Video: Wives of Ramos and Compean rejoice at commutation
posted at 7:27 pm on January 19, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Join in if you like, but I still remember Andy McCarthy’s excellent, ballsy piece for NRO two years ago. The length of the sentence was debatable, he conceded, but the fact that they deserved prison isn’t:
Compean and Ramos are bad guys. Once Aldrete-Davila was down from Ramos’s shot to the backside, they decided, for a second time, not to grab him so he could face justice for his crimes. As they well knew, an arrest at that point — after 15 shots at a fleeing, unarmed man who had tried to surrender — would have shone a spotlight on their performance. So instead, they exacerbated the already shameful display.
Instead of arresting the wounded smuggler, they put their guns away and left him behind. But not before trying to conceal the improper discharge of their firearms. Compean picked up and hid his shell-casings rather than leaving the scene intact for investigators. Both agents filed false reports, failing to record the firing of their weapons though they were well aware of regulations requiring that they do so. Because the “heroes” put covering their tracks ahead of doing their duty, Aldrete-Davila was eventually able to limp off to a waiting car and escape into Mexico.
Exit question: What does Beck mean at the end about how much of the road Bush has repaired here?
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:
If ever there was a pardon that was worthy,
this certainly is the one!
So excellent,if I do say!!!!
And,again,thank-you President bush!
canopfor on January 19, 2009 at 7:32 PM
It’s about time. Why did this guy wait to do the right thing?
Charles Martel on January 19, 2009 at 7:32 PM
Should have been a full pardon.
KSgop on January 19, 2009 at 7:33 PM
Yep, McCarthy’s reporting on this changed my mind about them.
Did they deserve 10 years? No. But they’re not heroes and they’re just not the type of people we want in law enforcement.
And yes, some of the government’s behavior was bad too.
SteveMG on January 19, 2009 at 7:34 PM
God bless those families.
sondiehl on January 19, 2009 at 7:38 PM
I am very happy for the Ramos and Compean families, but this commutation was too little, too late.
progressoverpeace on January 19, 2009 at 7:38 PM
If the house was ransacked and dogs beaten,
ummmmmmmmm,is it some kind of message,
and what individual,or group,or political
party,are trying to convey,or is it just
coincidental?
canopfor on January 19, 2009 at 7:39 PM
I’m glad they’re going home. I know how hard it is to raise a young child to know a parent that isn’t there, and those kids need their fathers back. Yes, they broke the law, but personally, I feel that they did the right thing ultimately. I don’t mourn the loss of an illegal alien drug smuggler, and these agents repaid their debt to society for evidence tampering.
I watched this earlier, and I’m not sure what Beck meant either. I’m new to him, so I can’t tell yet what he means by some of the things he says.
Anna on January 19, 2009 at 7:39 PM
I think there are rules about a full pardon – something about 5 yrs from conviction or something – but I am happy if someone can tell me I am wrong.
HawaiiLwyr on January 19, 2009 at 7:41 PM
I hope they catch the bastard(s) that did that. With the gas filling the house, that could have ended very badly. It’s cowardly to mess with a family like that.
Anna on January 19, 2009 at 7:42 PM
They never should have gone to jail. Sorry I don’t buy the account of the Drug Smuggler nor do I care that he was shot while fleeing the Border Patrol Agents.
He obviously broke the law and there is a lot more that is fishy about the smuggler than there is about the two border patrol agents.
The smuggler should have been told to screw off and if the border patrol agents had done anything wrong at most they should have received a slap on the wrist.
theguardianii on January 19, 2009 at 7:43 PM
Roger that SteveMcG…good post. FWIW, I find Beck to be sort of an idiot.
dakine on January 19, 2009 at 7:43 PM
Hear, hear!
progressoverpeace on January 19, 2009 at 7:44 PM
There are a lot of people seated in Congress and about to be installed in Obama’s cabinet that have and are still carrying out crimes worse that what was committed by these two patriots.
I am listening on the radio right now to the son of an officer killed by the Clinton’s pals at FALN. Enough said.
JonRoss on January 19, 2009 at 7:45 PM
I’m surprised Allah wasn’t all over the Palin interview that appeared right before this.
Jim62sch on January 19, 2009 at 7:46 PM
I don’t care…any drug smuggler only deserves one bullet, to the head. No more, no less…if he got more than one big f’in whoop.
Rogue on January 19, 2009 at 7:47 PM
I was expecting that too. I like what Beck had to say in the lead-up to the interview about ordinary people.
Anna on January 19, 2009 at 7:48 PM
this case ceased being about the facts and instead became a righty/border security litmus test a looooong time ago …
that said, a pardon would still be in order imo, but this is prolly the next best available outcome …
Buckaroo on January 19, 2009 at 7:48 PM
I’m happy for them all. The commutation of their sentence was the least of what they deserved. Thank you Mr. President.
ORrighty on January 19, 2009 at 7:49 PM
I was going to watch the Palin interview today, but I forgot. I hope video turns up somewhere.
Mark1971 on January 19, 2009 at 7:49 PM
He was about to cry when talking about his special-needs son. I was feeling for him until he called the Guv a “hot grandma” to her face. Ugh.
