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.
No, El Paso isn't, but Wilcox, Arizona is. That is where Rene Sanchez lives and works. Fabens is about 30 miles away from El Paso. I remember a rest stop at mile marker 50 which is a few miles closer to El Paso. I drive past it four times a year on my way to and from Phoenix(where I went to high school).
Bob does. But he believes, Davila, Juarez, and Vasquez didn't make up some of their testimony.
From AP, February 8, 2007
http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2007/feb/08/border-agents-change-tactics-after-assaults/
Heavily armed smugglers bringing in drugs, rock-throwing immigrants and bandits who prey on the border crossers themselves are all part of the mix. Smuggling vehicles traveling at high speeds also pose a risk to border residents and motorists.
"We're definitely expecting the worst and prepared for it," King said. "No agent should go out without wearing a (bulletproof) vest and without a long arm, either a shotgun or rifle, because what we're going up against is a smuggler with an AK-47. We need to match their firepower."
Assaults on agents, from rockings to shootings to attempts to run them down, climbed from 146 in the 2004 fiscal year to 213 in the 2006 fiscal year, in the Border Patrol's Tucson sector, which covers 261 miles of the Arizona-Mexico border.
Ten agents in the Tucson sector were shot at in fiscal 2006, though none were hit. The year before, two agents were shot in their legs near Nogales after jumping a group of drug "mules," or backpackers.
In Arizona's other Border Patrol sector, assaults on agents, including shootings, went from 119 in the 2005 fiscal year to 148 in the last fiscal year.
This year is also off to a violent start.
Most mules here in Texas are truck drivers. They transport probably 90% of the drugs across the border and into other parts of the country. I consider mules the guys who transport the the drugs, usually in loads from $500,000 to $2,500,000. They don't transport every time they go on a run, maybe one in ten or twenty, depending how greedy they are. In the drug trade there is a lot of trust involved, and I would not consider it unusual for these mules to transport that amount of drugs or cash. They will get in a lot more trouble if they took off with the load or cash then if they got busted, a couple years in prison at the worst to your life if take off with the drugs.
I'm sorry you misunderstood what I thought was clear. Ramos did not think he had hit Davila until that time that the government presented him with evidence that Davila had in fact been hit with the bullet he fired. His lawyers had been with him since April of 2005. I would have taken their advice.
They agreed to the stipulation because Ramos' bullet hit Davila, after all. But that doesn't make a rat's hiney as to the intent or motivation which is the crux of the matter. Officers do shoot and even kill criminals. The act in and of itself is not the question.
So when was a criminal prosecution recommended in this case?
I don't agree. He stipulated that expert testimony would show that the bullet, retrieved from OAD's leg, matched the weapon that was issued to him at the time (and a bunch of other specifics about ballistics tests). That is a far cry from stipulating that he knew at the time that he had hit OAD.
I fully understand that he had a lawyer, there still must be some reason the defense decided to agreed to this stipulation. Any idea?
I'd sure like to hear the explanation, as well as see when/if the presumably conclusive test was actually done.
The family member did not say he usually carried a gun, but that "he wouldn't move drugs unless he had a gun on him".
Two different animals.
http://www.house.gov/mccaul/pdf/Investigaions-Border-Report.pdf
A Line in the Sand: Confronting the Threat at the Southwest Border
(snip)
On September 28, 2006, in Laredo, Texas, twelve gang members were indicted on
seventeen counts of illegal drug and firearm offenses. Charges against the defendants
include engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, conspiracy to posses with intent to
distribute cocaine, possession of cocaine, felons in possession of weapons and possession
of weapons during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime. All twelve defendants are
believed to be members of or associated with the Hermandad de Pistoleros Latinos
(Brotherhood of Latin Gunmen) prison gang and working for the Gulf Cartel.45
(snip)
According to Texas Homeland Security Director Steve McCraw, the ruthlessness and
violence of these criminal networks are unprecedented. At one time, members or
associates of Mexican drug cartels would drop the drugs or abandon their vehicles when
confronted by U.S. law enforcement. Similarly, human smugglers would simply give up
when approached or stopped on the highway. This is no longer the case. The drug
cartels no longer tolerate compliance. Loads of both drugs and humans are vigorously
protected by direct confrontation, high speed chases, and standoffs at the Rio Grande
River.64
In today’s climate, U.S. Border Patrol agents are fired upon from across the river and
troopers and sheriff’s deputies are subject to attacks with automatic weapons while the
cartels retrieve their contraband. In May 2006, the Zapata County Sheriff’s Office
received information that the cartels immediately across the border plan to threaten or kill
as many police officers as possible on the United States’ side.65
(snip)
Webb County, Texas Sheriff Rick Flores indicated that he is disturbed by the level of
resources the cartels and criminal organizations possess and utilize against local law
enforcement noting that the cartels utilize rocket propelled grenades…automatic assault
weapons, and “level four” body armor and Kevlar helmets similar to what the U.S.
