Report: Border Patrol agent brutally beaten by illegals in prison
posted at 11:36 pm on February 5, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
First I threw you the Dungy video, now I’m tossing chum in the water about the convicted BP officers. See how shamelessly I pander to you guys when some of our commenters call for me to be replaced with other, more popular bloggers?
The assault occurred at 10:00pm Saturday night (2/3), apparentely following the airing of America’s Most Wanted. According to Ramos’ uncle:
“Nacho was assaulted Saturday night around 2200 by about five illegal immigrants. He has multiple and severe injuries. They put him in Isolation for now, he has not been allowed to see a doctor since Saturday. They were yelling at him in Spanish, Maten a la migra. which means kill the Border Patrol Agent.”
Another family member said Nacho was attacked after he fell asleep Saturday night. Assaulters went after him with repeated blows and kicks. Ramos suffered wounds to his back, shoulder, arms and head. There is concern that Agent Ramos was not given medical treatment after the incident and may not have received medical attention for up to 48 hours. An investigation is expected to be launched Tuesday.
Let me see if I have this right. We have a guy in jail who’s not only a police officer but whom members of the president’s base regard as a political prisoner wrongfully convicted as part of some murky executive-branch vendetta against border enforcement. And not only does the prison staff not isolate him from the general population, not only do they not take special precautions to protect him, not only do they not treat him after he’s brutally beaten, but, it’s suggested, they actually let the prisoners watch the episode of America’s Most Wanted in which he’s identified. All this, knowing that Bush himself is already being pressured to pardon these guys and would catch holy hell if something happened to them, especially if it involved convicts who were here illegally.
Now, I ask you — would Bush’s people really be that incompetent?
Answer: quite possibly, yeah.
Update: Like a moth to a flame, Jerome Corsi is on the case:
“‘What happened?’” Monica Ramos said she asked her husband. “He told me they were in the television room watching ‘America’s Most Wanted.’ After that, some time after 10 p.m., he went back to his cubicle and was almost falling asleep. He awoke to the sound of shoes stomping. It startled him because at night the prisoners are supposed to take their shoes off and put flip-flops on.”
She continued: “He said he didn’t have a chance to turn around and look at any of the guys attacking him at that time. He just felt a blow to the back of his head. The prisoners were kicking him with steel-toe shoes, the work boots they are issued in prison. They kept kicking and kicking. And they kept calling him in Spanish a **** immigration officer, saying ‘darle, darle,’ which means, ‘give it to him.’ They were cussing him out in Spanish. He couldn’t fight back he was outnumbered.”
According to Loya, Ramos also said of the attack: “They kicked me in the head, they kicked me all over the body. I’m all bruised and very sore.”
How did the attack stop?
“No security came to his rescue,” the jailed Border Patrol agent’s wife told WND. “Another inmate came and got Ramos and said ‘Hey, dude, let me help you up.’ The other inmate walked my husband over to security.”
Did the prison give him any medical treatment?
“As of the time we talked this afternoon, the prison still hadn’t given him any medical treatment,” she said, adding that he told her, “‘I asked all day yesterday.’ I’m in a lot of pain and I have blood coming out of my left ear.’
They kicked him in the head with steel-toe boots, hard enough to make him bleed from the ears 36 or so hours later, and he still hasn’t received medical treatment? My skepticism is mounting.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 »
I agree. Quite possibly, yea.
Troy Rasmussen on February 5, 2007 at 11:39 PM
Sorry, forgot the “h”.
. . .yeah. . .
Troy Rasmussen on February 5, 2007 at 11:40 PM
Murky to you, Hewitt-Lite.
Alex K on February 5, 2007 at 11:41 PM
Carne rojo, indeed. Man, I’ve got to see what Ace is saying about this.
a4g on February 5, 2007 at 11:44 PM
I voted for Bush twice. Yes…TWICE! This (among a few points) is the single biggest point on which I cannot stand our President. He placates to hispanics for no other reason than his fear that they will turn left. You know, it’s all about votes. Well…guess what? Many of them already have turned left. Now, one of our last lines of defense is being beaten by the very people he was hired to patrol. Only my keyboard can feel my anger at this point.
thedecider on February 5, 2007 at 11:44 PM
Allah,
Well, his lawyers and fan club pressured america’s most wanted into making this a story - if you are to believe those websites
Maybe the incompetance was when Ramos lawyer told the Judge in the pretrial phase it was unfair to sentence his client AGAIN to anger management - he just got out of it - The lawyer argued he was cured - until he shot the unarmed man at the time they did not know anything except - well he wouldn’t let his partner club him in the face.
Ramos was a marksman, the illegal was unarmed and tried to surrender, his partner went to club him to death - naturally the alien took off running, Ramos partner fired a clip, reloaded, fired another clip. Ramos then made the cold blooded calculated decision to try to kill the man and left him bleeding there in the desert.
These two are not the proper poster children for the Border Patrol - lots and lots of heros - and a couple of zeros
EricPWJohnson on February 5, 2007 at 11:47 PM
You better not be replaced. If it were up to me, you’d be runnin’ the show 100% and not Michelle.
Blog of the Millennium: Allahpundit and Kirsten Powers!
NPP on February 5, 2007 at 11:49 PM
Oh please..no one can replace Allahpundit! Seriously..there is a good mix on this blog….don’t wreck a good thing..:)
I sincerly hope this is some awful rumor, but I fear this is all true(: I hope he recovers from this.
Pam on February 5, 2007 at 11:49 PM
Absolutely! This blog is the best thing going just as it is. Change it and I’ll leave!
thedecider on February 5, 2007 at 11:53 PM
I doubt we’ll see any Gitmo-esque outrage from the left on this. It’s okay I have enough rage for all of us.
