Posted on 02/14/2007 4:08:00 PM PST by yoe
Is that what the kids are calling covering up a shooting nowadays?
What is the penalty for not reporting a shooting? I fergit.
In this case, 11 years.
Your dancing still avoids the simple objective fact that something is seriously wrong with this case.
I asked someone else if the coverup would have been okay if they'd shot an American citizen, maybe you'd answer?
Let's play a hypothetical game. Let's assume that Davila was smuggling drugs and that the agents had reason to believe he was involved in illegal acts.
Hypothetically, they should arrest him.
What, in perfect Toddsterpatriot world, would be the ideal justice meted out for the cover-up?
Sorry, I'm not a prosecutor.
How'd that work out for them?
Were you there?
You don't remember? I was standing next to you.
So are you trying to say that agents who are dealing with potentially dangerous situations should not be able to fire if they feel they are in danger?
Not at all. If they thought it was a righteous shoot I'd back them up. The cover up kinda spoils that idea, doesn't it?
Do your own research, i'm not here to do your work for you.
LOL!
then they were trying to do their job.
Except for letting the guy escape, shooting him and covering it up, they did a great job.
So you have sympathy for a known drug trafficker who was found in the middle of a crime
How is wishing he were in jail "having sympathy for a known drug trafficker"?
Yet no sympathy at all, it seems, for two family men who were trying to do their job and instead got the book thrown at them.
If they didn't cover it up, I'd be sympathetic. Sorry.
Absolutely, I'd answer. If an American citizen was involved in smuggling drugs and was attempting to evade arrest and got shot, it would not be ok for a cover-up to take place. Note the consistency that I demonstrate with regards to cover-ups. They're bad.
Is that what the kids are calling covering up a shooting nowadays?
Do you have evidence that the agents knew they hit the perp (ahem) , I mean "nice young man?"
In this case, 11 years.
You're quite the dancer. Let me make it a little clearer. Since you have such outrage over their coverup of them discharging their weapons (unless you have information that they knew they hit the "nice young man"), what is the penalty for discharging your weapon and not reporting it? (If that's not clarified sufficiently for you, let me know.) They were not sentenced to 11-years for not reporting a discharge of their weapon, were they?
Hypothetically, they should arrest him.
"Hypothetically", for the sake of this argument, hypothetically means hypothetically. Words mean stuff and junk. The fact that you didn't answer the actual question and chose to formulate and answer your own says enough, however.
Sorry, I'm not a prosecutor.
The question did not need you to be a prosecutor to answer it. That's why I framed it so.
So let me get this straight. If an LEO would prefer a situation to be peaceful, but a criminal does things that lead to an unpeaceful situation, it is the LEO's fault? Got it. I'm beginning to wonder if I'm at FR or DU.
You don't remember? I was standing next to you.
Who is the one making presumptuous statements here? You are the one making arrogant, presumptuous judgements on their motives, I am simply believing that they were just trying to do their job, and unfortunately were in a situation that led to using force. That does happen once in a while, you know.
Not at all. If they thought it was a righteous shoot I'd back them up. The cover up kinda spoils that idea, doesn't it?
It sounds like you haven't been following this case as much as others here have. If I'm not mistaken, it was the supervisor's not the agents, who failed to file a report. According to several reports that I've read, the supervisors knew about the shooting, and Compean made a complete, verbal report to the supervisor immediately following the shooting incident. You can start with reading this article , and there are others as well.
Except for letting the guy escape, shooting him and covering it up, they did a great job.
More arrogance. "Letting the guy escape." As if they wanted that to happen. And as we already went over, a border agent has the right to shoot if he feels his safety is at risk. Thirdly, we just covered your false notion that the border agents hid the truth, they told their supervisors and others were there at the scene as well. And if the reports I read are accurate, one of the supervisors did not file a weapons discharge report, which was his job, the agents are required to give an oral report to their supervisors - which they did.
How is wishing he were in jail "having sympathy for a known drug trafficker"?
That isn't why I said that, it is everything you have said and failed to say about the drug smuggler that led me to me saying that.
If they didn't cover it up, I'd be sympathetic. Sorry.
They didn't. See above.
Excellent! You never answered when I asked if they knew he had drugs in the van when they stopped him. Do you also disagree with the poster who said "whack them all"?
Do you have evidence that the agents knew they hit the perp (ahem) , I mean "nice young man?"
Is the cover-up less serious if they missed him?
what is the penalty for discharging your weapon and not reporting it?
Since I'm not in the BP, I wouldn't know. Perhaps you do?
They were not sentenced to 11-years for not reporting a discharge of their weapon, were they?
You're the expert, why were they given 11 years? Was it for doing an excellent job and arresting a drug mule?
The fact that you didn't answer the actual question and chose to formulate and answer your own says enough, however.
I could pull a number out of the air but why would I? I told you I'm not a prosecutor. There are sentencing guidelines.
