Posted on 11/24/2007 5:16:09 AM PST by Salena Zito
... & pardon these 2 Saturday, November 24, 2007
The degrading, draconian and disgraceful incarceration of former Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean indicates President George W. Bush, the self-anointed compassionate conservative, is capable of stone-cold stupidity. By doing their duty along the near-lawless border with Mexico, Messrs. Ramos and Compean have become tragic symbols of this nation's gross incompetence regarding enforcement of immigration law.
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...
Q. Okay. And, over time, then, what would happen to the 3 kidneys? 4 A. Anybody that actually was obstructed for that period of 5 time could potentially have some acute renal failure. 6 Q. Okay. And is that a life-threatening problem? 7 A. Yes.
What I presented in 63 was not my summary, it was the summary by Patterico (you won't attack him for it, will you?), but it was an accurate portrayal of the doctor's testimony, which I have provided for you above (not that you needed it, you know the testimony and where to find it).
I never said he had a continuing life-threatening problem. I said the doctor testified that his injuries were life-threatening. That is what the doctor said. Of course the treatment he received mitigated the threat. Nobody has said otherwise.
Your post suggested that "life-threatening" was an inaccurate, and now you've said "misleading" comment, but it was not.
I'm trying my best to be precise and reference the testimony. In this case the testimony was pages and Patterico had done an good job summarizing it AND providing the page references (I apologize that I didn't include the pdf name reference).
We both agree that his injury was not likely life-threatening after his visit to Mexico (any treatment in Mexico would of course run the risk of an infection, as would having a bag, so there was a non-zero increase in threat, but I'm ignoring that for the sake of getting some minor agreement with you.
And we both agree that his injury was serious. I never said you didn't think it was, until you treated the doctor's testimony about being life-threatening as a sarcastic comment.
You did specifically complain in post 116 about my statement regarding pro-C/Rs, and I even apologized for it, so saying now that you didn't doesn't make sense to me.
And I'm glad that you don't disagree with the Doctor's testimony. And hopefully with the quotes from the transcript, we won't have any additional people claiming that it wasn't testimony.
Your trivial distinction about the manner in which it would be life-threatening is noted. Since I never provided the reason why it was life-threatening, nor were my comments any more than a simple statement of the fact of the testimony, it was not misleading. You in fact are trying to mislead people by suggesting I made more of something than I did, and by pretending the testimony wasn't testimony simply because I didn't quote the exact testimony.
Another view: George Bush, ignore the opinions of the prosecuters, the investigators, the other BP agents, the judge, the appeals court, and the jury, and substitute your own judgment based on the simple fact that two men were Border Patrol Agents and therefore incapable of being criminals.
Of course, if you say it that way, it doesn’t sound as good as when you slander the President and act like the entire world is on your side except there’s one guy who is stubbornly standing against the overwhelming evidence that your side is correct.
Excellent post, CW.
In hte previous post's thread, I specifically said I was NOT quoting testimony, so your charge is false. And I have shown that the exact testimony was precisely what I said it was, the doctor said the injury was life-threatening.
In THIS post's thread, the "testimony" is about Davila limping, and I did provide EXACT QUOTES FROM THE TRANSCRIPTS. Your claim I did not is false.
I could have noted you failed to understand the thread without sounding so condescending. But it is frustrating that those supporting C/R have such little regard for the truth that they will misstate things that are right in the thread.
I’m sorry, I was trying not to think you an idiot.
Is your testimony now that bears do not crap in the woods? Or did you have no point at all, and just wanted to swear on the forum?
Maybe you were trying a play on the “tree fall in the woods and nobody hears it”, but whatever you were saying it was illogical and unresponsive to the point.
In court testimony, evidence can take the form of a search that turns up nothing. It’s not a hard concept, or particularly controversal except I guess when talking to pro-C/R people who would do anything to try to make a point.
I don’t suppose you believe in Unicorns because there’s no evidence that they don’t exist?
I was not focused on the “mule” part of your statement, but on the “only trying to raise money for his sick mother” (that’s not an exact quote).
I remember being very specific to call Davila a drug runner for the purpose of this specific incident, and I had no opinion on what he did at any other time. The testimony and evidence provided for this incident suggested the drugs were already in the country and Davila came over the border to drive the van. I know that the testimony is not proof, but I don’t remember anybody thinking that was an important distinction anyway.
I believe that for the purpose of the specific incident, my use of the words “drug runner” would be more accurate than “drug smuggler”, since “smuggler” indicates he brought the drugs themselves over the border, and there was no evidence presented that he did so in this specific case.
I’ve really tried, despite your belief that I have not, to stick to the facts of this particular case, as well as to the known facts of the other incidents reported. I’ve scoffed at speculation, some of which turned out to be accurate, but for which I still believe evidence was insufficient at the time.
