Audio: Mike Gallagher interviews Gilmer Hernandez
posted at 7:12 pm on October 16, 2007 by Bryan
Another victim of George Bush’s Johnny Sutton’s America? According to his website, former Edwards County (TX) Sheriff’s Deputy Gilmer Hernandez spent a year in prison on a civil rights conviction though he was innocent. His prosecutor was Johnny Sutton, the same prosecutor who put Compean and Ramos in prison. The Mexican consulate makes an appearance in the story. This interview is from the Mike Gallagher Show. Click to play.
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
Wow, this is the first I’ve heard of this one. How in the hell does OUR prosecuting body take instructions from the Mexicans?
bbz123 on October 16, 2007 at 7:45 PM
This whole situation with Bush, Johnny Sutton, Ramos, Compean, and Hernandez is unbelievable. How is it that the Bush administration is so beholden to the Mexican government?
infidel4life on October 16, 2007 at 7:47 PM
Does anyone notice that most of the victims of illegal aliens and their apologists are themselves Americans of Hispanic decent?
So much for the wolf-cries of racism. My prayers go out for Mr. Hernandez; he may have lived a nightmare, but least he’s still alive.
baldilocks on October 16, 2007 at 7:48 PM
Johnny Sutton should be forced to reimburse this man for all lost wages. I cannot express the disdain I hold for this slimy Sutton. I am glad to hear that Gilmer Hernandez is finally free. No thanks to Bush & Co.
Does Vicente Fox have pictures of Bush drunk or with a donkey, something, so he feels he HAS to push this horrible agenda??
How do we rid America of traitors like Sutton?
Compean and Ramos should be released immediately!
MITX on October 16, 2007 at 7:52 PM
The Compean and Ramos hazey when it came to details. A lot of muck to sift through. This on the other hand is pretty cut and dry.
Sutton needs to be Nifonged.
- The Cat
MirCat on October 16, 2007 at 7:54 PM
I started reading this and I thought “Allahpuundit is posting this?” Next reaction, “oh never mind.”
Ol’ Johnny Boy got the conviction so it must have been the right thing to do…
Theworldisnotenough on October 16, 2007 at 8:17 PM
This is just sickening.
Someone please ask the candidates how they feel about Johnny Sutton and his prosecution of our law enforcement officers.
Theworldisnotenough on October 16, 2007 at 8:19 PM
Unbelievable.
ColtsFan on October 16, 2007 at 8:37 PM
That just makes me want to cry… Johnny Sutton is a dooshbag.
MsUnderestimated on October 16, 2007 at 8:48 PM
You are giving him way too much credit!
Gatordoug on October 16, 2007 at 8:52 PM
I hope he can eventually file some suit against Sutton and make some bank.
TheSitRep on October 16, 2007 at 9:07 PM
This is not abnormal, remember Nifong? Remember Minnesota (80′s), the big child sex ring fiascle?
Also referance http://www.innocenceproject.?? I think its com but could be org, Berry Chek cofounded this site. He has used DNA to show 20% of life and death inmates with DNA available are innocent of the crime they were convicted of.
allrsn on October 16, 2007 at 10:01 PM
I’m glad he’s out.
liquidflorian on October 16, 2007 at 10:02 PM
And FBI files back him up at 18.5%
allrsn on October 16, 2007 at 10:02 PM
The husband of one of my father-in-law’s employees was BP and got railroaded as well down in San Diego. He’s about to get out.
PRCalDude on October 17, 2007 at 12:21 AM
Slimy Sutton. I hope that nickname sticks. Prosecutors who abuse their powers must be convicted. Must be.
Andrew McCarthy of the National Review is a prosecutor who automatically took the side of Sutton et al. in this case and he deserves castigation.
When the truth is denied to our juries they make bad decisions. Prosecutors who do this are criminals.
Bill C on October 17, 2007 at 2:12 AM
This was a pretty clear cut case
At Midnight not on patrol and not in uniform and with his then Fiancee in the car they went on a friday night to buy a soda at the local gas station.
With his Fiancee in the car – who BTW – disputed the events that the car tried to run over him, he pulled a older GM Suburban over.
Approaching the car he saw several people sleeping in the vehicle
He drew his weapon – remember – he’s not in uniform and the car took off
He fired 6 shots in two firing stances two missed one hit the side and bounced off, then as the car was getting away he took aim and fired three through the read doors nearly fatally wounding an unarmed woman in the face the bullet entered her jaw from behind, transversed and blew out the other side of her lower jaw.
He was never cleared by the Texas Rangers, they called the ATF and declared it a federal crime scene which is where their authority ended.
He was offered a generous plea bargin agreement which the local sheriff facing reelection – advised him not to take – a really bad move. He was tried by a local jury and convicted in minutes.
EricPWJohnson on October 17, 2007 at 8:56 AM
Wha?? Did you even read anything about this case or did you just make up the facts the way you want them to be?
He was still on duty and was in an official car.
The people appeared to be trying to hide, and there were known issues with drug/human smugglers in the area.
After swerving to the left, where he was standing, thus trying to hit him (assualt on an officer — duh!).
