Posted on 03/05/2007 9:16:23 AM PST by pissant
I would like to thank Polipundit and Michael Illions, who has been helping out my campaign, for giving me the opportunity to write a guest post about the injustice that has been done to two of our border guards, Jose Alonso Compean and Ignacio Ramos, both of whom have been sentenced to jail for more than a decade each.
Now certainly our border patrol agents are not above the law and it is not acceptable for them to abuse or mistreat illegal aliens. That being said, the Border Patrol is America’s first line of defense against the terrorists, drug smugglers, and gangs who try to illegally enter the United States. Acting as the first line of defense for our country, the men and women of the Border Patrol are in a very dangerous position. Every day they risk their lives guarding our borders.
I have read the relevant portions of the trial transcript. Agents Ramos and Compean have a version of the facts that is different than the drug smuggler’s. However, it is not necessary to determine whose testimony is more believable (although I find the Border Agents’ testimony more credible than the drug smuggler’s) for this reason: even if you believe the drug smuggler’s testimony that he was slightly wounded while escaping to Mexico, his wounding cannot, by the greatest stretch of criminal justice, justify the 11 and 12 year prison sentences given to Ramos and Compean. The average convicted murderer in America spends less than 8 1/2 years behind bars. That means that Ramos and Compean have been given murder sentences for the slight wounding of a drug smuggler. Thus, the prison sentences of these two agents represent a severe injustice.
For those who point out that the agents picked up the expended brass from their pistols after the incident and did not report it to their superiors, the answer is simply that picking up brass and failure to report is not murder and does not justify a murder sentence in the federal penitentiary. As a member of the Armed Services Committee for 26 years, I have never seen a Marine or soldier treated as severely as Ramos and Compean.
We cannot turn our back on Agents Compean and Ramos or the rest of the public servants in the U.S. Border Patrol and that’s why I urge George Bush to pardon both agents. I intend to keep attention focused on this case to insure their safety while they are in prison and to secure their release as soon as possible so they can return home to their families. That is also why I introduced H.R. 563, which would pardon Compean and Ramos. The bill already has more than 85 sponsors in the House. If that bill fails and President Bush does not do the right thing, I pledge that if I’m elected President, one of my first acts will be to grant pardons to both agents.
You can't defend your position from the testimony. You challenged people to read the testimony. I am doing that. I have shown time after time the holes in the prosecution. They even resorted to lying during the testimony, by twisting the words and even inventing testimony that Compean and Ramos did not give. You are the one with an unadmitted partisan approach. There is plenty of information that can be gleaned from the testimony despite the viewpoints of the witnesses when used in a single manner. That is when you analyze the statements and glean the information from the collective. On one side of the levee, for the most part, there are 4 witnesses: Davila, Juarez, Compean, and Ramos. On the other side of the levee, there are three witnesses, for the most part, of the events: Davila, Compean, and Ramos. Utilizing the witnesses testimony and those of the other witnesses to the whole event gives the picture. The picture supports Ramos and Compean. You have been hypnotized by the prosecutions painting of the situation. If you look at the testimony I posted above, you can see some of the curtain pulled away. Juarez at some point in the investigation has stated that he heard shots, and said that they might have been Mexican troops. Well, Gonzalez states in a question to Juarez that when he came in Sep 24 that he did not believe Juarez was telling the truth when he said he did not hear or say anything. Well, the only time that could have been said was prior to the change in his statement of 18 Mar. That was before Ramos and Compean were even arrested. So Gonzalez had to have known that Juarez did hear something. To me that means he was trying to justify his trip to put pressure on Juarez as a trip to fix an absurd statement instead of what it appears to really have been about, to change his testimony to fit the prosecutions picture.
This is getting more and more absurd on your part. Making him dance. Yeah, the guy is at a full sprint and I aim for his feet and hit there. BULL!!!!
