Shocka: Judge says prosecutor “may have overreacted” in Ramos/Compean case
posted at 1:25 pm on December 3, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Federal prosecutors may have overreacted in their case against two Border Patrol agents who were sentenced to lengthy prison terms after they were convicting of shooting a fleeing drug suspect and hiding evidence of the incident, an appeals court judge said Monday.
“It does seem to me that the government overreacted here,” said Judge E. Grady Jolly, one of three judges of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals hearing the case of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean.
A federal jury in Texas convicted the agents of assault, obstruction of justice and civil rights violations in the wounding of Osvaldo Aldrete Davila on the Texas border near El Paso in 2005. A federal judge sentenced Compan [sic] to 12 years in prison and Ramos to 11 years…
Jolly, during questioning of Stelmach, said that if the agents had reported the shooting as required, “this prosecution never would have occurred, in all likelihood.”
“For some reason, this one got out of hand, it seems to me,” Jolly added.
So it’s the cover-up and not the crime that gets you?
Back in July, prosecutor Johnny Sutton appeared on Hannity & Colmes to defend both the verdict and sentences in this case. Judge Jolly’s statement today runs directly against Sutton’s defense. At the time of Sutton’s defense on H&C, Patterico wrote an authoritative nuanced take that more or less sided with Sutton, while finding some fault with his as well. One section of that post has bothered me ever since, and I see in today’s action that the ideas behind it are influencing Judge Jolly as well.
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.
That’s a prosecutor talking. There is another valid point of view, though. From an officer’s point of view, there may be a motivation (not a good reason, but a motivation) to cover-up a shooting that doesn’t indicate that the officer knows the shooting wasn’t justified. That is the possibility that even if the shooting was justified, the internal investigation of the shooting can end up wrecking the officer’s career anyway. A law enforcement officer who uses his weapon in the line of duty can usually expect months of investigation and confinement to desk duty until the situation is resolved in his favor. He’ll probably have to hire legal counsel to help him get through the investigation, and on a law enforcement officer’s salary, the resulting fees can ruin him financially. And that’s if the investigation goes his way. If it doesn’t, and some prosecutor who has never been in the line of fire finds him at fault, then he gets to go on trial for his freedom. Factor in the international nature of this case and it’s not hard to see why Ramos and Compean may have believed that their actions were justified, yet committed the crime of covering their actions up out of fear that not only would they not be backed up and protected by their superiors, but that they would be sold out by their superiors. And I’m not saying that the superiors are evil here, just that the political environment is what it is, and there’s tremendous political pressure on high level law enforcement officers to prosecute beat officers and little incentive built in to defend them in borderline (no pun intended) cases. Law enforcement officers in the readership can weigh in on whether I’m all wet on this or not.
I’m not saying that the daunting fate what awaits an officer after discharging his weapon is a good reason to cover up his actions, but it may be a motivation that doesn’t indicate guilt in the use of the weapon itself. It looks to me like Judge Jolly sees this possibility as being operative in the Compean/Ramos case and that’s why he said that if they hadn’t covered the shooting up in the first place, there would have been no trial. That tells me that the judge thinks the shooting itself may have been justified. If one of the other two judges on the panel agrees with Judge Jolly, Compean and Ramos may get some justice after all.
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:
Wait Allahpundit did not post this?
Theworldisnotenough on December 3, 2007 at 1:28 PM
Johnny Sutton went out of his way to get Ramos and Compean. The fallout from this should mean his job and reputation get flushed.
Was it worth it Johnnny?
Theworldisnotenough on December 3, 2007 at 1:29 PM
We should have had the Army on the border arresting/ shooting anyone coming across in the first place, just like the Mexicans do
Frozen Tex on December 3, 2007 at 1:30 PM
Free these valiant men!
TheSitRep on December 3, 2007 at 1:30 PM
Maybe he should give Mike Nifong a call. They could hang
outtogether.Frozen Tex on December 3, 2007 at 1:31 PM
As far as I know, as to the picking up of the shell casings goes, the offices supervisors were called to the scene. It is the supervisors duty to make the incident report, not the officers. The supervisors told Ramos and Compean to pick up the casings. Ramos and Compean didn’t do it in order to try to cover anything up.
Pulchritudinous Patriot on December 3, 2007 at 1:34 PM
Meanwhile, the smuggler was smuggling drugs into the United States, IIRC.
amerpundit on December 3, 2007 at 1:34 PM
ot/ I live in a state whose primary isn’t till May….Just saw some Paultards on the side of the road with homemade “Google Ron Paul” signs…..not normal, wish I had taken a pic.
jp on December 3, 2007 at 1:34 PM
Thank you judge for telling us what many of us have been saying about this from the very beginning.
thirteen28 on December 3, 2007 at 1:35 PM
A vocal reprimand would have sufficed for the infraction of not reporting the shooting properly. Lawyers like the creature Sutton, who are pro illegal immigration, are the problem, not our valiant heroic Border Patrol Officers.
countywolf on December 3, 2007 at 1:36 PM
El Paso……..we need a Gadsden purchase in reverse.
Limerick on December 3, 2007 at 1:47 PM
How about we replace Ramos and Compean with John Gardner?
Bill C on December 3, 2007 at 1:48 PM
Pulchritudinous Patriot I read the same information.
davod on December 3, 2007 at 1:52 PM
DOH!
Fifty-one members of Congress on Dec. 11, 2006 sent a letter to President Bush asking that he commute the sentences of or pardon two U.S. Border Patrol officers sentenced to a combined 20 years for shooting a fleeing illegal alien drug trafficker they had caught smuggling 80 pounds of marijuana and 20 pounds of cocaine across the border from Mexico.
FREE.
THESE.
MEN.
locomotivebreath1901 on December 3, 2007 at 1:52 PM
They should be sharing a cell.
James on December 3, 2007 at 1:53 PM
Bryan
With all due respect – you’re really stretching
EricPWJohnson on December 3, 2007 at 1:57 PM
Actualy… and I am speculating here…
“IF” the officers did not know they HIT the guy when they shot?
Guy got away… did they KNOW they had hit him?
There are two HUGELY different standards in effect when you either Discharge your weapon and miss… or if you discharge and HIT.
Does anyone know if the Border Patrol reporting procedures are the same, or different?
I’ll bet if you discharge and no one’s hurt, telling your supervisor is enough… and is standard procedure.
Romeo13 on December 3, 2007 at 2:16 PM
This is a false statement. The supervisor was actually on the scene and aware of the shooting and in fact, the supervisor didn’t report the shooting either.
