Video: Johnny Sutton on Hannity & Colmes

posted at 10:02 am on July 18, 2007 by Patterico

Johnny Sutton was on “Hannity & Colmes” last night defending the Ramos and Compean verdict and sentence. Turn your Outrage Meters to 11, and then play the clip:

Now turn your Outrage Meters to 12, because I’m about to agree with Sutton — at least in part.

Whether you like it or not, Sutton is right that Agents Ramos and Compean were tried and convicted on the issues. The verdict shows that the jury did not believe the drug smuggler had a gun, or did anything threatening enough to justify the shooting.

Contrary to the belief of some, Johnny Sutton is not just out to nail any Border Patrol Agent who fires a gun. Border Patrol Agents in his district frequently engage in shootings, yet prosecutions like this are very rare. Ramos and Compean were prosecuted because their subsequent behavior showed that they didn’t think their shooting was justified.

If Ramos and Compean were the model Border Patrol agents their supporters make them out to be, there is no reason for them to have covered up this shooting. They picked up their casings and didn’t tell supervisors about the shooting. They had a chance to provide an innocent explanation for this damning behavior at trial — and they failed. A jury of twelve people concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that they were guilty.

Some say that any drug smuggler must be armed. But Sutton noted in his testimony yesterday:

From January 2004 through March 2005, there were 155 drug seizures at the Fabens Border Patrol Station, totaling over 43,000 pounds of marijuana. In none of those seizures was a gun found. Over the longer period between October 1, 2001, and February 15, 2006, the Fabens Border Patrol Station reported the seizure of only one firearm from a total of 496 drug seizures, totaling more than 131,000 pounds of marijuana. . . . The fact is that drug mules in El Paso almost never carry guns.

I’ll twist the knife further. You’re upset that the drug smuggler wasn’t prosecuted? Blame Ramos and Compean. As Sutton makes clear, if they’d done their jobs properly, perhaps the smuggler could have been prosecuted after all.

Now that you’re totally enraged, and demanding that I be removed from Hot Air, I’ll throw you a bone or two — only because it’s what I believe.

For one thing, I think Sutton is being overly simplistic when he says that anyone upset by how this case turned out simply doesn’t understand the facts.

First of all, even Sutton appears to agree that the sentence Ramos and Compean received was “harsh.” Sutton appears uncomfortable defending the length of the sentence, and places the blame for this on Congress. And it’s true: the statute mandates long prison terms for crimes committed with guns, and contains no exemption for law enforcement. But I think a good argument could be made that, while police don’t get a free pass when they commit robberies or rapes with guns, the situation is arguably a little different here.

Second, even looking at the underlying facts, Sutton is overgeneralizing. Yes, many people are upset that the U.S. Attorney took a criminal illegal immigrant’s word over that of law enforcement. But the critics fall into different categories.

Some of the critics just don’t care about the facts. Unless there is a video showing a bad shooting — and maybe even then — they will never accept the idea that a jury could believe a criminal over law enforcement. These critics think that even an unarmed illegal alien drug smuggler deserves whatever happens to him — even if that means being shot, and having his urethra damaged by the bullet, so that he has to pee through a catheter. Too bad! He’s a drug smuggler! FREE RAMOS AND COMPEAN!

Other critics do understand the facts, but are concerned anyway. They are concerned about the way the case was charged. They are concerned about the personal relationship one of the Government witnesses had with the drug smuggler. They are concerned about the breadth of the immunity agreement, and the fact that it did not call for the cancellation of the deal if the drug smuggler lied. They are concerned about reports that the smuggler committed a second offense — and they don’t necessarily trust the Government to prosecute that case zealously, knowing that doing so might unravel the Compean and Ramos convictions.

In writing this post, I consulted with my commenter DRJ, who has read all the trial transcripts. Since she lives in West Texas, I was especially interested in her reaction to Sutton’s claim that West Texas juries don’t convict law enforcement officers on a whim. She said that she agrees with that statement entirely — except, she says:

I don’t think it applies to El Paso or El Paso juries. El Paso is not a typical West Texas red-state town. It is an international city that votes Democratic. It has a large percentage of illegal immigrant residents and, if the prosecutor’s closing argument is correct, a lot of dope dealers.

