No, I deny that it was a crime.
"You deny Compean picked up his shells?"{
No, I deny that it was anything other than standard operating proceedure.
"You deny that Ramos exceeded the speed limit in chasing the van?"
Wow, a shill with a sense of humor!
"You deny that the two agents did not inform the supervisor?"
Yes, the supervisor was present during most of the action, and policy prefers verbal reports over written.
"You deny that the two agents filed reports which were false?"
Absolutely! Why would they file any written report when it is against policy, and why would they make any false statement to their supervisor who was there and participating in the action. Your contentions make no sense.
You honestly believe that if a federal agent discharges his firearm while on duty at a suspect, that there is no requirement for him to submit anything in writing???? I know there are plenty of LEOs on FR, can anyone of you confirm that in your jurisdiction, officers are allowed to discharge their firearms while on duty, not at the shooting range, and not have to make a report of the incident????? If true, it seems a little fast and loose for me.
According to a defender's post, the policy REQUIRES a verbal report, and prohibits a written report.
Thinking the supervisor must have heard about it is not a "verbal report". And since the policy requires the supervisor to INTERVIEW the agents, and file a report, the two agents KNEW that they had not properly informed the supervisors because they were not interviewed.
Absolutely! Why would they file any written report when it is against policy, and why would they make any false statement to their supervisor who was there and participating in the action. But they DID file a written report, according to the Sutton press release (I've not seen any difinitive statement from the defenders claiming that there was NO report filed). The report they filed did not mention the shooting.
Now, the policy says they should NOT do a written report about the shooting. The defenders jumped on that to claim that exonerates the agents. But not if they filed a report. The policy apparently wants to ensure that, in the case of a shooting, someone higher in the chain collects all the evidence and makes sure the shooting is properly documented. So in the case of a shooting, the agents are NOT SUPPOSED TO FILE A REPORT. Instead, they are to go verbally inform the supervisor, who will do a formal interview, and then write the report.
When the agents filed a report, it meant there was a report on file, and that report was false, because it didn't mention the shooting. If they had NOT filed a report, the supervisor would see there was no report, and would ask where the report was. The agents would say "because there was a shooting", and the supervisor would then question the agents and write a report.
THIS IS FOR THE AGENTS protection as well. If they had an official report filed with the supervisor that provided their entire story about being threatened, and the supervisor had launched an investigation to collect evidence at the scene, the official report would have probably not raised any question of legality.
Then, when the report of a "mexican who was shot" came to DHS, they would have found the police report about the incident, and would have figured "hey, we got our man", rather than "hey, we have no report of any shooting, what's going on here?"
Good points.
Charles is ignoring the supervisors didn't want to file a written report because to do so required calling in the FBI and it was near end of shift and the super didn't want to stick around after hours. Also the one so-called government witness claimed he was in a specific position watching all this and it is physically impossible for him to have seen the goings-on from the spot he claimed to be located.