That is NOT a fact in the case....it is hearsay....and you SEEM to have swallowed it like a scoop of rocky road Hagen Das...
Yes, the perp was running, but he did turn and point an object at the Border Patrol agents.... Bear in mind that he is a KNOWN drug smuggler and they are normally considered armed.
Also, none of the supposed evidence has been released by the feds....even though my Conressman McCaul has repeatedly requested the interview transcripts.
The entie scenario has a stench to it....
Compean and Ramos testified the smuggler was unarmed, and trying to surrender. The other BP agents that arrived on the scene shortly thereafter testified that Compean and Ramos made no mention of any sort of a weapon. No weapon was found (meaning that even if the smuggler had one before he tried to surrender, he ditched it with success).
Bear in mind that he is a KNOWN drug smuggler and they are normally considered armed.
The marijuana was not discovered in the van until after the shooting. The smuggler was fleeing a traffic stop, and that's all Compean and Ramos knew at the time of the shooting.
Do you know what hearsay even is? A wound in the butt is not "hearsay." Testimony by the person shot in the butt is not "hearsay". Good grief.
es, the perp was running, but he did turn and point an object at the Border Patrol agents.... Bear in mind that he is a KNOWN drug smuggler and they are normally considered armed.
So while the perp was pointing an "object" at the BP's, he got shot in the butt. That is one hell of a shot.
Considering the agents tried to cover it up, she should keep her mouth shut and pray for a pardon. These agents picked up their shells, and never reported the incident. Granted, the sentence was harsh, but insulting the president will get this woman nothing.
It is the verdict of a court of competent jurisdiction. Ramos and Compean were afforded the presumption of innocence, the assistance of counsel, and all the rules of evidence and restrictions on the state that the Constitution affords -- restrictions that most FReepers most of the time believe are slanted toward defendants.
Yes, the perp was running, but he did turn and point an object at the Border Patrol agents.... Bear in mind that he is a KNOWN drug smuggler and they are normally considered armed.
The "fact" that he turned and pointed an object is drawn from the officers' testimony, The "KNOWN" drug smuggler was not known as such to the officers at the time. And it's amazing to me that so many people are willing to accept that a suspect fleeing from the cops is evidence of mens rea -- a guilty mind -- but don't feel the same way about officers who cover up evidence and lie in their reports.
The entie scenario has a stench to it....
Yes. It's the whiff of folks who want to shoehorn this case into their favorite agenda, regardless of the facts of the case. Folks who want to see one side as St. George and the other side as the dragon, whether the facts support their conclusions or not.
From the available facts, it appears that the agents were involved in egregious failures to do their jobs properly. To fall back on one of my favorite adages, never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence. Do they deserve the long sentences they received? Probably not. Will they serve all of those sentences? Probably not. Do they deserve to be celebrated as heroes? Probably not.