In the end, my reaction to Johnny Sutton’s appearance — like my reaction to the case as a whole — is nuanced. (Eat your heart out, John Kerry!) I respect the jury’s verdict, but as I have learned more about the disputed facts of the case, I wonder whether the sentence is too harsh. I don’t believe for a second that Sutton was out to undermine our immigration policies, but I have concerns about the way the Government handled aspects of the case — in particular the immunity agreement. I wouldn’t be outraged if President Bush decided to cut the sentences substantially, but I think these guys deserve some custody time.

Ah, the hell with it. You guys are right. THIS CASE IS A TRAVESTY! FREE RAMOS AND COMPEAN!


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I guess in the case of a suicide bomber suspect you could make the case there is a reasonable fear of death or serious injury if he got away.

TheBigOldDog on July 18, 2007 at 3:16 PM

if he MOVED.

progressoverpeace on July 18, 2007 at 3:21 PM

All right then 1328

Tell us what you want a pardon? AED in jail? Sutton tried and convicted?

Whats your position on shooting situations, when is deadly force called for?

EricPWJohnson on July 18, 2007 at 3:10 PM

My position is that suspension or firing, and possibly probation would have been sufficient enough sentence in this case, provided what the prosecution said is true.

OAD in jail? You’re damn right. As Sen. Cornyn said yesterday, there is evidence that he both perjured himself on the stand as well as violted other terms of the immunity agreement. If that doesn’t call for prison, then what does?

Sutton? Relieved of his duties. This is not the first case where he’s tried to persecute law enforcement on behalf of illegal border crossers, it’s only the latest. The case he prosecuted against Deputy Sherrif Guillermo Hernandez was especially malicious, as Hernandez complied with every procedure he was required to and was backed fully by his superiors, who recommended no disciplinary action after investigating his case, yet Sutton went after him anyway. If actions speak louder than words then it’s clear that he’s trying to curry favor with an administration that clearly believes more strongly in the rights of illegals than it does for its own citizens, including those that defend the border.

Deadly force is called for whenever an officer feels himself or others to be threatened, and it’s a decision I cut them a lot of slack on because it has to be made in a split second without time for reflection. They don’t have the benefit of sitting in a room and analyzing everything after the fact like you do, and the hard line you would take against these guys for a defensible mistake is what causes law enforcement officers all over to hesitate or refuse to confront criminals in the first place. That does ffar, far more to undermine the rule of law than anything Ramos and Compean did, but in your bloodlust to see these guys beaten up in prison (nice to get mischaracterized, isn’t it?) you completely miss that forest for the trees.

So why do you hate border patrol agents, Mr. PW Johnson? And why in particular do you hate Hispanic boder patrol agents?

thirteen28 on July 18, 2007 at 3:25 PM

According to his testimony, last year 35 percent of his 6000 cases were drug offenses. So the answer is about 2000 a year. I don’t know if those are all smugglers.

Patterico on July 18, 2007 at 3:20 PM

Thanks for those stats. Seriously, I’d like to see an actual official report on that. I mean it. If that’s the case, then maybe I ought to give him more deference. 6000 cases a year and only about a dozen of those are BPs?

How long was Ramos and Compean trial? Is that a standard amount of time? Wow, Patterico this man is Hercules. You mean, by his testimony, he personally handled and had adjudicated 16.5 cases a day? That’s amazing.

Sultry Beauty on July 18, 2007 at 3:28 PM

The facts that Sutton was appointee by Presidente Boosh (the amnesty-pushing globalist) and was serving the interests of an illegal alien, drug smuggler are atrocious from the onset. Sutton’s demeanor is nauseating by itself.
This story has so many implications it makes my head spin.
One of the worst is that it sends the wrong message to Border Patrol agents who put their lives on the line every day: if you do your job, you could go to jail, (perhaps that’s why they picked up the shells–IF they really did try to cover it up). This is a lot like the soldiers who are in the brig at Camp Pendleton for doing their’s.
And speaking of putting their lives on the line, I suppose some of you think it’s ok that Ramos was beaten almost to death while he was incarcerated in the general population, (1/3 are illegals) and was denied medical treatment for days afterwards. After all, they screwed up, right?.
If there wasn’t a much bigger issue, (the power and glory of the NAU), I don’t think that would have happened.
At the very least, the sentence should be: Time Served.