Four shots were fired — verified by the number of casings found and the number of bullets discharged from the gun — three into the left rear tire, and one went into the rear door. That bullet, or a fragment of it, slightly wounded a female in the vehicle. She had a cut lip and two broken teeth. Her hubby (probably also an illegal immigrant) drove down from Austin to pick her up at the hospital.
The Feds took over the case after the Mexican government (Consulate in Eagle Pass, TX) wrote a series of letters demanding prosecution.
He chose not to accept the plea bargain because he had done nothing wrong. Can you even understand that concept?
Do you mean the same jury from whom evidence regarding several key points, including the number of shots fired / casings found was withheld? (Much as you seem to have withheld it from yourself?)
Sutton is an ass appointed by our beloved GWB. They both certainly seem to be on the same side of this issue.
lan astaslem on October 17, 2007 at 10:39 AM
Ian
Yep its called the reports what you are qouting is a small town paper.
from the same small town that convicted him.
Look, he had a trial, he had a competent attorney, he decided not to appeal, the judge gave him the lightest sentence he could at the recommendation of the US attorneys office.
But he changed his firing stance, deliberately fired into the back of the suburban almost killing an unarmed woman.
It was Gilmer himself who wrote the number of shots fired as well.
There was no cut lip she was medivaced to a local hospital in serious condition.
I guess this is when hype doesn’t meet facts
EricPWJohnson on October 17, 2007 at 11:30 AM
Someone’s been drinking Johnny Sutton Kool-Aid.
infidel4life on October 17, 2007 at 12:18 PM
No, you just have to realize that the laws of the United States say that you can’t shoot unarmed women in the face
I know I know its a difficult concept
EricPWJohnson on October 17, 2007 at 12:30 PM
I did read the local account — and the other national ones as well. All had the same information. If you have documentation supporting your previous assertions, please do link to it.
Again, would you mind linking? Also odd that your previous post asserted that this was a fatal wound. You now admit that it was not. And if someone intentionally tries to injure an officer, he has every right to fire his weapon.
This one doesn’t even deserve a response. What an idiotic statement it is.
lan astaslem on October 17, 2007 at 1:55 PM
Was that the guy who nearly got run down by the stake truck several months back? I’ve heard next to nothing in the local news about it.
No, the fact that shooting women in the face is against the law is not difficult. However, this guy has been interviewed on several stations the last few weeks. The MSM has given no coverage obviously. In my area, the only coverage that has been given to this by anyone has been on the talk radio circuit.
You’d think if the guy had done precisely what you say, the MSM would have a field day. They’d have him pilloried on the front page as someone who hates immigrants. Groups like la Raza and MEChA would be decrying this guy as one who has betrayed his race. There would be protesters converging on this guy’s house.
Strangely however, I haven’t heard too much of anything on that front. Are you telling me those groups and the MSM fell asleep at the wheel, missing a chance to hold up a “shocking but true” incident to make their point for them? That these people missed a chance to tear apart someone who represents their opponents “hatred of immigrants”? Come on.
If that’s the case, show us the proof Eric. Link the articles for us. Same with you lan. Considering Sutton’s keeping his trap shut on most subjects these days, maybe a little perspective will help us see eh? Otherwise -
This comment will probably be heard a lot more on this thread. Just sayin’.
Suihei Deloi on October 17, 2007 at 2:04 PM
I just followed the links that Bryan provided, starting with the freegilmer.com site. That links to a number of articles — from the local paper to the Washington Post. I honestly figured that there was not much point in me re-linking them, since they were already provided. Sorry if that was not clear in my earlier posts.
lan astaslem on October 17, 2007 at 2:56 PM
You’re just demonstrating your own arrogance with that comment.
infidel4life on October 17, 2007 at 3:46 PM
Look
ATF, The county, the Texas Rangers and his own Sheriff all declared it a crime scene. Are all of these organizations suborned by a US Attorny sitting in an office several hundred miles away?
what does that mean? It means that Deputy Gilmer put three through the back door seriously injuring someone in the face.
Can’t shoot people in the face… even in Texas
EricPWJohnson on October 17, 2007 at 4:44 PM
Ian
All of them were not at the trial all those papers just took the borderphile version of it. the San Antonio Express covered the trial even had photos (which were later removed for possible appeallate process)
The flat tire came from hitting the curb, the photos clearly showed gunshots thorugh the rear doors
also his fiance also sunk him with her testimony
Remember he had a trial, in a border county, was found guilty. This was no Bushco Tribunal it was a Federal Court
EricPWJohnson on October 17, 2007 at 4:49 PM
Ian everyone agrees Ramos and Compean were guilty, they just think that 11 and 12 years is excessive but most think they should be serving some serious time not 10 months but 4 or 5 years
You guys need to understand that the US attorney would not have gotten involved if the local county DA had charged Gilmer with misconduct and in a cheap plea bargain agreement he could have served a few weeks in his own jail cell at his station and recieved an adjudicated sentence and been back patrolling by summer
The Feds step in when the locals refuse to uphold their own laws
EricPWJohnson on October 17, 2007 at 4:52 PM
test
MB4 on October 17, 2007 at 5:50 PM