Gregor on December 3, 2007 at 2:18 PM
The Dixie Chicks will be starting up a defense fund on their site in 3, 2, 1…
saint kansas on December 3, 2007 at 2:19 PM
Even if this all gets turned around (and it should) it will not compensate the BP Agents for all the “crap” and the time in the slammer. Maybe Sutton should try a year or so in prison with a bunch of people he put there.
duff65 on December 3, 2007 at 2:21 PM
Exactly right,
This happens all the time, and this is the reason. What do you expect when your agents have no clear ROE and a truckload of bureaucrats waiting to jump on every move they make? This is our biggest problem with the system.
That and the fact that Sutton put more time and money into prosecuting this case than anyone in our government puts into prosecuting drug runners and illegal aliens that are caught at the border.
The priorities are all screwed up.
conservnut on December 3, 2007 at 2:27 PM
Reverse the Nifonging of Ramos and Compean.
They deserve a new trial, they might not be totally innocent but they’re not more than a decade guilty either.
Sutton is a Bush bud open borders conspirator, he can follow the chain link tunnel and sit next to Nifong.
Speakup on December 3, 2007 at 2:30 PM
You two saved me lots of typing. These points need to be repeated until everybody knows that the supervisors were on-site, and therefore responsible for any reporting.
Sutton should be fired ASAP, same day as Ramos and Compean are acquitted/freed/proclaimed innocent.
fred5678 on December 3, 2007 at 2:32 PM
Pick up your cases after a home invasion shooting and see what happens. The actions of the officers were very stupid.
Not that I think badly of them for shooting the guy (I wouldn’t convict), but attempting to fraudulently misdirect the justice system is a very serious thing. They deserve to be harshly punished and dismissed…but not 11/12 years fer chrissakes. Maybe a year or two in minimum security.
Ochlan on December 3, 2007 at 2:33 PM
This case is a total load of crap, and Patterico and Bryan are off base in their assessment. Johnny Sutton has always lied about the agents not making a report (only one lie among so many!). According to the Border Patrol regulations, agents are required to verbally notify their supervisors, which Ramos and Compean did. In fact, their supervisors were ON THE SCENE. Any details you could possibly want about this case is found is a compilation of articles at Guard the Borders.
100% correct.
Redhead Infidel on December 3, 2007 at 2:36 PM
If this is true, then we really do have two innocent guys here…I did not know the supervisors instructed them to pick up the cases.
Yet another prosecutorial clusterfcuk.
Ochlan on December 3, 2007 at 2:38 PM
And this is what so infuriates me about this whole thing. Sutton has been so succcessful at lying and misrepresenting what actually happened that the whole idea of the cover-up has now been accepted as fact, even by this judge, when it never happened.
Never did I imagine that anything would make me more upset at the justice system than the O.J. case.
I was wrong.
Hawkins1701 on December 3, 2007 at 2:51 PM
Is a federal jury selected in the same way as a regular jury? That is, Joe Public gets jury duty but at the Federal court? What pool of citizens do they draw from in this case?
I’m not setting up to blame the jury. Just wondering after reading that.
TexasDan on December 3, 2007 at 3:04 PM
Great reference. I thought this article from that site was the best summary of the BS that Sutton has dispensed. A must read for all those interested in this case.
Call your CongressCritter.
fred5678 on December 3, 2007 at 3:08 PM
Ramos and Compean were tried in the Press, and found wanting due to lies, misdirection, and general press thuggery.
Sadly, some of that Press that tried them was the blogosphere, on equally bad information.
AFAICT from the limited amount of official documentation that I’ve read on the case (Patterico and his commenters have done great work ferreting out information, despite his “off” conclusion), the officers DID immediately report the shooting.
If that’s true, all talk of cover-up or officers not reporting the shooting is either propaganda or ignorance, and I wish that people who say that would put up or shut up. No offense Bryan, but for crying out loud, we bitch enough about MSM bullcrap you’d think we could do a few minutes of fact-checking.
Okay, maybe more than a few minutes, but still.
These men may not be perfect angels, but I don’t think they deserved what they got, and again from what I’ve read, Sutton needs to be Nifonged.
Merovign on December 3, 2007 at 3:22 PM
Dude, you need to get over OJ. Judicial inconsistencies do not begin or end with his botched murder trial. To what other court cases have you devoted over a decade of anger?
The Race Card on December 3, 2007 at 3:27 PM
I don’t think Ramos and Campean are without culpability here. However, imprisoning these men instead of reprimanding them on the job is a despicable act led by Johnny Sutton.
The Race Card on December 3, 2007 at 3:29 PM
I can’t wait till Bush is gone next year. The illegal alien wallet can close and Johnny Sutton can get fired.
Sutton does needs to be Nifonged, as in disbarred and disgraced, and I would add deported to Mexico.
BobJones-77 on December 3, 2007 at 4:52 PM
Ramos & Campean were DOING THEIR JOB.
Shooting was righteous and justified, but they need to practice on their marksmanship. The result would be one less illegal alien drug smuggler. I would not lose a second of sleep.
BobJones-77 on December 3, 2007 at 4:54 PM
Aw geez…here we go again.
Compean and Ramos were perfect angels.
In fact, all BPAs are perfect angels.
Picking up shell casings was a perfectly normal thing to do, procedure be damned even if one of them was a training officer.
They didn’t tell their supervisors on the scene.
They did tell their supervisors on the scene.
Sutton was out to get them on trumped up charges because Bush wants open borders.
Patterico and Bryan are fools who don’t have a clue.
And everyone here is a Perry Mason \ Matlock with a front row seat at the trial.
[/sarcasm]
.
GT on December 3, 2007 at 4:54 PM
Dude, you need to get over OJ. Judicial inconsistencies do not begin or end with his botched murder trial. To what other court cases have you devoted over a decade of anger?
The Race Card on December 3, 2007 at 3:27 PM
Right.
Two people are brutally murdered and his killer walks off scot free.
Tell the families they need to get over it too.
So last decade.
Hawkins1701 on December 3, 2007 at 5:38 PM
It’s far past time for Ramos and Compean to be set free. Scooter Libby picked up his brass, got his ass sent to jail and Bush set him free why not our Border Patrol Agents?
The main thing about this case is that we have got to be damned sure we aren’t setting about electing another President who thinks that money trumps our national sovereignty. That goes for all the Democrats and about half the Republicans running IMHO.
Maybe the test question for both sides should be “will you pardon Ramos and Compean and have Johnny Sutton investigated for prosecutorial misconduct?”