Jim62sch on January 19, 2009 at 7:50 PM
exit answer — W took away one of the biggest clubs the close the borders crowd CONSTANTLY uses against him [lookin' at you, mm], so they have one less very significant thing to bitch about …
Buckaroo on January 19, 2009 at 7:50 PM
Mark1971, video of the Palin interview here.
Jim62sch on January 19, 2009 at 7:51 PM
The Constitution doesn’t specify any time limits:
KSgop on January 19, 2009 at 7:51 PM
SteveMG on January 19, 2009 at 7:34 PM
Absolutely agree 100%. President Bush did the right thing, at the right time. But all this hysterical “it’s not enough” is coming from some very uninformed people.
califcon on January 19, 2009 at 7:51 PM
either my recent comment was eaten or the idiotic net nanny monitor got set off — if so i’ll frakking edit it this time round –
“exit answer — W took away one of the biggest clubs the close the borders crowd CONSTANTLY uses against him [lookin' at you, mm], so they have one less very significant thing to [CRY] about …”
Buckaroo on January 19, 2009 at 7:52 PM
Eh, that part didn’t bother me that much, because I agree. But yeah, I got a little weepy myself too.
Anna on January 19, 2009 at 7:53 PM
Thanks
Mark1971 on January 19, 2009 at 7:54 PM
But the nation’s borders involve much more than mere “law enforcement”, since, if a national border is run correctly, there is never any real need to enforce our laws, as those not allowed to cross are kept out of our country. That’s why national borders need to be militarized, so that people don’t confuse them with less significant borders, like those between our states or the double yellow line on a road.
progressoverpeace on January 19, 2009 at 7:56 PM
There’s a lot of misinformation floating around. I wouldn’t want to do these guy’s jobs. I don’t think they are bad guys, either. I am glad President Bush commuted their sentences. Pretty ignorant to call these two border agents bad guys and then write as if this “would be smuggler” was just a poor semi-innocent fool attacked by the rabid agents. All far from the truth.
Glynn on January 19, 2009 at 7:58 PM
Sure glad our government believed a fleeing illegal alien drug smuggler over our own agents (how do we know he wasn’t really shot in the ass by a hopped-up Mexican junkie who he burned in a dope deal when he got back home, and then decided to play the Yankee suckers for fools by blaming it on Compean and Ramos and hoping for a money payout from the naive gringos?) and that it took Bush two years to figure out that it was an absurd travesty.
But, better late than too late.
profitsbeard on January 19, 2009 at 7:58 PM
I never did look into to this too thoroughly so I don’t know what actually happened. If what I read above is true. policing the ammo, false police report, I think they should be punished. I also heard that the governments conduct was rather dishonest as well.
It looks like the President did just the right thing.
Vince on January 19, 2009 at 8:02 PM
Punctuation sucks but you get the point.
Vince on January 19, 2009 at 8:02 PM
If it were Clinton’s Border Patrol that did this, and then he pardoned the agents or commuted the sentences, would our conservative board members still scream with delight? Given Ruby Ridge, Koresh, Gonzalez? I have mixed feelings about this commutation, but ultimately, I think reducing the sentence to time served is appropriate here. They were better than the FALN, who got pardoned, if that’s saying much to honor them.
eaglewingz08 on January 19, 2009 at 8:03 PM
Someone posted earlier that the bullet was removed from the guy’s butt by a US Army doctor and subsequently matched to either Ramos or Compean’s gun.
califcon on January 19, 2009 at 8:06 PM
e e cummings thinks you did great on that account
progressoverpeace on January 19, 2009 at 8:07 PM
may i feel said he
i’ll squeal said she
always liked good ol e e
Vince on January 19, 2009 at 8:11 PM
I’d like to see the results of the ballistic tests and transcripts of the trial; I have heard so much conflicting ‘evidence’ in this case that I have no idea what the truth of this case is. “Someone posted earlier” just isn’t enough for me.
Shay on January 19, 2009 at 8:13 PM
Glen Beck:
———-
“Mr.President I know your not watching this show,but
thankyou,this is a story that has been so important
to so many of us,and for you to do this in the end
well all we asked was please show some heart on this
we disagree on what happened here,but you showed heart
and I can’t tell you how much,how much of the road you
have repaired for so many who are on the right and really
quite honestly looking at the people who have fought for
this it appears on the left as well.”
——————————————————–
——————————————————–
Exit; To restore faith,in President Bush,that some
Republicans have lost?
Or,so-called repairing of the Republican Party,
with American Mexican’s?
canopfor on January 19, 2009 at 8:16 PM
The cover up always gets you, if they had arrested the guy and not tried to cover it up they would have gotten the wrist slap but they didn’t. Did the sentence fit the crime? No and I am glad Bush commuted it.
goat on January 19, 2009 at 8:18 PM
theguardianii on January 19, 2009 at 7:43 PM
I’d recommend reading Ramos’ and Compean’s own testimony. They admit to a cover-up and stated the reason why.
They deserved to be arrested, tried, convicted and imprisoned. The drug-runner’s testimony is irrelevant and frankly unnecessary for a conviction. R & C’s own testimony convicted them.
Their #1 job was to uphold the law, not ignore when it becomes inconvenient. If you truly believe the shooting was justified and lawful, you don’t try to cover it up. Its just that simple.
GT on January 19, 2009 at 8:20 PM
Shay on January 19, 2009 at 8:13 PM
The ballistics test was inconclusive. However, before the trial began Ramos stated that the bullet was his.
As for the trial transcripts, you can find them here.
GT on January 19, 2009 at 8:23 PM
I hope they catch the bastard(s).
Anna on Jan 19,2009 at 7:42PM.
Anna: Amen on that,Anna:)
canopfor on January 19, 2009 at 8:25 PM
McCarthy is either a shameless liar or Sutton fed him with misinformation. The fleeing narcotics trafficker admitted on the witness stand that he never stopped until he was at the river’s edge, and he got across the river himself and climbed the Mexican side of the levee so he wasn’t down for long and “left to die”, as I think Sutton put it in his “fact sheet”.
McCarthy is insisting that the agents should have ran into Mexico to drag his ass back to the US. The trafficker testified that the cartel was watching the whole thing on the other side of the river so apparently, according to McCarthy, the agents were negligent in not getting into a gunfight with the Mexican drug cartel while in Mexico or neutral territory.
Buddahpundit on January 19, 2009 at 8:29 PM
The only thing I hold against these two guys is they only shot him once. And would like to see some of you stand the line on our Southern border, especially in the dark.
jed58 on January 19, 2009 at 8:55 PM
jed58:
Funny, cuz most who do stand on that line (at night. too) would be the first to say that these two clowns screwed up and in doing so gave ALL cops a bad name.
CapitalistPig on January 19, 2009 at 9:00 PM
Thank you. Got some reading to do…
Shay on January 19, 2009 at 9:01 PM
Bush didnt want to offend the mexicans
the real reason is he knows if he does
the mexican president will get mad and then tell
his citizens to flood the border..
So President bush tried to walk the middle road.
And Failed..
So he is trying to at least make part of it right..
But although i liked him..
He didnt do what was necessarry
I would have taken that drug dealer and Had him placed in a pit right on the border
and dumped the drugs on top of him
and set it on fire..
jcila on January 19, 2009 at 9:03 PM
Sorry, but JD Hayworth spent more time reviewing the case than anyone and I side with him. It was a travesty they were put on trial.
The only way to get the guy after they fired was to cross the border into Mexico, a bigger no no.
The wound also indicated he was turned around as he ran away, consistent with someone pointing a gun as they are fleeing.
They weren’t charged with covering up the shooting, the 3 other agents were and they were given immunity to testify against these two. In other words, they sold out two other brothers to escape jail.
Also, there is testimony from other drug runners that helped Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila confirming that he always carried a gun when he ran million dollar loads of drugs into the US.
This isn’t even getting into the issue that there are jurors, who, in sworn testimony stated that they were bullied into voting guilty.
They never admitted to that. They admitted to not following procedures at Richards (their Sup) pressure. Of course, Richard denies this, but he has a reason to deny it. As long as he continues to deny it, he keeps his immunity.
Agent Mendez stated that Richards saw the cuts on Compean’s face, but Richards said he never did. Someone is lying, but guess what? It wasn’t investigated. Want to know why it wasn’t investigated? Because they were given immunity (damn, that funny little word keeps re-appearing). Don’t want your star witnesses to look bad.
I’m still waiting for someone to explain why these guys were involved in 100+ busts and never once shot someone, yet people try to make it out that these were rogue agents. Don’t buy it.
Tim Burton on January 19, 2009 at 9:21 PM
From the DoJ website concerning the Federal Pardon Process.
3. Five-year waiting period required
Under the Department’s rules governing petitions for executive clemency, 28 C.F.R. §§ 1.1 et seq., a minimum waiting period of five years after completion of sentence is required before anyone convicted of a federal offense becomes eligible to apply for a presidential pardon. The waiting period, which is designed to afford the petitioner a reasonable period of time in which to demonstrate an ability to lead a responsible, productive and law-abiding life, begins on the date of the petitioner’s release from confinement. Alternatively, if the conviction resulted in a sentence other than a term of imprisonment, such as probation or a fine, the waiting period begins on the date of sentencing. In addition, the petitioner should have satisfied the penalty imposed, including all probation, parole, or supervised release. Moreover, the waiting period begins upon release from confinement for your most recent c onviction, whether or not this is the offense for which pardon is sought. You may make a written request for a waiver of this requirement. However, waiver of any portion of the waiting period is rarely granted and then only in the most exceptional circumstances. In order to request a waiver, you must complete the pardon application form and submit it with a cover letter explaining why you believe the waiting period should be waived in your case.
Texas Gal on January 19, 2009 at 9:22 PM
Have you read the ballistics report? Please provide a link for it. I’ve never seen it.
But I have seen this from an affidavit sworn to by a DHS agent and signed by a federal judge. It is from the arrest warrant for the border agents:
Ballistic testing confirms a government issued weapon
belonging to U.S. Border Patrol Agent Ignacio Nacho Ramos, a 96D Beretta 40 caliber
automatic pistol , serial number BER067069M, fired a bullet (a 40 caliber Smith & Wesson
jacketed hollow-point) which hit the victim in the left buttocks as he attempted to flee to Mexico
Would you admit that this was a lie if, as you say, the ballistics test was inconclusive? I’ve noticed that the pro-smuggler types usually can’t admit obvious things when it’s right in front of their eyes, but maybe you will surprise me.
Buddahpundit on January 19, 2009 at 9:32 PM
Thank you Mr. President. You did the right thing. Only wish you had done it sooner. Could have relieved some of the anxiety of the family even if the sentence was only commuted after 3/20/09.
BTW why 3/20/09?
Christian Conservative on January 19, 2009 at 9:35 PM
I don’t think they should have received a full pardon. I don’t care if they shot the drug running bastard, that should be the law, not against the law, but they tried to cover up the incident. That deserves some jail time. The commutation is perfect.
Darth Executor on January 19, 2009 at 9:39 PM
That is the meaning I initially got when Beck said what he did.
“To restore some faith, in President Bush, that I had lost.”
It was like saying “OK my conservative right, here is one last bone in order for you to have a good lasting memory.”
livermush on January 19, 2009 at 9:54 PM
Tim Burton:
Seems like a lot of people involved to screw these two guys, huh? From Johnny Sutton to the jurors, to their co-workers….heck, i bet there were black helicopters up in the sky when these two started to assist in their own demise by throwing their casings into the river after the shooting, then lying about it— Ohh…you never mentioned that–
As I have written, if the shooting was so legit, why not report it as required? One of the two had been previously involved in a shooting and he wasn’t “railroaded” then.. If anything, he should have been more aware of the policy regarding the use of deadly force than most PAs.
The fact is, they lied. All we have as cops is our integrity. When its just you and some doper in the desert, with no-one around for MILES…that badge is all you have that separates you from the dirtbags trying to smuggle dope. Without your integrity…all you have is two guys in the desert, nothing more.
CapitalistPig on January 19, 2009 at 10:00 PM
That limit only applies to applications for pardons. The President can pardon anyone he wants to, whenever he wants to, regardless of if they specifically applied yet or not.
President Ford pardoned President Nixon before he was even tried, let alone convicted.
KSgop on January 19, 2009 at 10:02 PM
It also says there is a waiver process. Today as I was listening some discussion about this it was stated that Clinton’s pardon of Mark Rich has tainted the process to the point that Presidents are now less likely to use the waiver process. Clinton overreached his authority in pardoning a guy who had absconded and was #2 on the FBI Most Wanted List.
I think that probably was the case with Bush. He went by the books on it and commuted their sentence. And the point is that there is a process.
I remember when Ford gave his speech about his decision to pardon Nixon and he was very clear that he did so because he felt it was time for the country to begin the healing process. He was right. I think Bush is right about this one too.
Texas Gal on January 19, 2009 at 10:18 PM
That isn’t the Constitution. Constitution has no limits on Pardons or such.
Tim Burton on January 19, 2009 at 10:21 PM
The Constitution grants the authority the Depart of Justice outlines the process.
2. Federal convictions only
Under the Constitution, only federal criminal convictions, such as those obtained in the United States District Courts, may be pardoned by the President. In addition, the President’s pardon power extends to convictions obtained in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and military court-martial proceedings. However, the President cannot pardon a state criminal offense. Accordingly, if you are seeking clemency for a state criminal conviction, you should not complete and submit this petition. Instead, you should contact the Governor or other appropriate authorities of the state where you reside or where the conviction occurred (such as the state board of pardons and paroles) to determine whether any relief is available to you under state law. If you have a federal conviction, information about the conviction may be obtained from the clerk of the federal court where you were convicted.
Texas Gal on January 19, 2009 at 10:38 PM
The agents were at the Rio Grande River. There were Mexican narcotics cartel members watching the entire thing, according to your trafficker’s testimony.
If they had shot him dead, they would have had to answer for it and all the evidence, or lack of evidence, would have been right there and gathered.
There were several agents at the scene within minutes. Ramos was the agent who called out for all available patrol to support the chase several minutes before the shooting occurred.
It’s strange that you would try to claim that the agents were confronting your trafficker in the middle of the desert where they could kill and bury him without anyone ever knowing what happened ( no-one around for MILES!!! ). I wonder why you would go to such extremes to create a false, and easily disprovable, scenario around this incident.
Buddahpundit on January 19, 2009 at 11:03 PM
From the beginning there has been something very wrong with this whole situation. The fact is we don’t control or even own the boarder, the drug smugglers do. I have lived in Arizona all my life and truly respect and appreciate what the boarder patrol does. This was either a cover up, a payoff or a payback by someone much higher than two boarder patrol agents. This was a message sent to all boarder patrol agents that if they try to stop the flow of drugs into this country just how high up the drug cartel can go. Do you think the ransacking of the boarder patrol agents home was done by a burglar or vigilantes’..? It was a message that they can touch their families anytime they want. Yah Compean and Ramos screwed up but there is more to all this that isnt being told.
Badbrucskie on January 19, 2009 at 11:13 PM
No not that many.
-Sutton is the root of it. He gave immunity to his co-workers which would give them reason to want to lie. It isn’t like it is unheard of for prosecutors to lie, after all, have you never heard of Nifong? That isn’t the only example of prosecutorial abuse.
It also isn’t like Sutton has never lied or misrepresented the truth.
-The jurors weren’t in it to screw them.
1. Courts of Law aren’t there to reveal the full truth. The only truth the jurors know is what the court allowed them to know.
2. There are jurors who under oath swore that they were pressured into voting guilty. Granted, they were stupid for not knowing that they can stand up and say know and the law can’t do crap, but after all, if 52% of Americans think Obama is a good American, why can we think they understand the Jury System.
