Exclusive Guest Post For Polipundit: Free Compean And Ramos By Duncan Hunter

PoliPundit ^ | 3/5/07 | Duncan Hunter

[Man50D]

He doesn't argue they are innocent. He claims instead that their sentences are too long (they are). That is not entirely correct as stated in the following passages:

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.

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.

Hunter is unambiguously saying they should be pardoned because they should not have been charged with or been found guilty of murder.

[Ben Ficklin]

They weren't convicted of murder.

[Bob J]

I've said from the beginning that everyone in this case was engaging in a little CYA, including the supers. But what should a supervisor do if they hear something might have happened and the go directly to the people involved who then say that nothing happened?

In a perfect station maybe the Supers should have dug a little deeper but seeing how lax this BP station was run, I'm not surprised. But none of this makes a difference to whether the shoot was good or bad and whether R&C should have reported it properly.

IMHO R&x already decided on how they were going to play it by throwing or causing to throw the casings into the river. At that point they had committed themselves to covering it up.

[Sue Bob]

"I've said from the beginning that everyone in this case was engaging in a little CYA, including the supers. But what should a supervisor do if they hear something might have happened and the go directly to the people involved who then say that nothing happened?"

I think that the supervisors didn't WANT to know the details because it was the end of the shift and it would have required waiting for other agencies and doing paperwork. If you read the transcript, Richards KNEW there was a vehicular pursuit, yet he failed to file a required report for which he had final responsibility. He was not the stickler for paperwork he was made out to be. I believe the agents realized this.

A fish rots from the head, after all.

[uberjaeger]

The point of the entire article assumes that you have common sense. No they were not convicted of murder, but they received sentences longer than the average convicted murderer (8 1/2 years). Hunter took the extreme view, for the sake of argument, that C&R are guilty of everything thrown at them then said, "OK, fine, but 10 and 11 year sentences are crazy". That was the point of the article, a reprimand might be ok, but a sentence longer than pedophiles and murderers get is ridiculous.

The problem from the posts I'm seeing are that Hunter doesn't get the detailed testimony and legality of blah blah blah. He understands all of that, but he's trying to get them freed from jail. You keep talking of the differences in testimony and get upset at the fact that "he admits their guilt" in his argument. You keep talking and he'll go on trying to free them.

[Bob J]

But what does any of that have to do with whether this was a good shoot? To me that is the central question. We can argue the merits of mandatory sentencing all day but just because we feel the system has warts we shouldn't be holding LEO's to a lesser standard when it comes to shooting to kill suspected criminals.

Before the knee jerks pile on again about how it is morally justified for LEO's to shoot and kill drug mules, I would like to point out again at the time of the shooting all R&C knew about Davila is that he led them on a pursuit. Neither Ramos nor Compean had any knowledge of drugs in the van. And as far as OAD running, if I had put up my hands in surrender and the LEO tried to take a swipe at my head with the butt of a shotgun, I might think about getting my ass out of there instead of sticking around for the "Rodney King Special". I'm not excusing him just saying a swing at your cranium with a shotgun can do weird stuff to your reasoning.

[Bob J]

Let's get something straight about this issue and the amount of time murders spend behind bars. First you're comparing apples to oranges in a way. R&C have been sentenced to 11 and 12 but that doesn't mean they'll serve that. People reference that murderers serve less than that but they assuredly were sentenced to more.

So if you want apples to apples, find out how much time murderers get in sentencing. In fact the only thing this bit of info tells me is that murderers should be spending more time behind bars, not R&C less necessarily.

So maybe this should be an issue with judges and parole boards who let murderers out early, not whether the sentence R&C received was just.

[Bob J]

How about a legal opinion? Does the mandatory sentence mean that term has to be served out or are they elgible for parole?

[Carry_Okie]

And yet almost 2/3rds of them voted for democrats who wanted amnesty for illegals. Weird, isn't it?

That's what indentured constituency is all about.

[Sue Bob]

"Neither Ramos nor Compean had any knowledge of drugs in the van."