Christine on July 18, 2007 at 3:30 PM

None of us were there at the border during the incident.

None of us were on the jury that heard the case against Ramos and Compean, either.

None of us heard the evidence, nor did we hear the witness who was given immunity and what he had to say.

Accordingly, I cannot get outraged at either the charges and conviction of Ramos and Compean, or the fact that the drug dealer got immunity.

I’m sorry, I just can’t generate the energy to get upset over this.

Here’s why: In Chicago, the cops “whack and stack ’em” on a daily basis and get away with it. Women holding cell phones, men with laptop batteries in their hands, and people with magically appearing “drop guns” are shot and killed by Chicago police — and let off — on a regular basis. Usually, the victim’s families win the civil suits against the city for wrongful death, but it is very rare that a Chicago policeman is charged with any crime.

Right now, there is a federal law suit in progress over the publication of a list of Chicago cops with 10 or more complaints of abuse over a 5 year period. Out of 10,000 or more Chicago cops, there are 600 individual policemen accused of REPEATEDLY committing abuses. Of these, only 20 have been discliplined.

The city is fighting the release of the names of these cops, citing the latest police union contract. A federal judge ordered the release. The appellate court blocked it pending their decision.

Things are so bad in Chicago, that Mayor Daley wants to remove the IA division from the police department and have them report directly to him. He thinks that this would cause the issue to go away. Not likely.

So there IS another side to this story: the real fact that sometimes the cops DO abuse their power and not only violate the civil rights of people but unjustly kill them as well.

As I said, I wasn’t there at the time. I didn’t attend the trial. I didn’t hear the testimony. I’ll wager that neither did most of you who are outraged, either.

georgej on July 18, 2007 at 3:32 PM

Zach:
Don’t disagree with you. I’m far from suggesting that we should bend in the slightest for anyone that cannot follow our laws, or doesn’t care to. However, there will always be some ACLU schmuck or lawyer representing one of these illegals/criminals that will use BS like not speaking english to get them off or to punish the cops.
In the 90’s I lived in Germany and got a summons to testify as a witness in a lawsuit in a German court. The summons was in German. It was my responsibility to find out what it said. (Which was basically show up on this date and prepare to tell the truth or go to jail for 6 weeks.) They had no interest in bending over backwards for me nor would my inability to speak German have gotten me out of jail had I not shown up. It never occured to me that it should be any other way.

mauioriginal on July 18, 2007 at 3:32 PM

Patterico at 3:20 PM — you couldn’t be more right.

Christoph on July 18, 2007 at 3:34 PM

How do you possibly prove “beyond a doubt” that a fleeing drug smuggler was unarmed, when the fleeing drug smuggler escaped into another country and was not found until a later date, and the only witnesses to the shooting were the Border Patrol agents, and the fleeing suspect?

This single portion of the event is enough to render the verdict absurd.

Gregor on July 18, 2007 at 3:40 PM

Criminals are ignoring laws and ignoring law enforcement personnel because they are learning that there are no consequences for their actions.
Gregor on July 18, 2007 at 2:48 PM

Well said!!! Criminals in America are secure in the knowledge that cops are not permitted to use deadly force unless it is in RESPONSE to deadly force. The same goes for those illegally crossing the border. No matter what the criminal has done, or is being pursued for, as long as they don’t directly threaten a cop, there will be no deadly force used to apprehend them.

I’m not saying that we should shoot everyone we think might have done something horrible…….far from it. But just as we are forcing the troops in Iraq to account for every bullet and write a novel every time they discharge their weapon, we are tying the hands of law enforcement with a punitive system that sees the criminal as the victim.
speed911 on July 18, 2007 at 3:00 PM

Criminals are terrified of armed private citizens.

Criminals aren’t afraid of policemen; that’s just an occupational inconvenience. As long as they don’t shoot AT a cop, they’re safe. And there’s no reason to do that anyway – that’s not where the money is.