SouthernGent on February 5, 2007 at 11:53 PM
I haven’t watched America’s Most Wanted in many years, but I thought the point of the show was to tell about a crime where the criminal is missing - you know, wanted by the police? Hence the name of the show… then people would call in if they had information. The agents were never on the run so far as I’ve ever heard. What was the point of the show?
Laura on February 5, 2007 at 11:54 PM
Tsk tsk. Replaced? Hardly.
Call it…augmented.
Or dare I say it… a blog poster surge!
EFG on February 5, 2007 at 11:58 PM
Please read the very lengthy comments on this post before you start this debate, again. Oy.
Bill C on February 5, 2007 at 11:58 PM
Laura,
The extradinary ability of the Ramos faction to shamelessly garner publicity backfired - again.
Next time it might get him killed.
BTW, they are not agents, they are felons serving time for violence against an unarmed man.
EricPWJohnson on February 6, 2007 at 12:00 AM
Replace you? Blasphemy!
Savage on February 6, 2007 at 12:05 AM
Eric,
he was not a man, he was a bottom dwelling oxygen thieving drug dealer.
Wow, that was really fun, we should do it again sometime!
Here’s the thing: I’m not getting dragged into that debate. If you want to get into it, go read the thread Bill C linked to and respond to him. I made a comment/asked a question about the show and you want to pick a fight about which noun I used. Seems kind of silly to me.
Laura on February 6, 2007 at 12:13 AM
Bill C
Read the posts - someone named BigJolly actually ordered the transcripts or portions of it - I was following this story almost two years ago - moved overseas over a year ago and am floored that so many idiots are lining up to defend these guys
We have McCaul, Culbertson and Poe on local radio calling this a coverup etc.
Neddless to say, I’m stunned by actions of congress - and I though there was no more feeling left in my body.
EricPWJohnson on February 6, 2007 at 12:13 AM
Laura
His own faction to credit for the show that got him beaten - go figure - I’m not picking a fight with you
be reminded, they had NO idea who he was when they chased him without probable cause, beat him, tried to kill him.
People apparently need to be constantly reminded of that.
EricPWJohnson on February 6, 2007 at 12:16 AM
I’m outraged, but not a tiny bit surprised.
Sadly, Given that these guys are (were) law enforcement / Border officers, and put in the general population, (probably in the middle of a ‘Mexican Mafia’ of dozens, if not hundreds of Illegals and US citizens of Mexican descent), I have a feeling they won’t live long.
Whether they deserve to be punished at all is debatable. A virtual death sentence is a gross miscarriage of both the law and justice.
LegendHasIt on February 6, 2007 at 12:19 AM
Aww.
Stephen M on February 6, 2007 at 12:28 AM
I’m a bit skeptical as well. The wife of one of these guys was on O’Reilly last week, and there was concern for something like this, but at that point he had been isolated. I find it a little hard to believe that he was thrown to the wolves and without any kind of close supervision. That doesn’t mean this couldn’t have happened, but seems unlikely. Praying it didn’t happen. And either way, Bush needs to pardon these guys.
RightWinged on February 6, 2007 at 12:31 AM
I understand the skepticism. But regardless if it’s true or not, these guys were still given excessive sentences.
John Derbyshire of NRO answered Andy McCarthy’s piece from last week here
Derb also has a great Corner post that puts this all into perspective here.
I would urge those who have taken the “lock the agents up and throw away the key for 11/12 years” position to actually read both Derb’s longer piece and his Corner post. But then again, I know what good that will do (none), because your minds are made up and you will not even entertain the possibility that the punishment for these agents is excessive for their transgressions.
thirteen28 on February 6, 2007 at 12:42 AM
I haven’t so I have tried to catch up and I am a little disconcerted that the facts of this case are so murky at this point. I read Andrew McCathry’s piece on NRO and it was damning but then someone pointed out that Davito (SP?) wasn’t pursued because he had escaped into Mexico which is SOP for the border patrol. So which is it? McCarthy makes it seem like he was left for dead. Who where the witnesses to the incident? Is it the one BP agent? Also, the two agents seemed to have made a verbal report to a superior. (A fact I have read in some accounts but no others.) Apparently not kosher according to BP rules but did they do this to avoid paper work or to cover up a crime? Why tell anyone if it was a coverup?
What about the three jurors who felt pressured to go with the majority? I have been on a jury and I know that people vote guilty or not based on all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with the law. I would love to know how the deliberations went.
So I am reserving judgement until I hear more. The full transcript of the trial should be out soon. What gives me pause is that there are a few people not connected to the antii-illegal movement who say the agents got a raw deal. And, honestly, I am not comfortable with putting law enforcement in jail for lapses in judgement in the heat of a confrontation for exactly what we are reading about in this post.
Bill C on February 6, 2007 at 12:49 AM
Right Winged, 1328
try to get ahold of the transcripts - the police record of Ramos
I think you will have a much different view
the sad part about this is we as a society had to choose between those who uphold the law and the law itself.
Had they just stuck to their training and cuffed the guy - end of story.
EricPWJohnson on February 6, 2007 at 12:50 AM
I’ll ask you the same question Derbyshire poses for McCarthy: How do you know this? Have you seen the transcripts? If so, consider yourself one of the privileged few since the federal government is refusing to release them.
But I’d bet the odds are very, very strong (in the 99.9% range) that you haven’t seen those trial transcripts, certainly not the full ones. As such, the “facts” you are presenting are purely conjecture on your part and
thirteen28 on February 6, 2007 at 12:56 AM
Again, Mr. Johnson … THE FULL TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS HAVEN’T BEEN RELEASED.