-Their co-workers had every motivation to lie. If they lie and stick to the story that the government wanted, they get immunity. Not a bad deal, just like the drug dealer got immunity for running drugs that time in exchange of saying what the government wanted.
About them tossing the bullets. That isn’t the big of deal. If Richards (their Supervisor) said not to worry about it, would you worry about hauling them back in? If I was trying to cover something up, I’d have actually hauled them back in and dumped them away from the scene.
We went over this.
Richards, their supervisor, basically called no harm no foul. He said, “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.”
So basically, he told them to not worry about it. Why fill out a report that is going to do nothing but waste everyone’s time.
Reminds me of a time a illegal alien started threatening me on the road. His car had no license plate and when I called 911 to get help on my cell phone he managed to lose me in traffic. When the operator told me to meet with the police I did. When they asked if I wanted to file a report they said, “We can fill out a report if you’d like, but really the chances are nil we will ever find this guy. It’ll just cause us paperwork and since there was no physical harm, we’d just leave it as is.”
Basically, since it was a minor issue with nothing to go on, they just decided it was better to drop it than cause the extra paperwork.
No, they didn’t lie. If they lied, they would have also had perjury added to the list of charges. It didn’t come up, because all they had to go on that these officers “lied” was 2 agents who were given full immunity to turn on those two agents and one drug dealer who was brandishing a weapon as he fled to Mexico.
Tit for Tat, if we can’t allow testimony into court that he had a weapon, because it was one officers word against a drug dealer, then we shouldn’t have allowed the 2 agent’s testimony for the sake that they received immunity.
And talking about integrity, seems Sutton is the one who lacks it. If he was full of integrity he would not have characterized the wound as “shot in the back” when it was not shot in the back. It was a twisted side wound in the butt, normal for someone fleeing and pointing something in the direction from which he is fleeing.
Why, would Sutton show a lack of integrity to not acknowledge BP memo stating that 9 officers in total aided in the destruction of evident?
Why did Sutton lie about how he came about Davila’s name? See point 9.
Why did Sutton lack integrity when he complained that there was no evidence linking Davila to the van when there was finger prints?
Seems lack of integrity is on the side of the Prosecutor, those are the only hard evidential lies that are in this case. Everything else is circumstantial.
Tim Burton on January 19, 2009 at 11:39 PM
No not that many.
-Sutton is the root of it. He gave immunity to his co-workers which would give them reason to want to lie. It isn’t like it is unheard of for prosecutors to lie, after all, have you never heard of Nifong? That isn’t the only example of prosecutorial abuse.
It also isn’t like Sutton has never lied or misrepresented the truth.
-The jurors weren’t in it to screw them.
1. Courts of Law aren’t there to reveal the full truth. The only truth the jurors know is what the court allowed them to know.
2. There are jurors who under oath swore that they were pressured into voting guilty. Granted, they were stupid for not knowing that they can stand up and say know and the law can’t do crap, but after all, if 52% of Americans think Obama is a good American, why can we think they understand the Jury System.
-Their co-workers had every motivation to lie. If they lie and stick to the story that the government wanted, they get immunity. Not a bad deal, just like the drug dealer got immunity for running drugs that time in exchange of saying what the government wanted.
About them tossing the bullets. That isn’t the big of deal. If Richards (their Supervisor) said not to worry about it, would you worry about hauling them back in? If I was trying to cover something up, I’d have actually hauled them back in and dumped them away from the scene.
Tim Burton on January 19, 2009 at 11:40 PM
We went over this.
Richards, their supervisor, basically called no harm no foul. He said, “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.”
So basically, he told them to not worry about it. Why fill out a report that is going to do nothing but waste everyone’s time.
Reminds me of a time a illegal alien started threatening me on the road. His car had no license plate and when I called 911 to get help on my cell phone he managed to lose me in traffic. When the operator told me to meet with the police I did. When they asked if I wanted to file a report they said, “We can fill out a report if you’d like, but really the chances are nil we will ever find this guy. It’ll just cause us paperwork and since there was no physical harm, we’d just leave it as is.”
Basically, since it was a minor issue with nothing to go on, they just decided it was better to drop it than cause the extra paperwork.
No, they didn’t lie. If they lied, they would have also had perjury added to the list of charges. It didn’t come up, because all they had to go on that these officers “lied” was 2 agents who were given full immunity to turn on those two agents and one drug dealer who was brandishing a weapon as he fled to Mexico.
Tit for Tat, if we can’t allow testimony into court that he had a weapon, because it was one officers word against a drug dealer, then we shouldn’t have allowed the 2 agent’s testimony for the sake that they received immunity.
And talking about integrity, seems Sutton is the one who lacks it. If he was full of integrity he would not have characterized the wound as “shot in the back” when it was not shot in the back. It was a twisted side wound in the butt, normal for someone fleeing and pointing something in the direction from which he is fleeing.
Why, would Sutton show a lack of integrity to not acknowledge BP memo stating that 9 officers in total aided in the destruction of evident?
Why did Sutton lie about how he came about Davila’s name? See point 9.
Why did Sutton lack integrity when he complained that there was no evidence linking Davila to the van when there was finger prints?