Would it really be that terrible a world if criminals were afraid of policemen? Or if drug smugglers were afraid of border patrol agents?

I wouldn’t have any problem with that.

logis on July 18, 2007 at 3:53 PM

If Ramos and Compean were the model Border Patrol agents their supporters make them out to be, there is no reason for them to have covered up this shooting. They picked up their casings and didn’t tell supervisors about the shooting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GA68fOyLVYk

Ramos and Compean have always contended different. I think this is a disputed fact, no?

Sultry Beauty on July 18, 2007 at 3:57 PM

Sultry Beauty,

The way disputed facts generally get resolved is by trial. There has been one in this case, and that’s what the evidence showed.

You mean, by his testimony, he personally handled and had adjudicated 16.5 cases a day? That’s amazing.

The sarcasm is not necessary. You *do* understand Sutton is the U.S. Attorney and those are stats for his office and not him, right? You do understand that he didn’t personally try the Ramos and Compean case, right? If so, what was the point of your comment?

Patterico on July 18, 2007 at 4:10 PM

I’ve always been of the opinion that actively targeting and shooting illegals crossing the border is simply too controversial…as we’ve just seen among people here who generally agree on a lot of things.

It is equally irresponsible, however, to adopt a “Halt! Or I shall say ‘Halt!’ to you again!” mentality. Compliance with authority is predicated upon the credibility of the threat of consequences for noncompliance.

There has to be a compromise between the ‘Shoot To Kill’ and ‘Run, Rabbit, Run’ blanket policies I see proposed in this thread. And no, I don’t mean a policy of kneecapping them to limit how far they can get into the USA…but at some point an illegal is GOING to do (or, more likely, already has done) something that justifies the Border Patrol to shoot them dead. Lethal force should always be on the table…it just shouldn’t be the first recourse for a BP officer responding to an incursion.

James on July 18, 2007 at 4:20 PM

A jury of twelve people concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that they were guilty.

Patterico

LOL! Funny. Is Patterico suggesting that O.J. Simpson is innocent? Right. What about Scooter Libby? Was that conviction correct? I guess there are no such things as sham trials. And there is no terrorist threat. There is no terrorist threat.

Gregor on July 18, 2007 at 4:28 PM

A jury of twelve people concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that they were guilty.
Patterico

LOL! Funny. Is Patterico suggesting that O.J. Simpson is innocent? Right. What about Scooter Libby? Was that conviction correct? I guess there are no such things as sham trials.
Gregor on July 18, 2007 at 4:28 PM

That’s why Nifong had to be dragged out of his office kicking and screaming. He knew that if he got a conviction, he would be up for the office of North Carolina State Attorney General next year.

If you’re talking about some random car jacker’s trial, either show me absolute proof of prosecutorial misconduct – all tied up in a neat little package – or shut the Hell up.

But when you KNOW that the trial is politically motivated, and you try to use that “holier than thou” crap to stifle discussion, it’s just a little bit hard to take you seriously.

logis on July 18, 2007 at 4:52 PM

Gregor on July 18, 2007 at 4:28 PM

I could not agree more. What happened to the second drug load investigation and prosecution that Johnny Sutton promised to follow through on.

It was Sutton’s prosecution team that filed motions to have the information with held from the jury at trial.

Sutton and others are using the Jury decision to excuse a malicious prosecution.

I have repeatedly pointed out that Compean and Ramos Supervisors were on the scene but it gets ignored.

That fact was not presented to Jury as well.

How can one claim they did not file a report when the Supervisors were on the scene and they were the ones that stopped the FBI from starting an investigation?

IMHO Sutton is worse than Mike Nifong

ScottyDog on July 18, 2007 at 5:00 PM

Gregor on July 18, 2007 at 4:28 PM

Ditto.

Jury verdicts are not sarcosanct. Twelve people can make a mistake just as easily as one, and they often times do.

thirteen28 on July 18, 2007 at 5:04 PM

Patterico on July 18, 2007 at 3:20 PM

Another prosecutor who has a hard time telling the good guys from the bad guys. What a shame.

