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.
That horse has been beat to death on prior threads.
Because other than the the shooters, R&C, Juarez and Vasquez were the only ones at the scene when the shooting took place and the only ones to offer anything of substance about what went on.
Why do you find this unusual?
Was you're opinion the horse being beaten?
Gramatically, I don't know if that is a question, or what.
I know we don't see the same testimony you keep having to correct yourself.
Kanof did not even get into the trajectory in her direct. On page 175 when Peters got into the trajectory, Kanof sensed the danger and objected, but Peters got it in. Kanof then tried to cover but in the end she couldn't and to discount the testimony in her closing as I mentioned before.
Peters is questioning.
4 Q. Well, no. Well, directly behind him would be a right 5 angle. But why would he not be at some angle off to the left 6 of him, or -- depending on the way his body is oriented, right? 7 He could have been -- I mean, the -- the bul- -- if you draw a 8 line from the pubic symphysis, which is slightly to the right 9 of the center of the body, how can the bullet -- and extend 10 that line to some point, you're going to get to the shooter, 11 right? 12 A. That's correct. 13 Q. And that line is not straight behind him. That line goes 14 off in this direction, to the left, correct? 15 A. Unless the person was turned, as you mentioned. 16 Q. Exactly. 17 A. Or if the person was running, you know, that would -- like 18 you mentioned -- his limb being in a different position, that 19 could change the -- where the bullet would have had to come 20 from. 21 Q. Right. So what you really just mean is that the shooter is 22 facing the rear of the person at some angle? 23 A. That's correct. 24 Q. And you can't tell what that angle is? 25 A. I can't tell. 1 Q. And this is consistent with a person turning around and 2 pointing back at the shooter? 3 A. I said that's possible. 4 Q. You can't rule it out? 5 A. I cannot rule it out. 6 Q. Thank you.
You catch on, for others I sometimes have to add the slash sarc tag.
You have no objection from me. The trajectory of the bullet is consistent with either the perp turning or running. That was the purpose of my point, to head off the idiotic rant that OVD HAD to be turned at the agents because the bullet entered at an angle and not directly from behind.
BTW - Everyone also agreed OVD was running at an angle to the border.
What!? You're the one with a myopic view of the evidence.
Bull! The DNA evidence was available soon after the initial investigation and this represents how Nifong viewed it.
2006 MARCH 13 Duke University lacrosse players hire escort service dancers to perform at a party. MARCH 14 One dancer tells authorities that three men at the party raped her. MARCH 23 Durham police take DNA samples from 46 team members. MARCH 28 In an interview with The News & Observer, Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong refers to the lacrosse players as "hooligans" and urges potential witnesses to come forward. MARCH 28 SBI finds no evidence of semen, blood or saliva in rape kit evidence. MARCH 29 Nifong says that even if DNA results do not match team members, no one is necessarily exonerated. APRIL 10 The state crime lab delivers results of DNA tests on 46 members of lacrosse team to Nifong. Defense attorneys say the reports show no DNA from players was found on the accuser. Nifong says he still believes a rape occurred. APRIL 17 A grand jury indicts two lacrosse players. APRIL 18 The players, Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty, appear before a magistrate and are charged with first-degree forcible rape, first-degree sexual offense, and kidnapping. Bail is set for each player at $400,000. MAY 12 DNA Security produces report for Nifong saying no DNA from lacrosse players is found in or on accuser, or on her clothes and underwear. Nifong and DNA Security director Brian Meehan agree not to report that tests found DNA from unidentified men on her. MAY 15 David Forker Evans of Bethesda, Md., is the third lacrosse player indicted on charges of forcible rape, first-degree sexual offense, and first-degree kidnapping. AUG. 18 Judge W. Osmond Smith III is appointed to preside over the case. SEPT. 22 In a hearing, Nifong declares that he has turned over all DNA evidence and test results to the defense. OCT. 27 Nifong says in a hearing that he brought charges against three players without hearing the accuser's account of the incident. DEC. 7 U.S. Rep. Walter B. Jones, a Farmville Republican, asks the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate Nifong's handling of the case. DEC. 15 Meehan, the head of the private DNA laboratory, testifies that he and Nifong agreed last spring not to report DNA results favorable to the defendants. DEC. 22 Nifong dismisses rape charges against Evans, Finnerty and Seligmann. According to the dismissal form, the accuser could not be certain she was raped. DEC. 28 The N.C. State Bar accuses Nifong of violating ethics rules during numerous interviews shortly after the allegations became public. |
And I've answered your stipulation question multiple times. I won't do it anymore. If you can't go back and read what I've stated. Everyone can see how blind you are. I'll ask calcowgirl to verify that I answered your question in posts 658 and 627.