But since you are speaking authoritatively as if you’ve seen them, please provide links so that we can verify your version of the transcripts, thank you.
thirteen28 on February 6, 2007 at 12:57 AM
Dude, every person that suggests you be replaced, ban them. Replace them. If they like it so much somewhere else, let them go there. This site is like y’alls house. We’re guests here. Rule number one as a guest is respect your host. If I had people mouthing off at me the way some of these guys do to you at my place, I’d kick them through a window. Would Chuck Norris tolerate some suggesting Adrian Zmed take over as Walker? F**ck (farck)no!
austinnelly on February 6, 2007 at 12:59 AM
Seriously Johnson, how the hell do you know the illegal drug deal hauling hundreds of pounds of pot was unarmed? One of the guards claimed the thought that the illegal pointed a gun at him.
RightWinged on February 6, 2007 at 1:03 AM
As if… unless you mean ace. He’s way cooler than you. ;-)
j/k
DaveS on February 6, 2007 at 1:09 AM
Who the hell are you, Johnny Sutton’s lapdog?
infidel4life on February 6, 2007 at 1:09 AM
People called for your replacement? Wow. I don’t always agree with you, but replacing you never even crossed my mind. You can’t please everyone, I guess.
jaleach on February 6, 2007 at 1:17 AM
What makes you use the word “incompetent?”
He’s not incompetent at all. This was intentionally set up. Do you really think, even if Bush was so incompetent not to order these guys protected, that the prison staff would not protect them on their own?
There’s only one way any of this makes sense, and it’s that these agents interfered with something extremely important to some very powerful people. But then again … that’s the theory of nutjobs, right?
You’re right. It makes perfect sense for a Border Patrol Agent to get locked up alongside a pack of illegal aliens.
Gregor on February 6, 2007 at 1:27 AM
It seems to me that the case boiled down to the agents story versus the word of a known drug smuggler, in this country illegally with the intent to commit crimes against this country, likely armed, caught during the undenied commision of multiple felonies and therefore is an undeniable ENEMY OF THE STATE. How in the world does a case based on nothing more than the word of an enemy of the state put vetted Border Patrol Agents in prison and the enemy somehow portrayed as some wronged oppressed innocent? It’s presposterous although granted no one knows yet what was presented in court. The whole thing stinks. Did I miss something? Is there some other evidence that I am not aware of other than the word of a criminal? Some video? Pictures? Witnesses? I mean a criminal wouldn’t lie would he? I’m either very misinformed or there are some real confused people out there that would rather believe the worthless word of a known criminal over vetted members of our own law enforcement.
Guardian on February 6, 2007 at 1:30 AM
Idiot………. you want to make me vomit. Do you live any where near the border Eric? If so please correct me and then I will quiz you on some facts in front of everyone on this Blog, and we will see where your answers take you.
Confirmed….. Agent Ramos was attacked by illegals on Saturday night, in a “Medium Security” prison that he was sent to by Johnny Sutton, even though terms of his encarceration was to be to a “Minium Security” prison. The difference being, a-hole, are the inmates. Tons of illegals and drug smugglers, just like the piece of fecal matter he was trying to arrest.
Second, have you ever carried a side arm, a badge, took an oath and stood a post in the middle of the night where your hands are so tied, that just surviving the shift is a day to day task?
Oh no, I forgot,
Let’s see, middle of the night, the guy doesn’t want to go with you, and after you say “Please….”, what would your next move be????
Eric????
Have you ever been a victim of crime from an illegal alien, from them crashing into your car with no license or insurance, or them raping your daughter, and seen how the courts “let them go”???
Eric???
Finally, yes, the transcript was sealed, and parts of it labled “Top Secret”…… but one point that made it out, a-hole, the bullet in the illegal drug smuggler didn’t come from either Border Patrol Agent’s guns……. THAT IS A FACT. Johnny “let me bend over and get a Filthy Sanchez” Sutton witheld this fact ……… and is a crime.
The appeal has been filed, but will they live to see it???
And when the truth comes out, Mr. EricPWJohnson, where will you be…………. safe inside your home, with your family?
Michael Foxtrot……… you, and your opionions really have brought yourself to the attention of others. No harm to be done, then again, maybe no protection? Who knows, maybe we may be charged with a crime for trying to enforce the law?
Sorry, boys and girls, but I have been following this case, and to see and idiot like this pontificate without knowing the facts, smelling his own essence, makes me want to……..
Forget it…….. How about I just take care or me and my own, bring some professionals with me, and then let the rest of you rely on EricPWJohnson to protect you.
Have a good evening, and plesant dreams……..
EricPWJohnson, it’s your duty, go stand a post……
PinkyBigglesworth on February 6, 2007 at 1:34 AM
Let me see if I get this right……a van with no illegals in it, in the middle of nowhere trying to get across the border, the driver, when approached, takes off running. Is that about right so far?
Hello?!, I’m not a BP agent and it makes sense to me that the only conclusion to come to is that the van is FULL OF DRUGS! Do I KNOW there are drugs? No, but the volitile enviroment on the border would dictate that the officers prepare the worst and defend themselves at all times. Some frontier justice would have done more to enforce the laws of this country than this dog and pony show the government put on to prove what a peaceful law abiding country we are. Now were gonna have lots of bad guys trying to get the BP to violate their civil rights so they can make a couple million at our expense.
These officers deserve to be punished because they were too stupid to cover this up completely. But under no circumstances they do not deserve the time they got. Probation at the most but more apropo would be an administrative leave of sorts.
csdeven on February 6, 2007 at 1:41 AM
Via Immigration Watchdog:
How many of you will back up your whining and actually do something.