TheBigOldDog on July 18, 2007 at 5:08 PM

There are an awful lot of details that don’t make sense in this case but one in particular makes a terrible stink and it is this… in court it was stated that the bullet struck the illegal alien drug smugler in the buttocks, went thru his eurethra and lodged in his pelvis. Now I’m not a Dr. but basic knowledge of human anatomy says that this damage cannot happen if the perp was struck from behind while running away. It can, however, happen if the perp had stopped to take aim at the BP who was shooting at them.
Either that or the guy is hung like a horse and had his “manhood” wrapped around him so he didn’t trip on it.

paratisi on July 18, 2007 at 5:40 PM

Didn’t Ramos or Compean almost get killed by a gang of illegals in the fed pen they were locked up in?
Couldn’t they get immunity for testifying against the thugs who roughed them up in the pen?

VolMagic on July 18, 2007 at 5:50 PM

It shouldn’t matter if the bad guy had a gun. If he ran away, they should be allowed to shoot him in the butt if they want. The way to fix this is to fix the law.

Kevin M on July 18, 2007 at 6:09 PM

There has to be a compromise between the ‘Shoot To Kill’ and ‘Run, Rabbit, Run’ blanket policies I see proposed in this thread…. Lethal force should always be on the table…it just shouldn’t be the first recourse for a BP officer responding to an incursion.
James on July 18, 2007 at 4:20 PM

Of course the border isn’t an arbitrary line in the sand. It has to mean SOMETHING. Applying the same standards to a nation’s border as you do to any city street is the same as dissolving the nation.

I think some people are intentionally blurring the issue. They try to portray illegals as all coming across with the intention of giving us free labor – even when we are discussing a case in which that is clearly a lie.

I’m the first to admit that our immigration laws are an unholy mess – and I’m sure there are uncounted exemplary Mexicans I’d like to get over here as soon as possible if those idiots in the State Department and Congress could draft a coherent plan to make that – and only that – happen.

But THIS CASE has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the wholesale slaughter of people who want to mow my lawn for a reasonable wage. And the people who keep trying to paint it that way are knowingly lying.

THIS CASE is about someone crossing our border with an obvious (and undisputed) evil intent. And as far as I’m concerned, the only “crime” involved with this shooting is that Ramos and Compean were stuck trying to do their job with just pistols instead of a mounted machine gun.

logis on July 18, 2007 at 7:50 PM

4) Fifteen shots were fired, Compean fired 14 shots and Ramos 1. The one shot fired by Ramos hit Aldrete-Davila. There were other agents in the area after Aldrete-Davila and also heard the gunfire. Also, both Compean and Ramos gave verbal reports to their supervisor and included that they fired their weapons, which is accepted in their manual.

moonsbreath on July 18, 2007 at 11:38 AM

See that is the problem the sups claimed it didn’t happen, but that was when they were facing criminal charges too. Magically, when they realized that if they said there was no report they’d get off, they said they weren’t given a report.

Tim Burton on July 18, 2007 at 8:49 PM

The drug dealer should have received a REDUCED sentence for his testimony, if they had to have his testimony. Not a free pass.
That alone is enough to piss off the country and sentencing the druggie is where some decency/justice could have been salvaged. I’m quite sure he’s been involved with dealing drugs since the day he got hit in the ass, even if he’s not the runner, he’s still selling drugs.

Our entire legal system ( NOT a justice system) is sadly,…just terrible, Nifonged you might say. Look at all the prosecutors last year , ON TV, who were SURE Nifong had more evidence. They made fools of themselves yet they still don’t know it. Prosecutors are the most arrogant people I have ever dealt with, and I know about 15-20 of them.
Prosecutors have seemingly lost almost all respect (and have done nothing to earn it back) from ‘the people’ of late.
Plus our courts have increasingly lost credibility the last couple decades.
We don’t trust the drug dealer. We don’t trust the prosecutor. We don’t know who we can trust any more.

Sutton is an arrogant fool for not knowing what this case was from the beginning and it just makes no sense that officers do a decade in prison for ??? what did they do?

