Posted on 10/19/2006 3:37:27 PM PDT by no dems
Edited on 10/19/2006 4:07:46 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Ex-border agents sentenced for shooting smuggler
AP
EL PASO, Texas -- Two former U.S. Border Patrol agents were each sentenced Thursday to more than a decade in federal prison for shooting a Mexican drug smuggler and then trying to cover it up.
Ignacio Ramos was sentenced to 11 years and one day, and Jose Alonso Compean was sentenced to 12 years. Both were fired after their convictions on several charges including assault with a deadly weapon, obstruction of justice, and a civil rights violation.
The men, neither of whom spoke in court, will be allowed to turn themselves in Jan. 17.
The agents have proclaimed their innocence in the Feb. 17, 2005, shooting of admitted drug smuggler Osvlado Aldrete Davila.
Aldrete was shot in the buttocks as he fled across the Rio Grande into Mexico after a confrontation with Ramos and Compean. The agents said they shot in self defense, but prosecutors charged that they had no reason to shoot at the fleeing man, who later claimed he was unarmed.
Since their convictions, support for the agents has swelled. Several prominent law makers, including U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner, the Wisconsin Republican who chairs the House judiciary committee, have even called for a Congressional investigation into the agents' prosecutions.
The union representing most rank and file Border Patrol agents established a legal defense fund. And civilian border watch groups have asked the U.S. Attorney General's office to review the case and throw out the jury's guilty verdicts.
Good post. Thanks for sharing the information.
While that may be true...that's for God to judge...at least I'm fighting for Americans who are laying it on the line to protect our country, and not violent Mexican drug runners, as are you.
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/
It amazes me that 4% voted no.
Do you think that the prosecution of this case was professional and ethical?
This is a good post.
Do you have some evidence backing up this potential slander? If so, now would be a good time to post it.
Thanks, I'm there.
Yeah, there are surprises. Lol I have never seen so many (quote) (unquote) "conservatives" root and toot for a drug smuggler.
Those aren't real conservatives. They are pretend-conservatives.
Not me. The enemies of the state and constitution are growing in power and influence.
That is the what the Bush administrations hopes to accomplish with these convictions.
"So these guys get 10 years each for "obstruction of justice" and Clinton didn't get any time for "obstruction of justice"."
Sandy the Burglar was given a slap on the wrist by THIS Administration for something that'd land an ordinary citizen in the federal pen.
"So, I take it you're OK with cops not reporting their employment of deadly force, and OK with cops destroying evidence."
They didn't think they hit the guy. I "police my brass" all the time. Perhaps they reload their spent casings.
I find it fascinating that you take an illegal alien drug smuggler at his word that he didn't have a weapon.... Do you?
"That is the what the Bush administrations hopes to accomplish with these convictions."
There will be more.
You've matured to a point where you detect the smoke being blown up your posterior and are questioning sources of information you previously trusted without question. You're becoming an outstanding American! The most disturbing responsibility is having to constantly weed out the villains from the good guys every few years after we throw the good guys into a machine seemingly designed to corrupt them.
You can take the comfortable path that those who attack me slither upon or you can consider casting/"wasting" your valuable vote strategically where and when it does the most good. Until I see some real patriotism out of the Republicans my votes may or may not be for their candidates. The only surety is that I'd never vote for a Democrat.
Don't waste bandwidth and font on me. I don't read anything you type.
If you don't read you don't learn anything - making what you put out far mor questionable.
"It makes no mention of why at least two jurors feel they gave the wrong verdict. It doesn't deal with the life long friendship of Border Patrol Agent Rene Sanchez and the drug smuggler Aldrete-Davila. It says nothing of the conflicting testimony between Sanchez and Aldrete. It gives no reason for the suppression of evidence by the Judge. It deals not with the issue that Prosecuting Attorney Debra Kanof threatened to indict other agents if they didn't change their statements. If Ramos and Campeanos felt they were guilty why didn't they accept a one year plea bargain offered by Prosecuting Attorney Debra Kanof?"
If they were guilty of an offense warranting a decade in prison why offer such a deal? Why was Border Patrol Agent Blanchette not allowed to testify for the defense? When Agent Blanchette expressed concern over Agent Sanchez's reliabiltiy why was he asked to give up his weapon? Why did the government ignore Rene Sanchez's illegal investigation into this case? Then there's the issue of Aldrete's close friendship with Chris Sanchez, the only investigator in this case. This is just of the tip of the iceberg.
Guilty or not these agents apparently went through a trial fraught with government corruption. Just as falsifying reports and picking up brass casts doubts upon the agents credibility so does malfeasance cast doubt upon the government's case. Considering your fervent support for illegal aliens this of course, means nothing to you."
Drug runner's mommy called her friend who was married to a high ranker on our side and got the ball rolling on these agents. They made many mistakes (but I note that Ramos made one shot of the fifteen and it was a hit...Campeon needs retraining if he ever gets back).
How did the drug-runner get operated on by a U.S. military physician after last seen fleeing back to Mexico? These connections need to be sorted out from the sordid in a retrial.
It does not matter whether or not they believed they hit the guy--they were supposed to make a complete report of ANY weapon discharge, let alone an entire magazine's worth. They didn't do so. The only report filed at the time, said that the guy absconded into Mexico, no mention of a gun, no mention that Ramos capped off an entire magazine at him.
I "police my brass" all the time.
Some free advice: do NOT do that if you are ever involved in a self-defense shooting. Don't touch a damn thing until the investigator(s) release the scene. Ramos and Compean knew that they weren't supposed to "police their brass" until the investigation team released the scene. The investigation team never showed up--because Ramos and Compean never reported the shooting in the first place. Ramos and Compean also knew that they were supposed to give a complete report of their weapon discharges--no matter if they were deliberate or negligent, whether they killed somebody or missed completely--within one hour of the event. They didn't say squat about it until the IG showed up, and then changed their story completely from what they said to their supervisor at the time.
Perhaps they reload their spent casings.
The Border Patrol reloading spent pistol brass? ANY police department reloading spent pistol brass? Nope. Uh-uh. Maybe the SWAT snipers save their cases for the armorer to hand-load, but even that's doubtful.
I find it fascinating that you take an illegal alien drug smuggler at his word that he didn't have a weapon.... Do you?
Well, should I take them at their (initial) word that there were no shots fired and that this guy didn't have a gun, or should I take them at their (later, after the stuff started hitting the fan) word that, well, yeah, he really did have a gun, and that's why they fired those shots that they never reported in the first place? Which story should I believe?
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.