Buzzy on December 3, 2007 at 5:40 PM
I think we should investigate the jury as well. I bet they voted for conviction because they wanted open borders, too.
We can never have enough conspiracy theories, ya know.
.
GT on December 3, 2007 at 5:58 PM
You’re right. There’s never been a conspiracy in the history of the world. They never happen. Everything is as it seems 100% of the time. There is no corruption. There are never any backroom deals. Nobody ever pays anyone else off. Nobody ever does anything dishonest in an attempt to further their career. Juries never, ever get paid, pressured, or bought off. Sports games have never been fixed. Outcomes have never been pre-determined. O.J. was innocent. The Duke Lacrosse team was guilty. And the Mexican mafia and drug lords have absolutely zero reason to be pissed that one of their drug runners were shot by a BP.
We’re all crazy conspiracy theorists.
Gregor on December 3, 2007 at 6:25 PM
I think someone needs a hug.
.
GT on December 3, 2007 at 6:30 PM
I’m sure Johnny Sutton, Vicente Fox, and George Bush will oblige you.
Gregor on December 3, 2007 at 6:44 PM
Here are the facts:
Sutton lied about this over and over again, hoping nobody would fact-check him and it would become the “truth” in public perception. Unfortunately, some of you here today show how well that vile strategy has worked.
Redhead Infidel on December 3, 2007 at 7:30 PM
As I’m sure Buchanan, Rockwell and Paul would do for you.
Now, do you really think everyone here is interested in another flame fest between the two of us? Time to grow up.
The reality is that there is a hellava lot of misinformation out there on the net about the case. Particularly from the pro-Ramos/Compean side I’m sorry to say. If you want to believe in conspiracies because it fits your narative, fine. But, conspiracy theories and demonizing the prosecution isn’t going to free R & C and do just as much damage to the justice system as Nifong.
Lets assume for a moment that the Jolly is right and it is determined that Sutton had “overreacted”. Does that mean that R & C were any less guilty of an attempted coverup?
You guys have over-goebbelized the facts of the case its becoming almost impossible for either side to get to the truth of the matter to anyone’s satisfaction.
The Judge is absolutely correct in pointing out if R & C had reported the shooting as required prosecution would have been unlikely. The worst that would have happened would have been some ribbing from other BPs and some extra time spent at the firing range.
Looking at the facts of the case, I think R & C demonstrated that they should not be wearing a BP uniform. If they believe that they don’t need to follow the rules like the other officers, then they don’t belong there. That is a minimum.
Why did R & C – who both had firearms training the day before and knew the rules – violate regulations by picking up their shells and failing to report the shooting as required?
Why did Ramos – who was both an instructor and part of an evidence recovery team – violate regulations by picking up their shells and fail to report the shooting as required? He of all people knew better.
Don’t tell me they reported the shooting as required. They didn’t. Even Judge Jolly said so.
Does Aldrete deserve prison? You bet. He has a lot to answer for. But that still does not absolve R & C of covering up their actions?
This isn’t about who’s for open borders and who isn’t. Sutton, Bush, Fox and open-borders be damned. Its about following the law. R & C didn’t. Why?
Do we really want to go this far in defending a couple of officers who either thought they had committed a crime or were trying out for a part in Reno 911?
Either way, you’ll pardon me if I don’t think that mob rule by lemmings is a good way protect the rule of law and the dispensing of justice.
GT on December 3, 2007 at 7:54 PM
Redhead Infidel on December 3, 2007 at 7:30 PM
“Jolly, during questioning of Stelmach, said that if the agents had reported the shooting as required, “this prosecution never would have occurred, in all likelihood.””
So, Judge Jolly is a fool. Right?
.
GT on December 3, 2007 at 7:57 PM
Look it was the testimoney of 5 other BPS two who saw the whole thing and Compeans written statement that he tried to kill OAD that got them convicted.
The only reason OAD was there was to show the bullet wound.
EricPWJohnson on December 3, 2007 at 8:47 PM
Either you’re simply stupid, or you’re willfully dishonest. Redhead Infidel just got finished posting specific facts on December 3, 2007 at 7:30 PM that you have wrong completely wrong and yet you immediately ignore the “facts” and post fantasy to support your claims. Who is it exactly that’s posting the misinformation here?
I’m not sure if it’s a coincidence, but you’re starting to sound like Giuliani …
As with Giuliani, when you start a sentence out by saying “the reality is” …
I know you’re about to tell a lie.
Gregor on December 3, 2007 at 9:12 PM
No, you’re a fool if you can’t comprehend the english language. Let’s try again, via Redhead Infidel and her linked facts …
But you’re really not missing this info, are you? You’re purposely trying to slant the facts.
Nothing like a good Johnny Sutton stooge.
Gregor on December 3, 2007 at 9:24 PM
gregor
None of that info is correct that was put out by the guy who really started this whole thin TJ Bonner who has kept a low profile cause Sutton offered those two felons a sweetheart plea bargin but TJ Bonner talked them out of it saying everything will be all right.
So is it, if you were Ramos today would this look like a picnic to you?
EricPWJohnson on December 3, 2007 at 9:33 PM
Based on what? You saying so? You’re claiming the actual Border Patrol firearm policy is incorrect as written? Interesting. So have you found a copy of the REAL Border Patrol Laws? I didn’t know we had another fake document scandal.
Please tell us what exact info you’re claiming is incorrect, and tell us what you’re basing your info on.
Gregor on December 3, 2007 at 9:54 PM
I linked the wrong document. Here is the correct Border Patrol Customs doc. Pay attention to page 18, section 11a:
Gregor on December 3, 2007 at 10:06 PM
Cr&p. Here it is.
Gregor on December 3, 2007 at 10:07 PM
Let Ramos/Compean go! Just a completely ridiculous case…
eanax on December 3, 2007 at 10:40 PM
Again, wrong. There were three other BP agents who testified against Ramos and Compean. Two have already been fired for falsifying their sworn testimony and the other quit before being fired for…wait for it…falsifying his testimony.
Also, for those who are asking about conspiracy theories, tell me what you think of this (from a Daily Bulletin report):
Hmmm…that’s very strange considering that DHS has already been caught in multiple lies and obfuscations about this case. I question the veracity…the timing…the reality…everything.
Also, you should know that Sutton gave Aldrete-Davila an open border pass, which he then used to break his immunity agreement (much less our laws, which Sutton doesn’t care about at this point) to smuggle more drugs across the border. He was caught TWO MORE TIMES once with a 750 lb load of marijuana and again with a 1,000+ lb load.