Or maybe he did know, and he’s just an open border guy all along.

shooter on July 18, 2007 at 9:06 PM

The drug dealer should have received a REDUCED sentence for his testimony, if they had to have his testimony. Not a free pass.

That would have been nice.

But, you play the prosecutor.

Now, tell me the evidence you are going to present to the jury to prove Aldrete-Davila smuggled dope.

Specifically through which witnesses would the evidence come?

Patterico on July 18, 2007 at 10:13 PM

The sarcasm is not necessary.

Patterico on July 18, 2007 at 4:10 PM

My Goodness, you tell me to put my Outrage Meter to 12, then you tell me to knock off the sarcasm. Was what I said insulting? And of course I understand that he works for the Government and has a team of lawyers. I was wondering if you did when you told me he prosecuted 2000 drug smugglers, which of course HE didn’t. Are you saying he doesn’t prosecute any cases personally and that the BPs were just part of the 6000 case stadard yearly fare? Which ones warrant his personal attention? Which cases does he issue 11 press releases for (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/index.html)?

Sultry Beauty on July 18, 2007 at 10:17 PM

The way disputed facts generally get resolved is by trial. There has been one in this case, and that’s what the evidence showed.

My understanding was that the Supervisors got limited immunity to testify against Compean and Ramos. Am I wrong? It is also my understanding that the were told if they didn’t testify they would be prosecuted as well. Am I wrong? It is also my understanding that the jury was not told that supervisors were present at the time of the incident. Am I wrong?

Extracted from http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54103:

The second full paragraph of the DHS memo filed by DHS Special Agent Christopher Sanchez April 12, 2005, states:

Investigation disclosed that the following BP agents were at the location of the shooting incident, assisted in destroying evidence of the shooting, and/or knew/heard about the shooting: Oscar Juarez; Arturo Vasquez; Jose Mendoza; David Jacquez; Lance Medrano; Lorenzo Yrigoyen; Rene Mendez; Robert Arnold; and Jonathan Richards.

Of the nine listed agents, two were supervisors, Arnold and Richards. Arnold was a supervisory Border Patrol agent and Richards was a field operations supervisor, the senior BP officer on the field that day. Three of the agents, Vasquez, Jacquez and Juarez, were given immunity by Sutton’s office. All three were called as witnesses by the prosecution to testify against Ramos and Compean at trial.

In a Jan. 19 exclusive interview with WND, Sutton maintained throwing away the shell casings and not filing reports were central to the reason he decided to prosecute Ramos and Compean.

Is this a lie and I’m misinformed? Please correct me with the Truth.

Sultry Beauty on July 18, 2007 at 10:25 PM

You don’t get to shoot illegal aliens just because they didn’t stop when you told them to.

Patterico on July 18, 2007 at 3:20 PM

Yeah? What about illegal alien drug smugglers?

As for the sanctity of trial by a jury of your peers, what a joy for the citizens of the El Paso area to be tried in front of a jury deeply conflicted over allegiance to the U.S. rule of law vs. the unending barrage of victimhood that our culture spews at them.

I count four of the five “conservative” bloggers who have weighed in on this post siding with a Mexican drug smuggler against two reckless U.S. border control agents. I imagine that this jury must have made the Simpson jury look like 12 copies of Solomon.

Jaibones on July 18, 2007 at 10:39 PM

Now, tell me the evidence you are going to present to the jury to prove Aldrete-Davila smuggled dope.

Specifically through which witnesses would the evidence come?

Patterico on July 18, 2007 at 10:13 PM

Wait, are you trying to say you think there is some credible doubt about whether he was actually a drug smuggler?

OK, do you know anything about this case AT ALL?

You’re not being all too clear there, but I assume you’re ignoring Aldrete’s confession and all the physical evidence, and trying to imply that maybe the jury would have believed Davila’s testimony over that of all the other “criminals” involved?

Well, I guarantee you that if I were the prosecutor, the jury would have had a perfectly fair chance to listen to what you apparently believe to be Aldrete’s iron-clad “defense.”

But Sutton never gave them that chance, did he?

logis on July 18, 2007 at 10:40 PM

Now, tell me the evidence you are going to present to the jury to prove Aldrete-Davila smuggled dope.