See you there!
Gregor on February 6, 2007 at 1:52 AM
right-wing kooks when some of our commenters call for me to be replaced
with other, more popular bloggersby bloggers that do not purposely antagonize commenters, or act like a self righteous, pious, vindictive jerks on issues they think they own?And where do I stand? I stand for free speech. I have not called for you to be replaced. But anyone that antagonizes commenters then dares them to email for his replacement is just asking for it.
Theworldisnotenough on February 6, 2007 at 1:58 AM
PW is not qualified to guard a 7-11.
R D on February 6, 2007 at 2:01 AM
Bill, good for you not swallowing Johnny Suttons line of BS hook, line and sinker.
I heard Jerome Corsi on the radio saying that an oral report is all that is required by the Border Patrol. If true Sutton’s statement on Fox that these guys “covered up” by not making a report is misleading at best and at worst an outright smear.
Theworldisnotenough on February 6, 2007 at 2:09 AM
Whatever the facts, the publicity will work wonders for the Amnesty Bill.
Entelechy on February 6, 2007 at 2:14 AM
So do I, ……… this injustice has really opened an old wound.
Scare tissue and all…….. I didn’t know I could still bleed like that.
{hand over wound, praying for my children, their Mother, and this country}
PinkyBigglesworth on February 6, 2007 at 2:15 AM
Read this and do something about it now.
Stop assuming that others will do your job.
Gregor on February 6, 2007 at 2:23 AM
What the smuggler lovers hate to acknowledge is that the suspect was commanded to pull over his van and instead chose the high speed chase option.
That would give any decent officer a reasonable expectation that the suspect was up to no good. The hundreds of pounds of narcotics would seem to validate that reasonable concern.
People apparently need to be constantly reminded of that.
Perchant on February 6, 2007 at 2:30 AM
Heh. Not to mention Osvaldo getting 5 million in a civil suit. That will put Suttons career on the launching pad at Cape Canaveral. Watch Entelechy, 2 years of more vigoruous enforcement than an amnesty with stiff fines and a LONG wait. By then amnesty supporters will have a leg to stand on. The arguements goes something like “At least we got rid of the criminal aliens and all the unfair competition (illegals supressing wages I.E. poultry plants) can we keep the rest? Please?”
Theworldisnotenough on February 6, 2007 at 2:33 AM
Right Wing, 1328, Bill C, Pinkywhatever
Agent Juarez was there and saw the whole thing. He testified that Compean was not in danger and when asked if Juarez drew his weapon he did not draw his weapon as A-D was not a threat to their safety.
Thats what got them convicted was the investigation and testimony by their fellow agents.
Look we don’t shoot unarmed people, we are a nation of law, juries and bay watch reruns.
This does not change the border argument - it just changes the tune that there is a rule of law not mob rule.
Buidling a fence would/could have prevented this - I agree
EricPWJohnson on February 6, 2007 at 3:16 AM
Perchant,
You could not be more wrong - this is not a police state this is not operation wetback you cannot stop, beat and shoot unarmed people - except during chicago political conventions.
People are up to no good at all times when a kid steals a candy bar we don’t fill them full of 40 cal
EricPWJohnson on February 6, 2007 at 3:20 AM
So now Davila was just a kid taking a candy bar? Bet you want to just pinch his cheeks and tell him how cute he is.
You said that they chased him without probable cause. Do you seriously believe that failure to pull over when signaled by a law enforcement official, in a hostile crime-ridden area, isn’t probable cause to chase?
Perchant on February 6, 2007 at 3:36 AM
Replace AllahPundit?
That’s just crazy talk.
iNeXuS on February 6, 2007 at 3:37 AM
Perchant,
Aww you are just being emotional and not understanding that these two were trained profesionals, were not taking fire from hostiles and violated every rule of engagement and the rights of an unidentified stranger
They were not in central New Orleans they were outside of a small border town
EricPWJohnson on February 6, 2007 at 5:21 AM
I agree with you.
That said, you’re wasting your time with Gregor and Co. One of them actually believes that Bush himself conspired to make sure that the agents were convicted as a favor to Mexico. Another insist that Agent Juarez is nothing more than a liar.
Conspiracy nuts make life so much fun!
.
GT on February 6, 2007 at 6:48 AM
I sure hope AP doesn’t leave. Not many of us Enterprisers here.
As for this case, I live in the SW, the border is a huge concern of mine and will never be convinced that the Presidents plan will work. To be sold down the river for a possible voting block is truely disheartening. Now that these two BP agents have been made an example, whether for good or bad, what message are the rest of the BP agents taking to heart. Will they adopt a cover their ass, hands off, protect their job approach?
Sammy316 on February 6, 2007 at 7:04 AM
I’dlove to hear your take on the troops, William Arkin et al, though Im pretty sure I know the flavor of rhetoric, we hearit every day from those of your ilk.
Viper1 on February 6, 2007 at 7:20 AM
I can’t believe how many on this blog can’t see beyond the end of their noses……Bush is sending a signal to Border Patrol Agents that he does NOT want them to do their job…(you know, a job Americans don’t want anyway).
The guy shot was not only a foreign invader but a big time DRUG DEALER. Do you want your children to have access to the million dollars worth of drugs he was ferrying across the border? What about the subsequent load after this incident? How stupid can you be? BUSH in my mind–and I voted for him twice– is a TYRANT. These guys are not the only border guards being sacrificed for his new world order, North American Union..Can you folks not figure this out yet?? Guiterrez goes to Mexico and talks of more trade deals and more open borders and still you mock the idea of North American Union…Martinez is made head of the RNC despite a large contingent of Republicans who find this repugnant.
