Posted on 02/10/2007 12:32:11 PM PST by NapkinUser
Washington - Former Border Patrol agents Jose Alonso Compean and Ignacio Ramos have become famous in conservative circles, in a case which shows the power of talk radio and the blogosphere.
The two agents are serving prison sentences after being convicted of shooting a suspected drug smuggler and trying to cover up the incident. Many lawmakers in Washington are asking President Bush to pardon the agents, who they say were convicted wrongly for protecting the border of the United States against criminal intruders.
The agents were sentenced to 12 and 11 years in prison, respectively.
The calls for an executive pardon and a congressional investigation into the case intensified this week following reports that Ramos was assaulted in a Mississippi prison.
Rep. Tom Tancredo, Republican of Colorado, an ardent critic of illegal immigration who is pondering a run for the White House, spent about an hour with Ramos at the jail on Friday and said he had been severely beaten, with deep bruises along his arm, cuts and bruises on his chest and back, and bruises on his knees.
Ramos told the lawmaker that he had been pummeled and kicked by five or six inmates on Saturday in a planned attack while others watched after they saw him on an episode of the television show America's Most Wanted, Tancredo said. Ramos did not get medical attention until Monday and a CAT-scan showed no brain damage, the lawmaker added.
"This guy should never be walking around in an orange jumpsuit with handcuffs, he should be home with his family," Tancredo said, shortly after leaving the prison. "This is a horrible travesty."
Ramos' attorney, David L. Botsford, said that a motion is pending at the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to get bail for Ramos while he plans an appeal.
A similar request was rejected by a district court, said Botsford, a prominent criminal defense attorney in Austin.
The plight of the two Border Patrol officers has become a major cause on conservative talk shows and on Web sites that promote more enforcement against illegal immigration.
The suspected drug smuggler, Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, had entered the United States illegally in a van that contained more than 700 pounds of marijuana. The prosecution contends that Compean shot at him 14 times and Ramos fired once, hitting Aldrete-Davila in the buttocks as he tried to run away on foot.
The agents contend that they saw an object in Aldrete-Davila's hands that looked like a gun and that he was pointing it towards them.
Ramos and Compean were convicted a year ago on several charges including assault with a deadly weapon and intentionally defacing a crime scene. Aldrete-Davila was given immunity in the case to testify against the agents and has filed a multi- million dollar lawsuit against the U.S. government.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, said this week that "the sentences in this case are too extreme given the criminal nature of the defendant and his possession of large quantities of drugs."
In a letter to Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, she also said that the "aggressive prosecution of Border Patrol agents has a chilling effect on their ability to carry out their duties and on the morale of all agents."
It was for the economy... he let them out to do the jobs non-felons won't do. ;-)
The jury that heard the case disagrees with you.
Also, this report states otherwise.
Or, are ALL Gov. sources and juries liars and OBL shills?
Please give me one reference (page # and paragraph) in that Report that says Ramos lied in a report or destroyed evidence.
For the record, I do think Bush is wrong on this. I've seen posts here wishing Cheney would run, but realize the VP is remaining silent on this and other issues the White House is wrong on.
Some has already been admitted.
They lied when they tried to help Compean and Ramos cover up the shooting. They then were offered immunity from prosecution, and they testified in court about the incident. Now they are being fired because the immunity was only for prosecution, not for keeping their jobs. All the agents at the scene who knew there was a shooting but did not report it, and instead covered it up, are gone now.
One resigned, two were fired, and the other two who actually DID the shooting are in prison.
The supposedly pro-BP agent side is happy that the 3 other men lost their jobs over the incident, while at the same time think the two BP agents who actually SHOT their weapons should have their jobs back and get medals.
Sutton is a prosecutor, and can't "send people to jail", that's for a judge and a trial and a jury. (OK, the first night is on the police that do an arrest, then the judge for bail, then the jury for conviction).
It was not a car, it was a VAN.
The sheriff shot out the tire of the van, and it crashed.
The Van's crime? The driver ran a stop light. The Sheriff shot the passenger of a van because the van ran a stop light and then tried to get away.
Yes, the sheriff says the van tried to run him over. If so, it failed. He didn't shoot the tire while the van was coming TOWARD him. He shot the tire after the van was NOT coming toward him.
Oh, that last statement is not based on anything I read other than the fact he shot out a tire.