Patterico on July 18, 2007 at 10:13 PM

How about the dope that was in the van that you claim several border agents were all converging on, out of which Aldrete-Davila emerged.

But no matter; if Sutton hadn’t decided that he needed to put these two in jail for 11 years, there wouldn’t be a criminal trial at which this drug smuggler’s testimony would be required and for which he would be granted full immunity from prosecution for smuggling the drugs in the first place.

You have it exactly backwards, Patterico. Sutton invented the problems that seem to have you so perplexed.

Jaibones on July 18, 2007 at 10:57 PM

1328

Thanks for replying and no, I do not hate Border Patrol Agents just because I feel that some of them shouldn’t shoot people in the back

I know, I’m a bad man

But Sutton actually has convicted les BP’s than the Houston US attorney who just recently got a sentence of almost 30 years for a BP making a split second decision as well.

EricPWJohnson on July 18, 2007 at 11:32 PM

1328

In my mind the Border Patrol was not on trial – Ramos and Compean were

EricPWJohnson on July 18, 2007 at 11:33 PM

Jaibones,

If you cannot disagree without cursing, insulting, and threatening violence against Patterico–a guest blogger whom I invited and welcomed to this site– you will no longer be welcome here.

That goes for anyone else who chooses to employ profanity and threats instead of facts and logic to argue with any of my employees and guest bloggers.

Michelle on July 18, 2007 at 12:52 PM

I agree with you about cussing him out, but I’d hope that you’d excuse him from being a guest blogger. If you want a lawyers opinion of the case, ask Mark Levin to post about it. I think he’d be the better lawyer.

Tim Burton on July 19, 2007 at 2:17 AM

Links? It would be nice to have all the analysis links we can in this thread.

TheBigOldDog on July 18, 2007 at 2:12 PM

Mark Levin Audio

He makes a quick mention of it on I think 7/9, but he did a long talk and an interview during the height of the outrage about the issue.

Tim Burton on July 19, 2007 at 2:39 AM

From the HA headlines:

Sen. Cornyn (R-TX) and Sen. Feinstein (D-CA) write a letter to President Bush asking him to commute the sentences of imprisoned border agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. The text of the letter:

Dear President Bush:

[read it…]

While this case has generated strong emotions on both sides, we do not believe that justice will be served by Agents Ramos and Compean spending over a decade in prison. We urge you to commute their prison sentences immediately.

Sincerely,

Dianne Feinstein
John Cornyn

RushBaby on July 19, 2007 at 8:49 AM

Allah,

I’m not sure I can agree with your “you can’t shoot them” argument.

Suicide bombers are not necessarily carrying AKs.

Also, these border-hoppers are illegals and invaders, not US citizens. Constitutional protection does not apply to foreign nationals.

That said, I did post before that the ROE should be permissive of deadly force, but I think an acceptable compromise would be somewhere in between your stance and mine. That way, the border is secure, which is what we both want, right?

HYTEAndy on July 19, 2007 at 10:49 AM

Patterico on July 18, 2007 at 10:13 PM

You believe the BPAs and try the drug smuggler and let the chips fall where they may. But the Mexican Government wouldn’t like that very much would they?

Who is more of a threat to the people of the United States, the drug smuggler or the border agents? I rest my case.

Follow the money. Who wants a Cartel member to get immunity and put away a couple of zealous BRA and send a message to the rest of them to back off?

TheBigOldDog on July 19, 2007 at 11:07 PM

You go Laura! Liar, liar, pants on fire Johnny!

So in front of Congress, per Patterico, Johnny said:

According to his testimony, last year 35 percent of his 6000 cases were drug offenses. So the answer is about 2000 a year. I don’t know if those are all smugglers.

Now, on Laura Ingraham’s show Johnny says that he had 6,000 cases and about 90-95% of them are drug related. Huh? Which is it Johnny, 30, 90, or 95%?

He also said that the BPAs are just as dangerous as the drug dealers. Of course, he recanted after Laura got upset. But he said!

Sultry Beauty on July 20, 2007 at 11:52 AM