You are fools, and your entire country is being taken over All over the country and you just sit back and let it happen. Why,…you don’t even complain, American men are dying protecting Iraq whilst their own country is stolen in their absence. These agents should be pardoned and BUSH should be impeached. But since there are not enough real men of integrity in congress nothing will be done .Pitiful.
Mellen on February 6, 2007 at 7:57 AM
Hello?? Get the picture yet or do I have to draw it for ya???
From the VDARE Blog: Why Are Mexican Congressmen Allowed to Negotiate U.S. Immigration Policy in Washington, D.C.?
By Allan Wall
On February 5th, 2007, it was announced in the Mexican media that three members of the Mexican Congress would be traveling to Washington to work with Mexican-American members of the U.S. Congress to craft changes in U.S. immigration policy.
The three Mexican congressmen, one from each of the three major parties, plan to fly from Mexico City to Washington on February 6th (Tuesday). On Wednesday (February the 7th) they are scheduled to meet with both Democratic and Republican congressional representatives. On Thursday the 8th the Mexican congressmen are to meet with U.S. representatives Joe Baca, Luis B. Gutierrez, Hilda Solis and Nancy Pelosi.
The goal is work toward a migratory accord before the U.S. presidential elections advance any further.
Other plans are to meet with Mexican diplomats, diplomats of other countries, Mexican organizations in the U.S., and to fly to Chicago and visit Elvira Arellano, an illegal alien holed up in a Methodist church.
Need I point out that this is blatant meddling in U.S. internal politics, and should not be tolerated?
What can we say about our U.S. congressional members who are hosting them?
And what of our president, what does he have to say about it? Would a president who cares about our sovereignty allow this?
If you want to email or print out, format by clicking on this permanent URL:
http://blog.vdare.com/?p=2209
From the VDARE
Mellen on February 6, 2007 at 8:04 AM
The problem is that what these agents were convicted of was not part of their job.
.
GT on February 6, 2007 at 8:34 AM
GT,
Oh really? “That was not part of their job.”..Oh that’s right , like the National Guard when confronted with Mexican Nationals they were supposed to
” Run away, run away, run away!!”
(Yes I saw that Monty Python movie too!)
These invaders should be shot if they put one toe across the border. Maybe then we wouldn’t have millions making the journey at our expense!
PS You don’t know the story, nor will the transcript tell it to you. The only ones who will are the border agents there and the admitted DRUG DEALER. Which do you believe? These agents had been commended for their work in the past-despite what that schill Sutton says. I choose to believe these agents who are putting their lives on the line day in and day out, without the support of our government or our El Presidente. If you did a little research you would know that the cartels have declared all out war on border guards . I will side with those trying to protect my country thank you.
Mellen on February 6, 2007 at 8:56 AM
AP, your talent is wasted here. This pander is worthy of the Senate; I am truly humbled…
Jaibones on February 6, 2007 at 8:58 AM
I’ll need confirmation of this story before I react to it. For now, I’m calling shenanigans.
Benaiah on February 6, 2007 at 9:03 AM
Dude. The “rights of an unidentified stranger”? Quiet, you’re embarrassing your fellow travelers.
Jaibones on February 6, 2007 at 9:03 AM
EricPWJohnson, you’ve got your facts all wrong. I’d be embarrassed if I were you to speak out when you know so very little. You don’t even know which agent allegedly did what.
For one, Ramos shot at Aldrete-Davila only once, and we are supposed to believe that he is such an expert shot that he nailed Davila in the ass, when Compean shot 14 times and couldn’t hit him. Sutton’s explanation? Ramos is a marksman. Wow. I’m convinced.
The ballistics on the bullet only narrow down the firing weapon to any number of pistols from FOUR major gun manufacturers, including FN/Browning, Beretta, Heckler & Koch, and Ruger. Do you understand what that means? Anyone could’ve shot Davila, but Sutton CLAIMED in court that the ballistics proved the bullet came from Ramos’ gun. He LIED.
Did you know that the bullet in Davila’s a$s wasn’t removed for WEEKS? We’re expected to believe that he ran over the border, jumped into a waiting escape vehicle (because all innocent, unarmed, undocumented workers have escape vehicles waiting for them), and then walked around with a bullet in his butt for three weeks.
Did you know that Davila’s own family have claimed that he would never run drugs unarmed - and never had since he was 14? What drug smuggler in his right mind would? Did you know that Sutton has FAILED to prove that Davila was unarmed? It’s the drug smuggler’s word against multiple border agents’ - more than just Compean and Ramos.
The BP agents did not try to cover up anything. They called in the report to their superiors. Since the drug smuggler wasn’t hit (or so they thought at the time since he was running and jumping just fine), they were not required to fill out the bureaucratic triplicate forms that LEOs hate so much.
There’s so much more, but I don’t have time to educate you. Catch up on all the inconsistencies surrounding Sutton’s case here:
Dirty Texas Politics Taint Border Patrol Agents’ Trial
DIRTY TEXAS POLITICS: PART TWO
Redhead Infidel on February 6, 2007 at 9:10 AM
There’s a very simple way to remove all trigger fingers from the equation so nobody has to worry about who shot whom and what procedures were or weren’t followed.
Mine the border.
