks, while our law enforcement officers are in federal prison. That a$swipe is laughing all the way to the bank, thanks to Sutton and gullible schmucks like you. Isn’t that great?
Shattered urethra, my ass. That is sensationalistic courtroom drama to the max. He didn’t have the bullet fragment removed until almost a month later. Explain that.
I noticed you couldn’t/wouldn’t respond to any of my other points. Selective little bugger, aren’t you?
Excellent info about dirty agent Rene Sanchez (there’s your despicable dirty cop, GT) from ScottyDog, to which I’d like to add that Sanchez (in addition to coaching Davila) is the one who arranged for his legal defense. Cozy.
Redhead Infidel on January 30, 2007 at 3:56 PM
Certainly – that’s why I’ve put qualifiers about the facts being in dispute instead of stating outright that the prosecution’s facts are wrong.
That being said, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and if the disputed facts are not resolved, then the default position should be “not guilty”.
thirteen28 on January 30, 2007 at 3:59 PM
Really? Duncan Hunter doesn’t seem to have that problem.
From Duncan Hunter at NewsMax…
GT on January 30, 2007 at 3:03 PM
Why would you attribute this to Duncan Hunter? Your deceitfulness knows no bounds. Your desperation is that of a man who fighting to save his own life.
Perchant on January 30, 2007 at 4:00 PM
Well, apparently the Prosecution proved its case to sufficiently get a unanimous verdict did it not (jurist statements afterward not withstanding). A transcript will be released for all to see. The Agents will appeal. If the facts as you believe them to be hold up sufficiently, they’ll potentially get a new trial. However, if the Appeal Court denies and is satisfied with the facts of the case and the testimony, does Bush and Sutton get an apology from Rohrabacher and some of the folk here?
.
GT on January 30, 2007 at 4:20 PM
You know what. You’re absolutely right. It should be attributed to Dave Eberhart. My mistake. No deceit intended. Thank you for the correction.
.
GT on January 30, 2007 at 4:24 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »