Buddahpundit on January 15, 2009 at 1:18 AM

No.

A sealed hearing? Yes. That isn’t uncommon and not worth the tinfoil for a hat.

GT on January 15, 2009 at 6:57 AM

The tinfoil part is believing in an x-file where two men simultaneously come to the decision to throw away their lives by wanting to have an unarmed dead body on their hands that they wouldn’t be able to explain away. When faced with an x-file, it’s best to look for alternative explanations.

The reason why Bush’s people lied to the congressmen was that at least one of them was a former prosecutor who would have insisted on hearing the motive. They had to lie and tell these people that Ramos and Compean, who are Mexicans, stated that day they “wanted to shoot a Mexican”. The Bush people had to admit later that they lied about that.

Bush could get away without establishing mens rea in front of the idiot jury they were able to assemble by striking all the caucasian people from the jury pool, but they had to lie in front of a more sophisticated audience who weren’t predisposed border patrol haters.

As for the sealed material, they could use the excuse that it would unfairly affect the jury but they don’t have that excuse anymore because the trial is over.

No.

A sealed hearing? Yes. That isn’t uncommon and not worth the tinfoil for a hat.

Six more pardon days left for Bush

No pardon. Our poli’s are beholden to the leftist anti-US machine.

If you believe that Davila, while running away at full speed, took the time to turn around and threaten Ramos and Compean with a gun, then you’re saying that he’s a suicidal lunatic.

RBMN on January 15, 2009 at 12:27 AM

He’s a drug trafficker. I think it’s safe to say he’s not exactly a rational, clear thinking individual.

As such, you’re merely arguing what you wouldn’t do. I assume you wouldn’t traffic in drugs either, but that didn’t stop Davila from doing it.

If you believe that Davila, while running away at full speed, took the time to turn around and threaten Ramos and Compean with a gun, then you’re saying that he’s a suicidal lunatic.

RBMN on January 15, 2009 at 12:27 AM

If you are saying that Ramos and Compean intended to have an unarmed corpse on their hands, then you are saying that these two family men both simultaneously decided they wanted to go to jail for the rest of their lives.

When Compean started firing his 14 shots, Ramos was in the ditch. Ramos ran up and out of the ditch to the scene of the shooting where he could only expect that a gunfight was under way and an agent was being shot at. There has to be a hundred percent certainty in his mind that someone has a gun because he wouldn’t assume that Compean was shooting that many rounds for any other reason. Ramos finally gets to the levee, sees Compean on the ground and with his gun already drawn, fires once at the fleeing felon.

Compean likely tells Ramos to hold his fire at this point. Compean had been firing warning shots to make the felon stop running and surrender. Davila testified that he never stopped running because he knew the agent wasn’t trying to hit him.

They couldn’t report this incident. The agent who fired the only round that hit the target was 100% innocent and a hero for risking his life to come to the aid of a fellow agent who he could only believe was in a gunfight.

GT on January 14, 2009 at 8:06 PM

Perhaps I missed it but did you acknowledge that there is still sealed testimony from the Ramos and Compean case?

Rather than look for the black helicopters of conspiracy regarding the DOJ: look at the facts.

Fact: Gary Brugman…a man whom I know…was deservedly prosecuted for his offense. Gone are the days in the Border Patrol when you can go up to anyone and kick them in the back just because they ran from you and then got caught. It is not tolerated. We are professionals and should treat those under our care as such. Heres a fact: Illegal Aliens run when approached by BP. BP Agents are not in the “kicking in the back when your are sitting defenseless after you got caught” business. Let not the fact that fellow Border Patrol Agents gave statements AGAINST him be foreign to you.

Fact: Gilmer Hernandez shot at a vehicle that was fleeing from him. In doing so he shot a woman in the mouth. Despite what you see in the movies, LEOS should not, except under the most dire, life or death scenarios, ever shoot at a moving vehicle. Ever. I know this as a Federally trained Firearms Officer. The scenario that he was in was far, far from exceptional, even by his own testimony…

Gilmer took the deal, was sentenced to ONE YEAR. If anything this incident should prove my point regarding the advantages of taking a plea when offered…

The fact is that we as LEO’s are held to a higher standard. There is a reason why government entities spend hundreds of thousands in training. Yes, mistakes will happen. God knows Ive committed my share…and will CONTINUE to make. But when it involves the intentionally criminal, reckless or criminally negligent use of force…yes…there are consequences…If anything these men serve as poster children to the rest of federal LEO’s and guarantee you, as a citizen, that you will have a professional guarding your borders and taking a turn on the wall.