James on February 6, 2007 at 9:20 AM
The Bush administration is putting all of law enforcement on notice that he won’t allow the laws of this nation to get in the way of the efficient transport of narcotics and cheap labor across our open borders. Here’s a Hill County Deputy being charged for shooting a Mexican invader that tried to run him over http://www.officer.com/article/article.jsp?id=34336&siteSection=5
And BP policy forbids any agent from making a written report regarding a shooting. The agent is directed to verbally notify a supervisor (which they did) and then supply a written statement, if requested, by an INS investigator. No INS investigator ever was assigned to the incident but Homeland Security (which homeland and whose security anyway) did run on down to Mexico and fire up their own brand of justice. A justice that gave immunity from not only one count of drug smuggling but months later yet another count of drug smuggling. A justice that put these agents into a prison filled with Mexican criminals and allowed them to be beaten and then not receive prompt medical attention.
So let’s see, there were three people there. Two border patrol agents and a drug smuggler. The drug smuggler says he was unarmed and trying to surrender while the agents say he appeared to have a firearm in his hand. The drug smuggler was shot in the butt and the Bush administration specially picked prosecutor goes after the agents.
I’m saddened to say that I voted for Bush twice also. I’m sure I won’t make the same mistake and vote for Giuliani or McCain in 2008.
Buzzy on February 6, 2007 at 9:23 AM
AP, you are the picture of perseverance. Slings and arrows and all that. How could we possibly go on without your singular piquancy? Who would be left to satisfy our delusions of persecution?
spmat on February 6, 2007 at 9:25 AM
Carne asada, indeed. By now, the drug dealer’s probably called in a hit (or at the very least a “health inspection”) on the incarcerated BP agents. If anything should happen to Agent ramos or Agent compean, it’s all on these so-called “republicans”, who (other than a select few, including Tanc- NAU conspiracy notwithstanding) have no interest in actually preserving our Republic. Their blood is on the hands of the likes of El Presidente Arbusto, Amnesty Mel, and St. John of Tucson. I’m cashing in this receipt come primary time.
Kid from Brooklyn on February 6, 2007 at 9:36 AM
I like how the drug smuggler claims he was “surrendering” but then got himself shot in the butt. So he was surrendering backward, eh? Makes perfect sense. It only requires the total suspension of reason to believe Sutton’s version of events.
His case is unraveling, and he’s gonna take it up the butt for the Bush administration. Sutton thought he was going to be a hero, and now he’s going to take the fall. Poetic justice.
Redhead Infidel on February 6, 2007 at 9:43 AM
Blind, naive Americans make life so much fun!
Gregor on February 6, 2007 at 9:49 AM
And you can speak so authoritatively on this because you’ve seen the trial transcripts, even though several congressmen (including my own Rep. Michael McCaul) have been denied access to the same despite repeated requests over several months.
Bullsheet. You don’t know the facts of this case better than anyone else and you are just parroting Johnny Sutton.
thirteen28 on February 6, 2007 at 9:50 AM
If a van in New Orleans is ordered to pull over and doesn’t, would law enforcement have probable cause to chase?
Why are you so emotionally attached to this drug smuggler?
Here’s some more probable cause for you: The smuggler had Texas plates and went speeding towards Mexico rather than pulling over when signaled to do so by the agent.
Even if you believe that Mexicans should be able to break any US law they don’t see fit to obey, this suspect–for all the agents knew–was a US citizen making a mad dash for Mexico.
Have the border agents been ordered by Bush to let American citizens evade law enforcement and drive their vans into Mexico?
Perchant on February 6, 2007 at 10:02 AM
Yes, you certainly do. ;)
.
GT on February 6, 2007 at 10:03 AM
Is Bush a complete moron? Maybe the Left is right about his intelligence.
Tim Burton on February 6, 2007 at 10:19 AM
The MEXICANS DO!! If you step foot in Mexico just across the border along Arizona, California, Texas, New Mexico, the Mexican army can and will shoot. ONE TOE! Remember Greta on her trip to the border? She was warned many times about this. And at San Diego? They WERE shooting at the BP day and night.
Its a one way street, and it’s so very very wrong.
And Allah, the only way some new blogger were to come along and win everyone over, would be if they lied about some things. You couldn’t possibly make everyone happy without lying.
shooter on February 6, 2007 at 11:19 AM
That’s a really good point to make. It’s interesting that most of the people who rip North American Union theories, are the same people who are defending this illegal alien drug dealer, and also happen to be the same people who defend Bush to the death over attacks on his intelligence.
Can you have it both ways?
Either Bush is a complete moron, just as the left says, and is about as brain dead as any President in our Nation’s history, or he’s a friggin genius who is orchestrating one of the worlds most extensive changes in power structure in history.
Which is it? If you claim that all this border fiasco and immigration mess has nothing to do with deals between Bush and the Mexican Government, then you have to believe he’s as stupid as cow dung for not understanding the danger excessive immigration is causing our country.
Either way, this country is in a whole world of hurt and it’s directly related to this one man’s leadership.
Gregor on February 6, 2007 at 11:35 AM
No one has called for Allah’s replacement. AP’s statement was tongue-in-cheek. A commenter in another thread last weekend suggested Ace as a vacation fill-in like see-dubya was recently I think. Maybe the christian mega-thread gave AP a complex somewhat. I agree with the statement above that we are guests here and should behave accordingly.
Buck Turgidson on February 6, 2007 at 11:36 AM
Errr … oh yes they have. And quite viciously I might add.
While I find some of Allah’s “liberal” tendencies annoying, I also think it’s actually a positive thing to have on this site. It stirs up the anger within the debate and causes us to discuss the topics more passionately.
I think that’s a good thing.
I wouldn’t want to be like the DU board where they delete all opposing comments and live in their own little fantasy land outside the realm of reality.