Seems lack of integrity is on the side of the Prosecutor, those are the only hard evidential lies that are in this case. Everything else is circumstantial.
Tim Burton on January 19, 2009 at 11:40 PM
TimBurton:
Your comment is so filled with self-contradiction that i can only direct you to read this
The fact that, as you say:
You prove my point. A crime was committed. 9 Agents total knew about it, but only 2 were directly involved. The testimony of those other 7 was utilized against the two that lied, obfuscated, and otherwise claimed “now me’ while wrapping themselves in our flag and the anti-illegal immigration movement.
i live about 4 miles from the Fabens, TX BP Station, which is the station where these 2 originated from. For reasons which I wont go into here, I am familiar with BP operations around here. Ill fill you in on a secret that not many PA’s talk openly about: You see, when the dope crosses across the river from Mexico, it is almost always in large vans, trucks stolen from nearby El Paso, etc. Trucks loaded with dope is nothing rare. Once the dopers know that they have set off a sensor, they would drive right back to the area where they crossed, as…that is where the doper’s backup was…
Prior to the arrest of these two it was common to shoot at Dopers who were fleeing back into Mexico. Partly to scare them away from the load that they had crashed into the river, partly as payback, but almost always it was completely against BP Use of Force policy. It was,,…and to some extent it is, the Wild West around here.
The fact that PA’s did such things, against policy…was a dark stain for professionalism and integrity. Many, many things have been committed in the desert under the belief that”what happens on the river stays on the river” Some good, some not so good.
You may not want to hear it, but the Border Patrol is better off with these two serving as Poster Children for what could happen if you stray away from the rules. Dopers don’t have any rules…Law Enforcement in the UNited States does.
CapitalistPig on January 20, 2009 at 12:29 AM
Thanks for the follow-up, Tim Burton! IMHO your perspective was sorely needed on this topic.
RD on January 20, 2009 at 12:29 AM
“now me” above should read “not me”
CapitalistPig on January 20, 2009 at 12:32 AM
You may not want to hear it, but the Border Patrol is better off with these two serving as Poster Children for what could happen if you stray away from the rules. Dopers don’t have any rules…Law Enforcement in the UNited States does.
CapitalistPig on January 20, 2009 at 12:29 AM
So: dishonest and tendentious prosecution is okay simply because you agree with the *result*? Or the impact on the Border Patrol organization as a whole? I don’t get it.
I’m smelling a play at ‘fake but accurate’ here. Not your comments specifically, but those demonstrating incuriosity about what was hushed/purged from the court proceedings. Tell me I’m wrong here…
If some of the things Tim Burton is hinting at are true, hasn’t Johnny Sutton earned Poster-boy status of his own?
The larger question posed here: When is it justifiable for the authorities to perpetrate a fraud in the so-called common interest?
RD on January 20, 2009 at 12:53 AM
Yes.
Bush used this case until the last day as a poster boy case for the hispanic victimization bloc, which he cultivated throughout his presidency. He hung up the agents to dry and threw a bone on the last day by cutting the jail time but leaving the dagger in the back. The cartels won because the smuggler collected a ton of money and Bush never spoke out against drug smugglers from Mexico during the entire time. Bush shut his mouth on this just like he shut his mouth on abuses in China, or toxic exports from China.
Bush had no problem calling Minutemen ‘vigilantes’ which was unfair, but he had a big problem calling a Mexican drug smuggler a Mexican drug smuggler or a Mexican drug cartel a Mexican drug cartel.
By commuting the sentence but not the conviction he indicated there was no change of sentiment on the issues. This was tossing some political chump change to border state conservative politicans.
I want hard a– guards on the southern border and when dealing with car loads of drugs I don’t care if a few get shot in the rear or the head as long as the car is run into a ditch.
Bush pardonned every kind of moonshiner and embezzler, both pre-meditated crimes, but had no similar sympathies towards cops battling the cartels who use immigration as a cover
entagor on January 20, 2009 at 2:00 AM
Spot on dude!
And you have known them apart from Suttons monkey trial for how long? How do you know the smuggler “was down” were you there or are you going on hearsay? AS I understand he was running to a waiting vehicle…I wouldn’t have bet my life on wheter the occupants of such a vehicle might not be carrying automatic weapons which I would be ill-equipped to defend myself. Proof that he was unarmed…none but the testimony of a convicted drug smuggler..not usually carrying much weight in a trial unless he is rattin gout some Kingpin or something…he only testified so he wouldn’t end up in a stinking Federal Prison in Texas…he’d sau exactly waht the hell-bent prosecutor wanted him to say…because Sutton has some kind of vendetta man! And what about the supervisors that KNEW. Everyone always glosses over this like it wasn’t so…in the military the supervisor would be the first to go to trial. Except…we need “ahem” leadership to keep the reamining agents “kow-towed” so we can not effectively FIGHT this DAMN invasion! I think you (Allah might secretly be part of the Bush elite and you are only participating here in order to identify people for the next administration to lock up when they once again rally against AMNESTY for ILLEGAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Aliens…sorry had to get it off my chest , drinking green tea to calm the spirit…
RedLizard64 on January 20, 2009 at 2:28 AM
You’re living in fantasy land..no military or law enforcment follows the rules 100%..you do the best you can with what you have under the circumstances. IOh and I live on the border…how about you? I don’t know how many times people in the military almost got in trouble becaus eof some obscure outdated instruction because some higher up needed to covershis butt. Almost invariably they ended up not being able to pursue the guys in the trenches because leadership either failed to properly train or were properly held accountable for not enforcing the policy consistently!