Sutton KNEW this and refrained from prosecuting Aldrete-Davila in order to preserve his questionable testimony. The jury in R & C’s case was NOT ALLOWED to know about A-D’s drug smuggling, BTW, which would’ve undoubtedly cast doubt upon his highly suspect testimony – for any reasonable adult, that is. Sutton also knew that A-D was NOT merely a mule, but rather high up in the drug cartel and Sutton still refused to prosecute him.
In fact, one of Sutton’s major points that he trotted out every time he went on the radio here in Texas was that he had no proof that A-D was involved in any kind of drug business, and that he was merely a border jumper in the wrong place at the wrong time. THAT, my friends, was a bald-faced LIE, as the DEA reports have now proven. All of this was alluded to last February, but is now coming to light thanks to an ongoing investigation and report from the DEA.
Sutton is going down.
Redhead Infidel on December 3, 2007 at 10:41 PM
Yes. And Sutton is a criminal. Period.
Yes, in the line of duty. If Aldrete-Davila HAD been killed, this would be a whole different story, wouldn’t it? One less drug smuggler in the world and the BP agents would get medals. Did you know that Sutton has lied and said there were no fingerprints inside the van full of marijuana that would tie the van to A-D (despite the fact that he was running away from it)? In fact, 11 fingerprints were lifted from the inside of the van. That evidence was never presented to the jury. Sutton posed A-D during the trial as being in the wrong place at the wrong time with no evidence whatsoever to tie him to the van full of 800 lbs of marijuana.
Sutton also withheld evidence during the trial that proved the two supervisors were on the scene during the chase and shooting of A-D. Why would he do that? That’s just a rhetorical question, BTW, I already know the answer.
Redhead Infidel on December 3, 2007 at 10:56 PM
Well, there you go with the personal attacks again, Gregor. I truly hope that isn’t the best you can do. You’re arguing like a DUer suffering from BDS when you accuse anyone you disagree with a liar.
That not withstanding, what Redhead presented was someone else’s opinion and little else, IMHO. The problem with Redhead’s posting is that it contradicts sworn testimony by El Paso Border Patrol Sector Chief Luis Barker.
Case in point….
Redhead’s source….
Yet in sworn testimony as shown in Patterico’s DRJ…..
No where can I find did the defense contradict that testimony. If Baker was lying, the defense would have been able to use the tapes to prove it.
So, who is more credible? Baker who had recorded the proceedings or the opinions of Heidi Thiess provided to us by Redhead?
Continuing from Redhead’s post….
Then why would Compean admit on record that he was wrong for not reporting the incident and then make an excuse for it?
More from Redhead’s post….
OK, three problems with that statement. 1) At the time of the shooting, neither C nor R knew he had drugs in the van. Only that A was trying to get away from them. Any time a BP officer discharges his weapon in the performance of his duty, his is required to report it. Compean admitted on tape that he had not and knew he was suppose to. 2) The restriction is on giving a written report on the circumstances surrounding the incident. That hardly negates the requirement that a report must be made by a BP that he discharged his weapon. Garcia is really spinning there. 3)Judge Jolly comment in the above article says R & C failed to report as required.
So, who do I believe? A Judge of the 5th Circuit or union representative Garcia?
I’m sorry, but while I have a lot of respect for Thiess, her argument has a few holes in it, IMHO. She’s trying to use less than unbiased news sources such as WND in her attempt at fisking Sutton’s statement and attempts to make emotional appeal by presenting her opinions about other cases as unassailable fact.
According to Baker’s testimony, Compean admitted to a cover-up and that the admission is on tape. Nowhere can I find did the defense attempt to show that Baker’s statement about the content of the tapes to be in error.
My problem isn’t whether or not R & C shot A. My problem is with their actions afterward.
What should be the penalty for an officer who discharges his weapon and then fails to report it as required? According to testimony, administrative punishment.
But, what if an officer – ICE, BP, NYPD, whoever – shoots at a fleeing suspect, doesn’t report it and in fact tries to cover it up…..doesn’t that demand something other than a slap on the wrist?
.
GT on December 3, 2007 at 10:58 PM
Jolly, a judge on the 5th Circuit and Reagan appointee, is a fool, Redhead? You’re calling the one Judge who gives Compean and Ramos a glimmer of hope a fool.
Hmmmmm…..further evidence that discussion on the merits with you and Gregor is a pointless waste.
G’night.
.
GT on December 3, 2007 at 11:11 PM
Yes, you are indeed a liar. Flat out. No doubt about it. You suck.
Case in point …
No, it’s not. It’s fact, as the actual Border Patrol Firearms Policy, which I just finished linking to by-the-way, proves. But of course … once again you simply pass over it as though it’s not even there.
You are a dishonest, lying scumbag as I’ve shown in previous threads.
Gregor on December 3, 2007 at 11:15 PM
Gregor,
I’ve read the policy. I have a copy of the PDF right here with me. It says that the agent may not report on the circumstances surrounding the incident. It does not negate the requirement that the agent must report the fact that he discharged his weapon at a suspect.
You’re hate-filled vitriol only proves that I’m wasting my time with someone who has the emotional stability of a two year old.
“You suck.” Heheheheh….too bad the Defense didn’t try that one in court. [/rolleyes]
G’night. Don’t let the bedbugs bite.
.
GT on December 3, 2007 at 11:27 PM
Rolling on the floor, LMAO!
RD on December 4, 2007 at 12:15 AM
Really? Is that what it says? Let’s look at the actual text (not that you really care)and I’ll even highlight the really really important parts for you, as if you’re a six year old:
Notice the really important word there? “ORALLY.” Not written, but ORALLY.
This of course, was complied with since the supervisor was “on-site” and notified ORALLY of the incident. Testimony indicates that in fact, they were TOLD to pick up the shell casings by their SUPERVISOR.
Pay attention to this! Remember your comment earlier?
So if that’s true, why does it say here that all this info is required in the ORAL report? Seem like an awful lot of “circumstances”, doesn’t it? Let’s go though the required “circumstances” that are required:
Now here’s a really really really REALLY important part:
OOOPS! While the supervisor was notified and aware of the incident, he DID NOT follow this procedure. Do you know what happened to that supervisor?
He got PROMOTED after agreeing to testify against the BP agents.
Heh. Amazing, aint it? But, you already know all that, don’t you Sutton stooge? Or are you actually Johnny Sutton himself, lol? Stooge either way.