I’m simply more cautious about jumping to conclusions than some people, so I am usually one of the later people to believe a story or come to a conclusion.
I don’t remember any of the posters suggesting they thought Davila was telling the truth about why he did the crime. I generally don’t correct people if others are already correcting them, so I had little need to correct the factual inaccuracies from those who might be deemed “on my side”. I also never complained about the presence of the pro-R/C folks on the threads, so I don’t think my position on that matter is hypocritical — I’ve always said that if you don’t want me here, correct the mistakes yourself (not you personally, but anybody on the thread who doesn’t like me being here).
I’m happy to let you-all live in your own world, and have your own opinions, so long as you-all don’t base those opinions on “facts” that are not accurate.
I should think you-all would be happy about that, as I know I would never want to come to the wrong conclusion because I didn’t have the facts straight, and I believe I’ve been quite open about accepting new facts as they are presented.
Your posts about this matter both occured after my post, and I’ve answered your charge in a previous response, with a quote of the direct testimony backing my claim.
In the above quote, you singled out a particular BP agent, and then said you found "their" testimony totally unbelievable, I presume referring not just to the one agent but to all the agents who testified against C/R. You also claim that he lied under oath (not in those words, but in claiming that his final testimony was coerced you are saying it was not the truth, which means you have claimed he perjured himself). You didn't specifically say that the others deliberately lied under oath, but in saying they were all unbelievable, you seem to imply that they all committed perjury -- all but C/R of course, who I presume you think told the truth. In a post above this one, you claimed that Sutton committed perjury, that Kanof committed ethical misconduct worthy of disbarrment, and also attacked the judge. I don't believe the fact that you attack those who oppose C/R is in doubt, or a controversial statement. We could argue over whether your attacks are false or not, but the fact that you are attacking them is certainly not in doubt. Having been told to "go back to mexico", as well has having been falsely accused of misstating testimony that I directly quoted, and from misrepresenting testimony for posting a Patterico summary which accurately reflected the direct testimony, and for being attacked for the simple factual statement that Davila was seriously injured and required expensive medical treatment, yes, I guess I've gone a little overboard on the hyperbole.
Point taken. Ramos testified that he shot AT Davila. He provided no evidence that he had ever let anybody else have his weapon. And he stipulated that the bullet found in Davila was from the gun issued to him. I also believe that the testimony shows it was the gun he used that day when he shot at Davila, but I haven’t looked up the transcript for chapter and verse, so feel free to complain about this but I’m saying I’m not positive.
Now, tell me how the evidence above in any way leads to a different result than my admittedly inaccurate shorthand?
I was intrigued though by another poster’s suggestion that the 2nd ballistics test, the one WND likes to pretend didn’t happen, and that others like to insist had a faulty chain of evidence (which I guess Ramos’ lawyer was too stupid to figure out even in their appeal), might actually have been flawed because of recent information coming out about errors from specific tests.
Anyway, in general it amazes me that so many of the pro-R/C supporters are absolutely sure that multiple people are committing felonies under the noses of our government, and yet even with congressional support nobody seems to be able to actually get any of these people indicted or even charged for all these crimes that are just so obvious.
I’m sorry to hear that, especially the bizarre “unarmed” argument. Hunter should no better.
There’s no proof that Hunter isn’t being bribed to support C/R.
See how easy that is? It’s an absurd argument to suggest that you can never say a person was unarmed, because you can never prove that they didn’t have a gun.
Even if they captured Davila and he had no weapon on him, it wouldn’t prove he was unarmed, as he could throw the weapon into the brush or into the river. There ARE cases where proof is more easy to come by, like when a victim is cornered and killed and then no gun is found in the place where he was shot.
When there is no evidence that someone is armed, it is no fault of the prosecuter to say the person was unarmed.
I hope Hunter hasn’t accused Sutton of criminal behavior.
That is true, if your definition of “first time they told their side of the story” is the first time they were questioned about it after being charged with a crime.
If on the other hand you presume that hte “first time they told” their story was the same day when they were talking with fellow agents, then your statement would be inaccurate as there is no evidence they told anybody about the gun until after they were arrested, which was what the other poster said.
I’m not saying that their lack of mentioning a gun earlier makes their later claim contradictory, and if someone is doing so that would be wrong. It does make their claim suspect, in that if I shot at someone in the line of duty because I saw a gun I certainly would tell people I saw a gun, knowing how that is the only way to justify a shooting.
But that goes to the whole lack of reporting issue.
You said that his injuries were life threatening, which was not true. Renal failure can be life threatening, a risk that was eliminated when he had a catheter inserted by a Mexican clinic. In addition to the catheter, you said that he required "surgery to fix the life-threatening problem," also not true.
