Bush Considering Pardon for Border Agents Convicted of Shooting Mexican Drug Runner

President Bush promised to review a case for a possible pardon of two former U.S. Border Patrol agents serving time in prison for shooting a Mexican drug runner.

Bush said in an interview with KFOX-TV in El Paso, Texas, Thursday that he would "take a sober look at the case" as it works its way through the appeals system.

"There are standards that need to be met in law enforcement and according to a jury of their peers, these officers violated some standards," Bush said. "On this case, people need to take a tough look at the facts, the evidence a jury looked at, as well as [the] judge. And I will do the same thing."

Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean reported to prison Wednesday to begin serving their sentences for the 2005 non-fatal shooting of Osvaldo Aldrete Davila. Ramos faces 11 years and one day while Compean will serve 12 years. Davila fled to Mexico after he was shot in the buttocks and later admitted he was transporting over 700 pounds of marijuana in the U.S. illegally.

Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., introduced a bill to pardon the agents, joining a growing group of supporters of the men, including Reps. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., and Ted Poe, R-Texas.

As this thread is simply repeating a dozen threads from the past two weeks, I'm just going to say that many of the assertions in this testimony are not borne out by the facts of the case. Many others are part of the disputed evidence of the case.

Highest on the list is that the description of the events of the day do not at all correspond to the official reports for the day filed by the two agents in question.

It's pretty hard to have people tell me we should believe the agents without question, when the current story contradicts their official, signed reports from the day. Either they lied on official reports, or they lied to save themselves from going to prison. Either way, they are known to have lied sometime.

Some of this testimony also is contradicted by sworn testimony by other BP agents, like the description of a "struggle" that left Campeon bleeding. The only blood found was between two fingers on his one hand, there was no sign of a struggle on his person, and other evidence shows he simply fell down (in fact some testimony says he fell down while trying to swing the butt of his rifle to hit the suspect who was surrendering, but that's part of the disputed evidence).

As the two are currently convicted felons, one could frame the argument as "who are you going to believe, a well-respected prosecuter, and other respected BP agents, or two convicted felons?"

But the entire "who are you going to believe" is less helpful than actually presenting all of the evidence, so the truth might be discerned. The congressional testimony presented a one-sided view based on PARTS of what the two convicted agents said, ignoring any of even their OWN statements which refute their latest story.

And I can't begin to describe the sillyness of those who say shooting an unarmed man in the back is an "administrative oversight" for which the penalty should be a 5-day suspension.

I think that our government bears some reponsibility for its lax border policy and refusal to do anything about stopping the invasion.
----
Exactly. Government inaction has, in effect, created an atmosphere where doing ones job will guarantee punishment, imprisonment and the destruction of family solely on the word of a criminal. What kind of action can we now expect from our border control agents when the chips are down in a confrontation? Do I shoot and risk the future and welfare of me and my family or do I just walk away, end my shift and put in my time toward retirement?

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.