Gregor on December 4, 2007 at 1:56 AM
Well, once again Gregor you have somehow managed to turn this into a Monty Python skit.
All of that is fine and dandy except for one thing…..Compean is on record admitting he and Ramos covered up the shooting because they thought they were going to get into trouble.
From their own testimony….
Take a look at their own testimony…
6 Q. Now, let me show you Government’s Exhibit 75. Do you
7 recognize that? Is this part of your firearms policy manual?
8 A. Yes, sir.
9 Q. And I’m referring you to page 21 of 64, Number 2 on that
10 page. Doesn’t it tell you that you’re required to report a
11 shooting within one hour?
12 A. Yes, sir.
13 Q. And you knew that it was your responsibility, correct?
14 A. Yes, sir.
15 Q. And you didn’t do that, did you?
16 A. No, sir.
17 Q. And, in fact, 29 days passed before anyone knew that you
18 had shot. Is that true, sir?
19 A. Yes, sir.
**************
25 Q. And you did not tell — you had two supervisors there at
1 the scene, right?
2 A. Right.
3 Q. And you didn’t tell either of them, according to the
4 policy, that you discharged your firearm?
5 A. No.
6 Q. And neither did Mr. Compean?
7 A. No.
8 Q. If you had, one of these thick reports would have been
9 generated, right?
10 A. I guess so.
****************
3 Q. Okay. This is what the firearms policy calls a reportable
4 shooting, correct?
5 A. I believe so.
6 Q. Well, you taught it for five years. If you don’t remember,
7 I can give you the policy to refresh your memory.
8 A. Yes, ma’am.
9 Q. It is a reportable shooting?
10 A. Yes, ma’am.
11 Q. And when there’s a reportable shooting, the first thing
12 you’re supposed to do is secure the scene, correct?
13 A. I believe so.
14 Q. You didn’t secure the scene?
15 A. No.
But, I suppose you’re going to call me a liar over that, too. Right Gregor?
(hattip: Vatar
.
GT on December 4, 2007 at 2:26 AM
Back to the testimony….
6 Q. Now, let me show you Government’s Exhibit 75. Do you
7 recognize that? Is this part of your firearms policy manual?
8 A. Yes, sir.
9 Q. And I’m referring you to page 21 of 64, Number 2 on that
10 page. Doesn’t it tell you that you’re required to report a
11 shooting within one hour?
12 A. Yes, sir.
13 Q. And you knew that it was your responsibility, correct?
14 A. Yes, sir.
15 Q. And you didn’t do that, did you?
16 A. No, sir.
17 Q. And, in fact, 29 days passed before anyone knew that you
18 had shot. Is that true, sir?
19 A. Yes, sir.
And you say I suck. [/rolleyes]
You only wish.
.
GT on December 4, 2007 at 2:30 AM
Redhead Infidel on December 3, 2007 at 10:41 PMWhile not reading all of the posts above I did read one by Redhead Infidel. He hit it on the mark. Scumhead Sutton and others want you to believe that Ramos and Compean took it upon themselves to pick up their brass and to report the shooting. That one report that Redhead Infidel quotes states that two supervisors were there and knew of the incident.
My hearsay statement here is that there was in fact at least on supervisor there after the fact and indicated to Ramos and Compean to pick up there brass and not worry about it. Why? As Ramos and Compean stated, they did not at that time believe or know that Alderete was hit and wounded. Also, he kept running and escaped back into Mexico.
If Ramos and Csmpean were prosecuted for the cover up, then supervisors and others should have been also. Sutton concocted some made up crime that should never have been. Ramos and Sutton were enforcing the law and reacted to a perceived threat with the necessary force that thought was warranted. This is what Border Patrol Agents, along with other law enforcement officials, are taught. Border Patrol Agents (NOT BORDER GUARDS) are taught this from day one and it is gone over again at least once a year in re-cert courses.
Bryan conjectured that Ramos and Compean may have covered it up because they knew they were not justified. That is whoey. If what Ramos and Compean stated is true, and I have no reason not to believe them, they thought they saw a weapon in Alderete’s hand and reacted accordingly, as they were taught.
Bryan also pointed out that Ramos and Compean may have covered it up due to feared that they would mot have been backed up by their supervisors and above. In fact, by thrown to the sharks, which they obviously were. While I know this to be to true to be good, I believe that it is wrong. What was there to cover up? A shooting incident where agents shot at a drug smuggler who they thought had a weapon in his hand (Why would I not believe them instead of a drug smuggler?) did not know that he was wounded and escaped into Mexico. The agents ONLY responsibility is to report a shooting incident to a supervisor. Which the did to the ON SCENE supervisor who subsequently told them to clean up their brass and not worry about it. Why would a supervisor do that? Because HE did not want to do the shooting investigation, take pictures, call in the FBI to do their investigation, and fill out the lengthy report. That is why!
What would the report have said anyway? Two agents encountered a drug smuggler – during their attempt to arrest said drug smuggler the drug smuggler physically resisted and had what the agents thought to be a weapon – agents then used the force they thought appropriate and fired so many (a number) shots. There, that is the gist of what the report would have said. They may have (probably would have) tracked the route Alderete ran and found that he fell at this spot here and hey, there’s a smidgeon of blood. Could they determine that the blood was from a gunshot wound or from a scrapped knee from when he fell? Maybe, who knows.
My point in all this is that the supervisor was to lazy to do the investigation and write a freaking report.
LurP on December 4, 2007 at 2:32 AM
Sorry for the strike across your name there Redhead Infidel. Must have hit the wrong key.
LurP on December 4, 2007 at 2:33 AM
Oh what the heck. Let me rub it in some more, Gregor.
25 Q. And you did not tell — you had two supervisors there at
1 the scene, right?
2 A. Right.
3 Q. And you didn’t tell either of them, according to the
4 policy, that you discharged your firearm?
5 A. No.
6 Q. And neither did Mr. Compean?
7 A. No.
8 Q. If you had, one of these thick reports would have been
9 generated, right?
10 A. I guess so.
Why did you lie, Gregor? You said they reported it to their supervisors. They said they didn’t. Why did you lie?
.
GT on December 4, 2007 at 2:37 AM
One problem with that argument. It is Ramos’ court testimony that they did not report the shooting to either of the two supervisors and did not do so for 29 days.
GT on December 4, 2007 at 2:42 AM
That’s a really interesting theory there GT. Only one problem. How do Ramos and Compean go “29 days before anyone knew that (they) had shot” when EVERY available documentation and record of the incident indicates that there were multiple WITNESSES on scene? In fact, how is that even remotely possible when their fellow agent testified (in exchange for immunity) that he actually SAW the incident take place and that he and the others immediately approached the scene.