Post #63: "In summary, the shooting left Davila unable to pee. He needed a catheter to drain, and surgery to fix the life-threatening problem. This was a serious operation requiring medical experts, and he now uses a bladder bag. "Post #69: "... the guy would have life-threatening injuries from the shooting which required extensive surgery."
Post #77: "The doctor that treated him said the injuries were serious, life-threatening, and required extensive surgery to correct, and might not ever be fully corrected."
Post #105: "I’ve already had to prove that “limp” was in the testimony at the trial, and that Davila had life-threatening injuries that required special surgery."
Post #159: "I’ve shown that the medical doctors testified his injury was life-threatening, required specialized surgery (with a second doctor who was an expert)"
I said the doctor testified that his injuries were life-threatening. That is what the doctor said. Of course the treatment he received mitigated the threat. Nobody has said otherwise.
One more time--that is not what he said. He testifed that Renal Failure is life-threatening. Renal failure was not a risk once the catheter was inserted--In Mexico. Surgery was not required, at all; theoretically he could choose to use the catheter for life. Surgery was a preference, to try to reconnect the plumbing so that the catheter would not be required.
Your post suggested that "life-threatening" was an inaccurate, and now you've said "misleading" comment, but it was not.
See above. I rest my case.
After the trial several jury members stated they didn’t put any weight at all on OAD’s testimony but convivted on the cover up and contradictory testimony of R&C.
Anyway, it was OAD who testified to these facts, not the prosecutors. They may have used these statements in closing arguments but that is their job to sum up testimony and evidence at that time.
It’s not up to the attorneys to make decisions as to the the veracity of statements made at trial, only to present them and let the jury figure out who is lying and not and what weight to put on any single piece of evidence.
So I should just ignore when you subsequently presented that same post as direct testimony and quotes?
"It's a shame that quoting testimony is considered misleading..."
And I have shown that the exact testimony was precisely what I said it was, the doctor said the injury was life-threatening.
See above post. The doctor did not say the injury was life-threatening.
In THIS post's thread, the "testimony" is about Davila limping, and I did provide EXACT QUOTES FROM THE TRANSCRIPTS. Your claim I did not is false.
With respect to limping, that is not what I said. I did say that your selective presentation misrepresented the timing of the events.
I could have noted you failed to understand the thread without sounding so condescending.
I didn't fail to understand anything. But yes, you did sound condescending--and have since called me a liar, implied I am an idiot, and attacked my honor. Ever consider Dale Carnegie?
But it is frustrating that those supporting C/R have such little regard for the truth that they will misstate things that are right in the thread.
You are questioning my regard for truth? Give me a break!
I ignored the rest of your post. How do I put this nicely?
Shove it!
His injuries were life-threatening. Without the operation to insert the catheter at the clinic, renal failure was likely which could kill him.
Your objection seems technical, but we are in agreement that the doctor testified that his life was threatened by the injuries he sustained from the gunshot wound, and that the life-threatening aspect of his injury was mitigaged when he had his first treatment, and that the subsequent surgery was not to save his life. I never said it was.
My claim that his injuries resulted in extensive and expensive medical procedures is proven correct, and the people who argued with me and said his injuries were not serious at all, suggesting he simply ran off after being shot so he wasn’t really hurt, are proven wrong.
Since you agree that without medical treatment he could well have died, I don’t count you in with those who claimed his injuries were trivial.
I wasn’t focused just on life-threatening, that was just a good quote from the testimony, that’s why I included Patterico’s summary.
As to your specifics, you are completely wrong. I’ll go through each of my quotes:
“He needed a catheter to drain, and surgery to fix the life-threatening problem”. — That is a true statement. We both agree that the shooting created a life-threatening problem. The shooting required a catheter to drain, and a serious surgery to fix.
“the guy would have life-threatening injuries from the shooting which required extensive surgery.” — again, the truth. He had life-threatening injuries, we agree with that statement by the doctor. And those injuries did require surgery, even though the life-threatening aspect of those injuries had been mitigated by the band-aid solution of the catheter, which the doctor certainly didn’t treat as a final solution to the problem.
“The doctor that treated him said the injuries were serious, life-threatening, and required extensive surgery to correct, and might not ever be fully corrected.” — This is a paraphrase, not a quote from the doctor. This statement is also accurate. The doctor said the shooting injury was serious, and that the shooting injury was life-threatening. The doctor said the shooting injury required extensive surgery. And the doctor said the shooting injury might not ever be fully corrected.
“I’ve already had to prove that “limp” was in the testimony at the trial, and that Davila had life-threatening injuries that required special surgery.” — Again, true. “limp” was in the trial testimony, and the doctor testified that Davila’s injury was life-threatening, and that his injury required special surgery.