military uses.83 Some local officials are taking steps to protect their officers from these
weapons. The Sheriff for Hidalgo County, Texas Sheriff has prohibited the deputies in
his department from patrolling along the banks of the Rio Grande River because of the
threat of violence from the cartels.84
(snip)
"As to BPA's testifying that OAD was "quick and wiry", check the testimony again. Juarez says he moved quick while in the ditch but testimony from Compean did not confirm that (despite the words coming from PROSECUTOR's mouths trying to say that)."
Compean 3 A. He was moving fast. He was trying to -- he was trying to 4 get around me.
Juarez 5 A. This -- when the driver of the van jumped over -- I don't
6 know if he jumped over and hit the water. He was fast. He was
7 very fast. He jumped over. And that's when Agent Compean met
8 him here, approximately, this location. And that's when he
9 attempted to use the shotgun. And the driver, he was quick, he
10 dodged the shotgun. And that's when he ran away from this
11 area.
18 A. He was fast, like if he had jumped the water or lept over.
19 I don't know if next time he was almost reaching over the other
20 side.
21 Q. And he looked very healthy to you. And he was quick. Is
22 that correct?
23 A. He was quick.
25 Q. He was fast, right? David A. Perez, CSR, RPR Juarez - Cross by Ms. Stillinger 86
1A. Yes.
2 Q. You saw him fast?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Looked healthy to you?
5 A. Fast. I don't know fast and healthy are the same.
6 Q. Certainly a lot taller than Agent Compean isn't he?
7 A. Yes.
13 Q. And I don't know if you remember what he looked like. Do
14 you remember he was pretty tall? 15 A. I remember skinny.
16 Q. Wiry?
17 A. Small.
18 Q. You thought he was small?
19 A. Skinny, small frame, not big frame like mine.
20 Q. Well, he wasn't overweight?
21 A. Yes.
I don't know how much more verification you need to prove both Comp and Juarez thought he was fast and quick. If you want to continue arguing "wiry" go ahead, my point has been made.
"Bob... look at the photo of the ditch. If one believes that Compean fell head first, OAD would have been in Mexico before Compean could have gotten out of the ditch! Come on, guy... think about it!"
Here is the testimony from Juarez. Notice he doesn't say Compean fell all the way down to the bottom, just that he went into the ditch and he dropped the shotgun there. He then says Compean "got up" not that he climbed out of the ditch from the bottom so it appears that Compean probably just "headed" a few feet down the slope, how far we don't know but if he went to the bottom I think Juarez would be claer about that. This would have been plenty enough time to give OVD a fair lead on Compean.
18 A. No, ma'am. That's when he picks up the shotgun. That's
19 when he attempted to hit him. And that's when he slips and
20 that's when the driver, he ran. And that's when I stare --
21 that's when I watched Compean getting up and leaving the 22 shotgun there and start after him.
17 Q. So where was he when he fell, I guess, would be the 18 question.
19 A. He was right on the top of the lip of the canal.
20 Q. And the shotgun fell down into the ditch?
21 A. Yes. Because he went forward.
22 Q. He did?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Head first right into it?
25 A. Yes.
2 Q. Please tell me if I understand your testimony correctly in
3 this regard. After -- I think, you testified that you saw
4 Agent Compean fall into the ditch. Is that right?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And that's the moment when the alien ran around him?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And that's also the moment when he dropped his shotgun,
9 correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And it's your testimony that the shotgun was dropped inside
12 the ditch?
13 A. Yes.
"No. Juarez says he dropped the shotgun--into the bottom of the ditch."
No where does Jaurez say the shotgun was dropped to the bottom of the ditch, only "inside" the ditch. Two different things.
11 Q. And it's your testimony that the shotgun was dropped inside
12 the ditch?
13 A. Yes.
"Compean says he did not drop the shot gun at that point, but put it on the ground after getting up and starting to chase OAD (that is why it was not in the bottom of the ditch as but on the side of the ditch when he retrieved it)."
He didn't "put it on the ground" he "threw it" and that is another interesting point. Why would Compean, in fact anyone, stand up and then "throw" their shotgun on the ground? First it's a pretty shoddy way to treat your weapon and second it may cause it to misfire. But let's take a look at this bit of testimony.