Compean made observations of the van that appeared to him to be typical of loading a vehicle with contraband. A sensor was tripped after that. Based on his experience and observations, I believe that he had good cause to believe he was dealing with a drug smuggler--even if that would not hold up as probable cause in court--I think it is reasonable cause for him to believe it was a drug smuggling. He announced it over the radio as such, which Ramos heard.

"And as far as OAD running, if I had put up my hands in surrender and the LEO tried to take a swipe at my head with the butt of a shotgun, I might think about getting my ass out of there instead of sticking around for the "Rodney King Special"."

Compean testified that his intent was to push OAD back. Even OAD admitted in his testimony that he took at least one step towards Compean after he was told to stop. Another agent testified that BP agents are trained to use shotguns as batons when necessary. Thus, I believe it is reasonable to believe that Compean was not trying to hit OAD, but trying to stop his advance upon Compean.

OAD also testified, that just prior to the above, he was consciously calculating his escape. He admitted that he believed that he could evade and that the REO would not allow the agents to fire at him. Thus, it is reasonable to believe that he would do almost anything to escape, including continuing to advance on an agent when told to stop to either do something to the agent or evade. His testimony told me that he was willing to do almost anything--including pulling a gun to discourage the agents from following him.

Nothing in any testimony convinced me that the witnesses could be sure that he did not have a gun.

[Carry_Okie]

All the polling data I have seen indicates that hispanics support tough border enforcement at a higher percent than Carry says they do.

I've seen a lot of numbers. I picked a conservative threshold.

[Ben Ficklin]

OK, Ill follow your logic. What does Judge Hunter do about the mandatory sentence?

Let's look at your suggestion, "a reprimand might be ok"

BP had no way to reprimand them or even fire them. They had no proof that any of it happened. And the only way to get the proof was to go to trial. And once they go to trial, you go to trial. Using the Federal Attorney's office to reprimand or fire someone is not an option.

[Sue Bob]

"Does the mandatory sentence mean that term has to be served out or are they elgible for parole?"

I don't do criminal defense work. I hire criminal attorneys for my clients when they need them. However, my understanding is a mandatory sentence does not allow for parole and that they must serve all of the time.

That said, the prosecutor's attempt to shift blame to Congress for the length of the sentences is ludicrous. First, one of the criticisms of mandatory sentencing is that it shifts the power for sentencing to prosecutors. Thus, in stings, undercover operatives make sure they talk about just enough drugs to ensure a certain sentence. Prosecutors pile on additional charges for the same set of facts to impact length of sentence. Etc, etc. In this case, the prosecutors had discretion and did not have to add the weapons charge.

Second, in this case, the defendants requested downward departures from the sentencing guidelines for the charges that did not have mandatory minimuns. The prosecution fought them. Sutton was trying to get MORE than the mandatory minimum for these agents. Fortunately, he failed and the judge gave them downward departures.

[Bob J]

"The prosecution fought them. Sutton was trying to get MORE than the mandatory minimum for these agents."

From what I understand that is his job, no?

[Sue Bob]

"From what I understand that is his job, no?"

Fine. But he has repeatedly tried to shift blame for the length of the sentence to Congress when interviewed on T.V. To me, that is disingenuous.

[icu2]

I like your reply in #65. You understand what he was saying. They didn't do murder but got a longer sentence than murderers do. simple

[Bob J]

Gotcha.

[Sue Bob]

You kind of got me.

He could have chosen not to challenge the downward departure. The impression I got from reading the government's motions is that the prosecutors were p.o.'d about the publicity.

That's intemperate behavior, which prosecutors are supposed to avoid.

[Bob J]

" They didn't do murder but got a longer sentence than murderers do."

No, they were "sentenced" to longer terms than murderers usually "serve". Those are two different things. Murderers might be sentenced to life but parole boards let them out early. Also, what criminals are inlcuded in that number? Does it include say drunk drivers that accidentally kill other people with their cars?

[stephenjohnbanker]

B T T T