“In their own testimony they admit that they didn’t follow regulations”

Correct they didn’t file a written report (follow regulations) to their supervisor, who was at the seen of the shooting, picking up brass, informing said supervisor that a shooting had occurred.

What they were found guilty of was not (follow regulations) filing a written report.
Because a gun was involved the mandatory sentence was 10 years.

Folly.

They should have been fired, period, for firing… so inefficiently.

Pardons are in order for this entire travesty.

HornetSting on January 14, 2009 at 2:45 PM

Irrelevant. If law enforcement officers won’t follow departmental regulations, then they need to go work at another job. What you are doing is making an excuse for officers sworn to uphold the law to refuse to do their sworn duty and take matters into their own hands.

Not a good idea and hardly worthy of law & order conservatism.

****

The details of the immunity agreement. The entire Blanchette testimony in Volume 14. Davila’s criminal history.

They had an excuse for some of the material that was sealed from public view when the transcripts were released because they were conveniently dragging out the all-time longest investigation of a routine narcotics bust. That case has been prosecuted now though so there is no excuse for these details still being sealed.

Buddahpundit on January 14, 2009 at 4:28 PM

First of all, person’s criminal history doesn’t give Law Enforcement Officers the right to commit a cover-up. Plain and simple. They admitted under oath that they didn’t secure the scene as required. The admitted under oath that they hid the shells. They admitted under oath that they didn’t report the shooting to their supervisors for 29 days.

The immunity agreement doesn’t taint Compean’s own damning testimony in Vol. 14, pages 150 through 176.

Lets not forget that the day before the shooting, both Ramos and Compean had firearms training that included instructions that they must secure the area and report within one hour of them discharging their service weapon to their supervisor. In their own testimony they admit that they didn’t follow regulations. You’ve got Compean saying that he didn’t follow regulations because he wouldn’t be believed. Nevermind the fact that Ramos was there and could corroborate this story and in every case the agent gets cleared.

As to anything being sealed, you’ve got a sealed hearing but no redacted testimony as you claimed earlier. The problem is that sealed hearing has no bearing on Compean’s own testimony that he 1)didn’t secure the area as required, 2)picked up and disposed of bullet casings, and 3) failed to report the shooting and admitted to not reporting it.

******

I know what the trial transcript says..but I am positive I read somewhere that the supervisers knew and basically told the agents don’t worry about it…no harm, no foul…How could the supervisors NOT know…you know supervision?

RedLizard64 on January 14, 2009 at 4:47 PM

Rather than just supposing, why not read Compean’s testimony in Vol. 14 pages 158-178. While you’re reading it, why not show us in the transcripts where a Supervisor says he knew shots had been fired. Lets not assume that he must have known. If you read Compean’s testimony in the pages I’ve given you, it is Compean saying that the Supervisor was asking if Compean had been “assaulted” and nothing else.

What you’re doing is repeating Defense’s closing arguments as shown in Vol. 15, pages 76-79 and his attempt to create doubt in spite of Ramos’ and Compean’s own testimony.

Assuming that the Supervisor must have know still isn’t the same as making an oral report to the Supervisor within 1 hour as required. In fact, Ramos and Compean admitted not telling anyone about it for 29 days.

*******

RedLizard64 on January 14, 2009 at 4:58 PM

Irrelevant. Neither Ramos nor Compean said that the reason why they didn’t report the weapons discharge was because some Cartel would put a price on their head. Again, go back to Compean’s testimony in Vol. 14, pages 175-175. It puts a pretty big hole in your theory.

Compean and Ramos have been used by anti-illegal immigration groups to champion their cause. I got news for you…Right Cause…wrong figureheads…These two BP Agents screwed up, and yes, they belong in prison for what they did. Mayboe not 10 years, but prison nonetheless for lying about the incident, then covering it up…

Pardons are for those who have either served their time or to those who have come completely clean with their involvement in the crime and thereafter throw themselves on the mercy of the President to EARN a pardon.

And b4 I catch crap: I am a current Federal Law enforcement officer (12 years experience), firearms and defensive tactics instructor, former Border Patrol, so yes, I believe that I have some background from where to speak on this issue…unlike most on this thread.

CapitalistPig on January 14, 2009 at 3:53 PM

Then hopefully, with your background, you can at least see how Sutton (intentionally and with malice) misapplied the law about using a firearm to commit a crime in order to get long sentences against these two.

I’m not one of those that is going to claim these guys are heroes, and the one that missed 14 times (14 freakin’ times) certainly doesn’t inspire confidence in his competence. And I have no problem with anyone who says they should never work as law enforcement officers again. They screwed up.

