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.
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.
Did you ever think that, maybe, since they didn't think anyone had been hurt, they decided it wasn't worth the mounds of paperwork that would have to be processed to report the incident? Perhaps they thought they had more important things to do--like catching border-jumpers and drug smugglers? I'm not saying that is the right thing to do, but there is no evidence they did it because "they knew how bad of a shoot it really was."