4 Q. And so you've gone down on one knee. What do you do in
5 response to that?
6 A. I saw him get up. And once he started climbing out of the
7 ditch, I -- I recover- -- I was able to recover. I stood up, I
8 threw my shotgun down on the ground and ran after him.
Compean testifies he tries to push OVD back and slips and drops to one knee, not in the ditch but at the top near the edge. OVD then gets up AND STARTS CLIMBING OUT OF THE DITCH. Compean is on one knee and OVD is climbing out of the ditch a few feet from him, Compean is "revovering" (from going down on one knee"...why do you need to "recover" from that all you do is stand up). So Comp is one one knee holding his shotgun, OVD is climbing out of the ditch a few feet from him, it seems within reach or at least only a couple steps way from him. It seems to me all Compean has to do is point the shotgun at OVD again, walk over and take him into custody.
But what does Compean do instead" HE STANDS UP AND THROWS HIS SHOTGUN TO THE GROUND. Now, if this is believeable to you, whatever. However, the more logical scenario is how Juarez described it. Comp fell a few feet down the ditch wall, loses the shotgun, looks up to see OVD is rabbiting and already has a lead on him so he leaves the shotgun where it is because it would take too much time to retrieve it.
"Juarez also says that he didn't fear for Compean when he was on the vega because Compean had his shotgun with him. The guy is simply not believable."
And this means R&C are innocent? It's more likely Jaurez got a little confused here, the attorneys constantly switch back and forth in the time frame to confuse the witnesses, maybe he meant Comp had his Beretta. I don't see it as important.
I think if one of OVD's family members said that the newspaper would print their name. The fact it is unsourced and unattributed makes me believe it was either made up or quoted by someone sympathetic to R&C.
The bottom line is can't be trusted and is worth less than rubbish. Why don't we stick to the testimony?
Weren't you and/or AC just a few days ago saying it was his mother who said that? What happened to that story? Make it up?
Too bad the USA in the Western District of Texas hasn't acknowledged that these suspects are dangerous and hostile. Instead, they "just want to go home."
http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=1772&wit_id=5051
Testimony of Hon. Paul K. Charlton
United States Attorney
District of Arizona
March 1, 2006
The Border Patrol has reported that approximately ten percent of the aliens they apprehend have criminal records in the United States or elsewhere. Many of the criminal aliens that Border Patrol agents apprehend have violent criminal histories and are not afraid to use violence to avoid apprehension. As a result, every field encounter must be treated as a potential hostile situation, and agents constantly must be alert to potential violence. These types of cases used to be a rarity in Arizona. Not anymore. Unfortunately they have become commonplace.
A "mule" is someone who is paid a fee to transport. There are lower level players who decide to make a big score on their own, buy the drugs in Mexico and transport it themselves to make a ton of money, not just a "mule" fee.
These are the ones most likely to be armed because what they carry is their own property and if they lose it it is a lot of money to them.
"The Border Patrol has reported that approximately ten percent of the aliens they apprehend have criminal records in the United States or elsewhere. Many of the criminal aliens that Border Patrol agents apprehend have violent criminal histories and are not afraid to use violence to avoid apprehension. As a result, every field encounter must be treated as a potential hostile situation, and agents constantly must be alert to potential violence. These types of cases used to be a rarity in Arizona. Not anymore. Unfortunately they have become commonplace."
Are you saying a suspect hightailing it 200 feet back to Mexico is a "hostile situation" for the BPA's which justifies them pulling their guns and shooting them?
Let's not bring up the "black shiny object", the jury didn't believe them.
What I was getting at was that he knew at the time of trial, and knows now, that the bullet he fired struck and wounded OAD. The stipulation has been an area that has bothered me since the beginning of my looking at the case. As I have posted before, I would not have entered into the stipulation. The only reasons I can think of it was done to protect Ramos on cross exam or was part of some type of trial strategy. Or maybe the attorneys didn't think they could attack it the extent necessary and decided to let the evidence be admitted. one problem with a stipulation is that as a party to the stipulation, you are vouching to the jury, judge and any court, the truthfulness of the evidence. I think this could hurt them in the appeal.
I think they stipulated to reduce the amount of time spent on the actual shoot itself during questioning in front of the jury. If the evidence is compelling and they know where it is going to end up, might as well not have the prosecutors going over and over the grisly details. The defense can ask the judge to have the pros move on since they already stipulated to those facts.
I agree with what you said earlir, the defense was based on the shoot being good, black shiny object, yada, yada. If so, there is no need to argue about whether it was Ramos's gun.
Would it have been helpful to argue the shoot was good then claim the bullet didn't come from Ramos?
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.