“”I’ve shown that the medical doctors testified his injury was life-threatening, required specialized surgery (with a second doctor who was an expert)” — Again, true (well, not quite, it should be “medical doctor”, singular). The doctor testified that his injury was life-threatening, AND the doctor testified that his injury required specialized surgery with a second doctor.
SO every one of my statements was true. Your “complaint” that the surgery was not needed to save his life is irrelevant, as all my statements refered to the injury, not to the “life-threatening” aspect of it.
I NEVER said he needed continuing medical treatment BECAUSE his life was threatened. I was simply quoting the doctor’s testimony to show how serious the shooting was, to refute those who falsely claimed his injuries were minor.
Your case isn’t resting, it’s dead (apologies to Monty Python).
That’s fine, although from your other responses it seems you have been ignoring what I wrote in my posts anyway, so I don’t know if there’s much difference.
Sorry that it’s getting so testy, but since you accused me of lying yes things might be a bit unpleasant for you.
In the previous post's thread, I specifically said I was NOT quoting testimony, so your charge is false.You are completely wrong. Here is the post from the thread in which that statement was made:So I should just ignore when you subsequently presented that same post as direct testimony and quotes?
"It's a shame that quoting testimony is considered misleading..."
Post 99. In that post, which was about the "limping", not the doctor's testimony, I provided specific lines of reference in several pdfs which I summarized. I then quoted from testimony:
Then in the same volume page 175, line 11, Compean’s direct testimony: “When I saw him climb out, he looked like he was limping”.
So the answer is NO, you should NOT ignore that post, because it contained a direct quote of testimony. I have no idea why you are conflating two separate threads of discussion here, after I've clearly told you that you had done so.
And I have shown that the exact testimony was precisely what I said it was, the doctor said the injury was life-threatening.See above post. The doctor did not say the injury was life-threatening.
Again, you are simply wrong, as I clearly proved in my response to that post which you can find HERE. I've also posted the exact testimony where the doctor agreed that the injuries were life threatening at post 181.
I'm amazed you are even wasting your time trying to argue this point. You've already agreed with me that the injuries WERE life-threatening and required medical care, and that his injuries were serious and required expensive surgery to fix. That was my argument, so I don't get why you keep insisting that since the life-threatening aspect was corrected that it is wrong to say it was life-threatening.
You are questioning my regard for truth? Give me a break!
In this specific instance, your disregard for the truth does lead to questions. If I had actually mixed up my threads, I'd be happy to apologize for that, but in this instance I didn't make a mistake, and your insistance that I did after being told you were wrong doesn't speak highly of your ability in this instance to comprehend what you are reading, or to faithfully and accurately respond.
As to your comment about limping, you did specifically claim in the referenced post that I claimed to be quoting but was not, when I was in fact quoting. You had previously complained falsely that I was misrepresenting it because you mistakenly interpreted my statement as being about the immediate aftermath of the shooting when I clearly was simply quoting the testimony, and even noted it included up to the time he was picked up on the other side of the border.
Look, I don't know what's got you spun up, but you are picking fights that are stupid. Almost nothing I have said on this thread is controversal, or disputed by anybody who knows the facts.
His injuries were serious. Compean testified Davila was limping. Ramos testified he was walking, not running. Another agend testified he was going slow. The doctor testified that his injury was life-threatening. The doctor testified he needed surgery, and would require other surgery.
Ramos stipuluated that the bullet was from "a gun he owned", and he testified that he shot at Davila, and provided no evidence or any claim that someone else used his gun or that it wasn't that gun that matched the bullet.
And, getting back to post 7 which started it all, there is still NO evidence suggesting Davila was paid a million dollars for his testimony. In fact, it's almost like this entire trip down irrelevance lane was meant to cover up the fact that they statement was made and has not been backed by evidence.
Anything else I said that you want to dispute?
No, I did not.
As to ignoring what has been posted: try a mirror.
I think most everything you have posted has been refuted adequately, at least once. If you choose to ignore it and still claim that everyone else is wrong and you are right, so be it.
Your credibility seems to diminish with each additional post. Carry on!
Everything I listed in my last post was both factual, and really not disputed. Your generic claims that “most everything you have posted” has been refuted is false.
I was dissappointed to find I was wrong about Hunter.
Since my last post included several items directly from your statements, it is rather sad that you seem to disown your own words just so you can say you disagree with me. That’s not really rational.
I don’t suppose you are ever going to address the issue of the poster at post #7 who claimed that Davila was paid over a million dollars for his testimony.
BTW, I don’t understand why you even bother to post, if when the people you are debating try to find common ground, you bail out. It’s like you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.