Davila was lying if he said the bullets were at his feet. And as for Vasquez, Juarez "saw" the beginning and end of Compean's shoot. Vasquez heard the end of the shoot. Juarez saw the magazine exchange and the firing of at least two cartridges from the second magazine. Compean did not move until then. No more shots were heard by him. Vasquez heard more than 5 (at least six) shots and did not see Compean. Well, someone is lying. Finally, Juarez is telling the truth and Vasquez picked up the brass, how come no one saw Compean picking up the nine casings which had to have been on top of the levee if Juarez was telling the truth. Conclusion? Juarez is lying about seeing Compean shooting. That means that the casings were not on top of the levee. Conclusion? That means that Vasquez is lying about the location of the casings. QED
Yrigoyen - Direct by Mr. Gonzalez 140 1 the van went westbound out of our view. 2 Q. Once they -- you're watching all this, correct? 3 A. Yes, sir. 4 Q. What else are you -- what else is going on at that point in 5 time? 6 A. Just the -- whatever the agents are taking care of on the 7 north side of the irrigation canal. 8 Q. Okay. Now, at some point in time, do you have a 9 conversation with Agent Compean on the levee, or that area? 10 A. With Comp- -- yes. Uh-huh. 11 Q. When did that happen? 12 A. That was, I believe, after Field Operation Supervisor 13 Richards had -- I'm not sure if he -- if the question was 14 directed at me or Mr. Compean. But he yelled across the 15 irrigation canal if there had been an assault. 16 Q. I'm sorry, that what, now? 17 A. If there had been an assault. 18 Q. Richards is asking it, Has there been an assault? 19 A. Right. 20 Q. And what's the response? 21 A. I -- as far as I told him, my response was, I wasn't sure, 22 that that was something he would have to discuss with 23 Mr. Compean. 24 Q. And, what, did you think there might be -- maybe an assault 25 had occurred? 1 A. I thought that maybe there might have been, yes, sir. 2 Q. Based on what, sir? 3 A. Because I had spok- -- once Mr. Richards asked me that, I 4 turned and asked Mr. Compean if something had taken -- if there 5 was something that had taken place. 6 Q. Okay. 7 A. And -- 8 Q. That's not a conversation that's between you, Richards, and 9 Compean. It's just you and Compean, right? 10 A. Yes, sir, because Mr. Richards is on the north side of the 11 irrigation canal. 12 Q. So you ask him what? 13 A. Well, I was -- I was kind of taken -- I was not really 14 expecting somebody to ask about an assault. Because, as far as 15 my experience, I -- I always had seen assaults, I guess, noted 16 as if you have an assailant in custody, as well. 17 Q. What do you mean assaults -- 18 A. When I -- 19 Q. I'm sorry. 20 A. I'm sorry, go ahead. 21 Q. What do you mean, in your experience, an assault is noted? 22 A. Documented. 23 Q. Okay. 24 A. Or reported. 25 Q. Reported to who, to the people who are at the scene? 1 A. Well, not necessarily at the scene, but at least to 2 management and through proper channels. 3 Q. Okay. And so what happened? 4 A. I remember I turned around, and I asked Mr. Compean -- I 5 kind of was -- like I said, I wasn't really sure. And he 6 asked -- I asked Mr. Compean, An assault? I didn't think you 7 could have an assault without an assailant in custody. 8 Q. What did he say? 9 A. That's when he told me that I -- when the individual was 10 running southbound across the levee, and he attempted to 11 apprehend the individual, and with their momentum, they both 12 tumbled down the south side of the levee into the vega area. 13 Q. Okay. Let me direct your attention to Government's Exhibit 14 Number 28. What was your understanding of where they allegedly 15 struggled and... 16 A. It would have been just on the south bank of the levee 17 river road. 18 Q. And what did Agent Compean tell you happened on the south 19 bank of the levee road? 20 A. That in -- well, in an attempt to apprehend the individual, 21 as he ran -- was running south past Mr. Compean, he made an 22 attempt to grab onto him. 23 Q. Who made an attempt to grab onto him? 24 A. Mr. Compean. And, with the momentum, with -- I guess he 25 did grab him. With the momentum, they both tumbled down the 1 side of the levee road, down into the vega area, where the 2 individual threw dirt in his face, and was able to break free, 3 and ran back into Mexico. 4 Q. When you heard that, did that alarm you? 5 A. Yes, it did. 6 Q. So what did you do? 7 A. I made sure -- I asked Mr. Compean, and made sure he was 8 okay. 9 Q. Okay. And did Agent Compean, at any time on February 17th, 10 2005, indicate to you that the driver of that van had a gun on 11 him? 12 A. No, sir. 13 Q. Or that he had seen something in his hand, a shiny object, 14 that looked like a gun? 15 A. No, sir. 16 Q. Never? 17 A. No, sir. 18 Q. After you had this conversation with Compean, what did you 19 do next? 20 A. I turned back around towards the north where Mr. Richards 21 was at, and I advised him that Mr. Compean had dirt thrown in 22 his face. 23 Q. Okay. What else? 24 A. And that was basically it. I didn't -- I didn't tell -- I 25 figured it was something -- it was -- whatever needed to be 1 reported, or documented, as far as an assault was concerned, 2 was between Mr. Compean and Mr. Richards. ... 14 Q. And, in any event, at the time you drove up, Agents Ramos 15 and Compean had not yet come back to this north side of the 16 ditch, right? They were still on the levee road? 17 A. Mr. Compean never went to the north side as long as I was 18 there. 19 Q. Right. And Agent Ramos hadn't gone to the north side -- 20 A. Yes, sir. He was -- he crossed, as I exited my vehicle, 21 when I arrived. I had never -- I never spoke with Mr. Ramos 22 upon arrival, because he was already crossing back to the north 23 side.
They did some pretty fast talking and story telling before they got to near the top of the levee.
It isn't your baseball, bat, and, glove, but you can quit. The testimony is still going to be analyzed and it will continue to support Ramos and Compean. You have no answer for the not guilty verdict. Why is that?
And of course, if Yrigoyen and Mendez are lying about the relative time of their arrival, then we now have Mendoza, and others lying as well.
NOTHING about Juarez's testimony makes sense! He is lying through his teeth.
I need to adjust my prior comment to add more of Juarez's claims... these are some of the things he says he did BEFORE Vasquez arrived on the scene (note: Vasquez was 6 car lengths behind Juarez--i.e. seconds behind. Juarez says he was "seconds" behind Ramos and claimed that Ramos was "less than one car length" behind OAD.)
Relative to Compean and puffs of dust, I think some are missing the obvious. Compean was admittedly not a good marksman:
Compean - Cross by Mr. Gonzalez 10-11 23 Q. At the same -- on the same day that you're qualifying on 24 the handgun, you also qualify on the shotgun? 25 A. Yes. 1 Q. Okay. And you have to maintain a certain proficiency, 2 correct, to be able to use these weapons? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. And you maintain these proficiencies, correct? 5 A. Just barely, but yes.
That is a totally baseless allegation and highly insulting.
False slurs does not strenghten your argument, in fact, it makes it weaker.
Using "Nazi" and other racial slurs against others is not the way to try to sell your fiction.
How many times are you going to post that despite being told that is NOT what I believe?
It appears you will ignore ANY kind of information to support your fiction, including smearing fellow freepers!
If you are so "bored" by it all, feel free not to post.
Actually, Vasquez has to be farther than 6 car lengths. At 30 miles per hour a vehicle travels 44 feet per second. If the separation between cars was 2 football fields, or 600 feet, the distance would be covered in 13.6 seconds. I roughly measured the distance from Wingo to the ditch and it measured out to be 4200 feet. That distance would be covered in 95 seconds travelling at 30 mph. If Vasquez was just hitting the dirt road when Davila was pulling up to the ditch he would be there in 95 seconds. Testimony places him much closer than that. And note that is to Davila, not Juarez who was in the vehicle just in front of Vasquez. My estimation from the testimony is that at most 20 seconds elapsed between Juarez and Vasquez and that 10 or so seconds separated the others. That would give a 40 second pad to Vasquez and place him 1760 feet behind Davila.(over 5 football fields).
Possibly, but that would be a point and shoot situation. I had to qualify using a .38 special(military). One of the courses of fire involved a crouch and rapid fire, no aiming allowed, only point and shoot. I did get a few rounds into the target at around 15-25 feet. I also do remember wood flying up from the bottom of the target frame. It is a panic shoot. When you just point the gun there is no telling where the bullets will go.
P.S. I did shoot expert every once in a while.
BUMP
Juarez - Direct by Mr. Gonzalez 16 14 Q. Why don't you indicate to the jury where you were standing 15 when you heard these shots? 16 A. I was, approximately, a little bit left here, right at the 17 edge of the road. 18 Q. And you see some vehicles on the levee up there on the 19 right-hand side? 20 A. Yes, I do. 21 Q. And do you know whose vehicles those were? 22 A. They were more units arriving. 23 Q. What about Agent Compean's vehicle, do you know where it 24 was? 25 A. I know his unit was up there. 1 Q. Do you know which of those two was his unit? 2 A. I believe that that's Lorenzo's. 3 Q. The one closest to you is Lorenzo who? 4 A. Yrigoyen. 5 Q. And there's another vehicle you can barely make out beside 6 that. Is that correct? 7 A. I can see the shell of the camper. 8 Q. And whose vehicle is that? 9 A. Compean -- Mr. Compean's. 10 Q. Thank you. So you're standing by your van and you hear 11 what? 12 A. I hear shots. That's when I turned around. And that's 13 when I saw Agent Compean shooting. 14 Q. Okay. Where was he shooting from? Where was he standing 15 when you saw -- first you heard the shots, right? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. How many shots did you hear? 18 A. There were couple of fast, boom, boom, boom. 19 Q. And that's what makes you turn around? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And what do you see? Where is he standing? 22 A. He was -- he was not all the way inside, but he was almost 23 halfway from the -- from the levee to the vega. He was not -- 24 he was halfway down from the levee.
"18 Q. And you see some vehicles on the levee up there on the 19 right-hand side?"
The attorney was pointing to a photo of the scene taken after the shooting. Jesus this is like dealing with children.
No he wasn't. That is why I highlighted line 22.
21 Q. And do you know whose vehicles those were? 22 A. They were more units arriving.
But since it could be interpreted that they were speaking of the photographs only and not of the event, I won't argue that point. It is not necessary, since Juarez is already an admitted liar and he has holes all over his testimony.
I was mainly going off the testimony of Mendoza for the "6 car lengths". He was the one approaching Jess Harris Rd from the westside and saw the succession of BP agents trailing OAD toward the ditch. From my notes:
Order of arrival at ditch:
1. Aldrete-Davila
2. Ignacio Ramos* (according to Mendoza, 1st BP car was 3 car lenghths behind O.A.-D.)
3. Juarez* (according to Mendoza, 2nd BP car was 3 car lenghths behind Ramos)
4. Vasquez* (according to Mendoza, 3rd BP car 6 car lenghths behind Juarez)
5. Jose Mendoza
*Mendoza clarifies on cross that he was not aware exactly who was actually in cars 1 through 3.
Since Vasquez also testified that he only had to make a u-turn to join the parade going south to the ditch, 6 car lengths sounded about right. At one point, he did testify that he was following behind 40 yards.
Regardless, there certainly wasn't adequate time for all of the events to happen (as Juarez describes) before Vasquez arrived on the scene. I don't believe Juarez did anything when he got there except inspect the van (consistent with his earlier sworn statements). I think he didn't see Ramos because he wasn't looking. I don't believe he ever went in the ditch, ever saw Compean try to hit OAD, or ever saw Compean shoot. (These are all stories that were absent from his written, sworn, statements. He only offered this damning version after being pressured by prosecutors in their offices in September -- 7 months after-the-fact)
You and cowgirl must have been separated at birth.
That is correct. Juarez is lying. He hears and sees shots, but does not go to assist.
Regarding the car lengths, you can't go on the final separation of the cars because that was the separation on asphalt. When a vehicle hits the dirt road it must slow down due to safety. The lead vehicle will slow down first, but will maintain the highest safe speed since his viewpoint will be unobscured. When Davila slows down, the others will catch up a little, but that closure will eventually become a separation. Then they must keep a safe distance due to the dust obscuring their view.
See the testimony posted by Andrew. While you may want to interpret this as relating to a photo, you would also have to try to explain away his comment about "They were more units arriving." Regardless, I agree with Andrew. There are so many lies in this testimony coming from Juarez, this one hardly registers compared to his other whoppers.
If not it's just another example of how you can't be trusted in anything you say and why trying to glean the facts from the testimony with you is a waste of time. On other words, put up or buh bye.
Hogwash. Go back through the threads, Bob. I've backed up everything I've posted and, when presented with a compelling argument and testimony, I have been swayed to change my position and posted as such. To date, you have presented no such compelling arguments (IMO), instead tossing out personal insults.
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.