Gregor on February 6, 2007 at 11:42 AM
It should be added that if you cross into Mexico with a van registered in Texas, you don’t need to fear the Mexican authorities…if you are a drug smuggler named Davila. In fact, you can do this every day and not ever be hassled by the Mexican authorities…if you are a drug smuggler named Davila.
This should be all the evidence necessary that the government of Mexico is directing the illicit drug trafficing into the US. They will extradite their freelancers to the US and make us responsible for their incarceration though.
With what we already know, it’s easy to piece together what happened here:
A drug runner for the Mexican government was shot by US border patrol. The Mexican government demanded “justice”. The US goverment ( probably Bush himself ) assured the Mexican government ( probably Vicente Fox himself ) that the agents would be “brought to justice”. The border agents were prosecuted to preserve friendly relations with Mexico.
Perchant on February 6, 2007 at 11:44 AM
So, which and how many of the jurists got paid off by the Bush Cabal to convict the two agents?
.
GT on February 6, 2007 at 11:46 AM
Can’t we just all get along and share a Snickers bar?
Slublog on February 6, 2007 at 11:51 AM
Agreed. It’s actually far better that he be a liberal who allows the debate to take place than a defend-Bush-at-all-costs Republican who would see to it that these issues never see the light of day.
Perchant on February 6, 2007 at 11:53 AM
It’s amazing how the same three or four people on this topic continue to just ignore reality and facts.
First off, three members of the jury say that they thought the agents were innocent, but were pressured into changing their verdict. But we should just IGNORE this.
We also know that much of the evidence was not allowed to be introduced in the courtroom, such as the fact that the illegal was in the process of smuggling drugs.
There was no need to pay off the jury when they could just lie to them instead.
But why am I wasting my time. It wouldn’t matter if you saw a video tape of all 12 jurors claiming they were forced at gunpoint to convict. You would still argue that you wouldn’t accept the “after the fact” claims by jurors who contradict their original verdicts.
It wouldn’t matter if a video tape was produced that showed the illegal firing a shot at the agents as he ran. You would ignore this also. Basically, you would have us believe that there is absolutely no history of corruption in our court system, and that never before in the history of the world has the US Government used it’s power to effect the outcome of a trial due to political needs.
Everything is just perfect and Bush is just a magically wonderful person who will save us all.
Gregor on February 6, 2007 at 11:59 AM
Fair enough Greg. I was referring to the commentor who originally suggested Ace as a guest blogger. When Allah suggested he/she was trying to replace him, he/she vehemently denied that as his/her intent. Others after the fact may have jumped on their own band wagon.
Buck Turgidson on February 6, 2007 at 12:02 PM
All you would need to do is suppress all evidence showing that Davila wasn’t just some innocent dude minding his own business. Heck, I probably would have found the agents guilty if I was kept in the dark about all the probable cause and the validation of the probable cause in the form of 750 pounds of illegal drugs. The same could be said about every incident that ends with a cop putting a bullet in someone.
We’ll find out just how misled the jury was when the trial transcripts are released.
Perchant on February 6, 2007 at 12:09 PM
http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_5165661
Ex-agent was beaten in prison, family says
By Louie Gilot / El Paso Times
Article Launched: 02/06/2007 12:00:00 AM MST
Family members of Ignacio Ramos, a former El Paso Border Patrol agent imprisoned for shooting a drug smuggler in the buttocks and not reporting it, said Ramos was beat up by other inmates Saturday.
Ramos, who is locked up in a federal prison in Yazoo City, Miss., was then put in solitary, his father-in-law, Joe Loya, reported Monday.
Loya said the other inmates recognized Ramos from a segment about the case on the TV show “America’s Most Wanted.” Bureau of Prison officials could not be reached for comment Monday evening.
Louie Gilot
LurP on February 6, 2007 at 12:10 PM
People without backbone should be ignored.
The fact that drugs were found AFTER the incident was not germane to the case. If you had understanding of how the legal system works, you’d know that……assuming that even matters to you.
Boy, those defense attorneys must have been real schmucks.
Wow. Have you ever considered a career on the Psychic Friends Network?
.
GT on February 6, 2007 at 12:12 PM
One last thing. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t see AllahP as a liberal just because he is agnostic. My impression is he is a compassionate conservative. I would aspire to the same.
Buck Turgidson on February 6, 2007 at 12:12 PM
Yeah, you might have missed the worst of it. They were not on this thread. On previous threads there have been a few who have went off the deep end calling for him to be replaced.
Gregor on February 6, 2007 at 12:12 PM
First of all, your nat allah. Second of all, your not much of a pundit.
Since you pander to the HotAir commentors maybe you should change your assumed name to AllahPanderer
LurP on February 6, 2007 at 12:28 PM
So, while claiming we should IGNORE certain jurors, you argue that the case is closed because … the jury found them guilty.
Interesting.
Right. The fact that the illegal alien had been a known drug smuggler who had according to his own family members ALWAYS carried a gun while doing his “jobs” would not have had any logical effect on whether or not a jury would find it reasonable to believe an agent claiming that the drug smuggler had turned and pointed a weapon.
Instead, it makes perfect sense for everyone to just “take the word” of the illegal alien drug smuggler instead. We all know he’d obviously tell us if he had been carrying a gun. Why would he lie?
Yes, definitely. I mean, a good defense attorney would have stood up in court and screamed at the judge until he changed his mind and allowed the evidence. Maybe one of the defense attorneys should have wrestled the judge to the floor until he called uncle.
What schmucks!
No need. It doesn’t take a psychic to know you would ignore anything that contradicts the rock solid outcome that you’ve come up with all by yourself, without even being in the courtroom. You refuse to acknowledge even the possibility that there might be a problem with this trial.
