Supreme Court rebuffs Ramos and Compean

Charles, listen to what I wrote, [if you pardon the mixed phrasing], some people have to make split decisions on their jobs. Others are welcomed to sit in their chairs in the comfort of their home [which I think is neither smart nor vacuous, but accurate] and analyze. Yes, jurors sit and analyze. But, the person who brings charges against people defending this country, whether in law enforcement or the military, had better have good, unquestionable evidence. And, they owe it to those defenders to not screw them in court. [How's that for a smart phrase?]

You and I will not agree on this issue, because you are arguing from a legal perspective and I am arguing from a moral perspective. Things in police work or emergency medicine are not always neat and tidy and by the book.

We will also not agree that Aldrete was unarmed because you are making assumptions that are just that, assumptions. Why would you apply a rational framework to some petty drug smuggler? People do strange things, and the ones involved in strange pursuits, such as drugs, do even stranger things. The paper is rife with Mexican drug members firing at American military and border patrols with high powered weapons. Unlike you, it makes sense to me that he would be armed to fend off competing cartels or defend himself, if necessary. Ultimately, Sutton had to decide between the story of Aldrete and that of the border guards. While Ramos and Compean did not have the luxury of knowing he was a smuggler, Sutton did. Further, Sutton enabled further smuggling by giving Aldrete a pass. Why is there no repercussions for Suttons' misjudgment? Why is there no repercussions for Suttons' use of the 10 year add on for use of a weapon in a crime, [which I feel was misapplied], when Sutton himself admitted that the prison term was excessive?

What we have here is much like what happened to Sen. Stevens of Alaska. He was guilty, by most accounts, yet he will walk free because of a botched prosecution. Ramos and Compean were subject to a prosecution that also withheld info [from the jury] to win their case. You may feel in that case that it was legal. I do not accept that, and I definitely don't accept that it was moral. But, the Senator is a powerful Washington, DC figure, while Ramos and Compean were not so fortunate. I suggested that Aldrete had a gun because of a comment that I read that said an acquaintance of his said he would carry one. If true, that is more meaningful than your assumptions. Second, the prosecutors gave immunity to the smuggler for his testimony. [Which, I suspect, included a little coaching!] Now why would they do that and jeopardize their drug running case(s) just to nail two small time border agents. Why did they not pursue the other agent [was it Sanchez?] who turned these guys in because he was friendly with Aldrete? Makes you wonder where his loyalty was.

I think in the end you sum it up well by noting that I am approaching from a different perspective than you.

That’s because for the most part, the arguments I’ve been having aren’t really “are they guilty”, but rather, was it evil of anybody to possibly believe they COULD be guilty”.

So i’ve argued that the prosecution and conviction were rational, based on the evidence we have presented to us.

Sure, Aldrete could have been armed. Anybody you meet could be armed, but that doesn’t mean we forgive any police officer who, in the heat of the moment, shoots a suspect.

However, a lot of people judge a shooting based on whether, in the end, the suspect was actually a criminal or not, rather than whether the suspect was actually shown to have a weapon or not.

So we get outraged when an innocent person gets mistaken for a criminal and gets shot, but not when a guilty person gets mistaken for being armed and gets shot.

But I think that the more clear we are to police that we won’t forgive them for shooting an unarmed person, the less likely it is that me or my family members will ever be shot by a police officer.

Just as the more we make it clear we won’t tolerate police using no-knock warrants and swat-team searches, the less likely it is that innocent people or their pets will be shot or killed in their homes.

It may sound crass, but I would rather a police officer be killed in the line of duty than a police officer kill an innocent person in their house. I’d of course prefer neither would happen, but the police officer signed up for it, the innocent homeowner didn’t.

I know there are others who would value the police more highly than the random innocent, and much more would value the police over a random criminal-type who simply wasn’t armed.

Anyway, I’ve wandered off the subject. I never thought these two deserved a decade in prison, and would have been fine if the jury had looked at the evidence and decided they believed the agents. I simply didn’t think it was absurd that the jury decided they were guilty.

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.