…and those of us that believe this is a serious travesty of justice are not LIBERAL LOONS.

Redhead Infidel on December 4, 2007 at 3:27 PM

Then stop acting and talking like them.

.

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….

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?

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.

.

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.

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?

Dude, not funny.

RD on December 4, 2007 at 8:50 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.

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.

“…For several weeks [after the February 17, 2005 incident at the border] no investigation was ongoing. The Border considered the incident to be completely normal, the reporting to be acceptable and nothing was being done. Then on March 4 the request came through from the Mexican Consulate to the U.S. consulate in Mexico demanding an investigation on the basis that the Mexican Consulate was bringing forth [drug smuggler] Davila and wanted the agents to be punished…”

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:

On March 17, 2005, DHS OIG agents, OIA agents, BP El. Paso Sector Evidence Team (SET) members and U.S. Department of State, Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) agents, scoured the site of the shooting incident, using metal detectors to look for casings and any other detectable evidence, but no evidence of the shooting was found.

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.

Wow. WOW! You’re amazing!
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

Dude, not funny.

Lawyers for Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean spoke for 30 minutes yesterday at a hearing regarding whether the two agents should be set free pending their appeal. The session was held before 3 District Judges of the 5th Circuit……

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.

ScottyDog on December 4, 2007 at 4:16 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!”.

.

A reporter on Laura Ingraham yesterday who was in the courtroom said Nifong Sutton was not looking too good. Having heard Sutton spin this many times, I will be more happy to see him strung up than Nifong.

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.

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.

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.

From a pure “rightness” viewpoint, Davila is fortunate to be alive. He can expire tonight as far as I’m concerned. He got a small taste of what he richly deserves.

But properly licensed police and military simply must follow the regs. If, at a point in time, a given officer/soldier finds that he cannot agree to the regs/rules of engagement, he needs to take himself out of position to fire. R&C and their families and many fellow border agents are in full agreement that the regs, as administered, are farcical. I agree. But it can’t be up to the individual agent to alter such. I don’t get to take out those ludicrous red light traffic cameras, and border agents don’t get to take out scum who do not present a clear and present mortal threat.

I sincerely hope R&C get a commutation and are released forthwith. But they should never again carry a firearm in my name. And all other like-minded agents need to quit. Tonight.

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.

.

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.

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.

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.

Wow. WOW! You’re amazing!

Yes, I am. But what’s really amazing is that now you’re calling Ramos a liar.

.

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!

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.

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?

Gregor on December 4, 2007 at 1:56 AM

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?

.

While 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.

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?

Gregor on December 4, 2007 at 1:56 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.

.

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

.

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.

GT on December 3, 2007 at 11:27 PM

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:

11. Reporting of Shooting Incidents

A. 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.

Notice the really important word there? “ORALLY.” Not written, but ORALLY.

Unless the reporting employee is physically incapacitated or otherwise unable, the report shall be made within one hour of the time the incident occurs or within one hour of the time the employee becomes aware of the incident.

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.

If the incident occurs while the employee is on duty, the employee must report the incident prior to going off duty. The oral report shall be made either in person, or via radio or telephone, and will be comprised of the following information, if known:

Pay attention to this! Remember your comment earlier?

It says that the agent may not report on the circumstances surrounding the incident.

GT on December 3, 2007 at 11:27 PM

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:

(1) The date, time, and location of the shooting incident;

(2) The identity and current location of any injured or deceased person(s), including an
assessment of the extent of the injuries;

(3) The identity, physical description, and current location of any individual(s) known to be
involved in, or to have witnessed the incident, including suspects who are at large;

(4) The description and location of vehicles involved in the incident, including any suspect
vehicle(s);

(5) A brief description of the incident, including any unusual circumstance(s) which might cause
additional conflict(s) or confrontation(s);

(6) The operational activity in which the Service employee(s) involved in the incident were
engaged;
Administrative Manual Section 20.012 C INS Firearms Policy 19

(7) The type of firearm(s) used, the number of shots fired, and the current location of all firearms
used in the incident;

(8) Any other information that is needed to assure that the operational responsibilities of the
Service related to the security of human life and Service equipment are properly carried out.

B. Following the initial reporting of the incident, an employee who learns of additional information
concerning the items listed in Subsection 11.A.(1)-(8) shall promptly make an oral report of such
information to a supervisor.

Now here’s a really really really REALLY important part:

C. Any supervisory or management official who is notified of the occurrence of a reportable shooting incident shall make an initial supervisory report to the appropriate Authorizing Official in accordance with the following:

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.