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.
Yhat's not what the BP agents said originally. They only said that after it came out that one of them capped off an entire magazine at the guy--which is something that they were supposed to report at the time, and did not.
So, which version is the true one? Why should I believe either story told by the agents? Both of them cannot be simultaneously true, therefore at least one of them is a lie.
You cannot find one post of mine in support of open borders. You are a dishonest poster.
Thanks for the ping.
Beam me up...people down here suck rocks!
You obviously do not know what a running pursuit with firearms is like in the scrub brush of south Texas. They were not just standing still shooting off 15 rounds at this guy who was also standing still.
The fact he got shot in the butt cheeks means nothing, he was running and dodging thru the brush. It was not what you think as a back shot, execution style.
All you do gooders need to realize what these guys face down here in south Texas. It is not all fun and games.
Otherwise we could just call the dogs, pi$$ on the fire and go home, leaving the borders to the wets and druggers.
Anybody that shoots an unarmed fleeing suspect in the back is wrong, unless he is wanted for murder or a heinous crime. I guess you think trying to kill a Mexican mule is fine regardless of the circumstances. I don't, and neither does the law. Even our soldiers in Iraq can't kill with abandon.
I got to thinking about it, and unless this guy had a street sweeper, he had to reload three times. Absolutely no excuse for that behavior, and a jury agreed with me.
Get over it.
"Get over it. "
We won't "get over it".
What we will do is remember who appointed Sutton.
First of all you need to learn to read about this case.
1. The officers thought the perp was armed.
2. The officers did not know he was a mule at the time of the shooting. Drugs found afterwards.
3. They did not know the perp was hit by their gunfire.
These convictions will be overturned on appeal because of jury manipulation by the foreman.
At retrial the officers will be found innocent or there may not need to be another retrial.
The judge needs to be transferred to Bangor, Maine and the prosecuting attorney needs to be transferred to the Aleutian Islands.
You need to get over it.
What police dept. did you used to work for?
You are just using this case as a chance to bash Bush to further your border agenda.
They broke the law and were convicted by a jury. Apparently rule of law doesn't matter to you, only your pet peeve.
I actually did research the case. That the perp was armed was their claim, however, after being shot at at least fifteen times, the guy never fired back.
It was brought up that they later found the weed in the van. That made their offense worse..as far as they knew, they were shooting at just a wetback.
They didn't know they hit the mule, but they knew they were in the wrong....picking up the spent shotgun shells they could find on the site, and then going back to find the rest and throw them away showed they tried to cover it up.
Neither you nor I were on the jury. They convicted these guys, not GWB or the prosecutor. The gun law that gave them the stiff sentence was probably supported at the time it was passed by the majority of conservatives.
Just the law of unintended consequences. By the way, they turned down an 18 month plea deal.
They rightfully turned down a plea deal.
Maybe you should do some more of your research and see that three jurors came out last week and said they were coerced by the foreman. They wanted to vote not guilty but the foreman said that a hung jury was not an option and they had to vote guilty.
Jeese man, what kind of troll are you? Anytime an American believes a drug dealer/illegal over an American law enforcement officer is nothing more than a bleeding heart liberal. Go back to DU and brag about how you PO's the Freepers.
As with most such issues, that depends on the circumstances and the state in which they occur. Texas allows for use of deadly force to protect and/or recover property, under most circumstances. In such a case if the bad guy is making off with your property, say your vehicle or your horse, you may chase and use deadly force during the pursuit.
Do you know what reason was given at trial?
"You are just using this case as a chance to bash Bush to further your border agenda. "
It's sad that you consider a demand that our borders be secured in a time of war and our laws are enforced to just part of some "agenda" against the White House. I expect the President to do the job he was hired to do. Is that wrong?
"They broke the law and were convicted by a jury. Apparently rule of law doesn't matter to you, only your pet peeve."
The second is true, but the first requires you to believe the prosecutor's version of events. Apparently, the RULE OF LAW doesn't apply to illegal aliens, but that doesn't bother YOU, does it?
"In such a case if the bad guy is making off with your property, say your vehicle or your horse, you may chase and use deadly force during the pursuit."
That's pretty much unique to Texas, then. Even states with "castle doctrines" would not support that.
Well. There goes that conviction.
Texas Penal Code Chapter 9 Sub Chapter D PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY.
(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
Texas has that too. At least no duty to retreat in ones own domicile. See subparagraph (b)
§ 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.
(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31;
(2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and
(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect himself against the other's use or
attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor.
I've read as much of this thread as I could take in the last 15 minutes. Maybe you can answer the question for me. Here's what the original news story said:
"Federal agents who protect our border
deserve our respect, gratitude and trust -- it is a difficult and dangerous job," United States Attorney Johnny Sutton said in a news release after the sentencing. "But when law enforcement officers use their badge as a shield for carrying out crimes and then engage in a cover up, we cannot look the other way. Agents Compean and Ramos shot an unarmed, fleeing suspect in the back and lied about it."
My, I swear on my Grandmother's grave, completely unbiased question is:
Were they convicted over the cover up or the shooting itself? We all know from BJ Clinton and Martha Stewart that the cover up is worse than the crime.
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.