But was their collective screw-up proportionate to 11 and 12 year prison sentences? Was it appropriate to use a law that was designed to be used against criminals to be applied against law enforcement officers that were required to carry a gun in their duties? I think not. In a just world, these guys probably would have just been fired, and maybe did a year in jail, max.

Furthermore, these guys weren’t the first case of the feds over zealously prosecuting law enforcement officials for attempting to defend our borders. A former border patrol agent named Gary Brugman was prosecuted – by Sutton – for an altercation with an illegal alien where the illegal sustained no injuries. Gilmer Hernandez was prosecuted – by Sutton – despite the fact that he covered nothing up and that his superiors recommended no disciplinary action.

Once may be a coincidence, but three times is a trend. It’s not a stretch to believe Sutton, working in a DOJ under the administration of the most pro-illegal immigrant president in our history was trying to send a message to border area law enforcement at large to not do their jobs, to turn their heads, because any mistake made can and will be turned into a prosecutable offense. This was prosecutorial intimidation of law enforcement in support of an open border policy, and nothing more.

Just be thankful you didn’t make any mistakes during your time as a border patrol agent, because rest assured if you did, Johnny Sutton would have tried to put you in prison right along with Ramos, Compean, Hernandez, and others.

In order to get a Pardon or Clemency, someone needs to have committee or be charged with some kinda crime.

REAL charges, as in an actually court case.

Pathetic, Spineless, Gutless, Gutter Snipes don’t count.

Its been an amazing 8 years. The first “Impeach Bush” petition was started on January 18 2001 (Yes 3 days BEFORE Bush took office!)

http://www.uexpress.com/tedrall/?uc_full_date=20010118
IMPEACH BUSH

By Ted Rall | Jan 18, 2001 | 788 words, 0 images

Let the Long National Nightmare Begin Anew!

NEW YORK — It’s not just Clinton — the vast majority of Americans believe that Bush lost the 2000 election. Democrats and other garden-variety malcontents have already entered into a tacit agreement to consider W. the leader of a coup rather than a legitimately elected president. Democratic congressmen will fight tooth and nail to block every Bush appointee and every Bush bill they can. Rancor, bitterness and gridlock promise to rule Washington for the next four years, causing untold millions more American citizens to view their government and their political system with apathetic disgust

GT on January 14, 2009 at 2:38 PM

Maybe you could do use a favor and psot a link to how many reports invlving a chase, drug, or firearms discharge have been filed by those 9000+ plus other guys…I don’t know put I’d put even money that it doesn’t happen too often because instead of inforcing immigration laws they are enforcing presidential policy that runs 180 degrees contrary to LAW…as others have rested their cases on.

thirteen28 on January 14, 2009 at 1:12 PM

Well then GWB will go down in history as the antagonist…His well-to-do life style has insulated him from what we have to face in the streets. I still admire the amn on many accounts but he needs a good dose of his own medicine (I do not wish ill on him or anyone) but, I fuigure that if he was in a car wreck and had to spend three months in the hospital after being hit by a drunl illegal alien…he “might” see things differently.

flyfisher on January 14, 2009 at 11:14 AM

Ditto

I know what the trial transcript says..but I am positive I read somewhere that the supervisers knew and basically told the agents don’t worry about it…no harm, no foul…How could the supervisors NOT know…you know supervision? When I was in the military you were taught not to be the senior man with a secret…everyone knew and a consensus of weather or not a policy was violated came out of it…but in any case the senior guys were always fired for things so high-profile…how can our system be so SCREWED up that the supervisor have no responsibility? We have the same thing of Marines being sent to Court Marshall because they were following orders of the President and their chain of command just like they swore to do…except for aggregious departure from rules the senior guys should be held accountable first…analogy…Everyone knows not to dump hazardous materials down the drain. The leadership proves they trained the person in the proper methods and practices and that a policy climate mitigated against the rebellious action, the LONE military person took in dumping the stuff…now you can go after the individual…But if I am not mistaken Navy policy is …if a guy does that and goes to the brig the commanding officer is still liable for fines!

- The Cat

And if he has to put names on them, will he have to use their real ones or any of their aliases?

- The Cat

As for the ballistic reports, it was stupid of Ramos to agree before trial that the bullet in question came from his gun.

GT on January 14, 2009 at 3:42 PM

The details of the immunity agreement. The entire Blanchette testimony in Volume 14. Davila’s criminal history.

They had an excuse for some of the material that was sealed from public view when the transcripts were released because they were conveniently dragging out the all-time longest investigation of a routine narcotics bust. That case has been prosecuted now though so there is no excuse for these details still being sealed.

These two men deserve a Nations thanks, not prison.

What they deserve is the shame that comes when you disgrace the uniform.