Logic, my friend: If a van was coming right at you, you can't shoot it's tires. You can shoot the windshield to take out the driver, or shoot the radiator hoping to kill the engine. You can't hit the tires, you can't even see them.
You CAN see the tires when the van is no longer heading TOWARD you, but is instead past you and trying to drive away. Then you can shoot the tires. But then you aren't in any danger, and shooting the tires is a violation of policy and an excessive use of force.
Which is what he was charged with. And if he was convicted, a jury of 12 peers agreed that he used excessive force. I don't know if the case has gone to trial yet.
The passenger could have been a nice american woman pregnant with twins, and they all could have died. The driver might have been a nice american father driving his wife to the emergency room. I suppose then we wouldn't be holding the sheriff up as a hero.
Unfortunately, it include most of the "conservative" talk show hosts, and a too-large number of elected republicans. I'm not talking about the sane ones who simply want to see the evidence, I'm talking about the ones who while CLAIMING they want to see the evidence, have no need for it becasue they already "know" the men should be pardoned and Bush impeached.
I say unfortunately because if the evidence (in the form of the court transcript) says what I suspect it will say, it will be clear to sane people that the agents had a fair trial and were rightly convicted -- and conservatives will look stupid again. Opponents will claim Republicans are for shooting illegals on sight.
I hope I never get to the point where someone presenting facts to support their position nauseates me.
Even if you feel the agents are innocent, Feinstein's comment is neither to the right of, or should be embraced by, any good conservative.
She said the agent's sentence was too long BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE VICTIM.
Conservatives believe people should be punished based on the severity of their CRIME, not the status of the victim. The same liberal thinking that leads Feinstein to say these men should have shorter prison terms because the victim was a drug dealer would say the sentences should be longer if the victim was gay.
All of the pardons were for people who had already FINISHED serving and were out of prison. The pardons wipe out the felony label, probably so they can take jobs that are not open to felons, or maybe just so they can vote again (that's the most common reason for pardons, is so people can once again be allowed to vote).
The one "commutation of sentence, was the exception, although the person had served over a decade.
Whose facts? What are you gonna say when they are released from prison?
Thank God?
Let's take a longer look at your comment. For weeks we've been hearing about how Sutton is "in the pocket" of the druglords. You imply that he is prejudiced against LEO's shooting illegals in this very comment. Yet the comment to which you responded refers to Suttons statistics regarding convictions and LEO's. And you dismiss the factual record as a "talking points?"
One way to avoid the issue, I suppose. But it's obvious.
Thank God?>>>
Really, you'd say that?
See, cuz I'm thinking you're on the side of those whose are truly lawless ...Maybe folks should just start growin their own LOL
Yes. I'd much rather they be found not guilty. I wish they were not guilty. I just happen to think they are guilty, based on the evidence we have been presented with to date.
The whole thing has so many rabbit trails to so much in just the appearance of impropriety. Until these questions are answered in my mind to prove otherwise, it really looks like there are some people in the border patrol whose fidelities do not lie with the American people. You have to wonder why anybody would care that got shot in the ass in the first place, but more than anything else, why the testimony of this crimminal counts more. I'd sure like to know the background of those jurors. And the three who said they were coerced aganisnt their conscience to vote guilty? What about them?
And I'm gonna ask another stupid question. If this crimminal has so many FAMILY CONNECTIONS HERE IN AMERICA (are they Americans?), why the heck isn't he over here legally in the U.S., working for an honest wage? Too, too many questions, questions that work against your conclusions my friend. I suspect that the border patrol may be corrupted by a few rogues, but it ain't these two (
Has the phrase "Stop, or I'll shoot!", become inoperative?
Apparently. And the whole concept of self defense has too. An unarmed drug dealer. What a crock of shit
If you read the DHS report, you will see that not only did Compean make several conflicting statements, his testimony at trial differed from Ramos's testimony at trial on the crucial question of the shootings themselves.
For example, Compean, who at times claimed he felt threatened, said he STOPPED shooting when he no longer felt he was in any danger. He said that after that point, Ramos ran past where he was STANDING, and shot the guy once.
Why would Ramos shoot the guy when Compean said the guy was no longer a threat? At trial Compean changed his story to say he was on his knees when he shot at him, not standing. Ramos said Compean was lying on the gound bleeding when Ramos shot at him.
Can you see why a an investigator, a prosecuter, and a jury might put more credence in the drug smuggler? His testimony matched the testimony of 3 other BP agents. The two charged agents couldn't even tell the same story.
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.