RedLizard64 on January 20, 2009 at 2:49 AM
Makes you wonder how many ever read Andy McCarty’s op-ed. I missed it before this and wish I had not.
Sergeant Tim on January 20, 2009 at 3:42 AM
You make it sound like you don’t realize that McCarthy is full of crap on this issue. My post at 8:29 might clear up some of the Sutton puppet’s failings regarding this issue.
If McCarthy is as “ballsy” as Allahpundit claims he is, maybe he will mosey on over here and have it out on the issue. I suspect he’s hiding in his hidey-hole though.
Buddahpundit on January 20, 2009 at 4:33 AM
Seems to me there are too many restrictions on when an agent can use their weapon. Can we just have a border policy of shoot first and ask questions later and the onus is on the border violaters to prove they had a good reason to be out in the middle of the deasert? Then when drug dealers crossing the border illegaly are shot our agents don’t have to sneak around unnecessary beuraucracy.
cadams on January 20, 2009 at 6:23 AM
It needed to be done. It took too long to do it. I wish it was a pardon.
duggersd on January 20, 2009 at 8:47 AM
I am just very happy that he pardoned these two men, and didn’t pardon Illinois’ former scumbag bribe-taking Governor, George Ryan.
If Bush had pardoned Ryan and let him out of prison, I would have hit the proverbial ceiling.
But that didn’t happen. Instead two men who shouldn’t have gone to prison to begin with are going free, and Ryan will stay in prison to serve his full sentence, as he should.
pilamaye on January 20, 2009 at 10:50 AM
No, I don’t. You mis-state the facts. Nine other officers DID NOT think it was a crime, the SUPERVISOR basically said, “Forget it happened, it isn’t worth writing it up.”
They only said it was a crime and supported the prosecution when they were told, “If you side with the government, we will make sure nothing happens to you.”
That is a legal pay-off. That isn’t establishing a crime, but legalized bribery.
Whoopy do. You live by there. You know, I live in a border state, I have had my next door neighbor busted for being a coyote and the guy behind me for being a huge drug runner. Point is. It doesn’t matter where you live. Facts are the facts.
So since you are saying that the BP agents were randomly shooting at drug runners and it was “unwritten policy”?
If that is the case, and that is a big if, because I know people in the NG troops who were stationed on the border and they were complaining that when they went on patrol, they weren’t even given ammo.
1. If it was so common to shoot at drug runners, I’m sure some illegal alien rights group/journalists would have happily set up a blind and filmed away at agents randomly shooting.
2. If this so common, why didn’t the government go after the Supervisors who surely must have encouraged it? Why give the person who is most responsible (Richards) for “random shootings” full immunity? The prosecution surely wouldn’t give the Godfather immunity to get the conviction of a hitman.
Since it is the Wild West, why punish people trying to protect the citizens. Wyatt Earp wasn’t innocent by any stretch of the imagination. Another example is the Shootout at Campos. When there is an attack, the benefit of the doubt always needs to go to the law enforcement folks. Just like when there is an attack on your property, benefit of the doubt needs to go to the one defending the property.
Utter crap. They were professionals at all times. One time, they get railroaded and they’re bad? Don’t think so.
The fact is that Sutton has had a thing for sucking the c0ck of the Mexican Consulate in that region. When they ask, he obeys. The number one point against you is that Gilmer Hernandez was prosecuted by Sutton for a shooting that the TEXAS RANGERS STATED WAS A LEGAL SHOOTING. He reported it as required by law, yet he was prosecuted by Sutton. Go figure.
You need to quit living in a fantasy world idea that the government only prosecuted based on law and not on political expediency. Just look at Timothy Geithner and his lack of prosecution. Yet, these same IRS people will go after anyone else who made an honest mistake.
Tim Burton on January 20, 2009 at 11:29 AM
No, I don’t. You mis-state the facts. Nine other officers DID NOT think it was a crime, the SUPERVISOR basically said, “Forget it happened, it isn’t worth writing it up.”
They only said it was a crime and supported the prosecution when they were told, “If you side with the government, we will make sure nothing happens to you.”
That is a legal pay-off. That isn’t establishing a crime, but legalized bribery.
Whoopy do. You live by there. You know, I live in a border state, I have had my next door neighbor busted for being a coyote and the guy behind me for being a huge drug runner. Point is. It doesn’t matter where you live. Facts are the facts.
So since you are saying that the BP agents were randomly shooting at drug runners and it was “unwritten policy”?
cont…
Tim Burton on January 20, 2009 at 11:29 AM
If that is the case, and that is a big if, because I know people in the NG troops who were stationed on the border and they were complaining that when they went on patrol, they weren’t even given ammo.
1. If it was so common to shoot at drug runners, I’m sure some illegal alien rights group/journalists would have happily set up a blind and filmed away at agents randomly shooting.
2. If this so common, why didn’t the government go after the Supervisors who surely must have encouraged it? Why give the person who is most responsible (Richards) for “random shootings” full immunity? The prosecution surely wouldn’t give the Godfather immunity to get the conviction of a hitman.