It boggles the mind really, doesn’t it? It’s one of the greatest mysteries of the world, how all these people can witness the incident, and arrive on the scene, and somehow we’re now being told that nobody knew shots had been fired for 29 days?
Wow. WOW! You’re amazing!
Gregor on December 4, 2007 at 2:54 AM
Well, as I see it there are two possibilities…..
1) Ramos lied under oath, or…
2) You’re information is incorrect.
You chose. I’m interested in your explanation as to why Ramos would say those things because I don’t think you have the courage to admit that perhaps your information is wrong.
Yes, I am. But what’s really amazing is that now you’re calling Ramos a liar.
.
GT on December 4, 2007 at 3:14 AM
My point in all this is that the supervisor was to lazy to do the investigation and write a freaking report.
LurP on December 4, 2007 at 2:32 AM
One problem with that argument. It is Ramos’ court testimony that they did not report the shooting to either of the two supervisors and did not do so for 29 days.
GT on December 4, 2007 at 2:42 AM
One big problem with your contention is that the two Superisors where there. Jonathan Richards the one that got promoted for lying on the stand against the agents even offered medical attnetion.
The physical evidence was apparent as Compean was cut and covered with dirt. Richard’s failure to notify the F.B.I. of the assault is the reason why the case was never investigated.
“Richards then made a statement saying, “If we call the F.B.I. we are going to be here all night doing paperwork. We will never know who the person was that assaulted you although we’ve got the van and the marijuana.” After that, everyone went back to work.”
I am retired law enforcement and if you believe that two supervisors rolled up on the scene of a shooting and knew nothing about when it came time to testify, then I have a bridge in FLA for sale.
Sutton is worse than Nifong because he suborned perjury from sworn LE officers, promoted one of them, gave several the opportunity to resign rather than be prosecuted for lying to the IA.
He belongs in prison right along with Avila.
ScottyDog on December 4, 2007 at 3:15 AM
Scotty,
I’m sitting here reading some of the responses over at Patterico’s and I think “Ed” best expresses my opinion on the subject….
For me, the macro issue is the preservation of the rule of law, as imperfect as the law and the supporting administrative reporting requirements are.
Neither you nor I nor even Gregor were there. I don’t think any of us have a true understanding of what went on, where or when and with whom.
What I do know is that Compean admitted to Barker on tape that he and Ramos tried to cover it up. Those aren’t my works. They’re his.
Ramos admitted under oath that neither of them followed procedure – orally reporting the discharge of their weapons to either of the two supervisors within the one hour as per regulation. In fact, Ramos admitted under oath that neither he nor Compean did so for 29 days.
Regulations exist for a reason and both R&C are on record admitting that they chose to ignore it.
R&C deemed it necessary to fire 15 bullets at a fleeing suspect but did not deem it necessary to report it as was required.
According to the testimony, neither supervisor showed up until after the shooting. Both supervisors testified to that.
If R&C had followed the regulations and reported the shooting as required, this trial would not have happened. The supervisor would have filed a report and a field investigation would have started. Both R&C would been given the ample oportunity to explain their actions under their Constitutional rights.
Look, think the whole thing is a tragedy and personally think the penalties are too much. But, I think that R&C are the wrong people for Conservatives to call heroes and are an embarrassment to the BP agents who follow the rules and do their job to the best of there ability.
.
GT on December 4, 2007 at 3:43 AM
Sorry, my eyes are getting tired.
I should have said, “Both R&C would been given the ample opportunity to explain their actions while under the protection of their Constitutional rights.
GT on December 4, 2007 at 3:51 AM
GT on December 4, 2007 at 3:43 AM
I could not disagree with you more and Gregor has the facts to support his arguments.
Ramos and Compean like most cops where just doing there job until the Mexican Consulate demanded they be prosecuted. After all somebody was paying for protection and they wanted their pound of flesh for the drugs seized.
First,Jonathan Richards who by BP regulations is required to file a written report not the individual agents unless the supervisor ask them to do otherwise. What was Jonathan Richards doing there having a beer with the guys?
Section 11, Subsection A of the firearms policy as followed by the Agents of the U.S. Border Patrol states as follows; ”Any Service employee who participates in or observes a reportable shooting incident as defined in Subsection 3.H., shall orally report the incident to a Supervisor.”
Second, they did not remove the spent shell casings that day and they did not recover them because they both thought they did not hit the suspect Davela.
Border Patrol Polices and Procedures state that failing to report the discharge of their weapons can result in up to a 5 day suspension. Sutton decided to file criminal charges against them instead because they refused to plead guilty in a plea bargain. Would you plead guilty to a felony for doing your job?
The ROI 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.
Some Cover-up, two supervisors were present, Arnold and Richards at the scene of the “shooting” and seven BP agents. Why were they not arrested and charged with a cover up. That is because there was no cover-up.
On page 11 of the ROI she states that the crime laboratory matched Ramos weapon with the slug that was removed from Davila. Agent Christopher Sanchez filed an affidavit stating that this was the case.
However, Joseph J. J. Correa, a Criminalist IV of the Texas Department of Public Safety in El Paso stated the following:
Correa could not positively identify Ramos’s weapon as the one that fired the submitted bullet. His report concludes:
“The copper-jacketed bullet was fired from a barrel having six lands and grooves inclined to the right.
The manufacturer of the firearm that fired the copper-jacketed bullet is unknown, but could include commonly encountered models of .40 S&W caliber FN/Browning, Beretta, Heckler & Koch, and Ruger pistols.”
So it seems Christopher Sanchez filed a false affidavit.
I could go on and on with the lies that Sutton’s prosecution team presented to the Jury. Sutton is guilty of a malicious prosecution and much more in my opinion.
He is as bad or worse than Mike Nifong which is not a surprise with prosecutors today that do not see a problem with using immunity agreements to gain false testimony in front of juries.
I urge you all to read an investigative report on Federal Persecutors published in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in 1998; Win at All Costs.
“Hundreds of times during the past 10 years, federal agents and prosecutors have pursued justice by breaking the law.”
“They lied, hid evidence, distorted facts, engaged in cover-ups, paid for perjury and set up innocent people in a relentless effort to win indictments, guilty pleas and convictions, a two-year Post-Gazette investigation found.”
I can tell you from personal experience that the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has merely scratched the surface. Unfortunately, Prosecutors today are so used to abusing their power with impunity that prosecutions like Compean/Ramos and Mike Nifong are common place but receive no publicity from the MSM.
They are intoxicated with their own POWER.
BTW -This whole case has nothing do with conservative or democrat, it is about the miscarriage of Justice by a corrupt Prosecutor.
ScottyDog on December 4, 2007 at 4:16 AM
The transcript from Dobbs’ show is here.
A reporter on Laura Ingraham yesterday who was in the courtroom said
NifongSutton was not looking too good. Having heard Sutton spin this many times, I will be more happy to see him strung up than Nifong.Valiant on December 4, 2007 at 7:12 AM
Scotty, with all due respect, that sounds like too much like a 9-11 Truther kind of statement.
If it was important enough to fire 15 rounds at a fleeing suspect but not important to report it is just doing part of their job, then there is something seriously wrong.
Compean confessed to Barker that they covered it up.
Ramos admitted under oath that they did not report the weapons discharge to either of their supervisors for 29 days.
And for that we are to make them heroes?
I suppose next we should be marching down the street shouting “Free Mumia!”.
.
GT on December 4, 2007 at 7:30 AM
Dude, not funny.
RD on December 4, 2007 at 8:50 AM
Nice big fat straw men there, GT. So is it really hard for you to believe that there is collusion between the Mexican government and our own? It’s not so far-fetched as you would naively wish. This is actually what happened:
In the DHS-OIG Report of Investigation (ROI) it mentions the day that agents went to the site to look for bullets (more than a month after the incident) using metal detectors. What doesn’t make sense was the participation of one of the agencies involved, specifically the DSS:
Why on earth would the DSS need to be out in the field wielding metal detectors because a drug smuggler got shot in the butt? They are diplomats, not field agents. Their involvement is incredibly unusual. Still think this case is merely about two BP agents policing their brass when they shouldn’t have?
OR, maybe it’s just a case a really dirty Texas politics gone off the rails. Check out all the inter-connections here and here.
The statute that Sutton used to prosecute R & C should only be used against LEO’s that use firearms while in the act of committing actual criminal offenses (sexual assault or drug smuggling). Sutton basically prosecuted them for simply using their guns against drug smuggler.
The jury obviously found them not guilty of trying murder Aldrete-Davila. But Sutton needed that bogus charge to “piggyback” 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c).
The bottom line is that nothing about this case passes the smell test. Nothing. It’s worth taking the time to get to the bottom of it because the best-case scenario is that either we have an overzealous prosecutor who put two LEO’s in federal prison for what amounts to an administrative failure OR a worst-case scenario of collusion between governments and a political prosecution.
Redhead Infidel on December 4, 2007 at 9:15 AM
My comment responding to GT is awaiting moderation, probably due to too many source links. Hopefully, Allah or Bryan will dig it out of moderation soon.
Redhead Infidel on December 4, 2007 at 9:18 AM
Redhead, first let me thank you for a reasoned, thought out post.
All of that is well and good, but that is a separate issue but is irrelevant when it comes to overturning R&C’s conviction and getting them released.
Arguing how the case got brought to trial became irrelevant to R&C once the grand jury issued the indictment and the judge found probable cause. It is further made irrelevant to R&C when they were convicted by a jury.
As for the statute that Sutton used, the Judge in the case says otherwise. I would wait to see if what the 5th District will agree with you or the Sutton. If the 5th Circuit upholds the decision are you and the “free R&C” crowd going to accuse them of being in cahoots with Mexico and open-borders crowd? If the 5th Circuit overturns the conviction, I certainly hope the prosecution decides not to pursue it.
Yes, I agree with you that the entire case smells. But we’ll have to agree to disagree with how those smells got there.
R&C did themselves no favors in their testimony. And I think Sutton did more harm than good in pursuing them in the way that he did. If Sutton is dirty, it will catch up with him eventually and he will have to answer. But for everything he’s accused of doing, it still doesn’t address the matter that R&C admitted to a cover-up, fail to follow regulations and lied to an OIG investigator.
I think that the better route to go is to let the legal system do its job and in the meantime have the proper authorities give the guidelines that gave R&C their sentences a thorough revue and modify them to properly reflect the seriousness of R&C’s actions.
GT on December 4, 2007 at 10:09 AM
Dude. It wasn’t meant to be.
If Gregor is correct, then Ramos lied under oath when he admitted that he didn’t tell either of the two supervisors.
If Ramo did not lie, then Gregor is incorrect. And since Gregor has a penchant for calling anyone he disagrees with a liar, then well…..what’s good for the goose, RD. I’m just illustrating the point.
GT on December 4, 2007 at 10:20 AM
GT:
No offense my friend but I am only able to understand your outrage by reading your posts here on this thread. You are really naive about the way the Government in this country works especially the Judicial System and Law Enforcement.
Making comments like:
“If R&C had followed the regulations and reported the shooting as required, this trial would not have happened. The supervisor would have filed a report and a field investigation would have started. Both R&C would been given the ample oportunity to explain their actions under their Constitutional rights”
You have no idea how LE officers are treated when politics gets in the way in the way in the rule of law. Do you think at the time Ramos and Compean had the money and resources to hire the very best legal minds to go up against the United States Justice Department?
They both made some mistakes but they had no idea Johnny Sutton was setting them up for a fall. I would like to see the transcripts for the Barker interview but to my knowledge they are not available.
What I do know is that none of the standard procedures were followed once the Mexican Consulate got involved. If you think that I am making “Truther like statements” do a google on the corruption in the Border Patrol. Here is a website with a list of just some of the corruption cases being investigated.
One of Johnny Suttons star witnesses is a BP Officer by the name of Rene Sanchez. What is astounding to anyone with previous LE experience is that Sanchez is a lifelong friend of Avila. It is a violation of Policy for LE to have an ongoing relationship with a felon unless vetted by the Agency.
It turns out that Rene Sanchez was more than good friends, he was accessing the Border Patrol Tracking System to assist Avila with his smuggling loads. Andy Ramirez’s sworn testimony before the Committee on Judiciary reveals that Rene Sanchez was in fact assisting a known Mexican cartel smuggler in this case all known to Johnny Sutton:
“Aldrete-Davila was instructed by Rene Sanchez to not testify without requesting immunity first. He further testified that Rene Sanchez instructed him as to what to say
including denial of having a gun when he assaulted the two Border Patrol agents.
Rene Sanchez told the smuggler to say that he had nothing to do with the van loaded with the 743 lbs of marijuana. Rene Sanchez also told the smuggler to say that he had run
because the agents were trying to beat him up. Rene Sanchez further instructed the smuggler to say that he had been shot in the back, never mentioning where he was actually shot. The smuggler also said in his original statement that he was shot while entering the U.S. illegally, which was not the case, and made no mention of the vehicle loaded with 743 lbs of marijuana. This information is also in his report to Christopher Sanchez, the Homeland Security investigator, and the ONLY investigator in this case.
When asked during the trial how he, the smuggler, knew he could sue the government for five million dollars, he responded that he didn’t know. The smuggler also testified that Rene Sanchez retained Attorney Walter Boyaki, in addition to negotiating on the smuggler’s behalf, and that the smuggler claimed not to have any knowledge of the five
million dollar lawsuit filed against the U.S. Border Patrol.
When asked during the trial how he, the smuggler, knew he could sue the government for five million dollars, he responded that he didn’t know. The smuggler also testified that Rene Sanchez retained Attorney Walter Boyaki, in addition to negotiating on the smuggler’s behalf, and that the smuggler claimed not to have any knowledge of the five
million dollar lawsuit filed against the U.S. Border Patrol.
During the trial, the smuggler (Davila) and Rene Sanchez contradicted each other’s testimony throughout the trial. The smuggler also testified that he and Rene Sanchez were
both born and raised in San Ysidro, MX and had known each other since they were kids. The smuggler testified that he and Rene Sanchez had not seen each other in the past
year, while Rene Sanchez testified that he had not seen the smuggler since he was seven years old.
The smuggler also testified that he had met and talked to Rene Sanchez in Laredo before the drug bust in Fabens, TX in which he was wounded. He also testified that he had run
into Rene Sanchez in Juarez sometime in October and before the original trial date of October the 17th. He also testified that Rene Sanchez and Christopher Sanchez had
picked him up on Sunday, two days before trial and taken him to the federal building in El Paso to prepare for the case with the prosecutors. Rene Sanchez testified that although
they were all in the same car, they never talked to each other.
When Rene Sanchez took the stand he testified that he had not seen the smuggler for approximately eight years. Rene Sanchez admitted to having advised the smuggler to
turn himself in and admitted to having told him what to say. Rene Sanchez also admitted to having got the smuggler the lawyer, whose last name is Boyaki, to file the five million
dollar lawsuit against the border patrol.
One agent by the name of Blanchett who was subpoenaed by the defense was not allowed to testify. He would have testified that Rene Sanchez kept calling him about drug
smuggling activities in Fabens and also when and where the busts were occurring. Agent Blanchett made a report of this to the Border Patrol because he was suspicious of Sanchez and was reprimanded for doing so.
Homeland security agents went to Fabens to question Blanchett about his reporting the calls from Rene Sanchez.
Agent Blanchett was asked questions without representation,
and was requested to surrender his weapon. Blanchett requested representation, which he received from his Federal Law Enforcement Officer’s representative who then instructed
Blanchett to leave during the questioning by DHS agents and Blanchett immediately walked out of the room.
They were trying to protect Rene Sanchez because he was one of the government’s chief witnesses in this case. The government does not know how corrupt he is. Blanchett was
then transferred to Deming, New Mexico with the border patrol claiming that he had been in Fabens on temporary assignment.
All the illegal moves of Rene Sanchez concerning his personal investigation without knowledge or permission from the U.S. government are a matter of public record in the
trial transcripts.”
And you actually think that if Ramos and Compean had just cooperated they would have vindicated when a Federal Persecutor is allowing know criminals to lie on the witness stand? A Border Patrol Officer that is working with a drug smuggler is the star witness?
ScottyDog on December 4, 2007 at 12:27 PM
Scotty,
I was going to take your post point by point but really it doesn’t matter.
You don’t know me. I run a company. I have family members who serve in various branches of government on both the state and federal level. I have other family members and close family friends who serve at various levels of local and federal law enforcement agencies.
My company does business with many of these agencies and have to follow strict guidelines so as to avoid the least bit of impropriety.
I know the politics. I’ve dealt with it first hand for nearly 20 years.
I learned a long time ago that there is three sides to every story – his side, their side and the truth.
Here’s the problem with your argument as I see it. Nothing you’ve posted there is germane to R & C’s conviction.
R&C had every obligation to follow the law and do their jobs as was required of them. They admitted that they didn’t.
Neither Sutton nor Sanchez had anything to do with the fact that R&C discharged their weapons and then violated regulations by not reporting it to either of their supervisors.
Neither Sutton nor Sanchez had anything to do with the fact that Compean admitted to Barker that R&C attempted to cover up the shooting.
Neither Sutton nor Sanchez had anything to do with the fact that Ramos admitted under oath that he intentionally violated regulations.
Neither Sutton nor Sanchez had anything to do with the fact that R&C lied to an OIG investigator when they first told him that there was no shooting.
Neither Sutton nor Sanchez had anything to do with the fact that when R&C lied to the OIG investigator, the situation ceased to be an administrative matter and became a criminal one.
I have absolutely know doubt that there is a lot of crap that goes on at the BP or any other agency for that matter. That is still no excuse for what R&C did.
To your final point….
I think that if R&C had followed the regs and more importantly not lied to the OIG investigator, the matter would never have reached the prosecutor’s office.
If I have any outrage, it is in how so many of my fellow conservatives behave like liberals in making any and every excuse they can think of in defense of two men who have shown that they don’t belong in a BP uniform.
Here’s a little food for thought. In Compean’s deposition to Barker, he said that they tried to cover up the shooting because they thought they would have gotten into trouble.
Suppose they had killed Davila and discovered that he had no gun. Given their actions what do you suppose they would have done in this case? How much trouble do you suppose Compean would have thought he was going to get into and what do you suppose they would have done about it?
Do we Conservatives really want to make these two into heroes and posterchildren for border enforcement?
If it serves a purpose, commute their sentences to time served and let the conviction stand or let the justice system do its job in the 5th Circuit. It really doesn’t matter to me. But lets not permit Conservatism stoop down into the gutter and mire where the Mumia and Tookie brigades reside.
.
GT on December 4, 2007 at 1:34 PM
God, I hate that you keep bringing Mumia up as if you’re making a point. That is a red herring and, frankly, offensive. Ramos and Compean are hardly murderers and those of us that believe this is a serious travesty of justice are not LIBERAL LOONS. Thankyouverymuch.
G’bye.
Redhead Infidel on December 4, 2007 at 3:27 PM
Then stop acting and talking like them.
.
GT on December 4, 2007 at 5:11 PM
Comment pages: