Note that this link provides evidence that the drug smuggler would not have been able to keep running after being shot. But instead of accepting the clear implication that Ramos is NOW LYING when he says he had no idea he hit the guy and that the guy kept running, the pro-BP agent folks argue this proves that Ramos didn't shoot the guy at all, but rather he was shot later either by himself or by the drug kingpin mad about losing his drugs.
Oh, but that link ALSO claims that the bullet wound proves that Ramos is telling the truth that the drug smuggler turned toward him in a threatening manner.
Pretty good deal, if you can get it -- the same story both claims the drug dealer was not HIT by the bullet, and that the way the bullet HIT him proves the defense position.
So, the bullet that was NOT shot by Ramos proves that the perp who was shot later in his house was "blading" toward Ramos when he was not shot by Ramos.
This is what passes for logic on the defense side. That and branding every prosecuter a crook, simply because a few democrats we know of are crooks.
Border patrol agent acquitted in excessive force case
January 27,2007
Andres R. Martinez
Monitor Staff Writer
BROWNSVILLE — A former U.S. Border Patrol agent was acquitted Friday of using excessive force to arrest an illegal immigrant in a retrial of a 2001 case.
A federal jury said David Sipe was not guilty of using excessive force against Jose Guevarra on April 5, 2000. The case was first tried in front of Judge Ricardo Hinojosa in McAllen’s U.S. District Court in 2001. At the time, a jury found Sipe guilty after a five-day trial.
But while preparing for sentencing in the 2001 case, Sipe’s attorney, Jack Lamar Wolfe, found evidence the U.S. Attorney’s Office had withheld information requested before the trial.
Wolfe cited in a motion for a new trial that prosecutors had not revealed at least four pieces of information:
l A government witness’ criminal background
l Testimony favorable to Sipe by one of his former co-workers
l Additional benefits given to witnesses, like Social Security cards and reimbursements
l Pictures of the victim re-enacting the arrest for investigators
Hinojosa granted the request for a new trial on April 11, 2003.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office appealed the decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which sided with the decision for a new trial on Nov. 19, 2004.
Sipe and Wolfe started preparing for a new trial, but Sipe applied for a change of venue in November last year. The case was subsequently moved to Brownsville’s U.S. District Court.
——
Andres R. Martinez covers courts and general assignments for The Monitor. He can be reached at (956) 683-4434.