An LEO gets training so he can arrest suspects without shooting them as they run away.
I am simply believing that they were just trying to do their job, and unfortunately were in a situation that led to using force.
If they thought they were justified they wouldn't have covered it up.
If I'm not mistaken, it was the supervisor's not the agents, who failed to file a report.
That should have come up during the trial.
More arrogance. "Letting the guy escape." As if they wanted that to happen.
My understanding is the guy had surrendered. Am I mistaken?
That isn't why I said that, it is everything you have said and failed to say about the drug smuggler that led me to me saying that.
The drug smuggler is a scumbag who should be in jail. Clear enough?
If they thought they missed him, then yes, the coverup is less serious. If you don't see the difference between discharging your weapon and not reporting it and shooting a criminal and not reporting it, then I can't help you.
You never answered when I asked if they knew he had drugs in the van when they stopped him.
No. They probably thought he was just out doing some sightseeing and was attempting to evade the Border Patrol because they are obviously bigots.
There are sentencing guidelines.
You are quite the dodger. I understand that you have committed to your stance and cannot change it now even if it came out that Satan was involved in their conviction. S'ok.
You're the expert, why were they given 11 years?
I have never claimed to be an expert on this case. I just know enough to know that this case is more than a bit fishy. It just doesn't pass the laugh test. There are no clean hands, but 11 years is ridiculous. Ridiculous.
You're right. Shooting at a fleeing suspect, destroying evidence and covering it up should get them a raise and a promotion.
I'm beginning to think that satan is involved with this case, the way so many lies and distortions are being spewed. And I'm only partially kidding.
You state this like this is all established fact. None of those assertions you make are established fact. You will continue to ignore that.
They didn't shoot at the suspect as he fled back into Mexico? They didn't pick up their shell casings? They didn't cover it up? The jury thought they did.
However, if you are running 700-some-odd pounds of pot and tussle with Border Agents when they try to stop you, start to run away and then turn like you have a weapon, that, on COPS, will usually get you at least Tasered, if not worse.
It's almost amazing that every post you make continues to make assertions as fact. Even this one. Some reports seem to indicate that it should have been a hung jury, but 3 members of the jury did not understand the instructions. He was fleeing "back" into Mexico? And it is not clear that both agents picked up their shell casings. One reportedly did not. They did not cover it up if they gave a verbal report to their supervisor (who was on the scene shortly thereafter). That is all they are required to do. Recent Homeland Security memo released indicates that they told the IG's office that they did make a verbal report. You have obviously made your mind up on this, facts be danged.
Sounds like an assertion.
He was fleeing "back" into Mexico?
I thought he was coming from Mexico? How would you describe his fleeing?
And it is not clear that both agents picked up their shell casings. One reportedly did not.
So one agent destroyed evidence? Okay.
They did not cover it up if they gave a verbal report to their supervisor (who was on the scene shortly thereafter).
Sounds like an assertion.
You have obviously made your mind up on this, facts be danged.
You haven't shown me any facts. The jury heard both sides and there were 12 votes to convict. And that's a fact.
Yes. Apparently, no conviction can be incorrect in your world.
Sounds like an assertion.
Yes. It is. I'm glad you can recognize one when it's on the opposing side. I have never claimed that things happened exactly as the Border Patrol agents said. I would allow that it might not be the case. However, it certainly seems that there are too many conflicting facts and too many contradictions in this story to rest as easily about this case as you appear to do. If you can recognize that things might just hypothetically be close to the way the Border Patrol agents said it happened and perhaps not how the drug dealer said it happened then I'm fine with that.
Do you think checking out these allegations would be helpfully before you make aspersions? Just because someone says it is true doesn't mean that it makes it so. Not all of the facts are in.
It is NOT obvious that they broke the law because we don't have all of the facts.
Why do you think there will be a pardon by Jan 09?
"It appears, to me, the State Department is working more for other governments than American Citizens..."
Things aren't always as they seem.
You're making another assertion. If all these things didn't come up during the trial, their lawyers were idiots. If they did come up and the jury weighed the evidence and voted to convict, what do you want me to say?
I wasn't there, you weren't there and neither of us sat thru the entire trial.
I have never claimed that things happened exactly as the Border Patrol agents said. I would allow that it might not be the case.
Excellent.
However, it certainly seems that there are too many conflicting facts and too many contradictions in this story to rest as easily about this case as you appear to do.
Yes, that's what the jury system is for, to weigh the facts and decide guilt or innocence.
If you can recognize that things might just hypothetically be close to the way the Border Patrol agents said it happened and perhaps not how the drug dealer said it happened then I'm fine with that.
Sure, maybe he was shot later, after he fled "back" into Mexico. Like I said before, I wish the agents had done their job correctly and arrested the scumbag and put him in jail.
Now good agents, agents who don't shoot at suspects and destroy the evidence, may be more reluctant to shoot and maybe one of these good agents will be killed thanks to the idiocy of the 2 jailed agents.
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.