So how is that devastating to R & C?
I'd like to see the testimony that everyone agrees to an angle to the border. Remember "BORDER" and everybody should agree then to the same angle insofar as left or right.( or was Davila doing the serpentine? )
The doctor's testimony is fairly damaging to the defense, no matter what you think. It is very obvious why he testified, even with the stipulation. You don't think the prosecution did this in anticipation of the defendant's testimony? A trial is often like a chess game, you have look a couple moves ahead.
Regarding the stipulation, we know Ramos' bullet hit OAD. What I am getting at, to stipulate to evidence that the prosecutor needs to prove his case is very unusual. In 27 years, I have can not recall ever stipulating to prosecution evidence in a criminal trial. I have stipulated dozens of times in civil cases, but in this case it doesn't make sense to me unless it was some type of strategy that didn't work. I guess you have no insight into it.
BTW, check my post 668 for my guess on the prosecutor question.
George Bush is running for president of Mexico. Here he is yesterday campaigning dressed in a Mexican sweater. Packing lettuce
Bush was down there telling his people that he would push for amnesty. Is it any wonder that Bush yawns when Ramos and Compean are inducted by that corrupt friend of his, Johnny Sutton? George Bush likes every illegal alien Mexican. It's the Mexican-Americans who guard our border he has contempt for, Ramos and Compean
Who cares? Ramos and Compean should never have been indicted. US Attorney's can indict a ham sandwich if they want to
The problem you have, is not only were they indicted, they were convicted and sentenced to 11 and 12 years in prison. I don't see too many ham sandwiches serving time in prison.
Volume 3, Pretrial Matters 21 MS. KANOF: Your Honor, the reason this is different 22 than in the case law that Mr. Peters cited, than in any other 23 case, is that Mr. Aldrete-Davila wasn't caught in the 24 United States with drugs. We didn't have him to prosecute him. 25 He was in Mexico. He didn't want to talk to Rene Sanchez. He 1 didn't want to talk to Chris Sanchez. And he didn't want to 2 talk to us. 3 He was afraid, initially, when Chris Sanchez, the DA's 4 OIG agent, contacted him, that it was a lure, that we were 5 trying to lure him to the United States to arrest him. 6 So we actually went into Mexico to immunize him. We 7 didn't have jurisdiction to arrest him for anything. So it's a 8 different kind of way to view immunity. --- C. Sanchez - Direct by Ms. Kanof 16 15 Q. When Agent Juarez asked for a proffer letter, what did you 16 do? 17 A. I immediately contacted Assistant United States Attorney 18 Brandy Gardes. 19 Q. And you discussed that issue with her, I'll assume? 20 A. Yes, ma'am. 21 Q. And did she authorize? 22 A. Yes, ma'am. 23 Q. Did she go with you to re-interview Juarez with a proffer 24 letter? 25 A. No, ma'am. He came to our office, and she faxed the 1 proffer letter to our office. 2 Q. Okay. And what date was that? 3 A. March 18th.
March 16 -- OAD given immunity and interviewed in Mexico
March 18 -- Juarez and Vasquez given proffer letters
March 18 -- Compean and Ramos arrested
Who is "everyone"?
well that explains the proffer, when do think the decision was made to prosecute?
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.