THAT’S what’s so intelectually dishonest about your comments. Not that you THINK they are guilty, but that you argue that those who believe there might be some legitimate questions are somehow morons. Hey, but maybe you have a reason to feel that way. Maybe you were actually IN the court room. Maybe you were actually on the ridge overlooking the entire event as it happend and you actually witnessed the shooting.
I guess the joke would all be on us.
But you weren’t, were you? Which means you have no more reason to argue your point then we have to argue our positions.
Gregor on February 6, 2007 at 12:34 PM
AllahPundit may be guilty of many things, but pandering to the commenters here at HotAir is definitely not one of them.
Can we keep this thread on topic now?
thirteen28 on February 6, 2007 at 12:48 PM
GT,
My biggest doubts come from evidence that was withheld from the jury. I think a lot of conservatives are torn by this case because we are pro-law enforcement and we are tired of the justice system that gives criminals so many breaks. Usually the defendent(s) get the most benefit from our system which withholds prior criminal behavior as a basis of consideration for the jury. As i said before, I sat on a jury and I know that people vote based on all sorts of reasons. That is why when jurors say they were mislead in the instructions it is a consideration in the appeal process. So I would not say those jurors who felt railroaded towards providing a verdict should be ignored or scorned.
Davilo’s, finally got the name right, career is entirely relevant to the defense of the BP agents. It goes to motive. The agents had reason to fear Davilo would be armed or at least more likely to resort to violence because of the stiffer penalties involved in drug smuggling. Also, you may argue that the BP agents did not know that but evidence could be presented that the agents had reason to be suspicious. their experience might have lead them to the conclusion that Davilo was running drugs.
GT, My willingness to defend these agents is predicated on the details that have been withheld in the defense of the agents. Did McCarthy obfuscate when he did not tell us that the agents broke pursuit because Davilo crossed the border? On top of that, I get the feeling that the defense of DA Sutton’s prosecution is falling back on the “We should not give these criminals the benefit of the doubt” attitude some conservatives have. I am all for being hard on criminals but the many abuses of the system I have seen in my life has softened my heart. Men being exonerated by DNA evidence i rape cases. Prosecutors/police withholding evidence- Janine Nacarico murder case. The recent Duke rape prosecution. I am no longer in awe of our justice system and am much more likely to question the political ambitions/prejudices of prosecutors. And I believe so should you.
Bill C on February 6, 2007 at 1:08 PM
Especially after some of the stuff we have seen in the past couple of years. Nifong completely put his ambition above the pursuit of truth. And I’m not convinced that Patrick Fitzgerald didn’t do the same when he knew from the beginning that Richard Armitage was the leaker and that there was no provable violation of the IIPA, yet he chose to continue the investigation. And in the case being discussed here, there are certainly some questions about Sutton’s conduct that have not been answered.
Bottom line, prosecutors should not be given the benefit of the doubt … which only seems fair since our system was set up that they bore the burden of proof. Why so many people who support this prosecution and ridiculous sentence fail to grasp this fundamental point it beyond me, but they are clearly giving the prosecution, not the defense, the benefit of the doubt here.
thirteen28 on February 6, 2007 at 1:15 PM
1328
Umm, actually The transscripts are available and agent Juarez testimony has been in the Texas papers and the lawyers have not refuted what he said
Believe what you want, these two were up to no good, BTW ICE-OPR has 179 pending cases against Border Patrol agents. ICE-OPR estimates that DHS and FBI have three times that number.
Always there are a few bad apples in great organizations - but just a few.
EricPWJohnson on February 6, 2007 at 1:39 PM
That’s news to me and I think everyone else, including the press. Maybe you can fill us all in on where to find these transcrips that nobody else has seen.
Gregor on February 6, 2007 at 1:42 PM
Grrrr! “Transcripts.”
Gregor on February 6, 2007 at 1:43 PM
Then you show us where - put up or shut up. There is a raging debate over this issue on The Corner at NRO right now, and even Andy McCarthy acknowledges that the transcripts are not available. Several members of the U.S. House have still not received their copies either.
This is a very high profile case, and undoubtedly these transcripts will be available as soon as they are released. So with you claiming matter-of-factly that the transcripts HAVE BEEN released, then it’s up to you to show us where we can find them.
So here’s your opportunity - shut me up along with all the others that would give the benefit of the doubt to the agents.
If you can’t produce them after stating they are available, then you are just blowing smoke.
thirteen28 on February 6, 2007 at 1:44 PM
I have absolutely no problem with people having doubts. Its part of what makes us human.
My issue is with people who insist that Bush pulled strings to make sure that the Agents were convicted and then call me a “dipshit” because I actually require quantifiable evidence to the charge and challenge them for it.
Its normal to want to believe the Agents are innocent. I really want to believe it. But what convinces me of their guilt is their actions or lack thereof that runs wholly contrary to their training and past experience and the fact there was an eyewitness - another agent - who contradicts the accused testimony.
.
GT on February 6, 2007 at 1:47 PM
WRONG! Again, you choose to ignore all reports that this agent’s testimony of his location at the time of the event make it impossible to have witnessed the shooting.
Gregor on February 6, 2007 at 1:56 PM
Oh, and EricPWJohnson, as for your assertion that the lawyers haven’t contradicted the testimony of Agent Juarez, read this, particularly item XI.
Translation: they HAVE contradicted Juarez’s testimony, stating that it was a physical impossibility for him to have even observed the incident.
thirteen28 on February 6, 2007 at 1:57 PM
And this.
Or this …
But why bother. The only testimony that counts is that of the illegal drug smuggler.
Gregor on February 6, 2007 at 2:03 PM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »