Posted on 01/16/2007 11:00:57 PM PST by Mr. Mojo
All the folks jumping to defend these guys forget this one, VERY important fact: The agents knew it was a bad shoot and actively tried to cover it up. The shoot was so bad that even with the USBP's record of finding agents justified, they thought that covering up the shooting would be better than 'fessing up to it.
One can only imagine what would have happened had Davila been a US citizen. There would be howls from every corner about jack-booted thugs and their abuse of power.
Trolling again, joe?
what do you mean, again? :)
Me too--I'm infuriated about this.
Along with those "vigalante" Minutemen.
"All the folks jumping to defend these guys forget this one, VERY important fact: The agents knew it was a bad shoot and actively tried to cover it up. The shoot was so bad that even with the USBP's record of finding agents justified, they thought that covering up the shooting would be better than 'fessing up to it."
Funny thing, their SUPERVISOR was on scene at the time they were "covering it up".
I'm disgusted with this!
sw
This is what happens when you try and stop a Federally Sanctioned Delivery into the US. I can think of no other reason for this Prosecution.
Without the Full Support of the Feds, Controlled Substances could not be brought into this Country.
Without the Full Support of the Feds, Drug Money could not be Laundered through the Federal Reserve System.
We need the Drug War, it is a cash cow for the Government at the expense of liberty and freedom for us peasants.
Not only was he on scene, he assisted in the coverup. That's more indication that they knew how bad of a shoot it really was.
actually.... the OPPOSITE is true, the discharge is so common and frequent and with no obvious result, it was not worth covering up and there is no proof of a coverup. So convict the SUPERVISORS of paperwork neglect and get back to work...
are you really defending decades long sentences for a bullet in the butt? What an indefensible position... but you are welcome to it. Kind of puts you in an interesting catagory
;^p
You obviously have not bothered to read anything about this except what the prosecution is putting out.
The republicans seem intent on destroying us sovereignty and kowtowing to Mexico.
Perhaps not alone, but when combined with the amnesty that'll instantly create tens of millions new voting citizens (many of whom have become addicted to welfare freebees they received as illegals) the GOP can kiss their naive, "compassionate," politically-correct asses adios.
And to think, the Bush Administration staged this whole charade in an effort to gain the Hispanic vote.
More "Rovian genius," I suspect.
Here's what conservative leader Phyllis Schlafly wrote:
"After the trial, two jurors gave sworn statements that they had been pressured to render a guilty verdict and did not understand that a hung jury was possible."
Specifically, these jurors confided to the defense lawyer that the jury foreman told them the judge had said all jurors had to agree on the verdict, that it HAD to be unanimous.
Believing they were compelled by law to vote with the majority, at least three jurors changed their vote! Two were in tears as the verdict was read.
Turns out the judge had said no such thing. If these three are to be believed, what the foreman said was untrue.
And that's not all that was fishy. When the verdict was announced, U.S. Attorney Sutton said in part:
"...when law-enforcement officers use their badge as a shield for carrying out crimes and then engage in a coverup, we cannot look the other way. Agents Compean and Ramos shot an unarmed, fleeing suspect in the back and lied about it."
However, when a rumor spread that Compean and Ramos might get probation, Sutton issued a three-page statement to the media in which he said:
"[The two agents] fired their weapons at a man who was attempting to surrender by holding his open hands in the air."
Was he fleeing or was he attempting to surrender? In the Justice Department these days, you can apparently have it both ways.
.
ok.......so these two jurors did not have the gonads to stand by their belief in innocence, regardless of what the other 10 members thought. I do not believe them.
Failure to report discharge of a firearm is, itself, a firing offense (no pun intended). You don't just bang off fourteen rounds and decide the paperwork's not worth it. Besides, they did fill out an I-44 (basically, an incident report) but they failed to mention the shooting.
There is every proof of a coverup - why police up your brass, even to the point of having a partner go out and get the last five pieces? You'll notice that Compean and Ramos have not disputed *any* of the facts in this case.
are you really defending decades long sentences for a bullet in the butt?
No. I think they should've been fired, but not sent to jail.
Do you have any source that disputes any of the facts in the case?
Specifically, these jurors confided to the defense lawyer that the jury foreman told them the judge had said all jurors had to agree on the verdict, that it HAD to be unanimous.
If true, then it should be easy to get a mistrial declared.
Was he fleeing or was he attempting to surrender?
Who cares? You can't shoot people in either circumstance. When Compean and Ramos started shooting, the only thing Davila was guilty of was failure to stop for an immigration status check. Does that justify use of deadly force?
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.