Policy supports agents--Written reports can only be made by investigators

Inland Daily Bulletin ^ | 6 FEB 2007 | Sara A. Carter

[Lurker]

Another Federal prosecution which appears to be a tissue of lies.

L

[wolfcreek]

RAILROADED!

[Cyropaedia]

Amen.

[grjr21]

But U.S. Border Patrol firearms policy specifically states that agents are prohibited from filing a report if a shooting incident takes place and that only an oral report to supervisors is required.

I would've thunk that this is the  kinda thing that should've been picked up before the trial

[Carbonado]

If I didn't know better, I'd think that the real purpose behind this prosecution is to teach the American public NOT to stand up for themselves or you'll end up like these guys. It is just one more battle in the larger war against the American public by those forces that want unrestricted immigration, legal and illegal, to continue unabated. Show trials like this are designed to teach the public NOT to get involved, take a stand or even voice an opinion.

[FR_addict]

They recently had drug smugglers or terrorists with AK 47s on the border. The National Guard was not allowed to stop them.

I'm surprised our government got a jury to believe that a drug smuggler on the Mexican border would not have a gun. If nothing else, you would think the jury would have given these agents the benefit of the doubt. This was not an ordinary illegal alien. He had a van for heaven's sake.

The government said they didn't have time to check the van out before the incident. Those border patrol agents would know he was doing something illegal, whether it was human cargo, drugs or terrorism.

This case stinks.

Our government for some reason, Democrats and Republicans, have decided to give the illegals a free pass on their crimes for whatever reason. I guess for the Hispanic votes. Recently, in LA they said something about half the population of the jail are illegals.

If we need more Hispanics in the workplace, we should be increasing the number of legal workers and send the illegals back. The legal workers are much more likely to obey our laws, have a family life, whereas the illegals are mostly young men who do not live with family, have too much free time on their hands and often end up drunk in major accidents or committing crimes. I certainly don't mind an increase in working Hispanics in our country, just quit forcing us to accept this outrageous and dangerous situation of being overwhelmed with a large population of dangerous illegals.

Why don't any of the politicians agree to increase the number of legals who are checked out before being allowed into our country. I am so tired of the excuse, they will do the jobs American won't. This is just plain wrong and insulting. We have many out-of-work Americans who are willing to do these jobs. And if we need more workers in certain parts of the country, increase the number of legal immigrants.

[Truth29]

Now that one of the agents has been beaten up in prison, the message to the border patrol gets louder and louder - do not do anything to impede the flow of illegals. See nothing, hear nothing, do nothing.

[FR_addict]

"If I didn't know better, I'd think that the real purpose behind this prosecution is to teach the American public NOT to stand up for themselves or you'll end up like these guys. It is just one more battle in the larger war against the American public by those forces that want unrestricted immigration, legal and illegal, to continue unabated. Show trials like this are designed to teach the public NOT to get involved, take a stand or even voice an opinion."

I think you are right. We are slowly losing our rights, not the made-up rights of the left, but the ones guaranteed in our Constitution. Our property rights, and our ability to speak out against the government. One lawmaker in Arizona is trying to create a law against the minutemen on the border.

[calcowgirl]

Ping!

[iopscusa]

BINGO. IMO this is the answer to why are our Laws selectively enforced: "one more battle in the larger war against the American public by those forces that want unrestricted immigration, legal and illegal, to continue unabated".
Question is, what can be done to STOP THIS TRAVESTY?

[CharlesWayneCT]

Something's not right here. Ramos trained agents on gun policy, so he would have to have known the rules about filing reports.

So if at trial the prosecution actually argued that their NOT filing a report indicated a cover-up, he would easily have refuted that by showing this policy.

Further, has NOBODY who supports the BP agents even READ the official policy before this week? I would have thought anybody wanting to defend them would have had that policy and gone over it with a fine-toothed comb. After all, being a policy paper, it can't be classified secret or be hidden -- you can't dictate policy without publishing it for people to read.

So, why have none of the pro-BP folks read that policy, given we've been referencing it in our discussions for weeks now? I know why I didn't read it -- nobody provided a link, and nobody raised it as an issue.

I certainly would have thought the NBPC would have a copy of this policy, and would have long ago noticed this if it were true AND relevant.

So, either the entire pro-BP team is incompetent, this reporter has simply misunderstood the policy, or at trial this was NOT the argument of the prosecuters.

On the other point, the reporter is being deliberately misleading, and making false charges -- by her own words:

Kanof also states in her response that Ramos never mentioned until the trial that he thought his life or Compean's was in danger, or that they thought the smuggler had a gun.

OK, Kanof claims Ramos didn't say he thought his life was in danger. Then the reporter says:

Ramos chose not to speak to investigators until his attorney was present, he told the Daily Bulletin.

Hard to say what the point is, because I presume he DID talk to investigators once his attorney was present -- but it appears the reporter puts it here to suggest that the reason Ramos didn't say before trial that he felt in danger is because Ramos simply didn't talk to anybody before the trial -- which would be false. There's no other reason for her to put this in the story at this point.

Then she goes on:

Compean, however, did wave his right to counsel and discussed the incident with investigators from the Office of Inspector General.

Contrary to Kanof's statement, several memorandums written by Sanchez, the investigating officer, attest that Compean believed his life was in danger

That is NOT contrary to Kanof's statement. According to the reporter Kanof claimed RAMOS didn't mention his life was in danger, NOT Compean. I presume Kanof did not say "Compean didn't say his life was in danger", because if Kanof had said that, the reporter would have used it.

Claiming ONE person didn't say they were in danger is not a lie simply because the OTHER person did say they felt they were in danger. It's simple logic, the reporter knows this, and is trying to mislead her readers.

Which makes me at least want to get the original copy of the policy about shootings in order to verify she isn't lying about that as well.

My guess is, if the report is accurate at all, that the prosecuter did NOT specifically site the lack of a report, but rather a false report. Maybe policy is that if you have a shooting, you DON'T file your own report, instead you tell a supervisor, who will then interview you and write the report for you.

If so, then NOT telling the supervisor, and instead filing a report, would be a violation of the policy. The policy parts mentioned by the reporter in this article do NOT say that the agents should FILE a report that excludes mention of the shooting, it says they should NOT file a report.

Of course, we've had a discussion before which I can't remember the results of about whether the agents FILED a report or not.

[Iwo Jima]

Felling lonely?

[LIConFem]

[Truth29]

That could be made into a nice desk set on a base labeled "GOP" sarc/

[gubamyster]

ping

[righteousindignation]

are you being deliberately naive or just what are you doing?? Can you spell "railroad"?

[CharlesWayneCT]

I've been posting rebuttals to the arguments from WND for 3 weeks now, and nobody every refutes the rebuttals, they simply ask me if I'm "lonely", or "deliberately naive".

If I were a pro-BP agent person, I would be looking at how to answer these pretty easy debunkings of the WND charges, because at some point you need more than just a few pandering politicians to get this case looked at.

And it doesn't help when your major supporters at WND have to lie and misrepresent the facts in order to make it sound like there's a case for pardons.

[citizen]

Well, well, well...this just gets smellier and smellier doesn't it...if you are charged with properly following department policy, how can one win? Answer: Exhibit A - Agents Ramos and Compeon are in prison.

[citizen]

I believe your assessment of the motives behind these prosecutions [persecutions?] of BP agents and LEOs is correct.