Since it is the Wild West, why punish people trying to protect the citizens. Wyatt Earp wasn’t innocent by any stretch of the imagination. Another example is the Shootout at Campos. When there is an attack, the benefit of the doubt always needs to go to the law enforcement folks. Just like when there is an attack on your property, benefit of the doubt needs to go to the one defending the property.
Utter crap. They were professionals at all times. One time, they get railroaded and they’re bad? Don’t think so.
The fact is that Sutton has had a thing for sucking the c0ck of the Mexican Consulate in that region. When they ask, he obeys. The number one point against you is that Gilmer Hernandez was prosecuted by Sutton for a shooting that the TEXAS RANGERS STATED WAS A LEGAL SHOOTING. He reported it as required by law, yet he was prosecuted by Sutton. Go figure.
You need to quit living in a fantasy world idea that the government only prosecuted based on law and not on political expediency. Just look at Timothy Geithner and his lack of prosecution. Yet, these same IRS people will go after anyone else who made an honest mistake.
Tim Burton on January 20, 2009 at 11:30 AM
If that is the case, and that is a big if, because I know people in the NG troops who were stationed on the border and they were complaining that when they went on patrol, they weren’t even given ammo.
1. If it was so common to shoot at drug runners, I’m sure some illegal alien rights group/journalists would have happily set up a blind and filmed away at agents randomly shooting.
2. If this so common, why didn’t the government go after the Supervisors who surely must have encouraged it? Why give the person who is most responsible (Richards) for “random shootings” full immunity? The prosecution surely wouldn’t give the Godfather immunity to get the conviction of a hitman.
Since it is the Wild West, why punish people trying to protect the citizens. Wyatt Earp wasn’t innocent by any stretch of the imagination. Another example is the Shootout at Campos. When there is an attack, the benefit of the doubt always needs to go to the law enforcement folks. Just like when there is an attack on your property, benefit of the doubt needs to go to the one defending the property.
Tim Burton on January 20, 2009 at 11:31 AM
Utter crap. They were professionals at all times. One time, they get railroaded and they’re bad? Don’t think so.
The fact is that Sutton has had a thing for sucking the c0ck of the Mexican Consulate in that region. When they ask, he obeys. The number one point against you is that Gilmer Hernandez was prosecuted by Sutton for a shooting that the TEXAS RANGERS STATED WAS A LEGAL SHOOTING. He reported it as required by law, yet he was prosecuted by Sutton. Go figure.
You need to quit living in a fantasy world idea that the government only prosecuted based on law and not on political expediency. Just look at Timothy Geithner and his lack of prosecution. Yet, these same IRS people will go after anyone else who made an honest mistake.
Tim Burton on January 20, 2009 at 11:31 AM
CP,
I’m still waiting for you to explain these things:
1. Why was Sutton allowed to hide evidence that there were supervisors on the scene? Would this not have swayed the jurors that there was ZERO intent to cover up the shooting? (I recommend watching the Lou Dobbs video at the link)
2. There were other agents on the scene. Not one of those agents reported the shooting at the time. It wasn’t until the Feds got involved did they report anything about the shooting. Why didn’t they report it? If the shooting was illegal, did the supervisors not have a duty to report it as a bad shooting? This leads to:
3. Does this not make them culpable, as much, if not more than the R&C? Then why weren’t they also charged with conspiracy?
4. Much of the case was based on the fact that Davila was “unarmed” At least one of the jurors stated that if it was known that Davila had ran drugs he would have discounted his testimony as less than credible. Unfortunately, the judge did not allow that to be used to attack the credibility of the witness. Why not, unless they wanted to railroad these guys at all costs?
Tim Burton on January 20, 2009 at 11:44 AM
Living in San Diego County I’ve got a high regard for the Border Patrol agents and a very low regard for their supervisors and administrators. The guys on the line get attacked frequently and some are wounded or killed in the line of duty. They maintain their discipline in the face of great provocation. They’re ballsy. Andy M. sitting at his keyboard siding with GW’s pal Johnny is not what I’d call ballsy.
The Border Patrol agents and their union has stood firmly behind Ramos and Compean from the beginning. The government has been caught lying about the case. The most famous incident was the slander made up by an ICE administrator that Ramos and Compean had confessed guilt and had discussed prior to the incident that they were going “to kill some Mexicans”. That was acknowledge by DHS to be a lie the next day I believe.
Another lie is that they failed to fill out their report. Their union specifically does not allow agents to write shooting incident reports. That is solely the job under regulations of the supervisors at the site. R & C only were required to orally report. Which they did. Another lie fed to the media by Johnny Sutton.
As to the witness against them, Andy doesn’t make clear that the supervisors on scene could have been charged since they were the ones who actually falsified the reports. Sutton gave three agents immunity to testify; only two did I believe. All three of those agents had given several versions of the facts to Sutton. He got them to testify to the version he wanted. They were all subsequently fired from the Border Patrol for purjoring themselves during the investigation.
Whenever the field agents and local supervisors let loose and do their job too effectively Washington and their federal attorneys and managers shut them down. Out here it’s damn well clear who is for enforcing the law and who is for looking the other way.
I’m glad they’re free. The only criticism I have of either of the officers is regarding agent Ramos’ marksmanship.
rcl on January 20, 2009 at 12:33 PM
Comment pages: